House or asssimnv, March so, 1855. 
     
    

    
     > imsnif or ran necnar aiilsrioir. 
     
     (Continued from Hanan-d's Gaaatts, of larch em.) 
     
    

    
     Hon. Con. 8seanaav.—Mr. Ohalrniaa, afler the long 
     
    
   
   
    
     -written addrem with which the hon.member has favored the 
     
    
   
   
    
     committee. I shall direct his and their attention to a few dis- 
     
     patches and other documents which have a bearing on this 
     
     subject, and of the nature of which the hon. member was 
     
     well aware, ltbough it did not suit his purpose to refer to 
     
     them. As think he is a little astray on this subject, I 
     
     shall endeavour to set him right, and before adduoing the 
     
     documents I have alluded to, I will ask him, if he was not 
     
     pledged to his constituents not to agitate this question? 
     
    

    
     Mr. Coorna.—— 0. 
     
    

    
     Hon. Con. Sloan-ranr.—Then all I can say is, that I have 
     
     been misinformed, for it has been stated to me that the hon. 
     
     member was pledged not to propose or advocate any measurt 
     
     which did not meet the approval of the liberal party. He 
     
     knows that this measure has not their approval, and thus his 
     
     constituents are deceived by him. 
     
    

    
     r. Coovn..—-I deny it. 
     
    

    
     Hon. Con. Sscasrav.r.—Why. his election under such a 
     
    

    
     promise proves the truth of my assertion. and I can say 
     
     urther that he stated on the door of this House, that he was 
     
     pledged to support the liberal party. The hon. member seems 
     
     to be very sore on the subject of my expression the other 
     
     evening about the “loe.vefi:lt,” and has thou ht lit to in- 
     
     ainuatcthat those of the liberal party who not choose 
     
     to go with him on this question are acting from improper 
     
     motives; that, as he expresses it, they are eata ed in the 
     
     meshes of a Government net, and have taken the it. It is 
     
     ‘net possible, Mr. Chairman, that, in agitating this question, 
     
     e sees, in imagination, a rich bait waiting for his acceptance. 
     
     The observation about the " loose fish" were made b me in the 
     
     diseusion of a totally different question, the egislative 
     
      pay bill, but. sir, I contend that he is now even 
     
     _ ‘ ing more than a “loose fish" in the liberal ranks, for 
     
     he cannot deny that he was pledged not to go for any mea- 
     
     sure which should not beapproved by the liberal party. As 
     
     to his observation that the men of today are not the men 
     
     of yesterday, implying that I have changed my opinions on 
     
     this subject, I can tell him that no member of the House can 
     
     vote on this question with more freedom than my»! - 
     
     From my first introduction into public life to the resent 
     
     hour, I have always stated that I would not vote for heat. 
     
     And I have so expressed m self, not that I was unfavorable 
     
     to it, but because I consi cred that the agitation of the 
     
     question would be productive of no good results as the olhqjpct 
     
     was unattainable. Believing that Escheat was impractic lo, 
     
     I have introduced and carried other measures for the benefit 
     
     of the people at the expense of the proprietors. This course 
     
     I promised my constituents at my first election that I would 
     
     ursue. They approved of it and returned me, and I have 
     
     it returned to this House at every su uent election, and 
     
    

    
     I have followed the same policy of dealing with the land 
     
     uestion, moderately, but to mine practical efiect. Under 
     
     lliese circumstances I consider myself at perfect liberty to 
     
     oppose the resolution of the hon. member and in doing so, 
     
     I shall endeavor, as the common as ing is, to give it a black 
     
     eye. (Laughtein) The hon. mom r has attempted to prop 
     
     up his case, and injure the Government, by asserting that, 
     
     before the purchase of the Worrel Estate, they did not 
     
     comply with that section of the Land Purchase Bill, which 
     
     requires the inveati tion of titles previous! to any purchase 
     
     by Government. ow, Mr. Chairman, ask this m- 
     
     mittoe, and I ask that hon. member himself, what foundation 
     
     is there for such a declaration? If the titles to that estate 
     
     have not been investigated, what is the meaning of the paper 
     
     before the House, containin the opinion of the Hon. Attorney 
     
     General on the subject? at, sir, that hon. member has 
     
     admitted by his votes on Bills introduced into this House, 
     
     and supported by himself, that Fecheat could uotbe attained. 
     
     When the Worrel Estate was ofisred to the Government, the 
     
     question of Facheat did not enter into their consideration, 
     
     nor was it requisite in investigati the titles, that the 
     
     validity of the original granh should tested. That quea- 
     
     thc Government’ considered settled. It was but neces- 
     
     sarytoaacertaia efthsdilercnttitlesdownfrom 
     
    
   
   
    
     ..,..... W-.s“v 
     
    

    
     " ' ’th ' ‘lain th 
     
     :";‘.,...,;. .*'.“.’_. ...iv...,.....°".;'.l"§‘.*.*.2..,...i5l'.»‘,‘...°. 
     
     po_9pIa'ettIutimo.bu_uovtIo_hoannonbor.iahnaaduvo: 
     
    
   
   
    
       
     
    
   
   
    
     SUPPLEMENT "TO HASZAll.D’S GAZETTE. 
     
    
   
   
    
     todamage theGovci-nmcnt he was lcdgcdte snpport,de- 
     
     claree that the validity of originalgsants should have been 
     
     teptcd _by the Government. prior to the purchase. I main- 
     
     tain, air, that, in the negotiation and of that C- 
     
     etate_. the Government havemanifeeted all the rndcnee and 
     
     caution which any honest andeareful man woul apply to his 
     
     own private business. It is not necessary for the Govern- 
     
     ment to do more than to show the reasons why it considered the 
     
     investigation of the validity of the original grants unneces- 
     
     sary. The Government, in no tinting for the purchase of 
     
     the Worrel Estate, were jua ' in considering that the 
     
     question of Escheat had been settled by the previous action 
     
     of the Legislature of the Colony. In proof of that, I will 
     
     refer to the -preamble of the Act which was d in 1837, 
     
     imposing the that land tax. One part of at preamble is 
     
     as tbllows :— 
     
    

    
     “ Whereas by a Despatch from the Right Honorable Lord 
     
     Glenelg, His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the 
     
     Colonies, hearing date the tenth day of August, one thousand 
     
     eight hundred and thirty-six, His most gracious Majesty was 
     
     pleased to disallow the establishment of a Court of Escheat 
     
     in this Island, and to suggest the imposition of a tax on all 
     
     granted lands in this Colony, as aremedy for the serious evils 
     
     arising from the non-settlement of large tracts of land, held 
     
     by the grantees from the Crown ; and it being just and 
     
     reasonable that the said lands should contribute towards the 
     
     general revenue of the Colony, the burthen of which has 
     
     hitherto been chiefly borne by the resident colonists only ; and 
     
     as such a tax would have the desired effect of compelling the 
     
     grantees either to settle or dispose of their lands without 
     
    

    
     la .” 
     
    

    
     N ow, air, that preamble shows the opinion of the people of 
     
     the Colony, as expressed by their representatives, that the 
     
     question of Escheat was considered, at that time, as settled, 
     
     and that the principle of taxing the lands of proprietors 
     
     should be adopted in lieu of the agitation for a Court of Esp 
     
     cheat, which is the motion we are now discussing. But, in 
     
     the document which the hon. member has read, for I will 
     
     not call it a speech, he has stated that wo had nothing to 
     
     produce in opposition to the establishment of such Court but 
     
     despetches of Colonial Ministers, which he further argued 
     
     were not of snfiicient authority to relieve the proprietors from 
     
     the obligations imposed upon them by the conditions con- 
     
     tained in the original grants,—but, before I have done, I 
     
    
   
   
    
     1' think Istiall be able ‘to show that the British Government 
     
    
   
   
    
     have expressed a positive determination not to allow the 
     
     establishment of a Court of Escheat in this Colony. The 
     
     Act of 1837, the reamble of which I have read, was passed 
     
     n accordance with the spirit of a dcspatch from the then 
     
     Colonial Minister. and was, thus, adeclaration on the part of 
     
     the Legislature that the question of Esclicat was no longer is 
     
     subject of agitation, and that the country acquiesced in the 
     
     views entertained by the British Government on the subject. 
     
     But, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member and those who support 
     
     him on this question, should be consistent, and to test the 
     
     sincerity of their attachment to the principle of Eschcat, I 
     
     will call their attention to the record of the roccedings at a 
     
     meeting of the Commissioners of trade and antations, with 
     
     reference to the town and pasture lots of the Towns and 
     
     Ro lties in this Island, which took place on the 8th July, 
     
     17 7, we there find the following resolution :— ’ 
     
     " Resolved, That it be recommended that the above, 
     
     mentioned Town and Pasture Lets be granted in Fee Sim,- 
     
     ple, under the Seal of the Province of Nova Scotia, to such 
     
     person or pcrsonsas will give proper security to build within 
     
     a reasonable time u n t e Town Lot; and to enclose and 
     
     fence and properly c ear for Pasture, the Lots set apart for 
     
     that purpose; but no one person to have a Grant of more 
     
     than one Town and Pasture Lot.” 
     
     Now, Sir, if we are to back and take action upon the otie 
     
     ginal grounds of forfeiture, namely, that the conditions in 
     
     the grants were not complied with, we ought to forfeit nearly 
     
     every town and pasture lot in the Town and Royalty of 
     
     Charlottetown. because the conditions annexed to, and form- 
     
     ing part of the grants of them, were not complied with 
     
     When Lieut. Governor Smith issued a proclamtion, to the 
     
     client that those lots on which buildings had not been erected, 
     
     in compliance, with the terms of the grants, I believe that 
     
     more huts were erected on mine of them, but the greater porn 
     
     tinn of the lots were not built upon. Will the hon. member 
     
     say that it'll desirable. or that it would be fair orjuat to the 
     
    
   
   
    
     wnarsct'propert' lltclllrlotllto “K130 alt toacllflt 
     
     iiigiruaiioua.’.siaaa-io's'i'¢'inuaz:.a’id'ao¢r-in