l8o4» Review of Mr llMwttr^s Ltiter^ ^6t 



the facl was preciftly afcertained, becaufe no other could then be re. 

 forted to. It is unneceffary to Invelllgate, here, wliicli was caufe, which 

 Was tffcd ; whether the fuperior attention difplayed about internal 

 improvement, and the increale of trade and maniifa6tures, produced ail 

 autrmentation of population, or whether tlie augmentation occalioneil 

 internal improvement and increafed trade. The faft is, they gentrally 

 go hand in hmcL Population will never be wantinjr in a prof"ptrotii 

 flate. It may prevail under advcife circumltancts, but cannot be want- 

 ing under a well-regulated government, where food and employiv.eiit 

 are abundantly provided. Were every obftacle to internal improve- 

 ment removed, we have no doubt but that the Britilh iflcs are capable 

 of fupponin^ double the number of inhabitants which are preiently 

 colledfd within their bounds ; nay more, we are convinced that ati 

 incrcaie will regularly go forward, though with flower ilcps, in ipitc 

 of tveiy obilacle, fo long as the trade and manufactures ot the country 

 continue to fluurilh. N. 



Li iter addressed to the Comwi/fioners of Supply for the Coiuity of Haddhig^ 

 ton. By Robert Hunter of Thurjion^ Efi. Edhihurgh, pr'mteli 

 by C. Stc^vart. '1804. 



This pamphlet contains a concife, and, fo f^rr as \\q know, a correct 

 account of the fquabbles which lately happened among the Commiflion- 

 ers for executing the Property-a6l in the county of Haddington. Wifli- 

 ing to avoid every thing of a perfonal nature, we mufl refer our readers 

 to the pamphlet itfelf, which cannot fail to afford much amufement. 

 While the main part of this curious publication is thus pafled over, we 

 are in duty bound to notice the caufes from which thofe difTenfions feem 

 to have originated. 



It appears tliat the Commiflioners of the county of Haddington, at 

 an early period, entertained different views refpecling the extent of the 

 Property-aft, and that fome of them wifhed to exercife their powers in 

 a more lenient way than met with the approbation of the majority. 

 That the acl itfelf was read by them in different w^ys will not excite 

 furprife, feeing that the claufes relative to the tenants' duty are in di- 

 rect oppolition to the principle of the aft as expi-effed in the preamble. 

 So far as we can make out, the minority were difpofed to execute the 

 aft according to its fpirit, in other words, to aifefs the occupiers of 

 land upon the fame principles as they afTefTed proprietors and others ; 

 whereas the majority were refolved to walk by the letter of the aCt, 

 that is, to affefs the tenantry in the full fum of lixpence upon eveiy 

 twenty {hillings of rent, and to value each farm afrefli which had been 

 occupied for more than feven years. The majority alfo refufed to allow 

 the doduftion of one eighth from rent, though that dedu6tion is clearly 

 warranted ; and, in fliort, were determined to adminifter the a6l with 

 the utmoll feverity. We beiieve this ib.tement will convey a pretty 

 accurate p:dtiir« of the view$ of both parties. 



That 



