i^oj. the Right Hon. Henry Dundas In 1798. 425 



Your Memorialifts have no objeclion ajrainfl the tax, pro- 

 vided it is levied upon them in the fame proportion as upon 

 other clafles of the community ; but, with fubmilhon, they 

 apprehend that the mode propofed for aftertaining their in- 

 comes will be fallacious and unjuft, if, as they are informed, 

 the refpeOive fums payable by them to their landlords in name 

 of rent, is to be taken as the criterion. In former times, when 

 rents were low, this rule, with fome juftice, might have been 

 adopted ; but from the late great rife of rents, the increafed 

 value of labour, and the comparative low prices of produce, 

 their incomes cannot fairly be eftimated at more than one fifth 

 of the rental -, and upon a number of farms fet within thefe 

 iew years, if that eflimate was taken, it would even be over- 

 rated. 



The Memorialifts t>e^ leave to fuggeft another circumftance 

 "Vi'hich renders every reference to rent improper for afcertaining 

 the income of the polleffor ; which is, that fome farms, from 

 fertiiiry of foil, local advantages, &c. are naturally capable of 

 paying a much greater fliare of produce by way of rent to the 

 proprietors, than others not fo favourably fituated, although 

 the incomes of the poiTelTors, in both cafes, may be equal. 

 Some farms have been fet, where the landlord may be con- 

 fidered as receiving one half of the produce raifed upon them ; 

 whereas in others, where the foil is hot fo fertile, and greater 

 outlay required, the proprietor cannot receive one fifth. The 

 tenants upon thefe different farms would therefore, according 

 to the propofed mode, be rated towards this tax upon different 

 ratios, as their incomes are not in proportion to the fums payable 

 to their refpe£live landlords. 



Another obje£lion occurring to your Memorialifts is, that the 

 <i)ccupiers of land lately let, will be far heavier taxed than thofe 

 who pofTefs leafes of a more ancient date. The latter will, 

 in few cafes, pay more than te.n per cent, upon income, while 

 the former would generally be afleffed to the extent of twenty, 

 thirty, forty, and even fifty per cent, of the real profits. This 

 difference muft unavoidably take place, if rents are to be af- 

 fumed as a criterion for afceitalning income. 



But what ftrikes your Memorialifts as a peculiar obje6lion to 

 this mode, and which they have no doubt will engage your 

 marked attention, is, that farmers in Scotland will generally be 

 rated a great deal higher than their brethren in England. In 

 Scotland, all rents, in the firft inftance, are received by the 

 landlord, who pays every public burthen, a few trifling articles 

 excepted ; whereas, in England, the nominal rent docs not, in 

 inoft cafes, exceed pne half of what may be called the r^al rent, 



VOL. IV. NO, iQ. P P ? *s 



