The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-11-12

or competition, admit any difference in the car-
ct the two rents, and thus lofe li.,ht of tb..
great features, which arc common .o them both,
But It is commended that theic rents are rot
?mi-TenfS, but lgroand-rent5: If 10, the auction
IS at an eU.l. For the a.fenbly of v. anxious
though they were to atohth .;t..dal and esrsetuai
rents, rcfpeSted that perpetual revenue, which
may have been in fevera! cafes referved bv one
frdi7idnaf, on grants OF land held by ar;4,,fs
ownerhlp. Though they did not re roeef the
Lord Of TIE ,f'e, they reipeeted tlofe rents
winch were due to the pr,7,ate o1caery of the
io'l' Before, however, theft. can be denominat
ed groaud.'eHf5, it mutt he fhewn that Lord
Fairfax qU0s the private owner of the foil: he.
cauie there is no infance of 4 grcund-rent, in
which the leefor of the premfes had not aconi,.
ed private right to the foil. Lord Fairfax.
however, was fully fentihle of the diff;nttion,
which exiited between his proprietory & his pri.
vase rights: For it was his uniform nrat aice TO
make conveyance of lands in fee in the ufual
form to tome friend, and take back re-convey
ance thereof, when he meant to acquire the e..
Fnple property in them.
lhe Cafe before the court exprefsly finds that
this was done in relation to the manors. and
to the lot No. S in the town of Wincbeher.
IL then the court ihould adjudgc the lot or the
rent accruing thereon to be the private property
or the appellant. they will differ from ord Fair
TAX h'mieif, who thought conveyance and re-
conveyance receflary, whenever b,f4,s,e nro-
perty was to be acquired. The appel,ant. II
IS to ne prefimed, is bound by the 0annNons
express or implied, of thofe under whom he
claims: and l.. Fairfax has ffrongly nI,u;fteo,
that the Priv0fe property of the lot in aueGiou
d'a not exit IN him, becauie he omitted to ex
ten;i that proccfs TO ii which he employed in
the cafe OF the lot No. Is. Hence no argument
from an "Hsdsed AequiEfioa By jiuz,cy can be adj
h',,'en even were that iurvey for his o7un NE
which 1t was not, bccaufe it was for the nfe Of
the Pnrbgjsry, who were to pav a high rate of
competition upon the grant of the foil. He in.
deed acquired right of foil in lot No. IS; hut
that was not by .jitrvey.
Having compared the lot in cuehion with o.
Their unappropriated land, and found them 70 =
gree IN their mott eliential features; having
found that the pretrnt rents are IT gi,3arirs,s
1t may be proper to compare them a!fo with
leases on the nnanors Rated in the cafe, whic,,
are ooniehedly private property. But here
there rs no manner OF Emilitu,c. The leGtcs
or the manors paid no original price or con,po-
'i'on therefor: They acquired no atfoutc
property therein, but only the uie thereof Cor a
certain time. The rents payable on tterc are
2oj. or 400 per hundred acres: fun flre,y too
great as mere .fiEAal acknowledgment of te-
nure, and bearing good proportion ut that
time to the yearly value Of the land. IF there
was any iim!itude between the two cafes, the
appellant was bound TO have ihown it.
He now came to coafder fon1e of the aas of
ailemh'y on this fuhiect. The acts OF or. '77.
chap. q and May 20, chap. Is, aboli!hed cult
rents throughout Virginia, except in the North
ern Meek. Ibis did not invade the Gui,-rents
nt Lord Fairfax, becaufe he was citizen, al
though they had the bef reafons for the aholi
ton. Nor did they attenp. fuch an invafion
until they had found that thofe qut.rents had
devolved upon alien enemies. Then they did
ftqneHer, and 1t laft eonGjea!e them. Thofe acts
aboliihed quit-rcnts after expressly premifnp
that 1t was derogatory to our people to hold
their lands "fuhjctt to any /lrvilt, fsuani or
pree arous tenure, and to prevent the danger to
a free fate from berbetualrevenue :" at of 10.
CHI. l:. pa. %. Here then is the Ieeiil3tive ar.
ceptation OF quit-rent: 1t is rent which is fu.
daf, jcr7Ie and Perpetual. Had the Legislature
then ahol'ihed the qut-rents of L. F. would nor
this reutin queftion alto have been fpept away
with them Can it be denied that tb;r rert is =
/crrie and frn'ai rent, and n rent that is hertz
tnni? IL then the judgment Of the difrii4
court be now reverted, will not this court create
a Lord Paramount over the property in ouec
ton VIII not the Inhabitants of WincheRer
be fuhjetted to the diibonorable q,yT7Lgrs Of
paying to fuch Lord Paramount, frrvile. fen.
dial and perpetual revenue Will no. thew throw
N't'S%N'" 'ftO CO0CiltiC n, from
which the legislature of our country, at the very
infant of the revolution, 70 anxion(Iy ende,-
voured TO remove all orr people How far fL;s
partial proprietor.hip NAV hereafter be attempt
ed to be extended, in conftquence of the prece
dent now to be fet and the principles now TO be
adopted, he did not pretend to determine.
When the aet of 10 difcharged all j." propri, =
tors Of lands" not only from ouit-rents. hut all
other " referva,ions" Sc. in grants of Iard from
the king, even to the condition Of cul!ivnting
the land; would not this abolition have alike
extended 10 lots in towns, If there had been a.
ny fuch granted directly by the Crown
The analogy IS very itrong, Between what the
egIllature did by the acts of IT and 10 in rela
ton to Virginia generally, and what they would
have done at the fame time in relation to the
Nothern Neck, if they had not refpeaed the
rights OF Lord Fairfax as citizen. But fince
his death, the abolition bot extended into the
Northern Neck. If the act of TT which gave
credit to the people of the Northern Neck for
the qult-rent as part of the public taxes, has
fsmed to confine it to the 2c rent only, is there
any reafon why the fame indulgence mould net
have been granted TO the inhabitants of Win
chefsr? At mof, therefore, it is to be regard
ed as eGEg omiGiJ; bccaufe its locality CON
ceaed it from the view of the Legislature. Nav
not that body then he permitted to correa it.
felfp In facf. has ~ mt Torya,qe oil ;tC,Ic