House or asssimnv, March so, 1855.

> imsnif or ran necnar aiilsrioir. (Continued from Hanan-d's Gaaatts, of larch em.)

Hon. Con. 8seanaav.—Mr. Ohalrniaa, aﬂer the long

-written addrem with which the hon.member has favored the

committee. I shall direct his and their attention to a few dis- patches and other documents which have a bearing on this subject, and of the nature of which the hon. member was well aware, ltbough it did not suit his purpose to refer to them. As think he is a little astray on this subject, I shall endeavour to set him right, and before adduoing the documents I have alluded to, I will ask him, if he was not pledged to his constituents not to agitate this question?

Mr. Coorna.—— 0.

Hon. Con. Sloan-ranr.—Then all I can say is, that I have been misinformed, for it has been stated to me that the hon. member was pledged not to propose or advocate any measurt which did not meet the approval of the liberal party. He knows that this measure has not their approval, and thus his constituents are deceived by him.

r. Coovn..—-I deny it.

Hon. Con. Sscasrav.r.—Why. his election under such a

promise proves the truth of my assertion. and I can say urther that he stated on the door of this House, that he was pledged to support the liberal party. The hon. member seems to be very sore on the subject of my expression the other evening about the “loe.veﬁ:lt,” and has thou ht lit to in- ainuatcthat those of the liberal party who not choose to go with him on this question are acting from improper motives; that, as he expresses it, they are eata ed in the meshes of a Government net, and have taken the it. It is ‘net possible, Mr. Chairman, that, in agitating this question, e sees, in imagination, a rich bait waiting for his acceptance. The observation about the " loose ﬁsh" were made b me in the diseusion of a totally different question, the egislative pay bill, but. sir, I contend that he is now even _ ‘ ing more than a “loose ﬁsh" in the liberal ranks, for he cannot deny that he was pledged not to go for any mea- sure which should not beapproved by the liberal party. As to his observation that the men of today are not the men of yesterday, implying that I have changed my opinions on this subject, I can tell him that no member of the House can vote on this question with more freedom than my»! - From my first introduction into public life to the resent hour, I have always stated that I would not vote for heat. And I have so expressed m self, not that I was unfavorable to it, but because I consi cred that the agitation of the question would be productive of no good results as the olhqjpct was unattainable. Believing that Escheat was impractic lo, I have introduced and carried other measures for the beneﬁt of the people at the expense of the proprietors. This course I promised my constituents at my first election that I would ursue. They approved of it and returned me, and I have it returned to this House at every su uent election, and

I have followed the same policy of dealing with the land uestion, moderately, but to mine practical eﬁect. Under lliese circumstances I consider myself at perfect liberty to oppose the resolution of the hon. member and in doing so, I shall endeavor, as the common as ing is, to give it a black eye. (Laughtein) The hon. mom r has attempted to prop up his case, and injure the Government, by asserting that, before the purchase of the Worrel Estate, they did not comply with that section of the Land Purchase Bill, which requires the inveati tion of titles previous! to any purchase by Government. ow, Mr. Chairman, ask this m- mittoe, and I ask that hon. member himself, what foundation is there for such a declaration? If the titles to that estate have not been investigated, what is the meaning of the paper before the House, containin the opinion of the Hon. Attorney General on the subject? at, sir, that hon. member has admitted by his votes on Bills introduced into this House, and supported by himself, that Fecheat could uotbe attained. When the Worrel Estate was oﬁsred to the Government, the question of Facheat did not enter into their consideration, nor was it requisite in investigati the titles, that the validity of the original granh should tested. That quea- thc Government’ considered settled. It was but neces- sarytoaacertaia efthsdilercnttitlesdownfrom

..,..... W-.s“v

" ' ’th ' ‘lain th :";‘.,...,;. .*'.“.’_. ...iv...,.....°".;'.l"§‘.*.*.2..,...i5l'.»‘,‘...°. po_9pIa'ettIutimo.bu_uovtIo_hoannonbor.iahnaaduvo:

SUPPLEMENT "TO HASZAll.D’S GAZETTE.

todamage theGovci-nmcnt he was lcdgcdte snpport,de- claree that the validity of originalgsants should have been teptcd _by the Government. prior to the purchase. I main- tain, air, that, in the negotiation and of that C- etate_. the Government havemanifeeted all the rndcnee and caution which any honest andeareful man woul apply to his own private business. It is not necessary for the Govern- ment to do more than to show the reasons why it considered the investigation of the validity of the original grants unneces- sary. The Government, in no tinting for the purchase of the Worrel Estate, were jua ' in considering that the question of Escheat had been settled by the previous action of the Legislature of the Colony. In proof of that, I will refer to the -preamble of the Act which was d in 1837, imposing the that land tax. One part of at preamble is as tbllows :—

“ Whereas by a Despatch from the Right Honorable Lord Glenelg, His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, hearing date the tenth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six, His most gracious Majesty was pleased to disallow the establishment of a Court of Escheat in this Island, and to suggest the imposition of a tax on all granted lands in this Colony, as aremedy for the serious evils arising from the non-settlement of large tracts of land, held by the grantees from the Crown ; and it being just and reasonable that the said lands should contribute towards the general revenue of the Colony, the burthen of which has hitherto been chieﬂy borne by the resident colonists only ; and as such a tax would have the desired effect of compelling the grantees either to settle or dispose of their lands without

la .”

N ow, air, that preamble shows the opinion of the people of the Colony, as expressed by their representatives, that the question of Escheat was considered, at that time, as settled, and that the principle of taxing the lands of proprietors should be adopted in lieu of the agitation for a Court of Esp cheat, which is the motion we are now discussing. But, in the document which the hon. member has read, for I will not call it a speech, he has stated that wo had nothing to produce in opposition to the establishment of such Court but despetches of Colonial Ministers, which he further argued were not of snﬁicient authority to relieve the proprietors from the obligations imposed upon them by the conditions con- tained in the original grants,—but, before I have done, I

1' think Istiall be able ‘to show that the British Government

have expressed a positive determination not to allow the establishment of a Court of Escheat in this Colony. The Act of 1837, the reamble of which I have read, was passed n accordance with the spirit of a dcspatch from the then Colonial Minister. and was, thus, adeclaration on the part of the Legislature that the question of Esclicat was no longer is subject of agitation, and that the country acquiesced in the views entertained by the British Government on the subject. But, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member and those who support him on this question, should be consistent, and to test the sincerity of their attachment to the principle of Eschcat, I will call their attention to the record of the roccedings at a meeting of the Commissioners of trade and antations, with reference to the town and pasture lots of the Towns and Ro lties in this Island, which took place on the 8th July, 17 7, we there find the following resolution :— ’ " Resolved, That it be recommended that the above, mentioned Town and Pasture Lets be granted in Fee Sim,- ple, under the Seal of the Province of Nova Scotia, to such person or pcrsonsas will give proper security to build within a reasonable time u n t e Town Lot; and to enclose and fence and properly c ear for Pasture, the Lots set apart for that purpose; but no one person to have a Grant of more than one Town and Pasture Lot.” Now, Sir, if we are to back and take action upon the otie ginal grounds of forfeiture, namely, that the conditions in the grants were not complied with, we ought to forfeit nearly every town and pasture lot in the Town and Royalty of Charlottetown. because the conditions annexed to, and form- ing part of the grants of them, were not complied with When Lieut. Governor Smith issued a proclamtion, to the client that those lots on which buildings had not been erected, in compliance, with the terms of the grants, I believe that more huts were erected on mine of them, but the greater porn tinn of the lots were not built upon. Will the hon. member say that it'll desirable. or that it would be fair orjuat to the

wnarsct'propert' lltclllrlotllto “K130 alt toacllﬂt iiigiruaiioua.’.siaaa-io's'i'¢'inuaz:.a’id'ao¢r-in