Transnnc'i'o’as or rumor: EDWARD tetanus _ :It’js knoWn to many of you, that the principal object} hadin’view in becoming a member of the Legislature, wasto obtain a settlement-for thepeople who improved the land from its wilderness'state, which improvements made the rest of the land valuable, as well afi’tbe Colony generally. To me it appeared to be a case of great hardship and injustice, and a system that ought now be tolerated under the British Government, to allow the,

,_ Grantees,‘who had large, tracts of land granted—not for

themselves alone, but forgthe express purpose of settling a certain number of' other persons, in the proportion of

,nnefperson to every time hundred acres—instead of

’1 settling those persons by a Deed, in fee simple, to

i

.‘ N

at

4-.

bring them under lease for a term of years, at a high rent, and eventually to deprive and dispossess the Tenant of his improved farm. / ' .

Now, I believe the Home Government are full, con- vinced that the practice of~ letting the land for a term of years, at a high rent, is unjust, and contrary to the conditions of the Grants, and to the Indulgence of 1816; but as the practice has been followed, and rents ,have been recoveredfiand tenants have been ejected out

,7 of their improvemer’i’t‘s by judgments oftiie Courts of Law

inthis Colony, Lord John Russell has been made to see.

,sthat to return to a course of strictjusliac, at this late 7 period, after the people have been so long.oppressed,

would render the oppression the people have endured much more glaring. But as the unsettled state ofthe in- . habitants has been brought before the Imperial Govern- ment and the House of Commons, it cannot remain any longer without a settlement, in some way or other—ei— ther for or against the interests of the people. But the settlement has been put 03‘, to give time to discourage the people with Despatches and Speeches, and to render them indifferent to their interests at the ensuing Election, that men may be returned to the House ofAssembly who will confirm the Grants by an Act ofthe Legislature; and whatever terms they inay‘"‘give to the,.'l‘eitantry, ‘whether good or bad, will be fixed by Law. ‘ 2 You have, no doubt, heard of my preparing to leave the Colony, which I hope to be able to do in IS or 20

, months; hull would not loseglie opportunity of offering ’ "fimy advice, at this critical period, when every exertion ‘ ‘will be made to deceive pig, and to induce you to elect

men who will favour the reprietors’ interest and injure yourown. I Then, therefr'xe, selected a few of the Pro. prietors’ favourite arguments (with which they try to de- fend their system of oppression), in order to expose their , fallacy, and to shew you that the Grantees had no au- ‘ thority, either 'in Law or Equity, to limit the settlement of those persons whom they weroebound to settleito a term of years, or to demand rent from such persons for unimproved land. , _ l 'The iniquitous and oppressive system of demanding rent for the forest land ofa new Colony was introduced by deceiving the Emigrants who’came here to‘settle, and also the ImperialGoverument. Emigrants were led to believe that the lands were granted to certain persons. for their services, and that they had a right to make all they could by it; and the Imperial Government were led,to believe that the rent demanded of the tenants was only the interest of the money expended by the Grantees in paying the passage of Emigrants, erecting houses for them, and supplying them with necessaries before they ‘ could provide forthemselves. As far as this was true, there could be less Objection; but I have understood that the low persons who came to this Colony under such circumstances had to pay such debts with interest, and the rent besides. And I knpw that within these last l5 or 20 years, that upon many of the Townships where people had come to the Colony and settled themselves withoutany expense to the Grantee—had rendered his land generally valuable by their improvements, and say.- ed it from Escheat—that those useful persons have been compelled to attorn and to pay rent to the Proprietor, or be ejected from their improvements. _ , - And the only arguments the Proprietor wotfiiset up ,in defence of such proceedings are, “ That the land was ffgranted to persons for their services, and a man may 'fdo what he likes with his own property.—When a per- " son had signed a lease or attorned, it was a proof'that “the land was not his—If any person was fool enough _“to’ make a bad bargain, with his eyes open, in be- “coming a tenant, he had no right to complain after- “ wards—it was his own seeking—be was glad to get the

2..» “land.”-——These may appear good arguments for sharp-

ers or swindlers, to cheat the unsuspecting man who makes his living by his labour and industry, but the Grantees or Proprietors ought to know, that the Imperi- al Government had better objects in view in granting the land, as will appear in the conditions ofthe Grants.

‘ Emigrants arriving in this Colony, to settle and clear farms, could not form an estimate as to whether the land —then a forest—could afford a rent; they could not foresee what quantity of labour would be required to

u- . grow a certain quantity of produce ; and it was equally as

uncertain to say where he would find a market, and mo- ney payment for any produce he might have to spare; and immigrants could not choose, and make a bargain for the price or rent ofthe land, as the Island was all granted; and the Grantees had taken possession ofthe reserved lands for the fisheries also. The immigrant, to obtain. leave to erect his first but, had to submit to the Grantee’s terms, and become his tenant; and unless the Government held some check in the Grants, to compel the Grantees to settle the inhabitants, the Imperial Go- verpment, in passing such Grants, would be a party in laymga snare to entrap a portion of their subjects into the hands ofthe Grantees, to deprive them ofthe proper- ty their labour.

An ,:,accOrdingly, we find that the Island was granted ’.upon condition that the Grantees should scttlc the land within ten years from the date of the Grants, in the pro-

~23 portion ofone perbon to every two hundred acres; and

that in the year 18l6, the Imperial Government gave further indulgence, allowing ten years more to settle the lands, in the proportion of persons specified in the origi- ail grants; and as the Crown made it a principal condi- tion ofthe Grants that a portion of the subjects were to be settled in,this Island by the Grantees, this was a bar-

gain, madeiby the Crown with the Grantees on behalf ofa number of persons who were to comelto this Colony, ~ 1) clear the lands for themselves and reside on the Island;

itbecame the duty of the Colonial Government to . i what description of Settlement was meant, and to

i see; that it was faithfully performed.

And as the wards and acts of the Imperial Govern- ment are to be construed in the most favourable light, for the honor of the Crown, and for the general benefit

l‘ 0f mt‘-‘-§Pe<>ple; and according to this construction, the

lfiell'lemém reserved. by the Crown in the conditions of

illie Giants, for the first inhabitants who were to improve

the land, in the proportion of one person to every two

, hundred'icres, were to ’be freclwldérs; and allowing one

"hm: I f’z §

t‘,m..a F V

.V , V: :7; h ‘ .. .. hundred acres-to"a_ set ,g,the_:G'rantees,‘would have 0"“

hundred here‘s fbr7efrery‘ person they, wOuld so settle. which would increase win v'alue,by the, Settlers improt'Wg .their'land's—therefiire, it appears, that the Grantees We” to havoyone‘half of the land’ for settling the other half—3» a sufficient remuneration, eren if they had gone to the expense of settling the land with foreign Protestants. giving the conditiggis‘ of the Grants this construc- tion, I am fully bornefont by the tnanner in \vhichdhe. Government have settled the Crown lands in the neigh‘ bouringrfiglonies. and also Townships l5 and 55, in this Island, whim the first settlers received a Grant of 100 acres each in fee simple, on paying the expense ofthe Grant; and I am safe inl'saying, that "the lmperialVGO’ vernment have never madelit a practice in the American Colonies to charge any price for the forest lands(excep1 a Quit Rent, for the support of the Government). unlll the Colony became improved, andthe funds had itchle ed a value by the improveinents'uil' the first settlers— then, and not till then, the landd‘fihfi'e been SOld for Whal they were worth; and it must be i cut to every ul‘f’re' judiced mind, from the practiceith'e'deernment have in- variably followed in the settlement of new Colonies, and the conditions of the Grants of this Island, that the first .inhabitants who have improved the lands of this Colony, to the number of I00 settlers to a Township “20,000 acres, were to have been‘settled in fee simple.

But we are again told, that fr) interfere between the landlord and tenant, is disturbing the snow] rig/its of properly, and that applying to the Home Government for the appointment of a Court of Esclie-‘it, is a design to rob tlieGrantees oftheir funds. This language is used for the base purpose ofperverting the truth. Look to the conditions of the Grants, and you will see that the settlement ofthe first persons who were to improve the Colony is the most sacred right in the Grants; for if those persons were not settled, the Grants were to become forfeited—the Grantee would lose his right, while the persons who improved the land would be secured in their improvements by a Grant from the Crown. It is the high consideration I have for the sacred rights of pro- perty, and the honor of the British Guvzrmncnt, which induced me to use every means' in my power to put a stop to the Grantees continuing to rob the persons they were bound to settle ofthe property which ought to be sacred, as it is honestly acquired by hard labour and in- dustry; and [for those purposes alone I have followed the course pointed out byihe Imperial Government, as con- tained in the original Grants. viz :—-“ That ifthe lands “ are not settled with the number of persons specified ” in the Grants, the lands are to become forfeited to the “ Crown.” And in asking for the forfeiture ofthe Grants by Escheat, it was not with a view to deprive the Grati- tees of any right that they might have; it was to enable the Crown to settle the pedple according to the intention of the Grants. But any interference of mine will not prevent the Government and grantees from settling the people without an Esclieat, if they are so disposed.

Now, it is evident that a la'ndor penal tax upon the wilderness land, however great the amount, would have no effect whatever to induce the‘ Proprietors or Grantees to perform the conditions oftlieir Grants, by Scltling the tenants and occupants who first improved the land, in the proportion of one person to every two hundred acres, and by giving a Deed in fee simple, according to the manner in which the Government have settled persons upon the Crown lands. Such a tax would have a very injurious effect—it would induce the Government to be- lieve that we did not want to have the tenants and occu- pants scttlcd according to the conditions ofthe Grants, but that we wanted to leave them as they are, and reduce the price of the wilderness land. Andwhen the condi- tions of the Grants are express, and shew plainly that the first IOO persons-to a Township were to be settled, it would be, great injustice to the persons who are now only tenants and occupants to give up their right in be-

. * g . ing ,settled in freehold for any "benetitwre‘ficould derive by a land tax. But whenever such persons are settled according to the conditions of the Grants, and the gran— tees should continue to hold their share of the lands uti- occupied or unimproved until it became ofgreater value by the general improvement of the Colony, so as to pro- duce a scarcityofland in the market for sale, then a tax, to compel them either to sell or improve their land, and to keep up their share ofthe Roads and Bridges, Would not only be just and equitable, but absolutely necessary; therefore, to impose a land tax, in lieu ofa settlement for the people, is to deprive them of a settlement, which they have a right to expect, and to deceive the Imperial Government, who would be led to believe, by such tax, that the peopleavere settled.

Again, we are told that the tenant executed a lease, and covenauted to acknowledge the proprietor his land- lord, and pay him rent; and that this was an obligation ofa solemn nature, which the Government could notin- terfere with. I have already shown, that the conditions ofthe Grants are of a more solemn nature than any lease, and therefore the attempt at setting aside the condi. tions contained in the grants for settlement—to super- cede them with any lease or agreement,—-does’away with all the solemnity of the lease or agreement; and not only renders them utterly worthless, but is a witness against them, to prove that such lease or aareement is unjust and oppressive, and leads the people ti) doubt the validity of any document, and the sincerity and good faith of their Government. And when we know that the Grantees have included in their leases the lands re- served for the fisheries, it might, with equal justice be said, that such leases gave the landlords a title to ’the Fishery Reserves, such as the Government could not disturb or set aside.

When all arguments havefuilcrl to convince the peo- ple that the proprietors have a right to oppress them, we are told that we have gained nothing by agitation; that Lord John Russell has told us that it would be unjust to escbeat the land; and the Governor, in his speech, that therprospect ofan Escheat is visionary. This WO'lltl be enough to stagger our hopes of a settlement for the peo- ple, if we had no other prospect but that of an Escheat; :jgtntétfhelzesnlutions of the House of Assembly recon]- _ ' . ppointment of Commissmners front the neigh- bouring Colonies, to fix the value ofthe land in its wil- derness state, and to fix the price the people should pay for a settlement; and also, that those who have impro- lffaJ:emiiii’lulifiii"? dig“ “rammed ‘l‘e T hi 8 Tie D P y D rent tothe Proprietors of th‘ii’ivei’ngrs sieecisiil°l£r Lmd if“ “"559” “d ‘0 Lord John or the; G. 80 muc to be attributed

_ , overnor as to our Executive Coun- cil, of which Electors Will do well to inform th selves, to be enabled to discharge their trust at th em- Election. ‘ e mm

In Mr. Hume’s letter, published in the Gazette of the 22nd, and in the Herald of the 26th March he so 's_ " The Resolutions ofthe House ofAssembly ’01 the 25th “ April, 1849, point out an eVil Which, under Lord Jobii “ Russell’sown doctrine, in his despatch to the Governor

"“ time totim'e; and if Lord John

. M, . “General of Cariada,:fought ere this to have hating:- “moved. Theéwonstitution of the Executiveb ov me ,“ ment has, in almost all the CuLotlleS, isif'nfmm l‘f ' f all th‘ troubles that ave at . Chief cause? Rossell had followed " Lord Durham’s advice, you might have had relief ere “this to your difficulties.”

W22. Lord John Russell’s doctrine and Lord Durham’s all-

Colonies are to begovemed ,by the understood wishes of the people.” The Execi‘itivt} Council is to be formed of men who are likely Isl->8 0 opinion with the majprity of the House of Asseintheyznoarl questions of general importance; and wheneverasure in jority of the House of Assembly carry do me. qt the which the people are generally intereste again: h Executive, or pass a vote ofwant of confidence in t e Government, then Executive Councd would have to resign, and another ExecutiveOformed from .men who would agree in public matters Wllh-tlle majority of the House of Assembly. This construction ofthe Executtvg Council is what is called “Respoustble Government, because the Government must be conducted and carried out according to the wishes of the people, as expressegl

their Re ireseiitatives. byThis‘forrii of Government has been conceded to the other Colonies, but withheld from us, through the means ofthe Executive and Legislative Connoils representing to Lord John Russell that the Mrijority of the House of Assembly were extravagant in their demands and Vision- ' and had a desire to strike at the root of the rights ofpruperty, which ought to be held sacred. But the Ilouse of Assembly have shown that both Coun- cils are interested parties, as Proprietors, Land Agents, and their relatives; and it is clearly shewn, that tliesys- tem which they are upholding is to deprive the Agricul- tural inhabitants oftlieir property by menus winch cannot be justified 93' defended. The Resolutions of the ma- jority of the House of Assemny potnied out a system of fraud and oppression, and pointed out several ways of affording redress, of which the appmntmeiit of a (,ourt of Esclieat was only a contingency, depending upon a refusal of the others; but instead ofthe Executive finding a remedy for the evils, or agreeing to the reme- dies proposed by the House of Assembly, the Governor passed them over unnoticed, and told the people that their views of an Escheat were visionary! _ .

A Governor may carry measures in opposmon to the Executive Council ; but this is very seldom the case, and could only happen where the interest of the Imperial Government was involved—therefore, we may believe that all the measures of our Government which have been carried against the interests of the people ge- nerally, have been carried by the Executive Councd, to suit their own views. \

From :lhe year 1794, during Governor Fanning’s ad- ministratioa, the Council applied for a Court ofEscheat. The Grantees, many ofwhom were residing in other countries, seeing that they would lose their lands, sold their Grants for a trifle'to influential m’eu on the Island who could command a little motiey, and the Governor himself became a large purchaser; and when an E5- cheat was conceded, in 1802, by the Home Govern- ment,it was suppressed in this Island. The Governor, Council, and other influential men, got all they‘wanted, and then they would send such representations to'the Home Government as would bring out Despatches from Ministers to suit their views and interests. Thus a Go— vernment was founded in the Colony to protect the for— feited Grants from an Escheat, and at all hazardste ena- ble them to take the property of the inhabitants who‘ were improving the land, under a colour of Law. There have since been several removals of members, and addi- tions to the Executive Council then in office, but there has always been enough of the old leven left to leven the new. v '

When the Esch’_ _, question was again brought for- ward, in 1832, the Executive Council were willing to go with the House of Assembly for an Escheat, supposed to be for nine or ten Townships that, had but few inha- bitants upon them, or that had no ostensible owner. This property, ifthrown into the hands of the Council, would have given them greatereiiifluence, in proportion to the quantity of property to divide amongst'their friends and dependents. This measure was called a partial Escheat, and only ttvo members of the House opposed it. But asI knew that the Grantees were bound by their Grants to settle one hundred persons upon each Township of20,000 acres, as has been already observ- ed; and when Government settled such persons upon the Crown lands, by a Grant in fee, I believed it to be highly unjust in the Grantees, to let their land under lease at a high rent to the limited number of persons who were to have been settled, to improve the Colony ; and as the only course to remedy this evil was pointed outin the Grants, namely, the forfeiture thereof, this was applied for, not for the purpose, as has been said, of deprivingthe Grantees of any claim which they might have, butto settle the first inhabitants in fee simple, according to the intention of the Grants; and had this desirable measure been carried into operation, there would still have been sufficient lands left in the hands of the Government to have given the Grantees their

vice’is this——“ that the

my in ;heir views,

it. This has been called a general Escheat; and while many of the people saw that this was just and equitable,

Assembly, the Executive Council, or some of them, when they could not oppose it with sound argument, met the question with mockery and derision.

When the Earl of Durham went to Canada, to report upon the troubles of the Colonies, and to devise a remo- dy, Major Head was sent. to this Island, and from evi- deiicotaken upon the spot, gave in a Report highly fa- vourable to an Escheat, and of course to the settlement oftliis Colony; but I have been informed (not beino on lhe Island at the time) that the Honorables fill: Hthland, Mr. Pope, Mr. Dairyinple and the Attorney General went to give their-report of the state ofthe Co- lonytothe Earl of Durham; and the Report of Major Head. who had been on the Island, and examinedmaii Witnesses, was scarcely alluded to by the Earl of Dur- ham in his general Report.