9,99 f.— nsequentmcrease of the revenue would “bio us to reduce the taxes on Cam-- erce, and so lighten, the burden on the or stillfurther- We cannot do justice to the many argu~ em. advanced by the Hon. Gentleman in ort ofthe measure; he thought we should ledge ourselves to provide for itin two or ree years. Mr, Binns was opposed to the measure, though e confessed he saw that they should soon ave to pay it; at present he thought we were proud that we would wish to pay 400 l. for e honour of appropriating l,300l: that he ould not see how we could pledge ourselves my measure at a distant period : that he taught they had better make no reply to the espatch: that he looked upon the Escheat win full operation, as the greatest benefit e country could receive; and as the country ould then rapidly settle, the revenues would ongequently advance, and in _a shorttime we ightdo it, but he contended we. were notin a tstate to take the burden now. Mr. Wil- ck was of the same opinion, and read a para- raph from the despatch to prove that we were ot expected to do it now. They could not

ecountry, to have the House of Assembly tall; as they managed to keep agood deal of e revenue among themselves, by cutting ut places for each other.

Mr. Nelson, Mr. H. MacDonald. and Mr. empton, spoke on the same side: after some ore argument the house went into commit- e, Mr. Hyndman in the chair.

Mr. Pope said, they had plenty of proof of eintentions of proprietors towards them, if were only to be enabled to make proprietors ontribute to our burdens, he would support e measure. They all knew how the smallest xon lands was opposed by them, and that ey had even opposed their interests to the rosperity of the Island. He entered into a ng statement in. support of these views, and ated that if the present opportunity were st, we might be long before another offered, at he did not know the opinion of his consti- ents upon it, but would endeavor to do so. Mr. Bracken said that next to annexation Nova.Seotia, he thought the civil List stood, ut he would not hesitate between these : that r his own part he thought the measure un - alled forat present: he intended consulting isconstituents at an early day on this sub. ct: and should be guided by their opinions. Mr. Speaker said that though in their legis- tive capacity they ' were the collective wis- om of the country. He thought there were ny out ofdoors who could direct them by eir opinion,—for his own part he had not ade up his mind on the subject: and if the eather permitted, would take the sense ofhis nstituents on it, as he considered it a sub- ct of the highest importance. ' After some other observations from other when, the chairman reported progress, nd obtained leave to sit again the l5th of arch.

THE BRITISH AMERICAN

IPIBIT OF. THE PROVINCIAL JOURNALS.

St. John Caution—We beg to call the parti-

-cular attention ofour readers to the all-im-

portant subject ofthe Quit-Rents. We have already declared that we are willing to render tribute where tribute is due; we are also ready to vindicate the Constitutional rights of the Sovereign— but further we go not If measures are pursued which have an inevitable tenden- cy to accelerate the destruction of our coun. try—which threaten to disintegrate the Em. pire. and which evidently are fostering the principles of Republicanism in this once happy and contented Colony; we are not then dis. posed to remain an indifi'erent spectator of the scene. Standing on this lot‘ty vantage ground, we new again enter our unqualified protest against the collection of Quit Rents in this Province, at least in the manner which has lately been adopted. A Commission issues out oins Majesty's Court of Chancery com. manding inquiry to be made whether the con- dition: of certain Grants have been complied with. Here the question arises as noted by our correspondent Mentor, what position does the Attorney-General intend to assume in the trial of these cases?—Will the Grantees be required to prove an absolute compliance with all the conditons of their grants? or will the inquisitlon be confined to the simple question of the pagmenlof Quit Rent? If the former we agree with our correspondent, that not one tenth ofthe granted Land in this Province is exempted from forfeiture, an allegation which reqires no proof; and ifthe latter, why then compel each individual Grantee to perform a journey of many miles to Head, Quarters, at great and unnecessary expense. probably with a multitude of evidences, to‘prove a fact which will not be questioned? We say each individual Grantee, because we profess our inability to discover how any one of the Gran- tees shall be assured that he shall not be the subject of the Inquisition. If the object of His Majesty’s Attorney General be merely to prove, before a Jury of Inquiry, that certain persons have not fulfilled certain conditions in' the Grant by which their Lands are held, why are not these persons specially named in the Commission? This may be contrary to legal usage. but we conceive it would surely be the most equitable mode ofprocedure. But, as we have somewhere heard, His Majesty's Attorney General may possibly be as desirous of increas- ing the costs of those suits, as other Gentle' men of the Bar are proverbislly said to be, in the conduct ofcivil actions ; and we do say, that the present measures fully justify this Conclusion, We come. however, now to a tender and dangerous point; but duty is with usa paramount consideration. We will salt the learned Attorney General—we will ask the venerable Judges of our Land, we will ask all the Gentlemen of the Long Robe in this colony, whe- ther His Ilajesty can sue a commision of the na. turs referred to, out of the Court of Chancery?

934

We put the simple question, Can a Commission for Escheat issue out of the Chancery Court except in the cause of attainder, the entire fai- lure of heirs, by which of course, the proper- ty reverts to the original Granter, being the Sovereign, or in the case of the proven com. mission of such crimes as by law, produce the forfeiture of the lands? We speak advisedly when we say, that in these cases only, would the present mode of proceeding be agreeable to law; and we further ask, whether the pre- sent Commissions or synonymous precepts, should not have been issued out of the Supreme Court, returnable at a distant, future day? Perhaps some of the learned Gentlemen will set us right in these particulars, silence will only confirm our present opinions; and as we have thus openly expressed such opinions, it is the duty ofthose who are prepared to prove a contrary fact, at once, and boldly, to refute our assertions. But, laying. aside all argu- ments of injustice, inexpediency, or illegality, We now come to a most important question.— the manner in which the order for the collec- tion of Quit Rents has been waived.

During the Legislative Session of 1830, on the 22d of January, a Presidental Message was laid before the House of Assembly, accompa- nied bya proposition from the then colonial Secretary, for a commutation of the QuitRents, fora permanent grant of a smaller amount-—

' - ,- «ea..- 0:) the 27th January, the As-

' it will be necessary for

v ing any definite measure 6 a Quit Rents, to obtain informatiod' ‘ « ‘ u number of acres of Land which have been granted within the Province, with the annual amount of Quit Rent.’ Con- formably to which resolution, an address was presented‘to His Honor the President,_pray- ing that they may receive the necessary in. formation ; this appears to have been furnished to them, for on the 27th day of February; there is inserted in the Daily Journal of the House, the copy ofan Address to His Majesty upon the subject, alleging that the total annual amount of Quit Rent is only 1.2258, being Only L758 more than thesum which was demanded by the Colonial Setretary. In this Address‘, the House of Assembly t most earnestly implore His Majsso ty to take the matter into His htajest ’.s most gracious consideration, and relieve is Ma- jesty’s subjects in this province from the opera. tion of the Quit Rents,’-whicb address the President promised he would.‘ transmit forth. with.’ To this address, no answer, we believe, has ever been returned, but in Open violation of all decorum and of courtesy, an imperative mandate is issued that the Quit Rents shall be forthwith collected. Verin this was cavalier treatment to the Legislature, to the Repre- sentatives of the people, with a witness! We would at all events have expected that some answer would have been deigned to the una- nimous, and loyal, and respectful memorial at the_Assembly; but we fortunately have heard something of the proceedings in the Colonial