The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-11-19
3alsr Ronne', opision-Coneyuded.

X,
and found in them perfect correspondence, will
now briefly compare with the leaeS in the n,anors
Rated in the cafe and which are copfeiiedy private
property, and believe ihall find no manner Of
fin,litude between them. The leiees of the manors
have paid no original price competition therefor
they have acquired no abfolute property therein but
only the re thereof during term. The rents paya-
bi. therefor 2oror 4ofper hundred acres per au-
mum respectively FUN too great for mere feudal
acknowledgements of tenure and bearing good pro-
portion, perhaps at the time of the grants, the
yearly vaue of the land--Befides, this manor land
was not only converted into private property by the
proceis before mentioned, but the ieajcs in all their
covenants bear frongy the badges of private owner
ihip-ln AL tbefe reipees the grant before is
tire!y diiGmilar.
IF any treis is laid on the finding in the cafe that
the grants of all lands were uniformly alike excep,
as "a grants of lots in places laid off for towns may
be anlwered that 1uch variation is rendered neceary
by the difference of the iubjea fuch as the different
rates OF competition and rents, and the different
ditions and covenants necefary be obtained in the
TWO nitruments--f any ehental and fubnantial va
ration exiited between the two graots, going the
merits % tins Cafe 1t the duty Of the appellant
TO lave ihewn them to the court in his cafe. The
variation Gated IN this finding is fatsfed by the i'm
naffrf1i variations u mentioned, and which are diff
ren,ble from nfpctlon of the grants themielves,
as iet out in the cafe. That heion docs not exhi-
bit any tssiai and a5qaniial variations going to the
nerirs OF the cafe the appellant helf has not Rated
or even pointed any fuch; and zoe cannot make
his Gale better han he himfelf mas made it.
come to con(ider fome of the acts Of aIem
bly, on this fube9.
he act Of October II, CHI Q. and May 1879 CHI.
Is, aoohhed quit-rents throughout Virginia excep,
IN the No. Neck. They did not invade the quit.
rents oil F. becaule he was citizen, although e.
very reaiop ALIGNED for the abolition equally applied
TO ms qut-ren's. They did attempt freh inva.
n pal 80 r
tno'e qp't-rents had devoved alien enemies. Then
they dad fqpeaer them, and ultimately e.afrfe them
139Ie di'' did aSaiib sbe qnymts in the reiiduary
part OF Virginia after expressly premilng that it was
dsrogltofy to people hold their lands fnbiet9
lnnlea to any /erVife jfuaai or precarious tenure
"-andto prevent the danger free ta,e from Der
" 1f1a ysveune." Act OF 10 ch l3, pa. 90. Here
then is irong legislative expedition of what's meant
by qntrent IL is which is jtyvils, }snGaI and
fyiefuaL
Nthe power of the Legislature had then extended to
and osen exerciied the qut-rents Of Lord Fair
Ia, would not the rent in quetion have been ALTO
enphatnaiiy included! Nay, had there been f.
nliar grant OF lots in the other part of VIRGINIA
ny the governor, would not the rents referved there
on have been equally deitroyed Can it be denied
mat the rent IN quelfion is jtyvs and feuaeI rent
OF that the appellant claim it only as Eezeor 10
the lord OF the fee for the lot in quehon had never
oeen PeeeaAy appropriated by L. Fairfax to his owl,
uie. u the deciion "a the Diifria Court be now
reverted, viii you rot Sir, create Lord Parauount
a'to the property in quefion And will not the in
haotants OF Winc,siter be fbjeaed /ar eVsr to the
degrading sagaLGge of paying, TO fuch Lord Para
mount irrVifr, feRda and perpetual! revenue? VIII
you not place thote citizens in chat abie9 fate from
which the Legislature of our country, at the very
infant OF the reyolu,ior focitouly labourad to p
manepate all our people WIN you not in fatf, SIR.
reTioe upon the people OF the Northern Neck. bar,
fai ProPretorfhip How far that proprie,orihip
may hereafter be attempted bs esiendeiin confe
quence OF the precedent be fe andthe princple
now contradiction, ipretendnot to determine Great
irut, the retpef oths will ever be for the ,qJt
9'iv'ff SrSpety claimed by any fiitor; hope we
Ilai never favour mere /tgd1i and EiensyaI rghts
nor permit ourfelyes to carry back our people or a.
ny lection OF our people, to that degrading late Of
Vaalage, 10 itroDgy depicted by our laws and from,
which tie revolution ought TO have liberated them.
When the legislature Of Virginia by the ata of
l779, discharged all Prsp,iefO,s ef Laad" not oaly
from quit-rents bu. from all other reervatons and
conditions IN the patents grants Of land from the
crown OF England" extending even to a dfcharye
from the cohdition of epitipatre part of the land
granted would not this abolition equally have extend
ed tol0h in towns Of there were any flch) GRAINED
merely and directly by the nsgOal Are not the
owners OF the lots, equally propretors of lands"
"'in the very language OF the act & would not eve
~ realon OF the law equally extend to them Nav,
as the condition of euhpafing portion of the lands
granted, isequaly uiefuI to the country with the
condition OF 6pi'Sing upon lots granted in towns.
would not this latter condition have been equally
deuroYed, when impofed only by the gyont howe
yer 1t would have been a0ed, as not being within the
act OF 1879, when impofed By an at7 of Al:oLi, /!
ihe analogy is very arong between what the Az
ieInbiy actually did by the aas of III and 1870 in
relation to Virginia in general and what they would
nave done at the fame time relation the Northern
Neck, had they not been rerfrained by rcfpea for
LORD tairia1's rights as citizen The abolkion
however effected by thofe acts, has been extended
70 the NoTthern Neck, fince the death OIL. f.
the aa OF 1877. Oh. g which gave credit TO the
people OF the Northern Neck for their qut-rents as
part OF their pubic tax, has BY tie fryms ofH Eeued
~ eonhpe quit-Tents the of 2fper 100 acre,
On land, is there Jingle reafon why this indulgence
mould not have been equally extended to the owners
Oh the lots IN quehiOn Are not to confider it at
mott, as an o0i'fd cafe as a cafe only omitted on
account Of the isefy of the rent and the ignorance
Of rs exi'tenee' on the part of the legillature
butIf thus be Yelled as legislative expedition of
aq1r'rent Hths court is permitted to fay that
where there the the FAME reaon there is the fame
Iaw hall not that body he permitted to correct itfeIf
NAL not other legislative expeditions be equally ref
Pe@ea In the very fame olaufe of that very act
the egilature bar corrected tfeIf by defining quit
rent TO be Jr,DH jSDaI, and eApcfasf rent. This
al IN do, 20, al. "a r