.

Vol. XETL.

ie

Weekly Fournal of Politics,

a)

BOUIN IB

iterature, and glews.

“This is true Liberty, when Freeborn Men, having to advise the Public, may speak free.”---Euripides.

—~39-—-

Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Monday, April 20, 1863.

New Series.---No. 15.

Se

COLONIAL LEGISLATURE. —

SRR eR RO ~ TAT . ‘D COUNCIL CHAMBER,

Tuurspay, March 26th, A Billi to incorporate King Hiram Lodge, No. 1123, of

‘ree and Accepted Jiasons, Was rea 16 secon ime, aSSCi

F 1 Acsepted M 1 th dt I i

through Committee, and agreed to without any amendment.

Hon. Attorney Geaeral laid before the House the Colonial

Treasurer's Accounts for the past year.

The Committee of privileges and elections was then re-

was read.

Hon. Mr. McDONALD—This man voted upon 75 acres of land fronting on Grand River. It is well known that it is a valuable property. The only witness brought forward by the petitioning Candidate is Alexander Hamilton, and all! he knows about the property is, that on the 4th of April last there was an agreement drawn up between the voter and his father. He says he only looked at the date of the agree- ment, which is very extraordinary. Then he says he has 50 acres of land on Grand River Road. It is well known that the land was given to him by his father when he went to live there 10 years ago, and it docs not follow that if the father gave the son a farm for 5s. it may not be worth £100. The witness saw the agreement, but he does not know what it is about. It may be about a load of potatoes or a stack of hay. I have seen the place, and it is one of the most comfortable looking places in that neighbourhood.

Mr. McGOWAN — His qualification is a piece of land

_—

Hon. Mr. ANDERSON —L think your honors will al-

" ways find that when a farm is in a high state of cultivation

there will be some taste displayed about the buildings; and

| if it were so in this case, we would not hear sucha ridiculous

| |

and humorous description of them given by the witnesses. Hon. Mr. McDONALD —When the evidence on this vote

was read, I did not think there could be two opinions about

it; bat if it is to be condemned it is no use te -bring evi-

dence. One witness says if the property were his he would

| not take £150 for it; and Hamilton, whose evidence your - honors place so much reliance upon, dves not deny that it is

that he only holds since April last. I believe he has a piece |

of leasehold land in another place, but it is not suflicient to entitle him to vote. .

Hon. the PRESIDENT—He has voted on freehold and leasehold property. This document, that the witness

sideration money. Hon. Mr. McLAREN — Some years ago the father gave

the son this piece of land for a certain portion, 1 think one- | third, of the crop. The son, it appears, was not giving the |

father the part agreed upon, and they quarreled. Some different arrangement was made last April. The other piece of land is on the same Township. I believe he bas neither a deed nora lease. The land is his father’s.

Hon. Mr. BEER—I think it is very evident that he has

no deed or lease, and that be was only allowed to occupy the |

farm by giving his father a portion of the crop. Hon. Mr. DINGWELL —I would like to know

no lease ?

| subordinate L from | what part of the evidence his honor fiuds that the man has |

Hon. Mr. BEER—1I think it is at least very doubtful if |

the map has a lease. will not say that he has a lease.

Hon. Mr. LORD — I believe he has a lease. respectable man and a good liberal—a man who would not take a false oath. It appears that it sworn, for there is no distiuction made between the characters of parties. I believe every word the voter has stated.

Hon. Mr. HENDERSON—L think it is very strange if Mr. Hamilton did wot satisfy himself respecting the nature of this document. I think the stateme-t this House who are acquainted with the; arties aud with the property should have some weight.

Hon. Mrs RAMSAY —I would like to know if the father voted upon the same property.

Mr. McGOWAN—He attempted to vote, but would not qualify.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL—The entry in the poll book is not very clear. Pablie Land. Office, I find that this man got his deed on the Sih of Mareh, 1862. The purchase money was £18 10s. ;

is no matter who is

memders of

. ‘ 5 Ui

His honor who asked that question

He is a |

Ua referring to the Accounts of the |

so L think there can be very little depeudence placed on the |

79 acres on Graod River. Then the voter says, I have 50

acres of leasehold on Brudenell River, where [ reside. That |

is a sufficient descripggn. The question now is, has there

been a reagousble doubt thrown on that qualification. I |

confess that it °s difficult for me to see that there has? The Witness says there was an agreement drawn between the voter and his father last April; but how can he tell what the agreement was about, when he says he did uot look at any- thing but the date. The consideration of 5s, even if it re- lated to the farm, would not show that it was of no value to him. it may be worth £100 to him,

The father may have given tho farm to the son, and |

Hoo. Mr. WALKER — There has been a great deal of |

stress laid on the evidence of Mr. Hamilton, but when L

| very little of the evidence that can be called evidence.

look through it I cannot see anything positive in it frow |

first to last. I caunot think that a respectable man like Mr. Dewar would swear to a qualification which he did not

Hon. Attorney General submitted the following resolution, and it passed in the affirmative :

Resolred, That there does not appear to this Committee to be suflicient evidence to invalidate the vote of James Dewar.

Vote of Thomas Walsh—evidence read.

Hon. Mr. McDONALD—This man voted on 50 acres of leasehold land. It is said that the lease was transferred to him without the proprietor’s comsent ; but the proprietor has received rent from him, and that is sufficient to show that he bas acknowledged him as a tenant. The witness says he would not like to give £100 for the farm; but I do not think he is in a position to pay £10. Though he wou!d not give £100 for it, some other person might. Mr. Rice kaows the farm, and he mentions another farm which was sold for £135, and which was 10 better.

Hoa. Mr. BEER—Tuking the value of the improvements as given by Mr. Rice, and suming the whole, 1 make the amount about £70. Mr. Rice says he would uot be shy ia Voting upon it.

Hoo, Mr. WALKER—His honor has not allowed any- thing for wood laud.

Hon. Mr. BEER — There are 15 acres clear and chopped dows, so there cannot be much left for wood.

anh #¢¢§

bare £100, but being « leacehold it is not worth it.

Hon. Mr. RAMSAY—If we go into a valuation of the |

property, as we did in other cases where there was not suf- ficient evidence, 1 do not see how we can bring the value up to £100. .

_ Hon. Mr. LORD—Here is a man who takes a lease and binds himself to pay rent, but we ouly calculate the value of the improvements. 1 think we should allow something for the wilderness land.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL—I confess that taking the whole evidence, 1 cannot bring the value of this farm up to £100. One witness, Mr. Rice, says be considers it worth £100, but that is only an expression of opinion, and if he had said no more his evidence might have some weight, but he goes oa to describe the property, and I do not think he brings it up to the required amouat. One witness says there are from 12 to 15 acres clear. It ig a rule in jaw that when a mau speaks that way always to take the lowest pumber. 12 acres at £3 an acre, £36; 25 acres cut down at £I, and £6 for the house, makes £67 in all. If it come near £100, I would give the elector the benefit of the doubt, but I cannot bring it near that figure.

Hon. Mr. DINGWELL—-I agree with dis honor the Attorney General. I do not think we can bring this pro- Porty up to £100.

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

_ Resolved, That the yote of Thomas Walsh is not sufficient in law.

a . Willen Cleeep-nanidanee read. :

‘fon. Mr. REER—lI thiuk it would te for the interest of the sitting mewhber if no evidence had been called but Hamil- ton. There are 24 seres clear, which, at £3 an acre, would make £72, and that bas been the price we set upon car land from the first of the scrutiny. The buildings do not appear to be worth anything.

Hon. the PRESIDENT—Hawilton does not say that the property is worth £190, but Kice swears positively that it w. He says thereare24acrc°

° worth £190. sumed, and the evidence relating to the vote of James Dewar |

| £150.

Hon. the PRESIDENT — The voter says it is worth

that one third of the 100 acres was clear. tively that it is worth £100. Not one of the witnesses says it is not worth £100.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL—I do not see that, after Hamilton’s evidence, there was any need to call another.

The voter swears that the* property is worth £100, and |

Hamilton does not say that itis not. He cannot be such a very scrupulous man but he would say it was not worth £100, if be thought so. Then does Rice disprove it? Hamilton says there are 33 acres clear; Rice says 24. Well, taking the 24 acres at £3 an acre would only make £72; but I have never, in all the votes I have given on this scrutiny, ticd myself down to the £3 an acre for land. I have always left a margin for other interests. Would it be supposed that a man would not give something for the leasehold interest or good will of the farm? Rice says that the 24 acres are in a high state of cultivation ; considering this, along with the statement that it is worth £100, L do not know how we can say that it is not worth that much. It may be within two or three pounds of the amount required, but L would give the elector the benefit ofthe doubt. I

ld give credence he testi > of Mr. Hawilton; I “ ; would give credence to the testimony oi: Mr. tiamiiton ; speaks of, must be a Deed, for he says that 53 was the con- | "a

think be has always kept within bounds.

A resolution was then proposed to the effect, that the vote of William Clarey appears to be sufficient in law, and it passed in the affirmative.

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

Arrersoon Sitrina.

A message was.brought from the House of Assembly by the Hon. Col. Seeretary, with a Bill to incorporate the Grand Orange Lodge of Prince Edward Island and the \dges in connection therewith.

The Committee of privileges and elections was resumed.

The evidence relating to the vote of William Gerdon, polled for Mr. McGowan, was read.

Hon. Attorney General submitted the following resolution, and it nassed in the affirmative :

Resolved, Twat the vote of William Gordon is not suffi- | on i oe : ; | placed at a great disadvantage here, for it is supposed that " : | I should give a legal opinion, just on the spur of the momeat Vote of William Clow—voted for McGowan—evidence | : Po J i ,

cient in law.

Hon. Mr. McDONALD—Evea from his own testimony |

he has no vote. He votéd on frechold and leasehold, but ither deed nor lease in his own name. these circumstances he cannot have a good vote.

every person who knows anything about the affairs of the late Thomas Ci estate for more than the property would amount to.

Besides,

father’s b ir.

Thomas Clow. He was a very honest wan. I do not think his son would have attempted to vote if he bad not been pro- perly qualified. I know there were very valuable buildings on the place. It is evident that he voted on freehold pro-

perty. Hon. Mr. LORD—-I know that Thomas Clow died intes- tate, and the creditors seized al! the property. William

Clow lives there merely by suffrage. He might have a lease, but I do not think he has.

Hoa. Mr. BEER—I presume that it is not the same piece of land, for he says freehold and leasehold» He says he has no lease, but he does not say that be has no deed. When he says freehold and leasehold, it gives us the idea that he had another property besides his fathers's.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL —1 am always a little | ¢ cholder. pe : | came to the following resolution : The entry is not made | | by the voter Liteclf, Des by the Ulerk, and — the | to show that Donald Campbell was qualified to vote for a

sere 18 |

suspicious of entries made in this way, but yet the Act ad- mits both freehold and leasehold.

answer Of the voter was more distinctly given. One says I do not recollect whether he said freehold or leasehold —I understood him to vote on the leasehold. 1 do not think there is sufficient evidence to throw a doubt on this man’s vote, even if we admit that he said he had neither a deed nor lease, for he may have a freehold property without either. He may be a leaseholder without having a lease ; he may have a seperate assignment of the original lease. If his father left a great deal of valuable property, he, as his father’s heir, might have an interest in it to the amount of £100, and have neither deed nor lease. When he was asked at the hustings if he had a deed or lease, the circum- stance was then brought to his recollection, and, under these circumstances, he surely would not take the oath without knowing that he was legally qualified to vote, though with- out being possessed of either of these documents.

Hon. Mr. WALKER—I do not know bow we can say that that vote is good. It is well known that Thomas Clow died intestate. If the voter had a deed or lease it would have been easy for him to have said so.

Hon. Mr. HENDERSON —I do not know any of the Clows personally, but from what I have heard of them, I

Under j

| the Council act of 1862.

Hamilton would not say what it was worth, but said | Rice swears posi- |

| It was marked “objected by MeLaren” in the poll book,

beliove they are honest and intelligent men—men who would |

feel the sclemnity of an oath, and would not swear toa qua- |

lifcation which they didnot possess.

Hon. Mr. DINGWELL--I do not know why we should place more dependance on one man’s oath than on that of another. On former oceasions, when a doubt was thrown on a vote, the opposing candidate had to bring evidence to

a zc ' prove it good, but there is no such evilénce produced in this Hon. Mr. YEO-—If it were free land it might be worth a | : .

ease. I am sorry that we have departec: from our former rule. Hon. Mr. Beer-submitted the following resolution, and it passed in the affirmative :

2 “ed. That there is ik 'y is ittee | en . . Resolved, That there is no evidence sefore this Committee | the Hon. Mr. Hensley, witb a Bill to incorporate the Marive

| to invalidate the vote of William Clow.

| years, he would then have acquired a freehold title.

Vote of Donald Johnston—evidence read.

| D'restors of the Institution for the education of the Deaf and

| seribe his property, whether leasebold or freehold.” Suppose | every man should refuse to answer questions respecting his

; . . | electors.) vw, knows that there were bonds against his Wil- | am (‘ing thorefara som! "ote n > j j a : 2 4 z [ um Clow, therefore. could not vote on the property as bis | consider that the returning officer was not justified in admiit-

. : ; : | ing that vote. ion. Mr. YEO —I was well acquainted with the late | 3°

book either as a freeholder or leaseholder, consequently his vote was not sustained by the Committee.

The President thea resumed the Chair, and the House adjourned,

Frivay, March 27.

Committee of privileges and elections resumed.

Vote of W. B. Aitken—cvidence read. | Hon. Mr. McDONALD — It appears that Mr. Aitken | stated that he held a lot in Georgetown, but it is well known that he holds no property in his own name. He refused to answer any questions about his property, and therefore bis vote should not have been allowed to remain on the poll book. ’

Hon. Mr. BEER— Mr. Aitken is a highly respectable man, and I am satisfied that he had a vote or he would not have sworn, He has stated what he voted on, and [ think he has fully complied with the requirements of the Act.

Hon. the PRESIDENT—I do not doubt the respectabi- lity.of Mr. Aitken, but he should have stated how he held his property. If he had a good title, I do not see why be would refuse to answer the questions that were put to him respecting it. He hada right to answer the questions pyt_ to him, and his refusing to do so raises a doubt on his vote in my wind.

Hon. Mr. McLAREN—Mr. Aitken is a very respectable mav, and he would not bave sworn if he had nota good vote. He is mot the only man who was stubborn in answering questions. ‘There was a man at Montague River who re- fused to unswer questions, and he lost his vote, though it ' was well known that he had property worth £1000. He _ thought they had no right to ask him questions, and Mr. | Aitken was probably uuder the same impression. There | was no evidence taken on his vote at Georgetown, and that | was the proper place to question it.

Hon. Mr. BEER—The scrutiny being held in George- town where Mr. Aitken resides, them could be no difficulty in procuring evidence to throw a doubt on this vote if it was not good. But it appears that they were afraid to do so, for fear the vote would be substantiated. To bring it for- ward in this way is not doing justice to the man who has sworn to his vote,

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—If we acknowledge the principle that an elector may refuse to answer questions respecting his property, it may lead to a great deal of in- | convenience. The question now is, whether the poll clerk was justified in allowing the name of Mr, Aitken to remain on the poll book, after he bad refused to answer any questions respecting his property. The election Act of 1861, which applies to the election of Legislative Councillors, evidently requires that an elector, when questioned, “* shall truly de-

property, what chance would there be for ascrutiny? [am

ou questions which lawyers generally would take time-to | consider ; but I must act on the emergency as best I can.

My opinion is, that it is imperative on the voter to describe

The Bill to incorporate the Marine Insurance Company was recommitted, and agreed to, with a few verbal amend- ments.

House adjourned

Monpay, March 30.

Hon. Mr. Walker presented a petition of certain inhabi- tants of Rustico and vicinity, praying for an Act to incor- porate a Bank, to be called *‘ The Bank of Farmers of Prince Edward Island.”

The Committee of privileges and elections was resumed.

The Hon. W. H. Pope, Col. Secretary, came to the Bar of the Council Chamber, and was sworn to give evidence ro- lating to the election at the polling division of Lot 66, the consent of the House of Assembly having been previously asked and obtained by message for that purpose.

Question—Were you at the polling division of Lot 66, at the Council election ?

Auswer—Yes, as the representative of Mr. McGowan.

Q.—Did you object to a number of votes on Mr. Me- Gowan’s behalf ?

A.—I did. 4

(j.—On what grounds t -

‘A’ objected. to them, I think all of them, on the grounds that the voters had no titles by reason of the lands, in xespect of which they claimed to vote, having been sold by the Sheriff in 1849 or 1850 for non-payment of land tax.

Q.—On whose behalf were the objections made ?

A.—All the votes marked objected were, as well as I can recollect, so marked by my direction, on behalf of Messrs. McGowan and McLaren. I know not how they were en- tered, but the idstruvtion to mark them objected was general. I may state also that though Mr. McLaren had a represen- tative at the same polling division, the objecting to votes was left entirely to myself. There was no distinction made between the votes polled for M:Laren and McGowan. Ail the votes marked objected, and polled against Messrs. Mc- Gowan and McLaren, or either of them, were so marked by my direction,

«).—Were the votes of Donald McPherson and Murdock Nicholson, which were polled for McLaren and McGowan at the Lot 66 polling division and marked objected, were these votes marked by McDonald or by Whitman ?

A.— Decidedly by McDonald, in my opinion, or by his representative. here was one active agent on either side. The objection applied to either Candidate.

Q.—Did you object to the vote of Richard Gill ?

A.—I cannot teil without the poll book. (The poll Book was then handed to the witness.) From the entry in the poll book, I should say that I did. I would state that in objecting to all votes [ was guided by the plan attached to the Sheriff's deed. Where there was any doubt, 1 ordered them to be marked objected.

(@.—Can you say that you objected to the vote of John Gill ?

A.—No! I cannot distinguish between Richard Gill and Joho Gill.

Q.—Did you objcet to the vote of Richard Gill ?

A.—l distinctly recollect objecting to the vote of either

his property, and my opinion is confirmed when I refer to | {Here his honor read two or three | clauses of the Act, and the forms of oaths to be taken by the From this it appears that an elector cannot | legally take the oath till the description of the property has | has been “ taken down in the poll bock.’? Therefore, I

I think he was bound to reject the vote, for it is an evasion of the law. There is sufficient on the face of the poll book to justify us in rejecting that vote. I know ke is a highly respectable man, and lie may believe himself to be properly qualified; if not, he weuld not have taken the oath; but that will not do. The Jaw must be complied with, or the result may be very mischevious.

The following resolution was then submitted by the At- torney General, and it passed in the affirmative :—

Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee that the returuing officer was not justified iu taking the vote of W. B. Aitken dgwn in the poll book, he having refused to des¢ribe his property as required by law.

The vote of Donald Campbell, polled for McGowan, next came under consideration. He voted under an agreement for a lease—not entered in the poll book as a leaseholder or After some desultory debate, the Committee

Reselved, That there is no evidence before this Committee

Legislative Councilor as the law directs.

The votes of Keneth Gordon and Alexander McLeod, polled for MeGowan, were then considered, and sustained by the Committee,

The House was then resumed.

Hon. Mr. Lord presented a petition of certain merchants, and other Inhabitants of Charlottetown, praying for an Act to incorporate an additional Bank.

House adjourned till 3} o'clock.

Artrersoon SItrine

Committee of privileges and elections resumed. The vote of Patrick Breaonan came under consideration.

and the Committee decided that it could not be scrutinized by McGowan.

Respecting the votes not marked objected by any Can- didate, the Committee came to a resolution, to the effect that it was competent for the sitting member and the petitioning candidate to bring evidence before the Committee to show by | whom those votes were objected to.

The President thea resumed the chair, and the House ad- journed.

Saturpay, March 28, Hon. Attorney General presented a memorial of the

Dumb, at Halifax, praying for aid in support of that institution.

Hon. Mr. Beer, Chairman of the joint Committee ap- pointed to prepare an Address to Her Majesty the Queen on

' the Land Quetion, reported a draft Address, which was re-

ceived, read the first time, and ordered to be read the second

time on Mouday next.

A message was brought from the House of Assembly by

| Insuran:e Company of Prince;Edward Island.

Hon. Mr. McDONADD—This man voted on an agree- |

ment, and therefore, by his own confession, he cannot be a

qualified elector ; for, it_is’a fixed principle that an elector |

must be either a freeho!der or a leasehoider.

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL — It is true that an elector must be either a freeholder or a leaseholder, but a |

man may be a freeholder under an agreement. I have known men to hold agreements for a long time without taking out deeds. If a man held property under an agreement for 20 It is a fixed principle in law that, if a man has what is called a

color of title to allow him to take possession, it amounts to a |

freehold when held for 20 years. If it is under seal, it may

have all the legal effect of a deed, without the man being 20 |

years in possession.

Hon. Mr. McLAREN—It is well known that this man voted on possession. I have travelled through that settle- ment ; I saw the first man who settled there ; be has receipts

for land tax as far back as 1841. and all who settled there |

at the same time were considered to have good {itles. Hon. ATTORNEY GiNERAL—<Actions in law have

| been brought against parties in that settlement, in whica I

4 state of cultivation. | voted under an arr

was employed as Attorney, and we failed to eject them. The following resolution was submitted by Hon. Mr. Beer, and it passed in the affirmative :

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Committee, there is | no evideuce to cali in question the vote of Donald Johnston. |

The evidence relating to the votes of Henry Mathewson, Murdock Dogherty aud Donald Nicholson, polled for Mr. MeGowan, was thea read. They voted uoder citcumstances similar to those of Donald Johnston, and their votes were sustained by the committee.

Heary J, Brebaut also voted for Mr. MeGowan. He

F otered im the poll

fon. Mr. Beer presentea a petition of Daniel Davies, James Dunean, George Beer, and others praying this Council

to concur with the House of Assembly ia passirg a Bill to |

incorporate the Marine Insurance Company.

The House resolved itself intoa Committee of the whole |

on the Bill to incorporate the Marine Insurance Company. Hon. Mr. Goff in the chair.

The first nine clauses were agreed to without any amend- | The House was then resumed, and progress re- |

ment, ported. Adjourned till balf-past three o'clock.

Artennoon Sirrina.

Hon. Mr. McDONALDasked leave to prosecute the serat- |

iny, by bringing other evidence before the Committee besides that takea at the Sheriff's Court, there being a number of votes

marked ** objected” on the poll book, on which no evidence |

had been taken, on account of the time for the retarn of the writ of election having expired.

Hon. Messrs. BEER, GOFF and HENDERSON each ad- |

dressed the House ou the subject. They weretired of the serat- iny. They thought it was avout drawing to a close, and were uawilling to have it prolonged for an indefinite time, by ad-

' mitting fresh evidence, uuless the law required them to

do so. .

Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL was also tired of the scrutiny, and would like to see it brought to a close ; bat still, if the law permitted, and if the eads of justice demand- | ed such a course, he was wilting to accede to the request of

| the sitting member, though some additional expense would

be ineured thereby. I am willing, said his honor, to act on | that maxim of the ancients, “ let justice be dove, thongh the sky should fall.” His bonor suggested

i

| agreed. : ;

| Purchase Bill. i . ; might be waved by the Proprietors.’’ i i

that Counsel | should be heard at the Bar ou the subject, to which the Louse |

John Gill or Richard Gill, which, I cannot say.

(.— Can you, of your own knowledge, state if you ob- jected to the vote of Hugh Rooney ?

A.—No.

@.—Can you, of your own knowledge, state if you objected to the vote of James Wickham ?

A.—No.

Q.—Can you, of your own knowledge, state whether you did or did not object to the vote of Patrick Power?

A. — It is impossible for me to give any other answer than a negative, I was guided by the plan attached to the Sherif s deed.

Q.—You consider that you personally objected to every vote which was polled contrary to the interest of McGowan and McLaren ?

A.—I did.

().—Did you object to the vote of John Evans?

A.—I did. I believe L objected te 23 or 24 votes, per- haps more than that.

( —ls it vonsistent with your recollection whether or not the qualification, as given in by any elector for Messrs. McDonald and Wightman, would have been suflicieat were it not for the Sheriff’s Deed ?

A.—I believe some of them would have had good votes. Several of the voters would have had an adverse possession extendiug over a period of twenty years; but to how much of their respective farms this adverse possession wotild ex- tend, I am unable to say.

Arrernoon Sirrine.

Hon. Attorney General presented the School Visitor’s Report for the past year. ’

A Bill to continue certain Acts therein mentioned, and a Bill relating to Steam -Navigation with this Island, were severally read the second time, passed through Committee, and agreed to without.any amendment.

Ono motion of Hon. Mr. Beer, the Address to Her Ma-

jesty the Queen, praying Her Majesty to allow the Acts |

passed in 1852 to give effect to the Award of the Comans- sioners on the Land Question to go into operation, unless cause to the contrary can be shown before a Judicial Tribu- ual by the proprietors to be effected by the same, was read a secoud time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

lion. Mr. McDONALD—I am not opposed to passing the Address. I would be pleased to sce the Award of the Com- missioners confirmed, as] see nothing better in prospect for the tenantry at present. am still of opinion that the best way of settling the Land Question would be to carry out the principles of the Land The only prospect that 1 see of getting the Award confirmed is held ovi in that despatch of his Grace the

Duke of Newcastle, in which he rays ** the legal objections |

In my opinion, if the ‘tobjections’’ are not *‘waved"’ by the proprietors, the Award will never become the law of the land. Lowever, I will do

| all 1 ean to get the Award confirmed. | Hon. Mr. LORD—I do not rise for the purpose of opposing | |; the Address; but if the tenantry of this Island expect to be | What |

| benefitted by it, they will be very much disappointed. | partofthe tenantry would be benefitted by the Award ifit should | receive the royal assent? How many tenants could avail themselves of the privilege of purchasing their farms at 20s. an acre? As for the Arbitration Clause, 1 am confident that it will never receive-Her Majesty’s assent, though the other parts of the Award might. Then, if the Award should be-

! - .- | that it would give an opportunity to those farmers who have means of becoming freeholders at 203 an acre. I disapprove

| prietors. themselves. They are reserved in the tenants’ joases, which shows that the proprietor considered that they had »o ciaim | tothem. But the Commissioners handed over aii those re-

serves to the proprietors, which property belonced to the (o- veroment of the Colony as part of the Crown proper'y which

| should pay cur Civil List. They have done just the same with

| the quit rents; but more particularly with regard to the |

| to the Fishery Reserves and the Loyslist land. Those men,

the Loyalists, left their comfortable bomes in a neighbouring |

| country and came to this Island, and what do the Commis- sioners say with regard to the land which was appropriated | to their use? They say that they are to obtain their lands | from the local Government, providing they can prove their | claim tothem. But where are those Government lands to | come from? Must the Government give the land which the | have bought? | The Comumissiopers had no right to give away those properties to the proprietors.

Hon. the PRESIDENT—It appears, your honors, that there ie not going to be much opposition to the Addreas.

| question has been agitated im this country for a long time. | | 1 thought it would have been settled before to-day. I thought | | the Bill to confirm the Award would have been passed, but it | | is mot the case, and we are now called upon to address Her |

| Majesty on the subject. Some of your honors have said that

| the Arbitration Clause wil] never be confirmed, and that the :

only benefit the Award, if confirmed, will ever be is, that

those who have means may become freeholders at the rate of | 20 years purehase. If I thought thet would be the case, I | would oppose the Address; but I think that if one part of | the Award is confirmed the whole will be. The arbitration | part isthe only part of the Award that I consider worth anything ; and if we get that as it was by the Com- missioners, it will be a great boon to the le of this Co- ‘ jony. If the Award were passed, I think we would soon have

ta

lina cial

a at

It would be some advantage; but [ |

come the law of the land, all the advantage it would he is, |

altogether of handing over the Fishery Reserves to the pro- | They never thought of claiming those reserves |

I would oppose the Address on that ground. |

This |

a good deal of land in the market. The best tenants would at once make themselves free, and that would urge the pro- ; prietors to offer their lands at a moderate ths Go-

vernment. The proprietors would have none tenants left, and sooner than be put in that would offer their lands to the Government. As Reserves, I think it would be better for the tenants to ey

for them at the same rate as the for their other ;

than have them thrown open to Shcoeo: The agitation of

this land question has been an injuiry to the wills Island,

and the sooner it is settled the better. When the tenants

have an amount of arreavs hanging over their heads they be-

come discouraged—they think it is no use for them to make

parent they eye disheartened, and that retards “ a e general prosperity of the country. I hope the questlon

will soon be pen ae an issue, my .

Hon. Mr. YEO—I think the last her bat one is rathor ie mistwken about the 20 years purchase. The

cannot ask more than that, but they may take 10 or 15 or ma as much less as they like. As to the Fishery no 'f man would think of taking them from the tenants. Lown s 7.

small island myself, and what would be the use of it to me if ges a Reserves were taken from me? I could not geton it. It would be a great advan to the have the question settled. I have pol desl of lead. % both in large and small tracts, and I hth ceo! timber or ; or anything they could give mo. If the tenants can get their "i land at 15s or 20s an acre, I think it will be an advantage to ‘3 them. I never signed the reference, or agreed to come under the Award, but I offered to do so at any time. I have often sold land for 15s or 16s and given them their time to pay for a it. A large amonnt of arrears of rent will be knocked off by ; the Award, and that will be a great boon to the tenants. lon. Mr. DINGWELL.—I do not rise, your honors, to pose the address. J will not support it because I think — & Award will be any benefit to the tenants, but because the Ay people have been ied to believe that it would be a benefit. : People have got it into their heads that it would be a benefit, but for my part, I have no faith in the Award. I believe there will never be any good result from it, nor do 1 think it wiliever become the law of the land; but still I think it would be wisdom for this House to pass the address unanim- - ously. As to the price of land, I would far sooner deal with the proprietors, then with the Award. I haye been offered " my jand for 15s. an acre since I came to town, therefore the n Award would be no great benefit to me. I think the iG prietors in general act very fairly in regard to Jand. e " cannot force llis Grace the Duke of Newcasele to give us what : he has already denied. I merely wish to show that I will not * be deceived if the Award is never sanctioned. As to the Fishery Reserves, I wish to know on what grounds the fisher- men can be deprived of them? Why should the fisher- man be deprived of his rights, to give thei to the ? Those reserves were granted by His Majesty for the use of the fishermen, without any conditions. It was not go with pro- 4 prietors. They were bound to pay Quit Reat to the British x Government, and they failed in doing so, just as much as their tenants failed in paying rent tothem. As for the Arbitration clause, Lagree with His Grace the Dakeof Newcastle,that if one wan places confidence in another and employs him to settle any business for him, that man has no right to delegate that power to any other. Ifa man to whom power is entrusted to settle any business, should say [ have not time to attend to it, I will entrust it to other men, would it be acting fairly or ‘ honestly? No, I do not think it would be common justice. : To settle the price of land requires honesty and j » and it should not be entrusted to every man. We have the " Land Purchase Bill, which is found to work well; and if the 4 Government would be unanimous in carrying it out there would be very few tenants on the Island twenty years hence. Then we might be a prosperous and happy people, which is ei not the case now. In many parts of the country the people are oppressed with rent, and they have not that encourage- - ment which farmers should have. Many a man takesa farm > with good prospects, but falls in arrears and that discoarages him. I do not intend to offer any opposition to the Address. ft I merely offer these remarks to show tnat I will not be + & appointed if the Award is not obtgined, I think it is | to pass the Addres‘unanimously, and see whether those hopes i that have been held out to the tenantry can be realised. .- Hon. Mr. RAMSAY.—His honor who has jast eat down, " saye le has no faith in the Award, but yet he says he will not | offer any opposition.to the Address. It is my opinion, your 7 honors, that but for opposition the Award would be in oper- '