|
|
U. H. J.
Liber No. 35
May 4
|
or in the Land tax Acts which have passed in the present Reign in
Respect of their Incomes arising from their Offices and Benefices
we deny it, and you'll find that we have Reason for denying it if
you'll look into these Acts, nor can we see any Reason for an
Imposition of an heavier Tax upon Officers and Clergymen than upon
Lawyers and Physicians.
The Objection we made to the Tax upon Tenants in Dower or by
the Curtesy, and other Tenants and Annuitants for Life you have
in no Sort obviated the Presumption or Supposition that the Assessors
will pursue a different Method in ascertaining the Value of Lands
than that which is expressly prescribed by the Bill is not to be ad-
mitted and to leave Matters to the Incertainty of Supposition, or not
to prevent Doubts because Remedies may be applied after the Incon-
veniencies shall have been felt when a Bill is under Consideration
whether it should pass into a Law would not be acting with that
Prudence and Caution which ought to be observed.
By your Bill the Assessor is to value the Fee simple as it would
sell for in his Apprehension whatever might be the actual Annual
Profit of the Land; or whether it would yield any Profit or not and
the Assessment is to be made upon the legal Possessor according to
the Valuation of the Fee simple whether his or her Estate may be
for Life or in Fee, it is therefore plain and evident that as the Tax is
not imposed upon the actual Annual Value these Tenants for Life
will pay in many Instances for that which they have not.
If the Expedient you have proposed that the Tax upon the un-
cultivated Lands may not fall upon any other Part of the Owner's
Estate should succeed it would be a most excellent one as we should
then have all the Land taken up in the Province cultivated and im-
proved but you must see that if your Expedient would not have that
Effect our Objection would not be answered because tho' the Prop-
erty might be changed, still the Proprietor would be liable to the
Hardship we mentioned
What you have said of the Tenant's Power to retain has been
already observed upon
|
|
|
|
p. 325
|
The Oath appointed to be taken by the Clerk of the Commissioners
of the Loan Office had it been confined to his own Conduct we should
not have objected to, it appears to us that by the Oath as it now stands
he is to swear for the Commissioners, whether there was the same
Impropriety in the Oath prescribed by the £40,000 : Act, or whether it
has been occasioned by the Variation you have made is immaterial,
if it is wrong it ought to be altered.
We can't think it just and right to make Sureties for the faithful
Performance of one Duty liable without their Consent for any
Breach of a new Engagement.
We must confess we can't discover that Resemblance between your
Bill, and any of the Land tax Acts you seem to think with Respect
|
|
