when in Military occupation, but appear to me to be worded most objectionably-
In the reply which I directed to be written, I pointed out to the writers of there letters respectively, under what circumstances the premises in question were taxed, and I think what is there stated will fully satisfy your Lordship of the liability of the premises to the rate.
4. It is clear to me that it is the Landlord on whom the burden must eventually fall, and I fear that the Captains of the Respective Officers' Mess, prompted by their apprehension, that they had neglected (when they engaged the premises) to settle with the owners as to who was to pay the Assessment, and that as occupants of the Buildings they might be called upon to discharge it themselves.
I am not quite sure that I have done right in not at once enforcing the claim, leaving the Applicants to seek redress in the Ordinary Courts of Law, which must of course be the proper tribunal to decide on the intention and meaning of all local Ordinances, but I was very unwilling that it should be known that the Civil and Military Authorities were at variance on this point.
(Enclosure 13)
250
…
11
5.
that it is not obvious; the only premises exempted from tax being particularly specified in Section II of the Ordinance - I much doubt the validity of this claim, because their tenant happens to be in the Military employ, or an Army employee, certainly does not appear to me to be at all obvious;
were 20 ill agreed