RE IR es HER Pale

SEER OS NE STIR RROD gpRaReNa cot

Vol, AXEL,

WER:

A Weeklu Hournal of Politics, Literature, and Mews.

“"Phis is truc Liberty, when Freeborn Men, having to advise the Public, may speak free.”---Euripides,

Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Monday, April 21, 1862.

New Series.---No, 15.

c . " XV ’. . .

& olonial 4 arliament, jopinion, 2 good one, and would obviate the objections which | within the school district. Charlottetown was divided into ~ an lina | had been made to the present system. ‘five Wards, each represented in Common Council by two HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY. | Mr. BEER seconded the motion as wise and beneficial, members; as the law was, any two of them could certify for a . : At present it was competent for a party to obtain a license license in any Ward, although the majority of the inhabitants Weosespay Arrersoon, March 19. if he procured a certificate of two Councillors, although all | and the two Councillors of the particular Ward might be op- The consideration of the Award of the Land Commissioners the rest of the Council might be opposed to his application. | posed to it. As an iilustration, it might be that Ward was made the order of the day for Friday next. . .-| There was no doubt that the intention of the law was that | number Five bad taverns enough, or more than enough, but, Hon. Mr. Haviland introduced a Bill to regulate proof of all tavern licenses should be subject to the decision of the | notwithstanding that, a party had only to apply to the two ecrtain documents in suits wherein loretgn corporations d ng C tt one bade iQ en f W: d he 0 R and he could 1 ' hie dosiness in this Island are parties. The Bill provided that OuDCII as a a oe . : © a — nord ae fe eee the policy shoald be prima facie evidence of the contract. | Hon. Mr COLES had been informed that there were but license at onee. Now, if the application were made to the Read tirst time. jtwo Councillors who would sign the necessary certificates. | assembled Council, it would be fairly and fulily discussed, lien. Mr. Longworth presented a petition of John Morris! He did not think it was a question for Charlottetown’s sole and a deliberate decision arrived at. There was no doubt and others,‘or the repeal of the section of the Small Debt Act decision, as the people from the country were interested in| that the number of taverns in Gharlottetown was excessive, which prevented the imprisonment ef debtors for cums under having proper accommodation when they came to town. On | and exercised a demoralizing influence. If their number wT ke tlt bo teccep rate the Presbyterian Church at Bedeque, | market days great numbers of them came here, and people | Was decreased, the character of the remainder would be im- was read third time and passed. would not be induced to keep public houses unless they had | proved. Many houses which have obtained licenses had not Hon, Mr. Wightman—a petition of inhabitants Lot 66 and | the privilege of selling liquor, from the sale of which alone the accommodation for traveliers which the law required. others, for grant to repair brothers’ Road. ‘they would derive any profit. The opinion was pretty gene- | They were merely places where a man could only get a glass

Hon. Mr. Hensley presented a petition of inhabitants of! ral that it would be as wel! to do away with the Corporation | of grog and then go away. Souris, Bay Fortune, Rollo Bay, and the North and South altogether. It entailed a heavy tax without conferring ade-| Hon. Mr. COLES— If such were the case, it was not very si les of East Point, tor grant to extend a breakwater at Souris. | quate benefits. The civic affairs were in a worse state now | creditable to the authorities of Charlottetown, for the law | : ab eae be te he ee ee than when the old system was in foree. The Corporation gave the Councillors the right of supervision, and power te} , had neither money nor credit, and before increasing their | suspend the licenses, in cases where the Act had not beea

fact that the people had,at their own expense,constructed 303 sipcpge ill mp : m yards of the breakwater already. Laid un the table. | powers, it might be as well to see if they should not get rid }complied with.

ithe judgment of the majority of the Council was, in his in opposition to the wishes of a majority of the householders the Bill to receive his approval. Did we not provide for such year; forT see by a resolution of this I

| of appointing Councillors, and I, for my part, am willing to was a delusion to hope for such a change,

ea

—————— a qualification, and the measure thereby be lost, the bun. , change in the constitution of the losin Coitoete member for Princetown would be the very first to censure us | was thought of by the hon. member for Georgetown, that the Both sides of the House are dissatisfied with th¢ present mode | present leader ot “the Government, Mr. Palmer, cousideseil it give the elective principle a trial; but [ would prefer doing | ber here read the resolution, whieh danletell in. cteen the te away with the Council altogether. And if we must have a) was absurd to spenk of a change in the constitution of the property qualification for electors, 1 think to make it lower Legislative Council as the Home Government would pot accede than £100 would probably endanger the Bill. tu it.] The hon. leader of the Government voted for this re-

Mr, BEER—L think this House has proved its liberality by solution, and, as he give his support to the Bill of last passing the Bill last year on the universal suffrage principle; sion, this shows what changes take place in the opini a but as the Colonial Minister has said that he would enforce a men. I believe that there is not on record a Sedilaagtien tolerably high qualification, it is very doubtful if the measure | taining more liberal sentiments than the despatch yeas tha would receive the Royal assent, did we insert a less amount | Committee ; and hon. members may rel = n it that iho than £100. Hon. members on the other side propose £50 ;| Duke of Neweastle, after writing that on toh will not re- bat had the Government moved that sam, 1 have no doubt} fase to reeommend the Bul to Her alent on roval though mn the leader of the Opposition would have moved one-balf| the qualification of electors be fixed at £50. ” , the amount. Progress was reported j

lion. Mr. HENSLEY—The hon. member for Charlottetown ial eee oe nee otvuned moehe appears to think it will be very difficult to please hon. mem- bers on this side of the i l may cooks cause to diffe | Fripay Afternoon, March 21.

from the supporters of the Government; but if so, my comet Hon. Mr. Thornton presented a petition of Samuel Nicholson.

sition will not arise from factious motives. I supported the | for @ grant to open a road, on Township Number 55,

Bill of last session through all its stages. I think it would) Dr. Davies from the special Committee on the tition of facilitate the decision of this Committee if we had information | Hon. W. W. Lord and others, complaining of the Light dues

respecting the amount of the qualification of electors in Tas- | X#eted in the Strait of Cunso, reported, recommending that mania and South Australia, see by the Canadian Act that | * fixed sam be annually paid to Nova Scotia, and that a tax the qualification of candidates is £1000; that, however, is, ¢ imposed on Island vessels sufficient to meet it.

If undue obstacles were thrown in the |

Mr. SINCLATR—Did not object to the clause, in so not much to the point at present.

I, however, observe by |

The Committee on the despatch relating to the Constitution -

Hon. Mr. LONGWORTH, in moving the second reading of of them altogether. " wos th : the Bill authorising the granting of the shores of the Island, | Way of obtaining licenses, illicit traffic would increase, on

stated thas an Acton the subject had been passed in 1860, | which there would be no check, except through the agency | which contained a suspending clause. By « despatch from | of informers, whose employment was not a very respectable |

the Colonial Minister under date of the 2nd January 1861, it appeared that he thought it was, in some manner, connected with the question of the Fishery Reserves. The Act gave the Leiut. Governor in Council power to grant the shores of the island between high and low water marks for the purpose of eonstructing wharves, breakwaters, slips, &e., for commercial purpeses. The Colonial Minister was of opinion that the powers proposed to be conferred by the former Bill were not sufficiently defined. The present Act would affect merely the space between high and low water marks, and the only ques- tion on which a difference of opinion might arise, would be as to the mode of protecting the rights of parties occupying lands fronting ou the shores. If they should refuse to allow @ party to ereet a wharf or other work in front of their farms, it eppeared but fair that they should be heard on the subject of their objections. The Colunial Minister used the term pro- prieturs, but there is no doubt that he meant the parties in vceapation of the land; for a man having a long lease would be as much interested in the frontage of lis farm as if he had the legal estate in fee simple. The Bill specities that the con- sent of the owner shall be a pre-requisite to the obtaining of a grant,and definesthe 2 of the term to mean any per- con having an interest of 100 years’ duration in the land. Li the llouse decided on giving the privilege without the consent of

the owner of the land,the latter would be entitled to compen- |

. . ! When the original Act was introduced, it was not. ou teimplated to allow the graatee of the shore to attach build. |

suliog.

tage Ge che land without the consent of the owner. It was tnerely intended te convey what should be specified in the grant itself, bat it was net expressed with sufficient distinct- ness. The present Act clearly defined the rights of the owners,

whose consent ty erections attachiag to their premises,must be |

obtained, or some mode of adjusting the value of the part so to be secu pied, must be devised. There were difficulties in the way uf arlitrations oe the point. The Bill was nut a Govern- trent measure. The Goverrment kad no interest in the wat- ter. lt only affected individual rights and interests.

lon. Mr. COLES—if it wae aot a Government measure, it ught ta he. te dealt with the right to occupy the shores be- tween high and low water murke, which were vested ia the ‘rown. The rights of the occupants of the farms merely ex- tended to high water wark, except white they had been spe- cmlly extendedta low water. He would not suy that the owner should out be paid, but he should at least be heard in his own behalt.as is dune inthe care of shutting up a ruad where three parties are appointed to make their report te the Guvera- ment. The Goverament should have had the Bill watured, and not have brought it to the House to be adjusted in Com- mittee. He did not, however, object tu the secund ceading.

House in Committee va the Bill.

Mr. HOW AT eaw ao reason why the consent of the ewaer should be necessary, The public bad the right to all below high water mark. As at present drawn, the Bill would be a dead letter—-for no party could avail himself of it, without paying an exorbitant -uim, if it were demanded.

llun. Mr. LLENSLEY thought it would be better to give the right of preemption to the owners. If the question were left to the action of the individual owners, the Gill would in many cases be a dead letter. The Bill by meking the consent of the owners of the buckland necessary before a grant of the shore could issue, was limiting the power of the Crown, whieh had the absolute right in the lands to be affveted by it.

Hon. Mr. LOUNGWOTRH—it was not in the power of the Government to eaforee those regulations without the inter- vention of the Legislatare. Tne Goverament were mercly the trustees of the peuple. That being the case, it was proper that the legislative action should be taken to define the rela- tive tights of parties. The Bill would facilitate trade, by | nctivaing the occupation of the space between bigh and low water marks; but it should be borne in mind that the Crown had no right to the land above the former. and the grant would not be worth the parchment on which it was | written, unless the grantee could obtain the privilege of at- taching any erections he might pat up to the adjoining bank, onvection with which would also be necessary for the pur-| pose of road communication. As the part granted might be used fur different purposes, and to various extent, it would be impossible to ascertain the quantum of benefit or damage to the owner of the adjacent soil, as was done under the Koad Compensation Act; und, therefure, it was better that the granwe should make bis own bargain with the proprietor. |

lion. Mr. COLES—The better plan would, perhaps, be to authorize the Government te grant the shore tu the oceu piers of the land abutting on at, who might by the Bill be prevent- ed from going from one part of the shore of their farms to | another, ia consequence of 2 wharf projecting.

dion. Me. THORNTON was satisfied with the Bill so far | @s.itdid not disturb the possession of the bolder of the soil, | whether teoant or Siehalien. He could, however, see no season why tenants holding leases for periods leas than 100 | years should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. He! was unwilling to give te any 4auverument the power which | the Bill would copier.

Tuvrspay, March 20. |

After the weudiag of the Jowraale, Hon. Col. Gray rose to eal! the attention of the House to the report of what. tell from him ia the debate on the evening of the 26th February, in which the words, “The explanation J am about to give re-

minds me,” & , oceur as having been used by the hou. mem- ber, The words which the hon. member used were, “ Lu asking for this explanation, I am remiuded of an anecdote,” Ke. |

flon. Col. Gray bad asked the hon. member, Mr. Coles to

' }

*zplain which leader of the Government was alluded to, as the | them necessary. ‘hey were not opposed to the system of tke his chance with the others. They could not legislate; shows that we are purposing to fix a very moderate qualitica- hon. member, Mr. Coles, had distinetly alladed to acts affect- jicensing on the principle of the Maive law. They were un-| 08 Special cases,

ing both Hoa. Mr. Palmer and Hon. Uol. Gray. The following petitions were presented : —

one. If parties were licensed and provided sufficient acco- |

| modation, the authorities could exercise control over them, | liquors tw tree competition. The best kept House oar

far as it related to Charlottetown, which had a representative government—but he was, on principle, opposed to all monopolies. In the country districts he would prefer seeing | strict regulations established, and then leave the sale of,

‘and if it should be found that the taverns were too numerous, | then get the best custom.

ithe evil would cure itself, for the business then wonld not | |pay. From the country parts of the Island petitions had ‘been received, complaining of the refusal of magistrates to 'sigo the ceotificates in cases where the accomodation was ne- | cessary for travellers. would allow them to sell spirituous liquors, there would be no |

| places at which a traveller could get accommodation for him involved; for a man who bad reduced himself by habitual

i self or his horse.

| Mr. DAVLES was not aware that only two Councillors | would sign the certificates. Coles that if they made the law too stringent, illicit traffic

_would increase, but the number of licensed taverns in the control over his property. city should be matter for the decision of the Common Coun. | cil. [t was true that the City was in debt, but it should be they deemed it necessary, trustees should be appointed to The repairs of | take charge of his property. ‘There was a similar law in the

borne in wind that their means were sn.all, their wharves bas run them £1000 in debt, and it was im- possible to carry out any public improvements without the requisite funds.

tried with a view of preventing the improper grauting of li- censes. The object of erecting Charlottetown into a Corpora- tion was that it should have the control of its own affairs. | The rejection of the clause before them would be a denial of | the legitimate functions of the Common Council. it was not to be presumed that they woud exerzise their authority adversely to the wishes and interests of thoxe whom they re- presented. Ile ayreed with the hon. Mr. Coles that it would be impolitie to withhold lcenses, so long as they derived a revenue from the importation and manufacture of spirituous uquors, If the granting of licenses fur their retail was con- | trary to morality, it wou'd be equally improper to authorize ‘thew imtroduction into the Colony, and while they were im- ported they would be sold. He could not agree with those |who would stop the sale of liquors | adopted, illicit traffic would be the result. [t was impossi- ble to legislate a man inte morality, The oaly way was to revulate the traflic. f' no licenses were granted, they would be proclaiming to every man that he might sell as he pleased. very licenged tavern could be under the surveiliauce of the | police, and, if licenses were abolished, a policeman would be | powerless to deal with places, many of which were hotbeds jof evil. He thought that the present provision in the Act, requiriag the approval of the majority of the resident house- | holders of a sebool district was a wholesome restriction on the waproper granting of licenses. were the best judyes of the neces-ity of a tavern in their néighbourhood, <A certain number must be established for the accommodation of travellers, who would otherwise be without food or shelter. With reference to the City, it was but reasonable to assume that as in a multitude of Councillors Was Wisdom, so a majority of the Common Council weuld be found as capable of dealivg properly with the subject as two of their bo ly.

Mr. BEER—The hon. member, Mr. Coles, bad misrepre- sented the Common Couucil, when he stated that but two of heir number were willing to yrant licenses,

lion. Mr. COLES had been told so by a member of the QOvunceil.

Mr. BEER believed that no more than two were in favor of increasing the number of licenced houses in the City, and the Conneillors were justified in trying to limit their num- ber. ‘The Council needed all the funds they could procure | from liceuses, aud were desirous of obtaining them to any | exteut consistent with propriety, but they did not wish to see | every third house a grog shop. They wished to have the, power of diminishing the number of taverns, the increase of which should not be left to the discretion of two members. As to the debt of the City, alluded to by the hon. Mr. Coles, | it was well known that it was occasioned by the cost of the | wharves, which should have been detiayed out of the general , revenntie.

Hon. Mr. LATRD eould see no good reason for any altera- tion. It was true that the City Council was elected by the |

he householders of a district

people of Charlottetown, but each Ward elected its two re-|

presentatives, Who were enough to decide upon the number | of licenses, and sould have the same power as the Act gave | to two Justices of the Peace in the country.

Hon. Mr. HENSLEY reminded the hon. member that in the country it was requisite to obtain, in addition to the sig- | natures of two Justices, the recommendation of a majerity |

of the householders in the school district in which it might |

a : - T be proposed to open a licensed tavern. Lt was but right that |

the Common Council should have the regulation of the num- | ber,and supervision of the cauracier, of houses of that descrip- tion within the limits of its jurisdiction. [le did not doubt that the hon. member, Mr. Coles had been told that no more. than two of the Council were in favor of granting liceuses. | The members of that body would grant them if they thought |

willing to deprive themselves of the source from which they.

. ; . . 4 ° ; ohne 1 tte as ‘e i. - | derived a principal portion of their civic revenue. The oe- jticed by the special Committee, It was referred to them vested interest in the svil. They hold by possession, it is true,

}

Hon. Mr. LONGWORTH—Many experiments had been | would jike to know where he was to be put? | Lunatic Asylum was already {ull to overilowing.

Lunatic Asylum ?

the party should be sent to the Asylum.

It such a course was |

The clause was then agreed to,

The 2nd clause, providing for renewals of licenses was agreed 10,

The 3rd, which provided for the treatment of confirmed

If people could not get licenses which | drunkards as lunatics, having been read,

Hon. Mr. COLES expressed his approval of the principle

drunkenness to so disgraceful a state as to be unable to take care of himself. should be declared a lusatic and treated as

He agreed with the hon, Mr. |such—but he presumed that, when he became sober, he would | who was unable to sup

not be prevented from managing bis own affairs, aud resuming

Mr. DAVIES—lIn such ease, a jury should decide, and if

States, and it had been attended with good results,

Hou. Mr. THORNTON —The principle was a good one. A confirmed drunkard should be pronounced insane, but he | The present | Was it intended to build another to be known as the drunkard’s (Laughter.) llon, Mr, HENSLEY —There would be no necessity that | The Master of the | Rolls could declare him a Lunatie, and put him in charge of | two of bis frieuds. As the bon. member, Mr, Davies had | said, the principle had been adopted with advantage in the

| States; as the principle appeared to meet the approval of | }hon, members, the details couk) be adjusted when the Dill | ‘should be before a comunttee of the House. Every day bore |

testimony io the evils of drunkeness and to the necessity of | a remedy. A great deal of distress would de prevented by | putting the drunkard’s property under the mauagemeut of bis triends,

Mr. SINCLAIR had no objection to the principle, but any Bull based ou it should be carefully guarded, particularly with respect to the expenses of working it. A case had recently vecurred in Eugland, where an enormous amount of costs bad devolved upon an individual, in proving his sanity.

Mr. DAVLES—Lf a man would get drunk whenever he could get liqaur, he must necessarily be incapable of managing his affairs.

Mr. BEER—Perhaps, if magistrates had power to put an habitual drunkard into the Asylaw for the space of two or three weeks uta time, if there was room iu that institution

fit might induce a change of habits:

Mr. LiOWAT— Although he had been chairman of the special Committee, he was uot pledged to the ciause, which

was Only a suggestion, The suggestion of the hoa. member

(Mr. Beer, that a drunkard should be sent to the Luuatic

** Martin’s British Colonies,’’ that the qualification of electors | of the Legislative Council was resumed. for the Legislative Council at the Cape of Good Lope is a} Hon, Mr. COLES—I am in favor of a lower qualification property of the annual value of £25, and that it is stated the | for electors, notwithstanding that some hon. members assert reason it is made 80 low is to give the Hottentots a right to| Sat the Colonial Minister will withhold his assent to the Bill vote. (Laughter.) But that sum is not much criterion for | /f we reduce the electoral qualification below £100. The hen. us in this Colony, because I see that the salaries of the public member for the City, Mr. Beer, told us so last evening. That officers there, such as the Chief Justice and others, are about |™4y be his opinion, and he may take it upon himecif to six times as high as they are in this Island. I will support} decide what shall be beneficial to the people, and also, what the motion fer £50; but L reserve the right, if I should think , the Duke of Newcastle way do. Lum in favor of a propert, proper, to change my opinion before the Bill has passed | (¥4litication of £50, but, of course, if the majority have throegh all its stages. I am not altogether in favor of having | UP “weir minds on the subject, it is useless for the minority to ho property qualification for candidates ; 1 think it would be | ®*8¥e the question. [will move that the qualification den preferable to fix a £50 qualification for electors, and also a | Sleetor be £50 instead of £100. small qualification for candidates. I am not aware that a| _ Hon. Mr. WIGHTMAN—Not having spoken on this ques- property qualification for candidates has been dispensed with | 40", 1 deem it my duty to state the reasons for the vote I in any of the Colonies. shall give. 1 object tu the qualification being fixed at £100 Mr. COOPER—I would not object to require a qualification | 88 being far too high, and, consequently, as disf i of the Candidate, fur a member might be sent to the Council | ¥mbers of the people, as there are many men occu rthimself. 1 think it would be well | {ts of not more than 50 acres, who would not to tu have a qualification for candidates, swear that their property was worth £100, Another objecti Mr. MONTGOMERY—I am sorry that the Bill was not as-| i# to be found in the fact that the qualification for a member sented to without a qualification forelectors. But as the Duke | 8 this House is fixed at £50, and the result of oe of Newcastle appears to decline recommending the measure | ‘He proposed amount would be that a party ified to to Her Majesty’s approval without sueh a qualification, | | 4 S¢4¢ in this branch of the Legislatare, would not have the eee we must agree to the resolution before the Committee. | Tight to vote for a candidate for elections to the other. Tho ir. DAVIES—I expressed my views on this subject last higher standard will not satisfy the country, and, while I am year. and then stated that as the present system of appointing | Willing to aid in carrying out the suggestions in the despateh , members to the Council did not work well, there was a neces- | ! shall vote fur £50 instead of £160, as the former amount, & sity for a change in the constitution of that body. ‘The Duke | believe will be more in accordance with the wishes of the of Neweastle says he would enforce a tolerably high qaalifi- | C¢U"try. cation for electors; but of the candidate he would only re-| on. Mr. POPE—The reason why the qualification for a quire that he should be a British subject, resident in the Colo-| C49didate had been fixed in the previous Bill at £600 was, by, and thirty years of age. ‘These are his opinions or gug- | D¢¢ause it required no property qualification in the elector. gestions; but [think though we even passed the Bill with just. !* 18 not to be inferred, that, because a candidate is not requi- the same provisions as the one of lust year, he would not Ted to hold rroperty, therefure no man of means will be object to submit it for Her Majesty’s approval. I, however, | “lected to the Council, and the objection to the qualification ugree with the Duke, that a respectable constituency will _ of an elector will not have so restrictive an ion as hon. choose a respectable representative. As this is a constitutional | “embers appear to think—for any tenant owning a reasonably question, | think we ought to adopt the suggestions of the | Zood house and barn ean quality for £100. It is Colonial Minister, and reap the benefit of bis experience in | that the Council should be constituted on a basis different thoes matters. from that of this Mouse, and, if no y qualification lon. Mr. LONGWORTII—T do not consider that there is | Should be required of an elector for that body, i will be a any necessity to prolong this debate ; however, 1 wish to offer | ™¢re duplicate of the House, and consequently will not afford a remark or two,us I conceive that some of the principles laid | “ve check upon our legislation which it was intended to have. down by two or three hon. members on the opposite side of | By adopting the suggestions of the Dake of Newcastle, wo the House cannot be supported by sound reasoning. 1 am | Wl improve the character of the Council, at the same time

‘somewhat surprised that they should advocate a property that we provide for the safety of the interests of the public,

qualification for candidates ; and particularly that this course | WhO will be fairly represented under the ifica- should be taken by the hon. and venerable member for East} ion. The elective principle was admitted last year, in faet, Point, who has always been in favour of the democratic prin- the only members who opposed it were, Messrs. Whelan and ciple. The whole seope of the Colonial Minister's despatch | Kelly. The best course for the House to adopt is to give is to give power to constituencies, and is in accordance with @ffect to the views of the Duke of Newcastle whose despatch the enlightened sentiment now beginning to prevail in Eng- | Shews that he has given the subject ample consideration, and land, that it is not necessary to require a property qualifica- | in that despatch he assures us that his suggestions are offered tion of candidates. We baye had a lengthy speech from the | ip No spirit of antagonism to our right to the management of

‘hon. member fur Princetown, but he has not thrown mach | Oar Own affairs. The Bill, assent up to the Council last year,

lighton the subject. His whole reasoning appears to have | ¥@® rejected, and protests were entered on the Journals been intended to prove that hy requiring a property qualifi- | @gainstit. The Colonial Minister, however, takes a different

cation of electors we would bring about antagonism between | View of the measure from that of the members of that body and

the two branches of the Legislature. Me seems to think that plainly tells them that their seats are not to be considered & person who possesses no property, or a property of the value | their property, but that they must be surrendered when the of £50, is a safer man to deal with, or one less likely to bring | Wishes and interests uf the people require it. ‘lhe majority pa

about a cullision,than the individual who owns property worth | Proper attention to the rights and property of every individual, £100, |and the people will not be deceived by the misrepresentations

jof life; bat there might be instances of men getting drank

jand continuing so, for three or four weeks at a time, for the fectly, and what l have said isa fair inference to be drawn | purpose of being seut there, for the House had reason to from his statements.

‘inmachinery wust be introduced, and if the lunatic bad no|

Asylum lor two or three weeks, might, if carried into Operas) fF said that two classes of electors would be likely to cause a) tion have the eifect of frighteniag him into a better course clashing between the two branches of the Legislature.

iJon. Mr. LONGWORTUH—I understood bis remarks per- bous He pictared out political storms, and 1 | know that many now applicd for adwission in vain, uecessary to act with caution.

lon. Mr. LONGWORTH—There was no doubt that a

| if there was no property quatification for Council electors, or | wu qualification of only £50, these storms would be prevented | 80 far as the two Houses are concerned. A qualification vo}

coofirmed draukurd was insane; but he doubted the policy £100, I contend will include nearly all the landholders in the

of incorporating the principle of the clause ina Bill. The) Colony. There is danger also in fixing the qualification too | law at present was sufficiently explicit,

It Was may assume, from his manner of reasoning, that he thought |

A lunatic and his | low, as the elector 1s to be the judge of the value of his own |

Mr. SINCLAIR—The hon. member has misunderstood me. | of members of the minority, whose chject is to regain the

position they formerly held. I do not include in this remark all of the minority, as there are gentlemen among them who

| would scorn to follow the example ot some of their party. In

conclusion I may say that rather than | would reduce the qualification for an elector below £100, | would suppors universal suffrage.

(To be continued.)

—— oe 2

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIR.

Turspay, April 8th. The House again in committee on Statute Labour Bill. Hon. Mr. HUTCHINSON—If a person looses his certificate, I think

property could be consigned by order of tie Master of the | property. The hon. member fur Princetown certainly paid | he shontd be entitled to vete on making affidavit that he had performed

the majority a high compliment, when he said he doubted | their sincerity in supporting the Bull of last session.

Mr. SINCLALR—The bon, member puts a forced construe-

tion on my words.

Rolis to the care of his friends, and a magistrate could con- fiue any degraded sot whom he found incapable of taking care of himself. If a man should be pronounced insane, on |

his insanity might have arisen, his relatives couid apply to) sidering the aristocratie tendencies of sume hon. members of |

the Master of the Kolls for the appointment of a committee | the majority, 1 could not account for their supporting it on

to take charge of his person and property. If the recom-! any other ground than that they thought it would not receive 5 i

mendation of the special Committee be adopted, complicated

the Royal us-ent. | Hon. Mr. LONGWORTI—The hon. member has not im- | : : proved his statement by this explanation. perry ihe general reveuue would have to bear the expen: |" Hon. Mr. COLES—TLe hon. member for Princetown is | ses of his support, ‘quite correct. Did not the hon. leader of the Government in | Mr. DA VLES—The object was the relief of the drunkard’s | this House state the otber day that he did not think it would/ family. All habitual draukards were madmen, and all knew receive the sanction of Her Majesty? that murders were frequentiy committed by individuals of} Mon. Mr LONG WORTH —In his opinion the Bill was too | that class. As the law at preseut stood, nu one had autho- | liberal, and perbaps he did not expect it would receive Her sty to enter their dwellings Majesty 8 assent ; but he was not alone in this opinion, for 7 y g* the friend of the hon. leader of the Opposition, the member Clause agreed to. : for St. Peter’s, also thought it would not meet the approval Hon, Mc, HAVILAND called the notice of the Com- of the authorities at home. We cannot obtain at present cor- mittee to the subject matter of a petition fromthe NorthRiver, | rect information respecting the amount of qualification for complaining of the difficulty of obtaining « license, The diffi-| electors in South Australia and Tasmania. The only autho- cultyarose from the locality of the proposed tavern,which being | rity in the library in regard to the British possessions gene- opposite the house of a magistrate, be refused to sign tae | rally Y that referred to by the 99 ve mesnee “ae estifieate, as. naturally enough. he did not wish to see al East Point, which does not give the qualification in these two ae an ade bm Ras nm} . ‘Colonies. The qualification proposed in the resolution before | tavern established in that situation. The report of: the/ 1,4 Committee iv not at all equal to that required at the Cape special Committee contained no allusion to that petition. lof Good Hope, which is the annual value of £25. The inte- Mr. MONTGOMERY—The petitioner would bave to) rest of £100 would be about £3 6s. 8d.; this, therefore,

tion for this Island. in regard to the question raised yester-

Hon. Mr. LAIRD—The petitioa should have been aoa day that the resulution would exclude certain persons from | voting—squatters, I presume, | may say that these have no

By Hon. Mr. Yeo, from Archibald Gillis and others, for cupation of a taveru keeper was as lawful as that of an aue- | !@st year, fur the purpose of obtaining their opinion on it this) 4s that is yery good : Dut it is not sufficient when we come | ' j P pe | y £ j

“ompensation to William Gillis and Learisto for right | ui way through their farms to the Tignish road,

From inhabitants of the Linkletter settlement for aid to | complete a new road.

Frow inhabitants of Summerside, St. Eleauor’s, &e., for Opening a new line of road to Summerside.

sar to the Committee on new roads.

' ngus Campbell, Cascumpec, for indemnification en ino by him as surety for John McDonald—with- |

Inhabitants of On aad ok Elis hee 14 and 16, for grant to extend |

Inhabitants of Lots 14 : and 16 for grant to complete the “— on the line of division between Anse Lots. : nbabitants of Lots 14, 15 aud 16 for grant to build a |

bri i » "i 2; ridge across Trout Liver, and to open a road in connection | with it,

By Hon. Mr. Longworth, from inhabi others for grant to complete

Another for grant to exte Tabled.

j '

od the wharf at Rocky Point. |

tioueer, or any other which required a license and was so acknowledged by the fact of a license being required. He did not recoguise the truth of the assertion that taverns couid aot be sustained withqut the sale of liquors,

Hlon. Mr. McAUS,AY could conceive uo objection to the elause, with which the solvency or insolvency of the Corpo- ration had nothing to do — and an allusion to which was quite out of place. Jt was bat reasonable that the majority ot the Commos Council sbould control the minority, as was the case in every corporate body. If two of them were wise the chances certainly were that four wouid not be fools, He! would support the clause; it was merely wasting the tiwe of the Committee by offering opposition fur which there were no tenable grounds.

Hoo. Mr. PUPKE—As the Common Council was responsi- | (Debate on Legislative Council Bill continued from last No.) | right to vote. But, Sir, we have none of that class on this |

ble for the proper management and regulation of the City, it | was but right tuat they stould have the power given them

tants of Lot 65, and | by the cluuse. ie agreed with bon, Mr. Hensley, that the /¢ the wharf at McKwen’s poiat. | same check did not exist in Charlottetowa as in the country, |'

where, in addition to the certificates of two Justices of the |

Session, to settle a qualification for the Legislative Council. I may _ lon Mr. KELLY —Last year it was considered that any | remark that the resolution as it stands requires that the pro- two Justices out of the five nearest might sign the papers. | perty must be either all leasehold or all freehold ; but it is Mr. HOWAT—The special Committee did not feel bound | our intention to amend it so as to include that the qualifica- | to deal with individual cases. ‘Lhe law specified two nezgh-| tion may be partly leasehold and partly freehold, Bs Louring, not the two nearest Justices. Lf a license was im- | Hon. Mr. COLES—This alteration shows the necessity of Sikes seielation | OPposttion in this Llouse, because if we had not opposed the properly relused, the House could not iaterfere by legislation | ceclation it would have been pussed as it was introduced. on a0 individual case. We kuow. Sir, that a certain person who was returned as a Hon. Mr. HENSLEY—Some difficulty had arisen, as to) member of this ilouse, though he had a Jeasehold and a free- the interpretation to be put upon the word neighbouring. | hold proverty, yet he cuuld not conscientiously take the oath It was desirable to define its meaning in the Act, as the law in regard to estver that it was worth £50. The case is quite should be explicit. A short clause would settle it. peu ae a ane ~ rey oor Lingala “ j : ause lunde ope 1€ rene 2 of The Committee thea rose, hans hae vs cine” besides, the qualification of electors, there seems to have been fixed so as tu give the Hottentots a