• Libraries
    • Log in to:
    View Item 
    •   MSpace Home
    • Faculty of Graduate Studies (Electronic Theses and Practica)
    • FGS - Electronic Theses and Practica
    • View Item
    •   MSpace Home
    • Faculty of Graduate Studies (Electronic Theses and Practica)
    • FGS - Electronic Theses and Practica
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Taxation of agricultural lands with special reference to Manitoba

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Abraham_Taxation_Of.pdf (14.85Mb)
    Date
    1927-04-19
    Author
    Abraham, Solomon
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    "The law of England is in accord with common sense; according to the law land is not the subject of absolute property....He (any man) can only hold an estate in them (the lands), and that estate he holds only under the Crown as representative of the Community." (Judge O-Connor, in his separate report, in the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Taxation of 1901). Quoting this, Professor Nicholson sketches the history of what he calls the "Denationalization of the Land" and draws the following conclusion. By the beginning of the 18th century the Crown, as "representing the nation", has lost practically all claim to revenue from "land belonging to the nation" and such land had been placed on the same footing as other form of property." His line of argument is as follows: Sources of revenues from land pertaining to the Crown were of two kinds: (a) from demesnes belonging to the King, (b) from feudal lands pertaining to the Crown as representing the nation. Successive kings kept on alientating lands and revenues inspite of repeated protests by parliament. At last, under Charles II, there was so little left of both kinds of lands and revenues that Parliament had the King surrender his rights in exchange of certain excise duties (1672), prohibited future alienations, and recognized, by parliamentary acts (1702), the de jure ownership on formerly alienated lands to their holders at the time. There are two questions involved in the whole matter: (a) Did the land ever belong to the nation who supposedly entrusted it to the King as its trustee? (b) Had that parliament the right to finally declare the land denationalized? We leave these questions open for the present...
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/1993/4680
    Collections
    • FGS - Electronic Theses and Practica [25494]

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of MSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    Login

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV