The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-11-19

by reverial of the Judgment before us, Sevice upon
the people Of the Northern Neck, partial propri-
etorhip. will 60 further and ak. whether they
will do this, Notwithstanding the remuneration OF fuch
proprietorihip by MIR. Fairfax, under whom the ap-
peilant claims! That Remuneration is explicitly con-
taned 10 far at lean it reIpe9rd the lands
in the agreement itated in the a4 of compromfe of
1885, The remuneration did not, indeed, extend sx-
preisly to the oblolete and derea claim of
for reafoos pref.ntly be aligned or alluded to-
That remuneration is ALTO founded upon full and va
liable confederation upon the grant by the comon.
wealth of Virginia OF at leaf 100000 acres Of land,
claimed by MIR. F. his private property but
which is notorious, would have been withheld from
him (bu. for the compromise aoreiad) by the judg-
ment of this court, affirming that of the Diitr Court
who had aduiged that this alenage deprived him of
all rights Under Lord F's will
According to ordinary calculation, it would have
been iuppnfed that that Remuneration and the a9 of
aiien,bly founded thereon had given dof5 So.v to
the proprietary rights in the Northern Neck. Ex-
ciuive OF the proprietary right zeanf Iana5 there
is only other apea, in which is poible for fuch
proprietorhip to be revised, contemplated; and
this 1t ieems, is to be the groundwork on which this
uperitruSture is now to be raifed. The trifiny E,
now III dipute, like the fsa;bO!d required by Arehi-
modes, is to produce consequences which none can
toreiee or Ultimate. notwithstanding that the act
OF 1886 did not degn to comprehend quit-rents in the
remuneration therein contained on the part of MIR.
notwithstanding the General AGembly pre,ermit-
ted this mo2 favourable opportunity of fuch pur-
pole Tor certainly under the then ei,evsauees of the
cafe, the rapacity of Mr.. F. or hi. grantees might
have been well fatsfed with the enormous, grant of
500 900 acres ofperhaps the be land in the Northern
Neck ; we are now to be aGaiitS; propretorfhip is
now to be r5iifaS ON this soe aud expiadl ground
OF quit-rent.
will only add upon this fubjeti, that the omilion
to comprehend gHyenfs in the remuneration contain
~, 81.
being 3steved to be mere a9 of fupererogation
That belief might have arifen TO fay nothing of the
merits OF the caie) not only from the claim Of
thoie quit rents on the part of Mr.. F. when he was
claiming all RE ref of Lord Fs etate but ALTO among
0.6er ia'r ersrm9aneefl from the explicit dilavowal
| OF Lord Fs right thereto, made in the Virginia Con-
vention of 1888 by the very able gentlemen, who
afterwards, purchaier under Mr.. +. neyociated
the compromise with the General A;fembly Of Viz
gina. (See new edition of the Debates, page 1919
AS the Claim to the q rent formerly payable on
lands in the Northern Neck, may probably gain
Fvengb from the decon this day to be given, and
mean NOT to frsjudge any thing, ought perhaps TO
make an apology for having iad this much upon the
iubled My apology ia, that in My view that rent
rs abiolntely identified with the ST now in quef
ton. fee no ehental difference wha.eyer between
then'ln the dicuiion Of this cafe therefore, can
not entirely keep ba,ate6, things which in my ude-
nient are ultimately blended. If the ST qa-re.. is
now 70 be recovered it is OF little conieQuence what
name the court may pleafe to annex to it; whether
they denominate 1t quif-Tent gr0uz9-r.nt. II
lone future claimant OF the 2rqpit-ret iha be able
to thew to future court, the appellee's council
have now fhown to me- that there is no eiIentia DIFF
terence whatever between the two rents would he
not on the authority of the deciion to be- givsn
nave right to demand that Ha be alfo ad,,dg-
ed to be gronnd-yent, and that recovery he Oh that
ground, awarded i'll his favor; any equettratons or
conicatons of grityeat5 By the legilaure notw it'll.
Handing! Would he not in fatf, Sir, be entitled TO
uie this very decifon srsee4enfi
Although this Court ihoud now decide the 81 rent
TO beno quit-rent, it does decide and cannot de-
cine' between the now parties, the e rent to be
qH"',eaf ANY thing which may fall from any of
the Judges in this eaufe, to how the fad 2Crent to
DE quitrent will hereafter be coniidered as entire
" extra-ludieia twill be perfectly competent there
lore Tor any future claimant ihow that chat rent
is no qDit-reaf and therefore recoverable by evina
that there is no elentia difference whatever between
" and the Prsjet rent, and TO ue this deciiion As
precedent, which will declare the 5rent 60 be reco
verable
have thus endeavoured to ihow, that the EooEn
idea oil qu-rent, as commended for, on the part of
the appellant, mutt be absolutely exiedtdin this couu
Try, as not jq1sriay with thoie rents which
have been universally admitted to be auit-rents =.
hat according TO that idea, there no fuch thing
asa qu-rent III this country land that a. the o,L
alternative, the popuia, and L1av. idea ON the fub.
jet mutt be reforted to- and that botb embrace tb
rent in queton THAT in refpea of every feature
whatever, there is aperfed correspondence between
the rent before US, and the 2 payable OIL land
and that the rent i'll queion has been abfou,elv del.
troyed by the Legislature in with the 2rrent
by their abohing all E,ViIe, .aaal, and eeJsei.ai
rents.
In the whole courfe of this bufnefs I Law ors,,
itre's upon the circumance that the land in oue;on
has never been specifically Appropriated by L. F. to
his own uie. In the language of the act of ',6 (,b.
aet OF compromiie it has been appropriated and
reerved to his own e, either "5y 4ci or as,aql FIR,
VJ nay further, it has never been 70 appropriated
and reierved by any ether mode adopted by l. F
Nt there are any Others admble upon this record
TO eiteeuate that purpoie.So far from beno made
the private property Of L. f. had AsaYy become the
S'iVHtf P,QS1ty ofthe appellee and thoe under whom
he claims; and on payment of the renfs fbe thev
qaR-rs1t5 or noD no power earth could iulty de-
Prive them of the land This land was nor more a.,
eeaty GRprep,iafedby l.. F. to himfelf than any a.
Their tra& granted ont in the No. Mack. nor were
theie ren's more specifically appropriated to his own
ue than the rents OF per 100 acres referyed on
ards L. F. had an ultimate fisno,oI right over the
rub'Is, but no Privste ,ig5f in any. " Mr.. Wood
who is hated in the aa Of l752 to have granted our
the original lots IN the Of Wincheler had 70.
eryed perpetual thereon and Especially If that
REM had borne iome reafonable Proportion to the an