1804. Review of Mr Hunter s Letter, 363 



had fallen into a miftake by declaring; that each term's rent was one 

 hundred and fifty pounds. We aflc, Would fuch a miftake make the te- 

 nant liable to a greater rent than what was firlt expreflcd ? Prcrcilciy fi- 

 milar is the queftion refpe<5tlng the property-tax with rejifard to the occu- 

 piers of land. The a6l firit declares, that a duty of one fliiliinjr out of 

 every twenty nf gains and profits (hall be paid by all perfons cnj()yin;r luclt 

 and fuch Incoitics : but, when this rule is applied to the occupiers of 

 land, the principle is deviated from ; for, if rents only are to be aflcffed, 

 a tenant h liable, whether gains or profits are enjoyed by him or not. 

 If the act is referred to, it is equally fair to take the part that is for 

 yon, as the part that is againfl yon ; nay more, as the j)reamhle of every 

 bill is always underltood to contain its objedl or principle, every after 

 claufe that is in oppofition thereto may be fafely confidercd as nuga- 

 tory and inapplicable. 



But leaving this general argument, and allowing that occupiers are 

 bound to pay fixpence per pound upon current rents, where leafes have 

 not been poficffcd for more than fcven years, we would inquire, how, and 

 in what manner, valuations are to be made upon thofe who occupy land 

 where the tenure is of a different dcfcription. Suppofe the occupier 

 to pofTcfs upon a liferent, coufequently in a fituation which difables 

 him in fome degree from making improvements, h it fair, or is it juft, 

 to value land fo occupied, upon the fame terms as when fet for nine- 

 teen or twenty-one year?, and to levy not only fixpence in the pound 

 upon the whole as the tenant's tax, but alfo the proprietor's tax of one 

 (hilling per pound upon the increafed rent wliich the faid land might 

 afford if poffefled under different circumftances ? We fay, fuch a pro^ 

 cedure is nothing fhort of grofs injuftice, and cannot be defended by a 

 fingle enactment in the property-tax bill. Upon the mode and ex- 

 tent of the valuation, the bill is filent ; it merely declares that a fair 

 and juft valuation fliall be made, but does not fay for one year or for 

 any precife number of years. Our opinion has always been, that the 

 phrafe means a fair and jujl 'valuation for the year under ivhkh the tax 

 is ajfiffsd ; or, at the very moft, for the number of years .which remain 

 of the leafe, all the circumftances and burthens under which the pofTcf- 

 fion is held being conlldered. 



• Even under the fuppofition that farms, pofTefied for more than fevert 

 years, ought to be eftimated at the greatcft worth they couid pay un- 

 der the moft active managefnent (for the conduA of the coumrffioncrs 

 has been fuch as to admit of the utmoft latitude of fuppofition] ; Itilj, 

 what ftiall be faid concerning the mode adopted by them in making 

 valuations ? Did they perfonally examine the lands fo valued ? No. 

 -Did they take an opinion from perfons of fkill and capacity ? No. 

 Did they even call in the fchoolmafters of the refpedtive parifhes to their 

 aid ? No ; though fuch, from local information, were certainly better 

 qualified to make correct valuations than the commilfioners themfelves. 

 What did they do then to afcertain the value of land pofTcffed upon 

 leafes whereof feven years had run ? Why, they even quietly lat in trheir 

 ofHcial chairs by a warm firefide, and, without information or advice, 

 rated every farm, no^ according to its quality or coudition, but accord- 

 .%9i^^ V. NO. 15. - A a ing 



