The evidence relating to the vote of Donald Meee was then read.

Mr. McGOWAN.—This vote has undergone more exami- |

nation than say other during the scrutiny. Jt ia well

known that the land on which he voted does not belong to

bia ; it belongs to the Priest; McBee works it for him.

Hoa. Mr. heard this man’s title questioned. The value of the land was the question at the Sheriff's Court. The first evidence, Jona Mills, could not state the value of the property at first, but afterwards says it is pot worth 100/. He says that 10 years ago it was offered for 30). Ji isa very dif- ferent thing to get a picce of laud in Georgetown now from what it was 10 years sgo. Mille winds up by saying that he would not swear that Mefee could not get 100/ for his property. The next witness says there is not a better culti- vated picee of land ia King’s County. Now, we know that # piece of land ia the neighbourhood of Georgetown, and highly cultivated, is very valuable. This witness says the jeod is worth 120/. I think if it were set up at suction to- morrow it would briog thatamount. He sgys the crop taken off MeFee's land two years ago was worth 60j. The next witness, Robertson, says he is a good judge of land, but does vot koow that Mclee’s lund is worth 1002. He does not know whether there wasa crop on the land last year. He then mentions a jot that was sold for 30. I koow that lot, end I consider 40/ a high price for it. If it is worth 302, McFee’s should be worth 3007. Then Mr. Moore, another witneas, says he would give 1002 for the lot to-morrow. One witness swears it is worth 100), and an- other swears it is worth 120/. None of the other witpesses eay positively that it is not worth 100/.

Hoo. Mr. ANDEHRSON.—The first witness says there are no byildiggs on the Lot. He values it at 70/. Two witnesses value it at less than }] 00/,

Hon, Mr. BEER.—[ think the sitting member baa mis- reprerented the evidence of Mr. Moore. [le merely says if he wanted a place he would give 100) for it.

Hon. Mr, WALKEB. —I owo a Pastare Lot near the game place. [t is in 3 wilderuess state, and | was offered 407 for jt five or six yegrs ago.

Hon. Mr. BEER.—[ understood that Lots in 9 wilderness state in Georgetown Royalty poyld be purchased for 200.

Hon. Mr. DINGWELL.—~— We kuew that a Lot consisting of 14 acres of land near Georgetown, in a high state of cul- tivation, is very yaluable. Taking the whole evidence into account, | do pot know how we cea say it is not worth 100/.

Hon. Mr. YEO — If we take the ayerage of the price named by the three witnesses who have yalyed the property iz will not make J002.

Hon. the PRESIDENT —I do not think the evidence throws any doubt on the title. Robertsoo says he under- stood till lately that the land belonged to the Kev. Mr. Me- Donald, That is v0 evidence,

Hos. Mr. GOFF —I never understood that the land belonged to McFee. I thought he was only 8 managing man‘ for the Priest ; but be has probably been saving money and investing it in land. 1 do pot say that McPee js pot the owner.

Hoo. Mr. WALKER-—Mr. Moore mentions ap ynoulti; vated jot containing 7 acres for which 40/ were paid ; surely it would take 10% to pyt it in 9 bigh state of cultivation. McPee's lot contgins 14 acres.

Hon. Mr. YEO—Jand near Summerside is worth more in 3 wilderuess state than when cultivated.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL—I regret, your Honors, that we are placed in such « difficult position, but we must get through this business the best way we can. Que of the witnesses says, [| thought till lately that the property be- Jonged to the Rey. Mr. McDonald. That is no evidence. The first witness says, * I think 701 is the yalue of the pro-

"Phat is not positive evidence. Another witness says he paid 402 for an uncultivated lot containing 7 acres jn 1861. That is strong evidence; it shows that the first witness has not given @ correct estimate of the property.

This witness says it ia “ iohly ” worth 120/. Looking at

the whole evidence — taking the positive statements of the

witnesses—aod considering ali thy advantages pointed out, { cannot come to the conclusion that the property is not

worth 100/.

The evidence on this vote was very Jengthy. His Honor the Attorney General read it through carefully, and made some gtseryations an it as he proceeded.

Hon. Mr. YEO—One of the witoesses sgys that if any man will give five or siz pounds ap acre for land near Georgetown, he will give too much. If we take the average of the value given by all the witnesses, it will noc make £100.

lion. ATTORNEY GENERAL — It will make £96 some shillings.

Hon. Mr. YEO — Well, I cannot make £100 out of £96 gome shillings, any way } can fix it. (Laughter.)

Hon. My. Yeo submitted a resolution to the effect that it did not appear by the evidence before the Committee that the qualification of Donald McFee was sufficient to entitle him go vote.

The question being put thereon, the Committee divided :

Cowtents—Hon. Messrs. Yeo, Anderson and MeLaren—3.

Noy. convents — Hon. Messrs. Attorney General, Ramsay ,Beer, Henderson, Walker, Dingwell and Prosident—s.

So it passed in the negative.

The evidence relating to the yote of Daniel McDonald was then read

Mr. McGOWAN—~It appears fram the evidence that this man only held the property on trust. He held # Trust Deed to save the property from others. At first he refused to take she oath, but he afterwards came forward and done so.

Hon. Mr, McDONALD—If that had been the case it would have been easy to prove it. perty was conveyed to McDonald three years ago. Well, if # man holds a conveyance of a property, that property is hie Stewart sgys the deed was executed three years ago; hut it gan be seen that it wae registered in 1355.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL ~T think enongh has been piated by the witness, Donald Stewart, to throw a doubt on shis yote. Le says the land to Mr. McAulay, and he (Stewart) advised bim to make it over to McDonald to pare it from his creditors. | think it was incumbent upon the other party to remove this doubt. If the case were taken to the Court of Chancery, McDonald would be compelled to give up the Deed. MeAulsy lives on the land, and with the knowledge of MeD: has sold @ part of it since the Deed was conveyed. That showd that Mr. McDouald is only a pominal owrer.

Hon. Mr. Beer moved the following resolution :

. eeoalene, ‘Tuat the yote of Daniel McDonald is not sufficient ‘The question being put thereon, it passed in the affirmative. Tie evidence relating to the vote of Roderick McAulay

was then read.

flon Mr. McDONALD —In this case we have Donald Stewart again ae @ witness, He says it is good wood land. ‘Then James McAulay, a brother of the voter, expresses his Purprise that Stewart should give such evidence. He says there are from 12 to laden dee, and some more fit to break in. lie saya his brother rose 200 bush. and 70 of oats op it last year. He says he would give £2 an sere for the land. Add the yalye of the olear land to that,

sod you baye oyer £100. | conceive that the vote is perfectly substantiated.

_ Hon. Mr. YEO—Fifty aeres of land with pretty fair build- ings on it would be worth £100; but I do not think that 50 acres on Lot 49, and an old house with the raiters blown off, are worth that mach.

toes, 12 of wheat

Hon. Mr. REER ~ 4 ig that neighbourhood sells high. ree nouns proof thas it is worth very close upon . ifno

uite. Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL — I think it is sufficiently near the mark te warrant us in cor luting that the vote is

lon. Mr. Beer submitted a resolution to the effect that the vote of Koderick McAulay is euffiaient in law.

‘The questivn wae put thereon, and it passed im the affir- mative.

The President then resumed the chair, and the House adjourned,

Arterxoon Sirtixe.

Hon. Attorney General presented to the House the Blue Book for 1861. Aleo the Public Accounts, the Aceounts of the Public Lands Office, and the Warrant Book for 1862.

Ordered, that they do lie on the table,

The Committes of privileges and elections was thon resumed.

Evidence relating to the yote of Roderick McDonald rea.

Hon. Mr. McDONALD stated that the object of the evidence wes to show thet the word ‘‘swourn’’ had been improper!y entered in the poil book. His Uypor contended that evidenve could not be received by the Committee ip opposition to the

1 book for that purpose. "i WV GEN ERAL—It might not be proper to

lion. ATTORN

receive verbal evidence, bat in this case we have written evidence, and I think it may be received strictly in aonfor- mity with the rules of law. When evyidenge ia committed to writing, it is pot generally permitted to parties to gonteadict it, but yet it is open to show that there has beeq some mistake or fraud. For ipatonee, an action might be brought against # Sheriff for « false return. The Poll clesk might sey his book was correet. Surely evidence might be brought to show that there was an error im the book in such a case. Take for instance the case at the peeent election at St Eleanor's. If evidenae could not have been brought in that case the poll beok would have stood as it was,

Hon. Mr. McDONALD — The egse at St. Eleanor’s was different. In thet case the your was enfered in the wrong column. That was ogsily done; but [ do pot see how the word «‘sworn’’ eould be entered after the man's name, if the Clerk did not get directions ta de so.

lion. Mr. BEER—Leaying aut the question about the error jo the poll book, I du not see that the pan's yote can be sus- tained, for a doubt is thrown on it by the avidence, and there is no evidence on the other side to pemmpye that doubs.

Hon. Mr. NeDONALD—The question at the Sheriff's

Vourt, was the error ip the pol) book, I do not think the

Lord,

Mr. Stewart says that the pro-+

ESS

a

| evidence throws the slightest doubt qn the vote. The voter | | bad receipts and other documents to show that he bad beep in possession of the property a sufficient length of time to ac- | quire @ legal title. Mr. MeNoill, the poll elerk, says that | neither of the candidates of their representatives directed him to erase the name from the poll book.

Jion. the PRESIDENT — If the man refused f take the

fcDONALD.—This is the first time that || oath the presiding officer should not have gllowed his name! He wag liable to a fine for not)

to remain on the poll hook. removing it. Hon. Mr. McLAREN.—I do not remembar anything about | this note, bat when I heard the circumstance which has been | mentigned, [ made some enquiries aboot it. [ had poll clerk, aud on referring to his book, I find that McDongld’s name was }erased from it. [t was not masked ‘* sworn.’’

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—It is quite competent for § candidate to bring evidence to shew that there is an error in the poll hook. He should not be hound by the errors ef an officer oyer whom he bas no control. Perhaps the retyrning officer would not be allowed to give evidence to proye that his own act was au error. Ifa man refuses to take the ogth, his yote is consjdered yoid.

The following pesolution was submitted by his honor the Attorney General, and it passed in the affirmative ;—~

Resolyed, That it is the opjnion of qis Committee that the vote of Rodeftck McDonald was jllegally allowed to remain on the poll book, and should be steuck off.

The evidence relating to the vote of Angus McFee, polled for Mr. MeGowan, was theo read. The above named vote was found insufficient in law, and the Committee resolved accordingly. ‘Phe President then resumed the Chair, and the House adjourned. Wepysspar, March 25.

Hon. Mr. Anderson presented a petition of certajn in- habitants of St. Eleanor's, praying for an Act to prevent horses, cattle and sheep from running at large in the streets of that village.

The Committee of Privileges and Blections was then re- sumed.

Evidence relating to the vote of Thomas Ring read.

Mr. McGOWAN.—It appears from the evidence, your Honors, that this map has go title te the property on which he claimed to yote. His father died intestate. Hie mother is living, and there gre a number of sons. It ig undivided property. There is no authority for dividing it, unless it is an order from the Probate's Office.

Hon. Mr. McDONALD.—'The petitioning candidate says that there was no authority for dividing the property. It is very true that the voter's father was in debt wheg he died, but the greater part of the debts have since been paid off. It has been said that the mether pyid the assessment on the land, and that therefore the property must be her's. Phat j# no evidence at all, for it is a common thing for one person to send his assessment with another.

Mr. McGQW AN.—lI apprehend that the proporty that this man voted on is the same as that on which Donald McKinnon

voted.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—It appears that the title to this property was disputed. Thomas Ring voted on an interest in six lots. He alleged himself to be exclusive owner of Town Lot 169. It appears that he only pays tax for thir lot: his mother pays for the rest. Mr. Aitken says he al- ways understood that the property belonged to hig mother. If the property was divided, it is strange that Thomas would have four lots out of six, when there is a large family. fhe had a title, I do not see how there could be any difficulty in

poying it at the Sheriff's Court. The mother pays the tax in her own pame, aod Thowas pays in his own name, for one lot.

Hon. Mr. Beer proposed the following resolution, and it passed in the affirmative.

Resolved, that there is not sufficient evidence before this Commamittee to substantiate the vote of Thomas King.

Evidence relating to the vote of Patrick Stephens read.

fHon. Mr. McDONALD .—I do not think it is necessary to say much about this vote. The evidence brought by the petitioning candidate, has confirmed Mr. Stephens’ right to vote. Mr. Sanderson, who is an Auctioneer, says he svld a part of Mr. Stephens’ property for £425. He cannot say whether the wharfs were sold or not. ‘The next witness says, there was something said at the time of the sale about wharfs, but does not know whether they were sold or not. The next witness says he pays £25 rent to Mr. Stephens. He would not take £100 fur the part not sold. He believes the sale to haye been a sham.

Mr. McGUWAN.—It appears by the poll book that Mr. Stephens voted upon property liable to a mortgage, but al! the witnesses say he voted upon a piece of reserved land. It is

Mr. Sanderson had instructions to sell Mr. Stephens’ pro- perty, and he done so; but it is alleged to have been @ sham sale. There is no evidence beture the Committee to show that it was a sham sale. It was sold at public auction, and knocked down to the highest bidder. 1 do not know much about this little piece of reserved land, that is so very valu- able. Indeed, it appears to haye existed only in the brains of the witnesses.

Hoo. Mr. HENDERSON.—Thbe circumstance of the land being sold at public auction, and which has not been denied, raises a reasovabla doubt on Mr. Stephens’ vote. If there was a mortgage on the Jand, he should have shown that he had an interest in it, oyer and above the amount of the mortgage, sufficient to entitle him to vote.

| it.

due, why did not the petitioning candidate get Mr. Haviland to prove that euch was the ease. It has already been shown during this serutiny that back rent on o farm did not — the vote when there was other means of paying it. ‘The farm) cannot be taken for ren$ while there is persong] property op The eyidence does not show that this individuy had no other means of paying his rent. The second witness swears positively that the farm ia worth £100. ;

Hon. the PRESIDENT.—The elector has sworn to his

| qualification, and the witness brought forward by the peti-| tioning candidate does not know the yalue of the property. | There may be moveable property enoagh to pay the back rent. | Mon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—I do not think the first | witness raises a doubt ca thia yote. ‘The question rests alto- | gether on the gmount of reat due, but in regard to that we ‘have nothing but hear say evidence. If there 18 4 large ‘amount of back rent due, Mr. Hayiland should have been | brought to prove it. [tis only admitted that there are £10 ldue Even suppose there are £80 due, it does not follow that the man has no vote. It has not been decided - whether the rent up to 1858 has not been swept off by the Award of the Land Commissioners. Even if we were to go into a valu- ation of the property, { think the yote would be sustained, for one eyidence says that there are 25 acres cultivated, and he says the buildings are worth £20. But I go altogether on the weakness of the first evidences.

Hon. Mr. BEER.—J do not know if his Honor the Attorney General has taken potice that the word ‘‘arrears’” is entered as an objection in the poll book, I think that raises a doubt, and the ‘apposing candidate should have shown that the ar- rears was no objection. Eyen supposing there were po arrears, I do not think the property is worth £100.

Hon. Mr. YEQ.-<1 do not think there are many 50 acres of jeasebold land in the country, similarly zituated, worth £100. L have sold a great many farms through the country, and I always considered £2 an acre a good price for freehold land.

Hon. Mr. Walker submitted the following resolution, and it passed in the affirmative on the division as given below.

Conrents — Hon. Messrs. Attorney General, President, Ramsay, Walker, Dingwell and Lord—6.

Nov—contents — Hon. Messrs. Yeo, Anderson, McLaren, Beer and Henderson—9. ash

The evidence relating ta the vote of Patrick Grimley, polled for Mr. MeDPonwld, was then read. it was found insufficient to sustain his yate, and the Committee resalyed accordingly.

Arrernoon SitTinc.

A message was brought from the Iouse of Assembly by the Hon. Col. Secretary, with a Bill relating to steam nayigation with this [sJand

Also by Mr. John Yeo, Hiram Lodge, No. 1128, of free and acce St. Eleanor’s.

The Committee of privileges and eleetions was then resumed.

Evidence relating ta the vate of Hugh McQuade was read.

Mr. McGUWAN —This man is 4 leaseholder, your honors, but there is a clause in the original lease, which was taken by his father, to prevent it from being transferred without the the consent of the proprietor.

Hon. Mr. MCDONALD—The evidence shows that this man holds a lease from his father. As to the clause in the lease to prevent its transfer, it ia all hearsay. If the proprietor had a claim against any poe on that account it would be | against hig father. The fact that the proprietor receives rent from the son, is an acknowledgement that he is accepted as & tenant. ‘here is po proof that there is such 4 cundition in the lease.

Hon. Mr. ANDERSON—If there was a clause in the lease forbidding its transfer without the congent of tho proprietor, and thas clause not complied with, I think it would disqualify the present holder from voting under it.

Hon. Mr. BEER — Mr. Hamilton swears that the consent of the proprietor was not given to the transfer of the lease. 1 think that throws sufficient doubt upon the vote to call for evidence from the opposing candidate to show that the vote is good.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL — The witners says there was a clause in the lease prohibiting its transfer without the consent of the proprietor. If that is the case, and the con- sent of the proprietor was not obtained, then tle transfer would not be Jegal. But the question. is, did the lease con- tain such a clause. We have no evidence that itdid. If we had it would raise a doubt on that vote.

Hon. Attorney General snhmitted a resolution to the effect that the vote of Hugh MeQuade had not been disproved by any evidence belore the committee, and it passed in the | affirmative. :

The evidence relating to the vote of Jola Germley wae then read.

with a Bill to incorporate King pted Masons of

very strange that he did not give in this piece of reserved land | jyyn Mr. McDONALD—Mr.Hamilton.who is again brought | at the election, and not vote on property liable toa mortgage. | forward as a witness, appears to know all the farms upon this

road. Ile says be would not give £100 tor this farm, because

could not be bought for less than £100. Besides, bis brother being dead, he has a right to vote ona share of 109 ucres which he held.

not give £100 for it. The house, it appears, is on the part that was held by his brother, ~ The vote, if it stands at all, must

his brother's property. I think there is a strong doubt raised

stand on the 50 aercs. upon it. lion. the PRESIDENT —The last witness says the land is!

Hon. Mr. LORD.—Mr. Stephens’ character is well known. I have had dealings with him for @ long time, and always: found him a very correct man. The auctioneer does not say | that all the property was sold. Stephens’ offered the property | to me several times. The price he asked, if [ remember right, | was £500. I believe Patrick Stephens is not the man to) swear that he had £100 worth of property unless he had it. [ haye no doubt but this piece of reserved land is worth £100. |

Hon. Mr. BEER.—He did not vote on the reserved piece, | but on the mortgaged property. Besides, he did not vote as| a freebolder, but as a leaseliolder.

Hon. Mr. WALKER.—If the land was sold it is not very, probable that he would be receiving the rent. [ believe it) was on!y a sham sale, merely to value the property. 1 do not! think that 9 mortgage on the property ghould invalidate the yote. Many men yote on property on which there are mortgages.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—We are very much in the dark about this vote, and | think it is Mr, Stephens’ fault, as he has not sufficiently described the property on which he voted. [t is sither the fault of the voter, or of the candidate for whom he yoted. It bas been said that the voter has a valuable piece of land in another place, but the evidence does pot show whether that is included in the mortgage or not. My impression is, that it is included in the mortgage, and we ape threfore confined to the mortgaged property. Now, it appears that the property was sold, and it was incumbent upon the voter to show that he had an interest in it ta the amount of £100. He should have placed his title in the Sheriff's hand. If it is a leasehold property, and mortgaged, then it does not belong to Stephens, for all bis right, title gnd interest is signed over in the mortgage, and becomes ab- solute in the mortgage, when the debt becomes due. It has been said that he is an intelligent man. That I admit, and the more explanations would be expected from him on that account. It has been said that it was a sham sale; but if it were tried by an action in law, he would not be allowed to say that it was asham sale. It is — that he may re- taka an interest in the property to the amount of £500, but it dues not ap so by the evidence. I think the evidence shows that he has no right to vote on the property. Augustine MeDonald says he pays £25 rent to Stephens; but if the term of the murtgage has expired, the mortgagor may call upon him at any day, and compel him to pay the rent to him. If the mortgage allows the mortgagor to receive the rent, that is no proof that the property belongs to him. I think it is one of those ences where documentary evidence should have been produced. I would be inclined to deal more strictly with an intelliggnt man like Mr. Stephens, than | would with a poor illiterate man. When an intelligent man attempts tu smuggle through a doubtful vote, it is a very bad example.

Hon. Mr. LORD.—The reason that there is not more evi- dence before the Committee is, that Mr. Stephens was not aware that his vote was being scrutinized till after the She- riff’s Court was closed. ‘There should be no fault found with the voter for his property nat being described in the pull book. The opposing candidate should have pres such questions as would have elicited 4 description of the property. I do not believe that Patrick Stephens ever attempted to *‘smuggle”’ in his vote at that or any other election; and I believe he would have gone to Georgetown if he had known what was doing there. 1 do not think jt is using a respec'able man fair to insinuate that he smuggled his vote.

Hon, ATTORNEY GENERAL.—I said he might have an interest in the property te the amount of £500, but it does not appear from the evidence ; and in consequence of the doubt thrown upon it he should haye shown us that the mortgage has not deprived him of hie right to vote.

Hon. Mr. BEER.—I think some of your honors who have spoken in favour of sustaining the vote bave thrown more doubt upon it than the evidence, for you have shown that the property was mor for more than it sold for at auction. Hon. Mr. LORD.—When property js sald at auction it does not always bring its value.

Hon. Mr. WALKER.—Did the property sold by the Sheriff on Lot 66 bring its value?

Hon. Mr. DING WELL—I think it would be better to defer this vote for futare consideration. When the written evidence is so unsatisfactory, 1 do not see any reason why some other evidence might not be brought that would be more decisive.

Hon. Mr. YEO.—LE we are going to examine evidence be- fore this Committee we may sit here for another year. It has been said that the sale wasa sham. I thiak the yote is a sham too.

The following resolution was submitted by the Hon. Mr. Beer, and it ed in the affirmative :

Resolved, That there ia not sufficient evidence before this Committee to show that the vote of Patrick Stephens is valid in luw.

The evidence relating to the yote of Edward Sullivan was then read

Hon. Mr. McDONALI,—There was only one witness pro- duced by the petitioning candidate on this yote, and he does not know the farm. [le says that the Hon. Mr. Hayiland wae at the election with a long list of tenants who were in arrears for rent. If that waa the case it looks very much Jike intimidation. The witpess does not say anything about the ‘value of the farm, and if there was 9 large amount of ront

all clear bat 10 or 15 acres. If that is the case there would) be 35 acres of clear land, whieh, at £3 an acre, would amount to £105. He says there is a well upon it, and that would lead us to infer that the buildings were on the 50 acres. It) is very clear that he caunot vote on a part of his brother's | property.

tion. Mr. LORD—The first evidence says be will not ewear that the land is not worth £100. It is probable that he had made up hs mind that it was worth very near, if not quite, £100.

Hon. Mr. BEER—I think your honors must be pretty wel! satisfied from the evidence that the buildirgs are on the bro- ther’s part of the property, because it is said that they are in the middle of the block, which consists of 159 acres.

Hon. Mr. RAMSAY—If the manthas 35 or 40 acres of land clear, I certainly think he is entitled to a vote.

Hon. Mr. McLAREN—There is a great difference between clearing land that is covered with heavy. wood and land on which there is scarcely any woed at all. Tho fire ran through | this land about 40 years ago, and several! times since then. | The stumps were ail donnged away, and there was very little trouble in clearing it.

Hon. Mr. DINGW ELL—We have always valued cultivated land at £3 ap acre, wit! out considerating how it was cleared. If it was cleared by steam I do not see that the value of the land would be depreciated thereby. If the man has 35 acres of land clear he must be an industrious man, and we should not deprive him of his vote.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL --T am not quite satisfied that the land is not worth £100. Hamilton dves not speak in very positive terms. He says he will not swear that the land is not worth £100. We have no evideuce that the house is on the 50 acres, but 35 acres clear, at £3 an acre, will amount to over £100 without anything else.

Hon. Mr. Walker proposed the following resolution :

Reselved, That there is no evidence before this Committee to invalidate the vote of John Germley.

The Committee divided :

Contents — Hon. Messrs. Attorney General, President, Walker, Ramsay, Dingwell and Lord —6.

Nonx-conrents —Ifon. Messrs. Yeo, Anderson, McLaren, Boor and Henderson—s.

So it passed in the affirmative.

The evidence relating to the yote of Dennis Mulligan, polled for Mr. McDonald, was then read.

After a few remarks the Han. Attorney General submitted the following resolution, and it passed in the affirmative :

Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee that there is not sufficient evidence to invalidate the vote of Dennis Mulligan.

Vote of Thomas Clenton, roted for Mr. McDonald.

Hon, Mr. McDONALD.--I think your Honors will decide in this case, ag in the last, that there is no evidence to invali- date the vote. ‘This standing witness, Mr. Hamilton, has again been brought to throw doubt on this vote. He says he never was on the land. The whole amount of his evidence is, that he would not swear that the land was not worth £100.

flon. Mr. ANDERSON.—One witness says the soil is very poor and light, and that the house is qf yery little value. Another witness said, at first, that he would not swear that the man was worth £100, but afterwards, it appears that he made up his mind that the man and farm together were worth that amount.

Hon. Mr. HENDERSON.—The elector gt first refused to qualify, but afterwards done so. It would appear ag if he bad got something to make his conscience a little more obtuse.

- Hon. Mr. LORD.—I suppose the man weighed the matter in his mind, and considered that he couid conscientiously take = See a or thinks the map was conscientigus in tuking the oath. He would not swear that the

not pe £100. eee

Ifon. Mr. BEER.—I think we must admit that the evi- dence of Mr. Hamilton is very impartial. We must take the whole of his evidence. Hegives a description of the land, and of the buiidings. I do not think there is one of your Honors who can say you have no doubt but tho land is worth £100.

Hon. Mr. RAMSAY.—There is 2 good deal of difference between this vote and the last but one that we had under consideration. ‘That farm was principally clear jand. ‘The evidence in this case does not say how much clegrance thers is, Hamilton says the soil and buildings are both poor. I do not cansider Jand without improvements worth 20s. an acre.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—I am not satisfied that the Jang is worth £100. Besides, there is a doubt raised upon the title. The witness says he understood that the yoter's brother had a claim on the property.

A sesolution was then snbmitted to the effect that tho vote of Tiqmas Clenton was not sufficient in the law, and it passed in the affirmative.

The eyidence relating to the yote of John McCarty and Feliz Parmer, (polled for Mr MeDonald) was found insuf- ficient to eugtain them, and the Committee resolved ac- cordingly.

_ The President then resumed the Chair andthe House ad- journed.

be

ee

Mr. McGOWAN —One witness has.sworn that he would! Church of England can veither pros

CORRESPONDENCE,

To THE Eprrork OF THE EXAMINER.

Sm—

I have to request you will kindly insert a con- tinuance of my letter of the 18th. ultimo. I am desirous of making some obaervat ions, which are called forth by rewarks circulated through the town, to the effect, that I am unwilling to con- tribute towards the benefit of the Church, ina pecumary poilt of view.

T am much averse to bring myself before the public, but when assertions are made so much at variance with the truth, f am reluctantly cum- pelled to justify my conduct. I have been a resi- dent here for nearly twenty years. Oumy arrival, I purchased half a pew in the gallery, end some months afterwards I was induced to resign the same to the Church, under the conviction that neither the buyer or seller had any right to make merchandize of church ree 1 was at all times desirous of paying for suitable accommoda- tion for my family; and during a period of 15 years I vainly sought, by personal applications and by letters, for sittings, and my " pects are now as Temote as ever. I declined subseribing towards the enlargement of the Church, on the plea, in the first jnstance, that the pews should be surrendered to the Chureb, and then [ should be happy to contribute to such a desirable purpose. [ also objected, under these circumstances, to give any aid towards the curate’s salary, as I conceived it was but just and right that the expenses, Ke. of the Church should be defrayed exclusively by the proprietors of the pews, to effect which a liberal rate would be required. But although I did not wish to pay towards the preaching ot the Gospel for thase who were better able to bear the ex- pense than myself, I thought it but right to give a piece of land worth £100, which could have been leased at £8 per annum, to the curate, and I apprehend that if all the proprietors had aeted in a similar manner, there would be no occasion of taking the bag round to collect coppers towards making up the dchoisncies of the minister's salaries.

The only church ageommodation that has been offered to me was a pew year the door at £4 10s per annum, which was taken for one year, till a better one could be. provided, also one near the free sittings, and last year Capt. Swabey's pew in the gallery, all which were objectionable. I was desirous of obtaining the military pew, which was never offered to me.

At a Public meeting of the Diocesan Society in August '43, a subscription was entered inte for the furtherance of enlarging the church; and no daubt the late Bishop of N. 5. was much gratified at the zeal and anxiety manifested by the Charch members in writing down their names to enable the to have some accommodation. The nomjnal subscription amounted to nearly £120, and only ane subseriber (uo longer in the Island) paid his money, which some eight months after was returned, as noother funds were forthcoming.

warmly supported by the Bishop. stranger at that time,

of his Lordship.

fault with others.

by the House in Session fer 3 pews, viz, Council

claim of right is made on the 3 pews in question which is-neither legal por vahd.

will eventually

ing subscriptious from its members.

The proprietors ought to remember that for a period of nearly 25 years they never contributed to the salary of their Rector, and it is lamentable to reflect that after his retirement there shguld be

common gratitude as te deprive him of a small annual pittance from political feeling. Surely

he does not want to buy it. He says he will not swear that) the labors of this mivister (unpaid by the eongre-| chalowice. it is not worth £100, Another witness says he knows that it! gation) ought to be more than an equivalent for Giebulkow and Gorska.

| the purchase of the pews, It is very contémptible to reflect on the fact that whilst the members of the aristecratic ide for their wipisters or their poor, and even will pot give up the paltry value of ther pews, the Wesleyan con-

the erection of a splendxt chapel, whick will be an orvament to the tewn. IT am aware that as much

as £6,000 have been subseribed, and no doubt it) more is required it will be forthcoming, and the’

pews, IT ain informed, are all to be let and not retained by subscribers.

May I request you will de me the favor to in- sert an article, received by the last mail, as

appearing in the Carmarthen Jowrwel, Mareh

I3th, 1863. Charlottetown, 9th April, 1863.

CHURCHWARDENS AND FReeE Seats. — The! Maidstone Journal says:—* For some tine past | the question has been discussed at Tonbridge | whether churchwardens have a control over the | free seats in the parish church. The dispute arose out of a young man, named Chapman, claiming a nght te occupy a seat—a right which the churchwardens refused,to admit. After a) good deal of squabbling the matter was submitted to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, who decided that the churchwardens have a full right over all the seats in the church except those which are protected by faculty, and therefore, ax ticir duty is to seat the congregation according to their discretion, they have a right to put any per- sons into any seat they may think desirable. In) reference to the 328 seais declared * free and un- appropriated for ever’ by the Society for the Eulargement and Building of Churches, his Grace was of opinion that the Society could not overrul* the law which gave the churchwardeus control | over all the seats in the church,”

The Examiner.

Charlottetown, April 13th, 1863.

LATEST EUROPEAN NEWS.

ARRIVAL OF THE STEAMSHIP CANADA | AT HALIFAX.

Tue R. M.S Canada arrived at Halifax on Good Friday, the Mail by which for this Island | reached here on Monday night. Latest dates are to the 22nd ult. ‘Ths English papers are chiefly occupied with the details of the marnage ceremonies attending the nuptials of the Prince of Wales.—The Insurrection in Poland continues to increase, and seems to be commanding great attention and sympathy throughout Europe; but there does not yet appear to be any good reason to suppose that France or England will interfere in the struggle. The Poles are certainly making a valorous and formidable resistance to Russian tyranny. — Our columns to-day furnish some in- teresting extracts relating to the Polish Insurree- tion, and also to the marriage of the Prince of Wales.

-_-— bo

THE POLISH INSURRECTION. MORE BARBARITIES OF THE RUSSIANS.