(2)

‘hadnctheen complied with! He will not as so: but I maintain that the principles he advocates would “:1

result. The principle, applied to measiires of s _ extended ration, should hold good in ollel 0 1111001‘ W‘ rtancc, and I will suppose the case of the hon. member

tting a house or lot in Charlottetown or Royalty: he_asks lug

his rent. and the tenant turns round _and refuses to pay. all ' g. as a reucn, tha tthe conditions in the original grant cfeﬁz lot from the Crown had not been complied with- Wculd he consider it right or reasonable that his tenant should set npsuch a plea against the man from whom he had received his house or land? I think that the hon. member would feel the injustice of depriving him of the property for which he had paid his money, on the ground that some one or other, long since dead and buried, had not done his duty. Again, Mr. chairman, in 1839, I find the following extract in an answer by the then Licut. Governor, Sir Charles Fitz- roy, to an address which had been presented to him from the inhabitants of King's County. Sir Charles Fitaroy_was in favor of a fair and equitable arrangement of the felllhlonﬁ be- tween the tenants and the proprietors, and manifested as t regard for the interests of the former as ever Colonial overnor did or could exhibit. He even issued a circular address to the proprietors, and that very address was made use of to increase the cry for escheat. In the answer to which I have alluded, we ﬁnd the following passages :-

“ I cannot help expressing my disappointment at your having reverted to the question of escheat This question has been already so fully discussed, and the decision of the Sovereign and the Home Government so ﬁrmly and unequi- vocally expresscd—:ind so very recently. in the letter from -Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated lat May lust, which letter has been published for general infor- Ination—that I did hope this subject would not have been revived. As this decision is founded upon no partial or pre- judiced advice or reports, but upon the broad basis of the security of all property, it would be as useless, as it would he unbecoming to that character for plain dealing which I hope on all occasions to maintain, were I to hold out to you the slightest hope of being able to obtain the object of your wishes.

" I wish, on the present occasion, to take the opportunity of making myself fully and clearly understood, in order, as ﬁr as may be in my power, to prevent you from any longer entertaining delusive hopes; but I would not have you de- part with the impression on your minds that I am not fully aware, and that I do not sympathise with and lament the distress under which many of you are labouring; and I most cheerfully and cordially oifer you my mediation with

ur landlords, and with the proprietors of lands in this Is- End generally, to obtain for you such liberal terms as will be for the mutual advantage of both landlord and tenant. Should my rcmonstrsnces, joined to those which have been Iiade before my appointment to this Government, induce

our landlords to extend the hand of conciliation, and shew it earnest that they feel for your situation. and are not in- attentive to your interests, I implore you to meet their advan- ees in the same spirit."

In the tirst of the two paragraphs I have road, we ﬁnd the refutation of the hon. member's insinuaticn, that reports were sent to the Ill! rial Government, adverse to the wishes if the people, and espatches were sent out in accordance with those underhand communications. There is no equivo- eation in the language of the gee I have just read—they are the plain declarations of er Ma'eety’s repreeentative— that Escheat will not be conceded. e hon. member him- self has been sent to England on two separate occasions, to urge the adoption of his views upon the British Government, and he well knows with what success. The ex rises of his Int mimion were provided by a general suliscr tion of the

pie. His report is in print, and although {cannot lay my hands upon it at present, I will read a portion of the newer he received from Sir Gecr Grey,rtlien under Secre- tary ‘of State for the Colonies, by order of Lord Glenelg. the

find lﬂecretary -' F , "Downing Street, 25th August, tress. “'-8n';—~I am directed by LordiGienelg to aoknowled your-jletter of the ‘l6tli instant, oiferiiig some observations it ' id to the posed by certain proprietors of land‘ a_.- \ name; ndtotlieirteuauts. ‘ "UIttll"I3ord ‘Gieuelg shall ‘he lnﬂmaed of tho manner‘ in lhlvlt tbosstsrms have beeurooeivedbythetsnantghersmt

decline-eaavauing the qssdon with any third prly. But in order to prevent misoonsti-action. his Lordship tahu th'u o rtunit cfsppriaing you, that it hnctthe intention of Her hf” ty's vernment to atablhh a general Court of behest isginee Edward Island, or to take proceedings for enhan- ' the forfeiture of the lands on which the cri ' ecu. diticns cf the Grants have notbeen com lied wi . Alter very fully considering the suziect. Her Mp&ty’s Government

ecided, and announced th r decision, t udi a corms would be inconsistent with justice. with sound policy, and would tend only to unsettle the minds of the Inhabitants of Prince Edward Island, and to shake the rights of property in that Colony.” '

In this document we ﬁnd it expressly stated, " that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to establish a general court of ltkchmt for Prince Edward Island,” and the avowed declaration of that Government in opposition to the measure advocated by the hon. mem But he as that this is but the expression of the individual opinion oft e Secretary of State for the colonies, and that it is, therefore. not to be re rded as the decision of the Imperial Govern» ment. Sir, ask what words can be used more expreaivg of the decision of the Government of Great Britain? Does it not emphatically declare that the Government will not sanction the establishment of a court of Eccheatl And in not that declaration conveyed through the only proper chan- nel by which the Government can oticially communicate its decision,-namel y, the Colonial Oihce 1 It is very easy for the hon. member to rise in this House, and say that we have nothing more than dcspatches embodying the views of indivi- duals against Escheat; but,‘ Sir, I can show to the satisﬁe- tion of any one, that, from the date of the letter from whiﬁ I have just read to the present time. we have explicit and decided declarations of the Imperial Government, that they will not countenance the institution of a court of Eaelieat. The hon. member has stated that, in 1816, the Home 00- vernment granted an indulgence by which the pro rietors re- ceived an extension of time for the settlement oft cir lands 5 he has not, however, told us, whether he bases his argument on the original default or on the violations!’ the terms of the indulgence. Now, Sir, if the Government had the right in 1816 to grant a further time for the compliance with the conditions which formed part of the original to, they also had the power to do away with those conditions altoge- ther. If the hon. member bases his argument on the non- fultilment of the conditions within the extended period speci. ﬂed in the indulgence of 1816, he cannot, with any retence to reason or consistency, deny the authority of the rown to abrogcte the conditions altogether. I mightas well say, that if I sell a piece of land, and take a mortgage for the price, payable in three years, and afterwards choose to allow the purchaser six, that he would have a right tosay that the land was forfeited and that I had no claim to it, because the original conditions of the bar in had not been complied with. Well, Mr. Chairman, after t e hon. member had recieved his answer from the Colonial Oﬁoe, and returned home, the reason be assigned for the failure of his mission was that he had not appeared in Downing Street in an oﬁcial character, that he was there merel as a. private individual—in short, that the House of Assem ly had not delegated him to repre- sent the views of the people on the subject. What did we see then ? The House sent him on his second mission. On that occasion, I believe, the hon. member did not deem it desirable to reside in the fashionable and more aristocratic districts of London, but took up his abode in the niore.com- mercial parts of the metropolis. However that may be, the answer of the British Government was conveyed. not to the hon. member, but to the Lieutenant Governor of the day. The purport of that answer was. as the hon. member and others know, in opposition to lilschest. And now. Sir, let me direct the attention of the committee to what took laoa in 1841. In tliatyesr the hon. member was one of s rge majority in the House, and, more than that, was _ her. In the session of that year a bill was introduced it t ‘hon. member's party, the object ‘of which was that e ‘British Government should purchase theflasds from thcpaoprlstcrs, and the investigation of theirtltles formed so psi-t"cf ‘its provisions. I_' will read to the Ocnimltteedie preamble of that Bill, in order uistths may estimate at their p ‘ vs ‘the ‘the a. member "has niadevto 3 ' 90W|'ItIIOI‘It.i Irrefsruiee tcitssetien isths pardissc cflﬁs Worrol htato :- .