View report page

11
Cockburn "intended to rectify what might otherwise work very
"unjustly,— a valuation to extend for a period of 5 years without
"any opportunity of amending it, if it ceased to be in harmony
"with the actual facts," and that "if by any unlooked for
"circumstances the value of a property should be increased or
"diminished, the assessments ought not to continue to exist."
[Reg. v. New River Co. L.R.: Q.B. page 309.]
You will remember that in February, 1873, after inquiry
made, I forwarded you replies from Islington, St. Pancras, St.
Marylebone, Paddington, Chelsea, St. Martin-in-the-Fields,
Shoreditch, and St. Mary Newington, stating that they all acted
upon Clause 47 as above suggested, feeling convinced that the
wording of the clause was so intended.
I am, Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant,
ROBERT PAGET,
Vestry Clerk.
The Assessment Committee, on receipt of this Provisional
Valuation List and letter, asked the opinion of their Solicitor on
the point. The difficulty, amongst others, had arisen very soon
after the Act had come into operation, and a case was laid before
Mr. Crompton Hutton who advised as follows in June, 1872,
"The Rent is only one circumstance from which to ascertain the
"value. The raising or reducing of the rent does not in itself
"increase or reduce the value. I think therefore that this
"question must be answered in the negative."
It is understood that several other cases on the point have
been submitted to Counsel, who have advised, some in the
affirmative, and some in the negative.
The Solicitor to the Assessment Committee advised them that
the scheme of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act was generally to
settle the assessments for a period of five years, that ss 46 and 47
provided for actual alterations, or change in the value of hereditaments
assessed, and did not extend to cases in which there