26 
History of Local Rates 
received rent” for the 130 acres, whereas it would, he 
alleged, “be against law and reason, and against the 
common experience of all England,” that he should 
be rated if he had let the land. In response to this 
complaint, the court, which had not then the horror 
of giving unnecessary decisions it now feels, resolved 
that “ when there is a farmer of the same lands, the 
lessor who receives rent for them shall not be charged 
for them in respect of his rent, because there is an 
inhabitant and parishioner who may be charged, and 
the receipt of the rent doth not make the lessor a 
parishioner.” While thus throwing over the old 
principle in favour of the new and more convenient 
practice, the court was still willing to do lip-service 
to the old principle, for it observed, “In this case the 
charge is on the person, and not on the land, but is 
on the person in respect of the land, for the more 
equality and indifferency.” 
Coke was counsel in this case himself, and he says 
at the end of his report, “ Note, reader, this is a good 
zase to many purposes, and therefore well observe the 
consequences of it.” 1 
Reports, Pt. v. pp. 67, 68.