.ibn‘vw"

EEC-re

I fpersonally conversant with them.

. neutralized all these professions.

‘ to almost any extent.

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND ADVERTISE

l ;

.. ,i

uf’egliclnuio

AND

CHARLOTTETOWN, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1843.

ll installs. # =

/

R.

$00325 0113231" l' ' I) . illitpjlgplipe remluneration. Now, where is the wisdom, they In your usual style of commendation, you assert that the N— i y, or t ie justice ofsuch a law? The Escheat mea- ,Judge was “forbeariug” tOWards me—not a morsel of it. 1

o. 7. Sure Was called “the abortion ofa weak intellect.” T0 i,

To was Eotroa or THE Comm“. HERALD. V 81-8 ;—1 commence this letter .by considering, as the Fiflh particular demanding Investigation, the sayings and doings of last Session in regard to the privalions and penury endured by our tenanlry on account of the rent system.

I have already detailed their wants and sufferings. I am [have witnessed their severe and protracted toils. I know their scanty subsistence and clothing. 1 have passed nights in their comfortless cot- tages amid the inclemency of winter. I have seen gloom and anxiety dimming their couuteuances—preinature decay reducing the father, care and sickness prostrating the mother. I have seen their children growing up in ignorance, clothed 3:“) rugs—spectacles for the sympathy ofthe benevolent. And I have not seen the worst. I have never stood a witness to the tears and misery of a wretched family deprived of'their Iast cow to pay an unjust rent. I have never marked the

' bursting and bitter agony of the brave pioneers ofthe trem-

bling forest, as they have turned their departing look on their endeared home, from which they are driven by some merciless bailiff. But I know that such things have occur- red. And I know that their unfeeling oppressors, feasting at their loaded boards, reposing on their down couches, rol- ling in their splendid carriages, movmg amid dissipation and fashion, have no souls to pity their sufferings or relieve their wants.

‘ But we must hear the statements ofthe enlightened nia- jority on this point; for] am aware they differ With me; and the public must bear both, and judge between us. In their speeches, they certainly professed much “sympathy” for the poor tenantry, and acknowledged that “considerable .distress” prevailed. But then their subsequent statements They declared that the =tenantry were able to pay a rent of one shilling sterling, per :ac’re—that they had plenty, and were as well OK as other

Molasses of society—even merchants and tradesmen. Even *nsl'ieSpeaker. affirmed that the distress ofthe Colony was

inaguified'five hundredfold, thus reducing it to the merest trifle, and that those who were complaining of tliciriiiability 'to pay their rents were idle and dishonest. And Mr. Douse ‘said that the tenaritry acknowledged to him, after he had been obliged to resort to rigorous measures with them, that they could have paid their rents, had they not listened to the deluding tales of deniagogues, who [alight them not to ‘pay them; and he charged Sir C. A. Fitz Roy with falsrliood in his statements on this head. 'l‘hose .aiid similar state- ‘ ments were frequently reiterated by almost every member ofthe party;and were it necessary, they might be ii‘iultiplied But the above correct specimens are ' sufficient.

Need I ask the country whether these representations are correct? ls there a truthful man within its extremities who,

'tliougli even personally uninterested, would not deny and

oppose these assertions? Shall our representatives, then— who should feel and acknowledge the privatious of the county, that they ‘ ' represent its ‘state ?—'l‘he tendency ofsucli statements is, to weaken the claims ofthe people for the amelioration oftheir condition; and shall their guardians be found forward in effecting such an object? Are U e proprietors too power- less in Britain to depreciate our grievances and exaggerate our prosperity, that they must have such efficient assistance? .Alas! alas! for our miserable state. Our own right arm is risen up against us, has seized the weapons of our enemies, and is attacking our most vital interests!

lam approaching the last division of my subject, but one Which will require a more lengthened investigation than any, previous one. I am to consider now, the measures ofthe Ses— sionfor the relicfof the country. Strange as it may appear, that persons holding the sentiments which I have shown the majority of last winter to have expressed, should seriously take any measures for the reliefofsnfl'erings so very ineon~ siderable, and the redress of grievances so trifling, as well as incurable, as those ofthe inhabitants ofthis Island, accor- ding to their view—strange as this is, it is, nevertheless, a ireal anomaly presented by their proceedings. The exis- tence ofthese measures, however, is not the only wonder concerning them—they are also perfect curiosities in them- selves. And lest, by any means, they might be lost, I wish you carefully to deposit them in the pages of yourjournal,

ma y assicfiumodyiag them «rims

anything can be so denominated that is silly and monstrous. surely this may. That such abominable drugs should be

imposed upon the country by political quacks, as a remedy ; merely forbearing.

for its sufferings, is one of its severest grieVances.

3. The Resolutions on the State ofthe Colony must not ,‘ lesson from the [be overlooked. Several were proposed during the Session, , friends, Messieurs the minority ofthe House ofAssembly, Mr. int this daring attack on their Cooper had previously moved one, deprecating the hiin constituents.

,cash rents and short leases, and proposing a reduction in l

land one moved by Mr. Palmer was at length adopted.

(the rents, and their payment in produce at i and long leases.

l

,l‘lOl‘ terms in the neighbouring Colonies—the discontent-

(meiit and agitation which exists—and thedanger of destrov- ; man nature. i mg the allegiance of the inhabitants, by denying them relief. 1 would expect “the monstrous broth of‘pnre perfection.” Only

But this Resolution was rejected by a large majority. The Q look at the hot haste of 'he Jiirv to return a verdict el'giiilty. ’telmr Pf Ml'- Palmer’s Resolution was quite different from {They had two points to determine by the evidence brought be- tlils; Indeed, in some things, counter to it. It acktiOWIedged litre them, agreeably to their oaths i

that the rents were detrimental to the prosperity ofthe Island, and that the tenantry were in arrears. But it attributed their inability to pay cash to comiqercial distress and the failure of our accustomed markets—discouraged any hepo of relief by enactment-~aml concluded with a recommenda- uou to request Her Majesty to mediate with the proprietors for some partial alterations in the present system, as being all that was necessary to secure the welfare ofthe Colony. Nothing ofthe kind could have been more cautiously and smoothly worded. Not the very slightest allusion was made to proprietary fraud or severity; nothing said about high rents or short leases. “Commercial distress, bad markets, and other causes” (l) had caused all the hardship that existed. The Resolution was adroitly made to suit two parties, the proprietors and the tenants; it professed sympathy for the latter, but took care to give no offence to the former. It2 was a kind of opiate, intended to soothe the country into quiet and submission. This precious document was defen— ded by liarangues on the necessity ofmoderation—the evils of past extravagance—the absurdity of escheat—tho great advantages to be derived from petitioning the proprietors‘ for ameliorated terms—and the lll‘lpOSSlblIIIy of efi'ecting any improvement except with their consent. And though it was shown that past reinonstrances had failed—that the history of the last sixty years proved,that nothing was to be expect- ed from proprietary benevolence—that nothing blit the fear oflosing their lands would induce them to relax their rigor -—tliat there was every reason to apprehend that they woii‘d impose on the Secretary for the Colonies, by promises never to be fulfilled, as they have already repeatedly done—that, the Resolution proposed nothing more than the proprietors were already advertizing to do, to take produce—that pro- duce payments made lll Charlottetown, at a low rate, after hauling from 40 to 100 miles, were even worse than cash rents—and that the Resolution did not even allude to many principal points in the grievances endured by the inhabitants;

,ngwprt those, mwhujluumrted tbiucs'rdiculmm measure. "was to be carried, and it mattered not what were the argu- ments brought against it. Weak or strong, they were alike contetnned and disregarded.

'l‘he triumph obtained in carrying this Resolution against those of Mr. Rae and Mr. Cooper—in effectually strangling, in the incipient stages, everything like honest exposure and independent retnonstrance, was, no doubt, highly Valued by this [em crate and modest party. But it was the ignoble tri- umph 0 numbers against arguments. It Wal the temporary triumph of Ventility over honest independence and integrity; only calculated, by stimulating the party who obtained it, to further acts of rashness and folly, to conduct them the more certainly to ultimate contempt and defeat.

Yours, Sic. CURTIUS.

Prince County, 1843.

To THE Em'roa or THE Comm”. HERALD.

Sir ;—In a letter recently addressed to a contemporary, 1 expressed my intention not to appear again in print, relative to the libel case—at least before the 11th January; but your notice ofthe proceedings in the Supreme Court seems to call for a few remarks.

for preservation.

l. The Squatters’ Bill, so called, was the first, in order oftimo. It was introduced by Mr. Thornton. Its object was, to compel the landlords, either to give squatters ofa certain. period of settlement leases, or to con'ipensate them ‘for their improvements. The design of this Bill _was, no doubt, a good one, and had it been carried into law in a pro- eper shape, its tendency would, doubtless, have been hene‘ ’ficial. Btit the very character ofit betrayed the lurking principle of the abandonment of Escheat, and the acknow- ledgment of the proprietors’ titles. Whatever temporary or partial benefit would have arisen from it, therefore, it was .an impolitic measure, as recognising principles which might afterwards prove hindersome to an equitable settlement of the grievances of the country. But, waving this considera— tion, it was imperfect in its object. It contemplated the re- lief of squatters alone ; while the short leaseholdcrs, of-from 20 to 40 years, are in worse circumstances than they. The squatter, at whatever period he may be ejected, loses only his improvements. But the tenant, at the expiration of his lease, loses, along with these, almost or quite an equal .,amouut in the rents he has paid. Another objection against this Bill is, that it established too high a rate of rent—om shilling sterling per sore—and compelled the Settler either to submit to those terms, or forego any compensatiOn for his labours. lu short, framed as this Bill was, lam at a loss 'to perceive any real advantage which the country would have derived from its enactment? and I am not dispOsed to ,regret its rejection by the Council. '

The next measure introduced, under the professmn ref relief to the tenantry, was a Bill to regulate Distresses for éRents. This Bill was passed into a law; and provudes against

zaelliug property seized for rents between the months of

December and June; and prevents the tenant, in case of froui disposing of

such a deferred sale ofattached cattle, -sny of his provender. 1 am at a loss whether to attribute this Bill to the stupidity or the hypocrisy ofthe House. It .certainly would seem, by its title, to have been intended for the benefit of the tenants. But 1 am half driven—from the persuasion that no sane person could have imagined that ~.sucb a measure could be of good tendency—~10 believe that j: was a bold manoeuvre, under the specious pretence of re- .lieving the [enflml‘yi t0 Oppress them. Just look at the ef- fects of the Act, and see if'any other conclusion can be .drawn, without great hesitation. Suppose cattle are seized in December, and the sale is postponed till the next Juno. Will the increase in the prices which can be obtained at the latter period be equivalent to .the fodder they have eaten during five or six months? Every persnn knows the do“. trary. A heavy loss would he sustained by such a plan. But suppose there were no loss in this way; the cattle are taken just at the moment when, after all the owner’s care and trouble in wintering them,

they are beginning to make l

That the Jury was composed ofindividnals incapable of appreciating reason without rant, [doubt not, maybe true enough ; out I am perfectly satisfied that no counsel under heaven could have induced that Jury to return a different verdict. In addition to all that has been said upon the sub- ject, l have been informed that eyes and ears were applied to the jury-room door; and Mr. McKiulay, who feared he might compromise his oath by a verdict ofguilty, was brow- heaten into acquiescence by the unanswerable argument that he ought to be guided by the opinion ofthe rest, as it was notorious he did not understand the proceedings.

1 perceived at a glance that the Governor had committed a most enormous error, to say the least ofit, by the prose- :ution; and that as the selection ofthe Jury was in the hands of the Governor’s party, such a one would be summoned as could be depended upon for returning a verdict of guilty; and that, Ware 1 to retain counsel, we might have eloquent little speeches on the ‘niceties of common law, without af- fecting the result. I also saw that the prosecution involved a principle sacred as that for which Hampden and Sidney contended and died, and that I would have to throw my defence upon constitutional law, which a barrister would have neglected, btit which,l knew Well, must ultimately triumph. In a constitutional point of view, I consider it much in my favour that I should have been found guilty by aspecialjury ; which facts are proving to have been less in- telligent, and perhaps of more blunted moral perception, than any Jury that ever sat in Charlottetown. Some persons reckon it very hard that the Governor, Judge, Sheriff, Jury, should have their acts—-be they what they may—discussed otherwise than in the language of unqualified praise; but the common-sense of the matter simply is, that their public conduct—like that ofall other public functionaries—is public property, and very properly quite as obnoxious to public censure, as are the popular menib3rs of the Home of Ae- senibly, against whom every blockhead of the. opposite party launches his ribaldry and folly with perfect impunity.

Believing that l was perfectly understood on the 2d gust, and my objections correctly noted by the Judge, the “disad- vantage” under which you conceive I laboured, must have

still, these arguments, although they confounded, could not It fr 7 ~ ~

But if‘ said nothing to call for forbearance,

i l l l

l

lawful prices, ,Court, at the time of trial, no one can doubt; nor is it to be _ He had demonstrated the necessity ofsuch ‘; wondered at, when weqierceive that cause to operate even a'ineasurefirom the circuii'istances ofthe country—the scar- l'iu the English Courts, and consider lcfly of money—the poverty ofthe people—the slow rate ofl burns with an settlement—the distraints which are practised—the supe-‘its sphere ol'action.

been in the matter, and not in the manner—a consideration that has been my principal inducement for writing this let- ter. As intimated above, I did not retain counsel; but it is ;knowu that the Hon. C. Young made appearance, and at tended to some trifling details for iue; ‘ my defence be bad, it might be supposed that gentleman would be. to a certain degree, responsible. . It is only justjce to Mr. Young, therefore, to state, that the little legal advice lie was kind enough to tender me I unliesnatingly rejected —-sound as I knew it to lie—and that, be my defence good, bad or indifi'ereut, it is exclusively my own. When I see ’ my way clearly, I am as obstinate as

Governor.

l l

_ 1 mod this ehullition of coarse criticism from your correspon- .‘ i atid if the matter of idem! lie“

a pig ore Lieutenauli ‘ “we”, Novfil. 1843-

. agreeably to the English gractice; but, as I shall always speak ol men and things as I

nd them,1 must needs say that the Judge was better than He listened with great mildoess and impartiality, and as much neutrality as if he had conned a philosophical stoicism displayed by my

privileges and the rights ol’their

That a strong and improper political bias pervaded the

that political animosity intensity proportional to the inverse ratio of Those, thereibre, who hold up our of- ficials as perfect beings, only display their ignorance of hu- It is not in a small Colony, like this, that]

Firstly, if the writing were a libel, malicious, seditious and scandalous; and, Se- condly, if, being a libel, it had been published. A dictionary defines a libel to be a “deliimatory satire;” but no evidence whatsoeverwas brought beforetlieJury thatthe writing which they were there to trywas a “deliiiuatory satire,” “scandalous,” &c.; the Crown lawyers coutenting themselves with telling the Jury what other stupid, or perhaps perjured, juries had done in some other cases by no means analogous. The". as to publication, the Crown lawyers succeeded to admira- tion in proving that it had been suppressed; however, usI was found guilty ofall, it may pass with any other absurdity. Juries should be very cautious, in the absence of all positive law on the subject, how they pin their consciences upon the sleeves of former Juries, or declare truth to be a libel,

‘cE‘NTRAL amount, ~ ' attemm composing the Duptation

/_

sass ;

have I '» at your disposal bein 'i ' to M min ' session of facts relative to'the i? instif Ilia X p.’ lengthened reviewis‘rendereil unnecessary. Asthbll' pm licaiiou, however, has been in some men-sure ' ' ' .il may be necessary to collect the principal feature. of the whole correspondence, and endeavour to exhibit than at I. glance to those who may not have particularly them as they were presented in detail. 7 ' My letters to the Hon the Chief Justice and to His Excel- lency Sir Charles A. itz Roy show the pupils a ring. and the Masters complaining, for want of systematic plunélt I the educational department ofthe Institution. They that I anticipated all this from the beginning, and a way ofavoidiug it, in correspondence with Sir John. ur- Vey, in Jany., 1837. They shew the Trustees and Stature. A. Fitz Roy appreciating the representations ofthe Masters; and the Trustees engaging to furnish the retried ofth grievances. They show a Committee appoiiite ‘ by the Board to furnish a curriculum for the guidance ofthe Mu. ~ ters, and the Masters prohibited to introduce any books till that Committee should report. They represent that in those circumstances the Masters were deserted by the Trustees, without any reason being assigned. The meetings of Truh toes Were suspended, and the impression went abroad, that something was radically wrong with the Institution—while no charge of mismanagement or derelictiou of duty was pre- ferred against the Masters. , ' The reply ofthe four Trustees does not attempt to justify the “apathy and neglect of duty” charged upon them by Sir C. A. Fitz Roy, upon a perusal of my “substantially

which nothing but an extreme case will warrant, if that even will. This stupidity, servility, or wickedness in jurors upon libel trials is finely tested by Moore. The story is this:—

The devil, in search of his prey, prowled about London incog., iii the disguise ofa fine gentleman. He had some intention of getting elected to Parliament, but finding that Wilkes Was there, he “would be d (I if hewould sit in the same House with Johnny.” After sometime, an unlucky printer scented the old boy, by the “sulphurous h0g0," I presume, and gave publicity to his discovery. The devil, perceiving in this a fine opportunity for nabbingtwelve cant- iiig souls, had the printer indicted for libel. The poor fel- low proved by Hoby” that the plaintiff had a cloveu foot, and by Stiiliz, that he was provided with atail. The de- fendant having thus proved his cdse, no doubt thought he was safe ; but truth. being a libel—-

“The Jury—saints all, snug and rich,

And readers of virtuous Sunday papers—— Found for the plaintiff—on hearing which

The devil gave one ofhis lofiiesl capers. “ For Oh! it was nuts to the father of lies, H _ 7 ‘(Asnlliis wily. fiend is uamedmi'n the Blblé,) w To find it setlled by men so wise,

That the greater the truth, the worse the libel!”

Your obedient ervant, D. MAC LEAN.

correct facts,” except by stating, that they could not, in the course of fourteen months, get five of their number together to form a quorum for the dispatch of business. It displays the most zealous disposition to visit their own delinquencies upon the heads ofthe Masters, but can hit upon no better expedient for the purpose than “to charge them solely with laxity of discipline,” which was traceable entirely to the Want of books in the Institution. These books they uti- dertook, in 1840, to furnish, agreeably to statute. The want of them, Captain Swabey says, “ entirely impeded the effort! of the Masters,” and “renders it impossible that the Masters can maintain a system.” With respect to them, the lion. Mr. Havilaiid writes——-“ A systematic and recognised course of education His Excellency (Sir H. V. Huntleyjboldl to be ofthe highest importance, both to the character of the Academy and the improvement of the scholars; but as the adoption ofsuch a course lies with the Trustees, and not with the Masters, His Excellency cannot holtl the Masters responsible for the want ofit. And yet, while the efforts of the Masters Were suspended upon the movements ofthe Trustees in the matter, they never met to consider it from May, 1840, till July, 1843! and whether it then occupied tho attention of the Board. it is not easy to know. Indeed. there ,,meeiing.;cf the ‘ Board between alumina