Anil i

Xam.

aN» slic Ni df - WEEKLY INTELLIGENCER.

‘THIs Is TRUE

New Series.

“ORISIIAL PURTSY.

FOR THE EXAMINER, THE WITHERING LEAVES, [.

The Summer is gone and the Autumn is here,

Aud the tlowers are strewing their earthly bier;

A dreary mist o’er the woodland swims,

And the beech-nuts fall from the waving limbs;

Vrom bough to bough the squirrels run,

Aad chirp at the noise of my echoing gun,

While the hare starts up as my fvotstep heaves

‘The rustling drifts of the Withering Leaves.

(I,

The flocks pursue their southern flight— Some «il the day and some all night, And up from our dense deep forests come ‘The sound of the watchful partridge’s drum. On the loftiest tree sits the mourning crow, Clothed in his funeral suit of woe— All natute mouerns—and my spirit grieves At the soise of my feet in the Withering

Leares

iil.

On! 1 sigh for the

days that have passed away, |

LIBERTY WHEN FRE b=

When my life, like the year, had its season my

May— When the world was all Sanshine,and Beauty, and ‘Urut!:

And the dew bathed my feet in the Valley of | Youth;

Then my heart was all glee, and no bird of | the sky

Bver sang with more rapture and gladness | than L.

But that Youth is a fable, and Beauty deceives,

Jea‘Trnth which | learn from the Withering

Leaves, IV.

Now I sigh for the time when the reapers at) morn

Came in irom the field at the sound of the Horn;

Or, when dragging the rake, [ followed them out, ’

While they toss’d their light sheaves with their jauchter about.

Then away through the field with boy-daring I ran.

Bet stubbles foreshadow’d the path of the man !— \ hill j ;

Now the uplands of life lie all barren of sheaves

While my footsteps are loud in THE WITHER-

inc LeaVESs. Wiss OLD MAN.

Charlottetown, November 19, 1850.

ee ewer

Tas

Weainesday Neve

The ‘Land i che gee,

mber r20, 1550.

a

Maciean’s editorship of the /-slander is every week strengthening the presumption, that its subscribers are the most indul- gent of newspaper patrons, or the veriest blockheads ‘1

—

SAAS,

|

{

munity, since he is permitted, apparently | without remonstrance, to keep perpetna- | ally dinning inte their ears the vilest false-,

i

hoods that were ever yet propagated by.

fle has published the same so many

a party hack. lies over and over

times, '

that it is reasonable to suppose, his per-| ception of what is true and what is false.

is completely unsettled, and that he has

come to put faith in his own ridiculous |

inventions from repeating them so often. If the oligarchy, who make a tool of him and his pumpkin-headed printer, were not as unprincipled as ke, he would long since have been dismissed from the Islan- der office wiia disgrace.

The old atory avout the Liberals pro- mising at the iast General Election to

escheat the Township lands, ie made the

text for another column of twaddle in the I-slander of Friday last. Because Maclean says such a “promise” was made, are we bound to believe him? On the contrary, knowing the unscrupulous and mendacious charaeter of the asserter, we may fairly believe the subject was never once whispered or thought of at any of the Hustings. Why not say which of the candidates made the “ pro- mise,” and substantiate the assertion by producing the testimony of some respect- able eleetors who heard it made? He might as well tell us, that the Liberals promised to make a private road to every man’s cottage—put a watch in the fob of every farmer’s son—cet a husband for every farmer’s daughter—stop the potatoes from rotting, the wheat from rusting—give sunshine and shower just when they are wanted; or any other pro- mise equally absurd. We want some- thing better than the mere word of a man who can no more avoid uttering false- , hoods than he can avoid the savage gut- ‘tural in which he enunciates thein.

He says he has “already proved most conclusively that the Assembly, under

. Responsible Government, would have no

power” of settling the land question, The proof, howewer, is nowhere to be found. We are told, indeed, at the coa- clusion of the paragraph, that such a settlement would not be possible “ if Whelan were Queen’s Printer and Coles Treasurer!” Why not possible? O, says Maclean, allthey ever meant by Res- ponsible Government was to get them- selves into those offices. Truly this is amanificent proof, and a magnificent definition of Responsible Governtment ! Why then has he so long laboured, and laboured in vain, to make the ques- tion unpopular ? Surely, Whelan’s and Coles’ meaning could be exposed ina _single sentence, and there would be an end of it. And the entire majority of the Assembly must, forsooth, play false to their constituents, so that the pecuni- ary interests of two of their party may be served! And the eighteen consti- tuencies whom that majority represent,

could not discern this meaning at the iat ever disgraced a com-,

General Election! Maclean, with su- perhuman intelligence and sagacity, was alone capable of diving into the bosoms of “ Whelan and Coles,” and of enlight- ening the public as to their designs Surely the wretched old driveller is sink- ing into seeond childhood.

The old saw which says “ comparisons are odious,” was never more significant than itis when Maclean compares his Land settlement scheme to that proposed by Mr. Coles in the session of 1848. We shall briefly refer to them.

When Mr. Maclean brought forward his Land Purchase Bil! in the Session of 1848, Mr. Coles proposed his in amend- ment, because he and his friends thought its principle asounder one. The amend-

ment was opposed by Maclean and the |

BORN ME N—H AVING TO ADVISE THE PUBLIC—M AY SPE AK PRER. "

CHARLOTTETOWN, NOVEMBER 20, 1350.

whoie of the Tory party, and Jost. Mr. Maclean’s Bill wasthen moved, and the whole of the Tory party again voted

against it (in Committee), and if would viously made to the Government, besides

have been lost too, had not the Liberals voted for it. insinuate that it was carried by the votes of none but the * terrible Tories.” He says it was thrown out of the Council by the alliesof the Liberal party in that Branch of the Legislature. But suppose ithad passed there, is there the least reason to believe it would have received the sanction of the Governor, when Mr. Palmer—an Executive Couneillor—gave it his most determined opposition in the Assembly ? Why has that gentleman escaped the censure of Maclean? Why in he not accused of hostility to the in- terests of ihe Tenantry? The answer is obvious: Mr. Palmer carried round a subscription list to realize the necessary fandsto pay Maclean for editing the Islander.

Mr. Coles’s Billis called an tmpractica- ble measure, because, says Maclean, the ourchase it contemplated should be vo- luntary—and that it would require more than a million of pounds to carry it out, to be obtained on loan at 6 per cent. in- terest. being utterly false, the conclusion is false. Mr. Coles’ Bill went to authorize the Government to purchase, where Pro- prietors would be willing to sell, at a rate not exceeding 5s. per acre. Mr. Worrell offered his lands at this price ; and the Bill provided that at no time the yovernment should purchase more than £20,000 worth,—the tenant to have his land at cost and charges—not to be com- pelled to pay annually more than what he now pays asrent, and in about fifteen years to be free; but to have the privi- ledge of paying for the whole at once. According to Maclean’s Bill, the pro- prietors should be compelled to seil at 10s. per acre, and ifa tenant would be

The premises, for the most part,

“ so obstinate” the Government within the time limited by the Bill, his farm should be sold to put the Government in funds: so that if a poor devil happened to be minus, within

a3 not to purchase from

the limited period, of the amount of the demand made upon him, Government would send him adrift, whether he was

willing or no. Duncan puts a suppo-

sitioug case, which looks exceedingly |

” 4 ne j

pretty on paper, “ For example, says, “if a farm, sold by Government j| under the Bill of the late majority brought £100, and only £30 due for instalments, £70 in cash would be paid over to the tenant.” But suppose it did not bring | £100, what then? Government must sel] the tenant out, whatever were got for hisland; andeven supposing £100 were obtained, what mighty benefit would the tenant derive from his £70? Ifhe want- ed another farm, he would have to pay £50 for a picee of wilderness Jand, and would have the magnificent sun of £20

Yet Maclean strives to

Se eel

—Mitror’s $s onions.

eee

Vol. i: No. 83 a

to build a house and barn, and clear his

land, not taking into account his loss of

time and labour, and the advances pre-

the severance of old ties, and the abandon- ment of long cherished associations.— Duncan seems to be mightily puzzied to understand how Mr. Coles wou!d pay the Ilcan contemplated by his Bill. Let him read it again, and he will see. The Bill authorized no greater Joan at « time, as we have already shown, than £20,000, the interest on which would be £1,200, at six percent. per annum, the lowest rate, says Maclean, upon which it could be obtained. Duncan did not, however, always think that 6 per cent. would be demanded, for when Mr. Palmer wanted to borrow £12,000 to pay off treasury warrants tothat amount, and get rid of the present T'reasurer’s influence, Mac- Jean contended that no more than 4 per cent. would be charged. But the inte- rest which would become chargeable upon the Colony to carry out the princi- ple of Maclean’s Bill, would be about £40,260 annuaily, all of which would go

yet Mr. Coles is stigmatised as being a fit candidate fora lunatic asylum, because his Bill would incur an annual charge for interest of £1,200! Judging of the two by their land schemes, no one ¢an doubt that Duncan has shewn the best right to the wearing of the “caps and bells.”

New even suppose the Liberas had pro- mised, at the last Klectiou, to make the Land Settlement Question the first object of their Legislation, and failed to do it; still their conduct would not be half so reprehensible as that of their unprincipled antagonist. When he ascended the austings in 1846, he declared his determi- nation to “gothe whole hog” for Escheat_ as wellas for Responsible Government, even unto the stopping of the Supplies. Well, having sold his wretched con- science to the oligarchy, and betrayed his constituents, (which caused his ignomi- nious rejection from the Hustings in 1850.) he was in a majority for at least two Sessions ; that time he did not once attempt to re- deem the promise made to his constitu- ents, respecting an Escheat. Ifhe joined, as he sayshe did, aparty who had the interests of the tenantry and eountry more ‘at heart than the Liberals, he surely i could, or ought to, have adie’ the as- | sistance ef that party to accomplish his

once favourite measure. Had the Liberal party been so situated during the two Sessions referred to—had they been able (to outvote their adversaries on every question, they would be eensurableto the last degree, ifthey had left unsettled the question relating to Landlord and tenant, and unameliorated the condition of the latter. Butin the last Parliament they were on the weaker side, and could ac- complish nethivg: in the present Parlin-

into the pockets of the Proprietors. And,

but during the whole of >