* cm @nlnut

AND,

. PRINCE EDVVARD ISLAND ADVERTISER.

flaggfii’fiii

rect opinions of the state ofthe Island ourselves, than Lord Dur- ham, or those who drew up that report; indeed, we were better acquainted, because he had his information from hearsay. How. ever, he refers to Government Land [Here he read the extract already cued] This would riot give the squatter an opportunity to take a lease; but Lord Durham‘s report and Sir Charles Fitz Boy s letter serve as teXt-books to the hon. member for King’s County (Mr. Cooper), and as sitch are brought forward by him on every occasion. He (Mr. Palmer) had no objection that the Bill should pass into a law,tor by it the squatter was protected in every thing he could reasonably claimn It was his opinion that if a squatter had his choice, he would in nine cases out of ten prefer the verdict ofa jury to the award of an arbitration.

Mr. MONTGOMERY said, he would support the amendment. It was very evident two or three neighbors in the country Would be far betterjudges ofthe value of the improvements made while on the spot, than ajury sitting in Charlottetown, 50 or 60 miles from the place.

Mr. D. lllACLEAN was not surprised that the hon. member for Charlottetown preferred deciding those differences in Charlotte. town, to settling it by simple arbitration; it was very natural for professional gentlemen to carve out employment for themselves whenever they could. He (Mr Maclean) was glad to hear the hoti gentleman say he would support arbitration if it could be shewn that the Imperial Parliament or any Colonial Legislature had ever sanctioned such a proceeding. As he (.\lr. Macleao) knew the hon gentleman had a peculiar relish for hisICanadinn precedents, he would read part of a resolution of the Canadian Parliament, dated 7th of September, 1841, completely in point, where disputes between landlord and tenant are to be decided by arbitration, in a commutation of a leasehold into fee Simple in that country. [Here he read the extract alluded to.] He would make no cotrrments, aslit completely met the case which the lion. member pledged himselle support ; and he trusted that every other member Would see the propriety of following so good an example.

Mr. Secures did not think the case cited by the lion. member who last spoke a case iii point ; nor was it what was contemplated by this Bill. [Here he read something describing the seigtieuries in Canada, to which Lord Durham seemed to al- lude.] He would wish the squatters placed on the some footing, as they who had bona ﬁde agreements with the proprietors,

0n reading the clause for extending the term of the lease to 999 years, and to ﬁx the rent at One Shilling Sterling—

Mr THORNTON said, when this Bill was last under debate, the chief objection made against it was, that Sterling was demanded as the rent, iii lieu of Currency; and on this clause the Committee rose without deciding, and the reason of this was, that the Proprietors might not consider, that this House, by one of its

ublic acts would seem to sanction the rate or terms demanded by them, whilst the tenant is unable to pay it Mr. Rae, quoted Mr. O-Connell and the state of lrelaiid as similar to this Island - but while be (Mr Thornton) acknowledged the great legal authority of Mr. O-Cnnnell, he did not think the state. of lrelaknd a case in point; but Mr. O‘Connell‘s opinion was that the valua- liion ofthe improvements should be left to arbitration. He eon- fessed, there were persons who were but too apt to take advan- xage of any enactments ot’this House; but it was not his wrsh to . interfere With the rights of property, or in any way to interfere With the Contracts already entered into by landlords. No such lhing; it was for the sole purpose of relieving :1 certain class of persons, who voluntarily sat down on land to which perhaps they at ﬁrst supposed they had a right ; and to provide a remn- neration for the labour he had bestowed, and the expense he was ‘ at in improving the land of the present claimant, and to prevent him from_ bemg turned adrift without giving him sufﬁcient remuneration (Here the honorable gentleman rend a clause of the Bill.) He had made. the time 100 years,with a right to purchase, ,which he thought a‘very equitable arrangement, as those persons could not complain, if they were put on an equal footing with the tenants. We may be told that by submitting the decision to arbitration we do away with the rightofj'ury, but he thought otherwise —.Iury cases are often settled by arbitration, and iii his opinion Courts oflriw were too expensive for a poor man; what hope could he have by waiting the issue ofttvo or three terms, or how could he afford to pay the fees of lawyers and the expenses 01 witnesses. A Jury on the spot was talked of; he thought this full as objectionable as arbitration.

Mr. Coorcu observed, that the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill took especial care to provide for the security of the Proprietor, whether that Proprietor had taken any trouble with improving that property or not; but he (Mr. Cooper) was not equally certain that the right ofthe cultivator of the soil was so

with havmg directly participated in those riots, but he believed he would be borne out by facts in stating that the hon. member, (Mr. lilacdonald) by his writings. had been highly instrumental in exciting those commotions. When next he quoted his words, he hoped he would do so correctly.

Mr. RAE said it was quite easy to speak of bayonets on the ﬂoor of this House, but he thought when it came to the point of the bayonet, some lion. members Would not be found quite so rea- dy to offer their services as they seemed at present. He remem- bered that iii the year 1839, the hon. Speaker proposed that 1000 meashould be raised and sent to drive away the Yankees from the disputed territory at Illadawaska; but had the lion. Speaker’s crusade been agreed to their, h w puerile such burst of loyalty would appear now, when those same Yankees enjoy the free navigation of the river St. John, from which we loyally proposed. to drive them, with the approbation of the British Government. We Britons. are very apt to compliment ourselves on our prow— ess,and even on the obsequious deference that is due to our names by the natives of America. He heard of a British ofﬁcer that boasted at the time ofthe American war—ifhe were allowed a thousand men, he would go lit at one end of America, and march through it and out at the other end of it: he made the experiment, and found that the Americans were afterwards able l0 give a good account of both himself and his men, notwith- standing his British boasting. He (Mr. Rae) would wrsh to know who it was to whom the hon. Speaker alluded, as having encouraged those illegal meetings; for his (Mr. Rae) part he had not encouraged anything of the kind. Ifany speciﬁc charge can be brought against any member of the House, let us hear it.

Mr. Comes—We have heard more than enough about other matters, but very little on that which is the more immediate sub- ject of debate. He did not see any real or solid objection to the appointment of arbitrators. It was not for the purpose of super- seding the authoiity of juries to investigate the rights of proper- ty, it. was simply for the purpose of awarding the amount of com- pensation to be given the squatter for his improvements, if he does not wish intake a lease, and what could be, ntore equitable than that the proprietor should choose one and the squatter ano- ther. Those who object to arbitration, should reﬂect that large amounts are settled by a jury on the spot, under the Road Com- pensation Act. This Act was brought forward for the purpose of settling those disputes that existed in the cotintry. The pro-

best mode of settling the value of property. [Here he read t'rorr the Imperial statutes the law| t rat a jury on the spot should examine the value of property in Britain] On the Whole, he iu~ clined to have it settled by arbitration or by a jury on the spot, rather than oblige a poor man to submit to the form and ex- penses of law courts, out of which and the clutches of the law- yers h? Would endeavor to preserve the poor man.

lllr. Douse. There is no law in the old country to appoint arbi- tralors to settle disputes about property, nor to compel them to serve as such. Mi. O'Connell has been alluded to as an advii- cute for settlement by arbitration. He (Mr. Douse) thought )1r. O‘Connell was [here the hon. gentleman seemed arrested by an obstacle above his lorcc to remove] as fund of protecting his pro- perty as other people. .

Mr. Yeo thought that demanding one year’s rent would do away with the necessrty of arbitration. [The hoti. gentleman then commenced a narration of some story to illustrate the view he took of the question; but he spoke in so low and indistinct a tone of voice, that he was wholly unintelligible to us.]

Mr. RAE said he would have no objection that the lion. member (Mr. Yeo) should have leave to bring in a Bill to that effect, under all circumstances; such a radical change had taken place in the_ Bill, that it seems an entirely new one, and iii the present stage of the session it could not receive that degree of attention it dc- served If a jtity be summoned to adjudicate 0'] the spot, they are like twelve arbitrators, and surely they won’t go against the law of heaven and earth. lllr. Dottse denied that ll was cus- lomary iii Great Britain to submit the decision of such matters l0 arbitration. [Here he read from the statute of Great Britain, 5th of Victoria.] Let us be told What compensation is to be giv- en and whatnot, for this Bill does not go to the extreme rights of lhe squatter. He would like to know when they were to cease legislating on this subject, so that he might go home about his business.

Mr DOUsi: said, he was of opinion from the beginning, it would end iii smoke!

Mr SPEAKER was comingto the rescue ofhis countryman John Bull (Mr. Douse) when he torereached him. Tliete was no British statute by which property could be taken from one person and given to another by arbitiation. The case was different where works of public utility were in question. such as railroads. canals, kc. but in any othcr‘case he defied him to pointout a single instance of

It. . - J In. Vol. ‘ - , LHARLOTTETOWN, SATURDAY, APRIL 15, 1843. [No, 298. 'i i 2 ll! i-

. ' HOUSE 01" ASSEMBLY. ca.‘ ? ' - . . .. . _—. . . | ~ __ 111;“) cﬁgzélllil: gqpnréqqfélaw the czase is different, as there IS ya l Present 1n prov1ding impartial justice ; he was aware‘that for I taken place in King’s Cottnty lately: he (Mr. Mncdonald) called ' ‘ MARCH 22. repor, i, is n”, ,1 “mam” [r 1‘)” ail“'~nll- Ah lur Lord Durham 5 that purpose strong partialities, and antipathies must be sur- , on him to name the person to whom he alluded. I SQUATTERSr BILL. ‘ Pl 6 0 t is sland; We can form more. cor- mounted: neither was he prepared to say that arbitration is the Mr. SPEAKER said he did not charge any individual member I . l

)8.me 1.;

carefully guarded. Instead of givtng an opinion of his own, he preferred reading to the House an extract from the Report of Lord Durham, which he thought quite applicable to the subject under consideration. ‘- The profusion of Government in gran- ting its land has checked to so great an extent the prosperity of these Provinces, that the actual settlers are too few or too poor to be enabled to employ labourers; and an emigrant. therefore, must either proceed at once to the United States, or in order to support himself must occupy the first vacant lot. froth the cultivation of

but by no means \Vould wish to see them preferred to those who had honestly taken the land from the owners, for the purpose of gaining a livelihood. The. squatters. hemaintain- ed,wer e the worst kind of settlers we had: indeed, he would say. they occasioned much of the trouble now so prevalent in the country. Without leave or licence, they have squatted down on the land of the proprietors, and in a most unprincipled manner combat the right of the proprietor tothe land; and these, Mr. Chairman. forsooth, are the sort of persons for whose beneﬁt so

which, he can alone procure a livelihood. To disturb a posses- sion occasioned by such causes would be unjust as well as inex- pedient. There may be particular cases, which do not merit any indulgence, but it would be impossible to separate such from the 'mass; atid therefore, there should be some provision by which all persons occupying lend to which they have no title, should be. if not secured iii the possession ofthe land they occupy, at least guaranteed the full beneﬁt of their improvements. With respect to those who have settled on Government land, this may be easily effected by allowing them to become purchasers at the uniform price of public lands, as has been already done in Lower Canada, by proclamation of your Excellency; and if needful, even allow- ing a certain period within which the purchase money may be paid. With respect to those who occupy land, the pro- perty‘ of private individuals, it would be necessary to pass a law entitling them to compensation for their improvements by valua- lian. Such a nieaoire would not only give a great immediate stimulus to the industry of the country, but it would have a most useful effect in conﬁrming the loyalty of many who are at present described as looking with hope, rather than reluctance, to the subversion of the existing Government,” Here Lord Durham admits the necessity of granting compensation ; but we go a step beyond this, inasmuch as we put the claimant who never did anv- (hing to settle or improve the country on the same looting as those who have. It was idle to expect any thing tending to settle the people could be accomplished by this Bill. and we never can settle the people, unless we bring in a Bill for the express purpose of settling the whole Island. If this were not done, he Would be inclined to vote against the bill altogether.

Mt. MACAULAY said, if he were not so well acquainted with we source from whence proceeded the speech of the hon gentle- man who had just sat down, it would excite his astonishment.— He (Mr. Cooper) professes to be a friend to the people, and vet says he will oppose the Bill that is brought forward to redress the grievariczsofa certain class of the people. He was astonish- -ed persons of such weak. judgment could be found. Here, for instance, a certain class of people settle down on land, not their town, and after having occupied it for 10, 20, or 30 years. an individual then steps forward and lays claim to it, improvements and all, and this Bill is brought forward to protect them. other. wise they would be liable to be dispossessed, after all the im- provements they had made in reclaimingjt from its wild-mess state, and then in their old age to be turned adrift on the world. He Mr. Macaulay), would wish to hear some argument advanced by t e lion. member, for the view he had taken of the subject. but he had heard none. A proprietor who had not come forward ‘to claim and improve his land, was at no loss by the occupancy, and improvement of the squatter; on the contrary he was a gainer by it, inasmuch as it preserved the land from forfeiture, and this Bill provrdes remuneration to him for having preserved the property of the Proprietor from conﬁscation.

Mr. COOPER would positively state that. by the Bill. a man must :take alease, (fr he will lose his improvements. As tothe harangue .of the hon. member for Georgetown. all he would observe was, that “ when the fox preaches, let the goose beware l".

Mr. MACAULAY—We have heard Lotti Durha-n’s report, and we have heard many other reports, that have no sound judgment in them. He thought it would be giving squatters what they had no right to claim. It is a well known rule, that there is no possession in law without a title to possess, therefore squatters ’I-abour under the disadvantage of possessing no title; and if he -settle down on land, it is because he derives a beneﬁt from it requivalent to the labour he expends on it. And if the rent is ..established at aﬁxed sum, is he not as well off as the other ~tenants throughout the Island; but if this Bill does not pass, he thas no protection._

Mr, R45 would not cast away the beneﬁt to be derived from «athe operation of this Act, though he was convinced it was far ‘from containing a full measure ofjustice and equity Lord Dur- ibam’s advice should be followed with regard to settling squatters; and there was a general feeling at home, that tenants should be paid tor their improvements; bttt here it was absolute nonsense do [ajk about getting a full measure of justice; and therefore we smug: put up with half and half measures-like the present, and the thankful for them, and therefore ifthis Bill brought relief only dolor) or even to 50, he would support it.

' ‘Mr. PALMER ——Thnse amendments to the original Bill did not

welieve'his mind from the doubts he entertained of the justice of

ihis'Bill. Some of the jury may be circumstalnceddike the squat. demand in the habit of conversing daily With him. and conse-

quently Would be very unﬁt to act as an impartial juror. The

original Bill did not tend to draw the squatter into Court ; and if

a claimant appealed to the Court. it should be after he had offer. ed a reasonable compensation for the iviiprnvements of the squat- ter, and in court what has he to fear? ‘He has a jury of his equals who Would sav to the. pinprlpinrs, “You cannot turn him out. “‘11” You have paid him the full value of his improvements ” The machinery of arbitration is the same as it was in the origi- nal shape of the Bill. In a Court of'law every thing is establish- ed and ﬁxed: this is not the case with arbitration; if adopted, there is no law to compel arbitrators to <lr and adjudicate;th to compel the attendance ofwitnesses. For instance. an arbitra- tor may take a but? and refuse to sit, or a witness may be inter. ested and refuse to attend ; where then-is the remedy; in either

much of the time of the House has been occupied in providing security for their improvements. An hon. member (Mr. Rae) said, a measure of equal justice was not dealt otit to them; he wished to know ifthey were to be placed in a better condition than an honest settler, who has taken his land and cultivated it, forthe purpose of maintaining his family. He would wish to afford them everyjustice, but he would not more than to the leasehold tenants; for, as he said before, he considered the squatters a sa very inferior species of settlers, who often do more harm to the, land than good; it is very evident, if they designed to improve the country or themselves, they need not squat, as the term is, but would get land it'they choose to apply for it in a proper manner. He believed leaving the business to arbitration would not be the most eligible mode, either for the squatter or claimant; for ‘should the arbitrators not agree in their award, or should the parties disagree to it, a lawsuit inevitably ensues, which renders this business more complicated than if it were brought into Court at first. Since he was on his legs, he might as well advert to the bad eﬂ'ects the reports of this Bill occasioned throughout the country. It has been supposed that the House was about making free land for them. and the consequence of this is, that meetings are every where got tip for the purpose of reviving the obsolete question of Escheat; he would really wish to disappoint such persons a little. lle would support the Bill in its original form.

Mr Mitcitv'rnsu.—The honorable Speaker never rises without lashing at either the squatters or tenants, or both; they ate cal— led vagtibonds and scoundrels and what not; but he knew squat- ters who were as decent, honest men as some of the gentlemen of this House, and who, if they were present and heard themselves called by such names, would be. very apt to disﬁgure the faces ofthose who would call them so. The pro- prietors have evils enough for the poor people. without dragging them before a court full oflawyers, to scare the poor simple people out of their wits, and who are liable to be turned out from their homes and improvements. and who have been forced by lawyers to give their bonds and warrants for the. payment of the back rents He believes this country is denied the justice that is granted to all the rest of Her Majesty’s colonies; for here a poor squatter is punished, as ifhe were a. murderer. For his part. he had no desire to oppose the Bill; such as it was, it was better than nothing.

Mr. DOUSE observed, that he had promised to support the Bill, and would do so; he was for doing equal justice to all parties, but we should at the same time avoid extreme measures, as they would never pass the Council He heard the hon. Speaker say something in allusion to the general bad conduct of the squatters. and he (Mr Douse) perfectly agreed with him, that they were those who were mast regardless ofthe welfare of their families and who most oppose the good intentions ofthe Legislature, designed for their beneﬁt. Within thelast few days, we had suﬂ‘icieut speci- mens of this turbulent spirit front the East Form: and he vtns verv Sorry to sav it arose from a misconception of the nature of this Bill. notwithstanding the integrity and sincerity of the hon. gentleman who has brought it in. When proprietorsleave their land unclaimed, and it is kept from forfeittire by the improve- ments of the squatter, it is nothing but right that he should be paid for hisimprovements, but he (Mr Douse) contended there was btit halfa lot that fell under the provtsions of the Bill. that is, the southern motety of Lot 45. Let us not go to extremes, but weigh well what we are legislating about; if we expect the Bill to pass intoa law. it is no use to sit here doing nothing; it will be only (chl’lVIYlE the people, by ﬁrst exciting their expecta- tions and then disappointing them.

Mr. Coorcn would wish to see a Bill similar in its provi- sions to that in Nova-Scotia. for settling the squatters. By the present Bill, a man might be 40 years on the land. and if he re fused to comply with the terms oﬂered by the proprietor. or re- fuses to take a lease, he loses all his improvements, buildings, ézc. whereas in Nova.Scotia, if a person have undisturbed pos» session for 21 years, it becomes free ever after. He thought it was using the people so circumstanced very badly, after all the hardships they had gone through, to turn them off, though in._al pmhahmw they were ihey who preserved the land from being sold for assessment or escheated for non—settlement,

Mr. RAE was quite astonished at the character given of the squatters by the hon. speaker. He knew 20 or 30 persons who were decent respectable people, (one of Whom was a Mr. Jones ) who were, according to the sense of the term, squatters; but he did no, see how they merited that wholesale sweep- ing condemnation that was bestowed on them by the hon. Speak- er. Several of those persons to whom he alluded had at‘ﬁrst squatted on the Ravalty of Princetown, bot have since obtained grants, and are of course freeholders. so that he did not think these at least meritetl the torrent ofabusrve epithets bestow ed on them. In snmeinstances it was inipthible to help becoming squatters, from the difﬁculty of ﬁnding out who was the right claimant. if such there were. These persons should be protected in their improvements. Should this Island be ever invaded. those individuals would be obliged to defend their country. and he would like to know what they should ﬁght for, ifthey had no right in the soil? The hon. member for Charlottetown (Mr Pal- mer) apprehends numerous difficulties in the way of an easy

landlord may be called on to pay as compensation more than the

the kttid. The award of arbitrators may be very unjust, for the

freehold Worth of the land. With regard to the Squatter Bill in Nova-Scotin, so much talked of to-nighi, it had yet only passed the House of Assembly, but was not become the law of the land. He hailed the Bill, as ﬁrst brought in, as a measure of justice ; but loan the strange matter tried to be engirfted on it, and ob. stacles thrown in the way, the hon. member who brought it forward, and with the best intentions, was at a loss what to do with it ; some squatters may be well enough, but they are very few: he could see no right they had to a settlement, and there. fore should be content to be put on a footing With the other tenants.

Hon. Mr. PALMER said he was not. surprised at. the objection of the lioti. member for New London, who, from the example of Scigneuries, would wish to do away with such triﬂcs as Courts and Jurors until things come within our own grasp; then when the noise and commo- tion which this gives rise to, run down the parallel of forty-fch degrees, and arouse those 80,000 hunters, who repose iii the vullics of the Mississippi, we shall have his View on the subject realized iii scenes of riot and bloodshed ! Such a state of things might suit the ideas of the hon. member for New London, but not his (Mr. Pal- mer’s) ;God forbid they should! The hon. Speaker had correctly stated the law as it. exists in Great. Britain, in cases where the subject matter is left to the decision of arbitration ; but very often'the verdict of a Jury is required to settle the award of the arbitrators: hundreds and hundreds of such cases were happening at borne, for when the arlitrators disagree, it is brought to the Court. of King’s Benth— There are many difficulties which come in the way of settling it. by arbitration: Suppose the claimant tenders the Squatter compensation,

prietor who had not settled his land as he should have done, but allowed it tobe improved by the labor of the squatter, should be compelled to pay for that improvement, inasmuch as iii many instances such settlement may have preservcdihe property from forfeiture. 0n the contrary, the squatter who fell in on land after the roads had been opened for his convenience, should not be put on the same looting with those tenants who have labored to open roads and to otherwise improve the country. As to what is likely to pass in the other end of the building, if they are better informed ofwhrit is best for the public good than we are, and Consequently will pass nothing but what will please themselves, the sooner we go home about our business the better: the Sea. weed Bill went through this hottse with only one dissentient voice, and yet it was thrown out by the Council.

Hon. lllr. PALMER said he was absent on his professional business in Georgetown when thc Sea-weed Bill passed the House; had he been in his place, he would not. be found “jumping Jim Crow,” but would have voted against the majority.

Mr. THORNJ ' ‘ _' ' af'llmfmjlg ‘m the peopl'egbr of allaying the lermcnt already cxrstitig, he thought we were going the wrong way about it: we had gone round the world instead of confining ourselves to the subject undcr discussion; he would except the hon. Speaker and the hon. member for Charlotte- town, Mr. Palmer, from this censure. As for Mr. Cooper, he expect- ed nothing else from him; it was all in character. The hon. member for Charlottetown said we were wandering'beyond the limits of legal forms, and abandoning the legitimate tribunals for examining such matters: that may be, every one could not be supposed to see wtth the same eye as he did the benefits that might be derived from those legal forms; but we had to try many experiments in this Country for which

what authority have the arbitrators to try his title? Can even the arbitrators be compelled to serve or witnesses to attend 1 He had not seen the amendments until this evening ', they would peril the Bill, and he thought were for the purpose of losing it entirely, and ifthis Bill was now lost, there was all end of ever doing any thing for the Squatters; but they will then be left wholly at the mercy of the Proprietors. —

Mr. COOPER thought there would Ebe no difﬁculty in procu- ring :1 Jury on the spot, and if the parties did not agree, it. could be ultimately referred to a Jury; and he thought it could be settled as easily as by a Coroner’s Jury ; this be deemed the more advisable mode of arrangement. ‘

Mr. I). l‘lACLEAN said he had been taunted for want of respect for the Courts of Justice, and Government. How can any man be expected to respect a system of misgovernment which has reduced the Colony to be in the most distracted state of any in the British Dominiuns’l A Government which, it is said, is prepared to send regular troops against the militia in King’s County, instead of arm- ing them to meet the probability of an American war, if we may believe the last Halifax papers. The hon. member for Charlottetown, Mr. Palmer. has said that be (Mr. Maclean) approves of war and blood-shed, butihe begged to remind him, that be (Mr. Pulmcr) was very much in the habit ol'misquoting him upon that subject. He (Mr. Macl.ean) may have pointed out the causes and consequences of rebellion and revolution, (matters about which certain hon. members seem to know very little,) but he deﬁed him or any other person to say that he was ever heard to approve of the late insurrection in Canada; and very possibly be (Mr. D. MacLean) may yet live to evince his attachment to the British Empire in, quite as emphatic a manner as the hon member for Charlottetown Will be inclined lo do, although be (Mr. MacLean) admitted, he was no match for him at. lip-loyalty, which costs nothing! With regard to the Canadian arbi. tration referred to, the hon. Speaker has not stated the case fairly. The Commission ofcnquiry is not quashed, as stated by him; it only ﬁnished its labours about six weeks ago, and will report at the next Session of Parliament.—In other respCCLS, too, the case is perfect ly analogous. It is not, as stated by the hon. Speaker, only a certa [1 sum iii present money to buy up an annual rent; but the Proprietor has a right to eight per cent. in the improvemean of the tenant, and therefore in all disputed cases, the improvements must. be valued by arbitration, as is propose d in the Bill now under the c0risideration of the House. The hon. member for Belfast (Mr. Douse) stillpersists lll giving the agitators, that is, the miiiority,,crcdit for the popular meetings which are taking place throughout the Country; now, this accusation is either without any foundation, or it proves that if the minority ofthe Assembly hasso much inﬂuence with the physical force of the community, the majority in this Assembly docs not represent the majority of the Colony. He may hitch himself on whichever horn of the dilemma suits him bcst.

Mr. SPEAKER said, God forbid that the majority of this House were of the satire way of thinking as those of the constituency to whom the hon. member alludes: sorry, very sorry he would be to be the representative or express the sentiments of those who now employ themselves in getting upsetlittous meetings, and obstruct. ing the Crowri ofﬁcers in the discharge of their duty; and if he were called to give his advice, he would by a.l means advise the Executive to send not only the military but also the militia; and he would cheerfully go with them, in order to quell such illegal combination at the point of the bayonet He was aware that they were instigated to this conduct, and he might almost bring theI charge home to certain members of this House, who by their advice, have fostered this seditious spirit.

Mr. MACINTOSH was sorry to live in a country where the laws were to be enforced at the point of the bayonet, but where jus- tice is denied to the people. It was a sad state of things when we are told by the hon. Speaker, that the laws must be enforced at the point of the bayonet; there was something wrong; but the question is, where was it? He knew the people where he came from were as loyal and dutiful as any of her Majesty’s sub. jects, and nothing but the height of oppression drove them to any act ofitifringing the law.

Mr D MACDONALD said the hon. Speaker has insmuated that he could bring a charge against some of the members of King’s

settlement of this question. if it be taken out of law courts: he would allow that there were numerous diﬁiculties before us at

there might be no precedents in another: the country .was pecu- liarly situated with regard to the land question, and il. therefpre required peculiar laws. [10 was sorry to hear the lion. 'S‘peaker bring so heavy an accusation against the squatters: be (Mr. lhortitonldid not believe that the squatters generally merited the opprobrious epithets bestowed on them. It was not becauSe a man was poor that therefore he must he reviled, and branded with such infamous epithets. Many worthy poor persons come from the old' country, anti seeing such quantities of land in a wilderness state, settle down, and make considerable improvements before they become aware of the nature of the proprietor’s claims. They were perhaps told there was no claimant, and how were. they to know better ; and it was therefore tune we should provide a remedy. The Bill is‘not going to authorize the arbitrators to try titles : the squatter does not dispute the claimant’s title: he takes it for granted that it is good, and all he “'31!le is a lease and a reasonable term, and if he gets that, he has no right to complain; he has a Court orjury to value the quantity of land; as to the rent it will be opposed that the arbitrators have no power to settle the amount of rent, since every man his a right to do as he pleases with his own property; the more arguments hc hcardiagtimst the Bill, the more he was convinced ofits utility. The proprietor may go and'have the improvements valued, and their where is the occqston of going into Court? But the hon. member for Charlottetown Wished to have, the matter brought into Court; this is very natural; the hon. gentleman perhaps thinks that nothing can be properly done that does not undergo the formality of the Court, but he (Mr. Thornton) thought the business could be settled equally well Without bring-mg the parties to Court, and with far less expense. On the whole, he had heard no objection sufficient to induce him to Withdraw it. wished to have the concurrence ofthe hon. Speaker to the Bill, but i seems he (the Speaker) thought one way and be (Mr. Thornton) lanother: at present he joins in opinion with the hon. member f0 Charlottetown, though this is not always the case, nor does it. therefor follow that they are correct in their opposition.

Mr. RAF. said the Bar and the Bench generally “ bui‘lc” such bill as render justice expeditious and cheap; the difference between th expenses of Courts of law and arbitration would be about ﬁve-Sixths that when an arbitration would cost £5, the law Courts would cos £30. It is said that pretenders may come forward and pay fo improvements of the squatter; he thought this unliker ; will a fello without. a title come forward and pay the sum of 1.00, 5:60 or £7 for land which he will lose when the proper owner appears. Sha we withhold a measure of relief to the squatters because some. pr tending claimant may hold the place of the lawful owner for a tun Had they been on the spot and attended to their improvements, sue a thing as that could not occur. I _ I

Mr. SPEAKER said he had heard nothing to induce him to alter-hi opinion: he never saw the amendment before this night; by it the Bi was quite altered from its original intent, and be objected to it. [‘0 precisely the same reason that the hon. member for. Charlottetow objected to it. He wished that the Bill would make. it imperative o the claimant to prove his title before he oﬁered either a lease a compensation. The casel of Mcarns and Sulivan, on Lot 54, was case in point. Suppose both claimants on the same day tender lease, how is the squatter to decide which he. is to adopt as his .an lord? It could be no other way decided than_in the legal_(..ourts, an we should arrange the Bill, so as to ensure its passage in the othe branches ofthe legislature. He regretted that he was led from 11 direct course during this debate, but. then frpm those obstacles throw in, to thwart the way, it was almost upavoidablc. He‘was‘m favo ofthe principles of the Bill; he only Wished it. framed ‘in .accordanc with the manner of deciding on real estate, so that. no_ objection ma- be made to it elsewhere. He thought it was unfair to aniinadvert ont conduct of the Legislative Council, in their treatment of the Bills w send up to them, the Sen-weed‘Bill for instance, or apy other Bill;

a cmmdinnte branch of the Legislature they have a right to decide a anv Bill brought under their consideration, without being in the lea inﬂuenced by any opinion arising from our dectstons. l/Ve may some occasions fecl annoyed and mortiﬁed at the conclusron come by them, but their right is as distinctly established,and recognized ours. ‘ Mr. Cooren said if a proprietor abandons his property until becomes valuable through the labor and. improvement of i squatters, and then comes forward 11nd claims it, mum the latt

County, as having been accessory to the riots reported to have

be put to 2 or 31. expense to compel the latter to prove his titl