9,99 
     
     f.— 
     
     nsequentmcrease of the revenue would 
     
     “bio us to reduce the taxes on Cam-- 
     
     erce, and so lighten, the burden on the 
     
     or stillfurther- 
     
     We cannot do justice to the many argu~ 
     
     em. advanced by the Hon. Gentleman in 
     
     ort ofthe measure; he thought we should 
     
     ledge ourselves to provide for itin two or 
     
     ree years. 
     
     Mr, Binns was opposed to the measure, though 
     
     e confessed he saw that they should soon 
     
     ave to pay it; at present he thought we were 
     
     proud that we would wish to pay 400 l. for 
     
     e honour of appropriating l,300l: that he 
     
     ould not see how we could pledge ourselves 
     
     my measure at a distant period : that he 
     
     taught they had better make no reply to the 
     
     espatch: that he looked upon the Escheat 
     
     win full operation, as the greatest benefit 
     
     e country could receive; and as the country 
     
     ould then rapidly settle, the revenues would 
     
     ongequently advance, and in _a shorttime we 
     
     ightdo it, but he contended we. were notin a 
     
     tstate to take the burden now. Mr. Wil- 
     
     ck was of the same opinion, and read a para- 
     
     raph from the despatch to prove that we were 
     
     ot expected to do it now. They could not 
     
    
   
   
    
        
     
         
     
       
     
       
     
       
     
       
     
       
     
       
     
       
     
       
     
       
     
         
     
         
     
        
     
        
     
       
     
        
     
         
     
        
     
        
     
        
     
        
     
         
     
         
     
         
     
       
     
       
     
        
     
         
     
          
     
         
     
         
     
         
     
         
     
        
     
    
   
   
    
     ecountry, to have the House of Assembly 
     
     tall; as they managed to keep agood deal of 
     
     e revenue among themselves, by cutting 
     
     ut places for each other. 
     
    
   
   
    
     Mr. Nelson, Mr. H. MacDonald. and Mr. 
     
     empton, spoke on the same side: after some 
     
     ore argument the house went into commit- 
     
     e, Mr. Hyndman in the chair. 
     
    

    
     Mr. Pope said, they had plenty of proof of 
     
     eintentions of proprietors towards them, if 
     
     were only to be enabled to make proprietors 
     
     ontribute to our burdens, he would support 
     
     e measure. They all knew how the smallest 
     
     xon lands was opposed by them, and that 
     
     ey had even opposed their interests to the 
     
     rosperity of the Island. He entered into a 
     
     ng statement in. support of these views, and 
     
     ated that if the present opportunity were 
     
     st, we might be long before another offered, 
     
     at he did not know the opinion of his consti- 
     
     ents upon it, but would endeavor to do so. 
     
     Mr. Bracken said that next to annexation 
     
     Nova.Seotia, he thought the civil List stood, 
     
     ut he would not hesitate between these : that 
     
     r his own part he thought the measure un - 
     
     alled forat present: he intended consulting 
     
     isconstituents at an early day on this sub. 
     
     ct: and should be guided by their opinions. 
     
     Mr. Speaker said that though in their legis- 
     
     tive capacity they ' were the collective wis- 
     
     om of the country. He thought there were 
     
     ny out ofdoors who could direct them by 
     
     eir opinion,—for his own part he had not 
     
     ade up his mind on the subject: and if the 
     
     eather permitted, would take the sense ofhis 
     
     nstituents on it, as he considered it a sub- 
     
     ct of the highest importance. ' 
     
     After some other observations from other 
     
     when, the chairman reported progress, 
     
     nd obtained leave to sit again the l5th of 
     
     arch. 
     
    
   
   
    
       
     
    
   
   
    
     THE BRITISH AMERICAN 
     
    
   
   
    
     IPIBIT OF. THE PROVINCIAL JOURNALS. 
     
    
   
   
    
     St. John Caution—We beg to call the parti- 
     
    
   
   
    
     -cular attention ofour readers to the all-im- 
     
    
   
   
    
     portant subject ofthe Quit-Rents. We have 
     
     already declared that we are willing to render 
     
     tribute where tribute is due; we are also ready 
     
     to vindicate the Constitutional rights of the 
     
     Sovereign— but further we go not If measures 
     
     are pursued which have an inevitable tenden- 
     
     cy to accelerate the destruction of our coun. 
     
     try—which threaten to disintegrate the Em. 
     
     pire. and which evidently are fostering the 
     
     principles of Republicanism in this once happy 
     
     and contented Colony; we are not then dis. 
     
     posed to remain an indifi'erent spectator of the 
     
     scene. Standing on this lot‘ty vantage ground, 
     
     we new again enter our unqualified protest 
     
     against the collection of Quit Rents in this 
     
     Province, at least in the manner which has 
     
     lately been adopted. A Commission issues 
     
     out oins Majesty's Court of Chancery com. 
     
     manding inquiry to be made whether the con- 
     
     dition: of certain Grants have been complied 
     
     with. Here the question arises as noted by 
     
     our correspondent Mentor, what position does 
     
     the Attorney-General intend to assume in the 
     
     trial of these cases?—Will the Grantees be 
     
     required to prove an absolute compliance with 
     
     all the conditons of their grants? or will the 
     
     inquisitlon be confined to the simple question 
     
     of the pagmenlof Quit Rent? If the former 
     
     we agree with our correspondent, that not 
     
     one tenth ofthe granted Land in this Province 
     
     is exempted from forfeiture, an allegation 
     
     which reqires no proof; and ifthe latter, why 
     
     then compel each individual Grantee to perform 
     
     a journey of many miles to Head, Quarters, 
     
     at great and unnecessary expense. probably 
     
     with a multitude of evidences, to‘prove a fact 
     
     which will not be questioned? We say each 
     
     individual Grantee, because we profess our 
     
     inability to discover how any one of the Gran- 
     
     tees shall be assured that he shall not be the 
     
     subject of the Inquisition. If the object of 
     
     His Majesty’s Attorney General be merely to 
     
     prove, before a Jury of Inquiry, that certain 
     
     persons have not fulfilled certain conditions in' 
     
     the Grant by which their Lands are held, why 
     
     are not these persons specially named in the 
     
     Commission? This may be contrary to legal 
     
     usage. but we conceive it would surely be the 
     
     most equitable mode ofprocedure. But, as we 
     
     have somewhere heard, His Majesty's Attorney 
     
     General may possibly be as desirous of increas- 
     
     ing the costs of those suits, as other Gentle' 
     
     men of the Bar are proverbislly said to be, 
     
     in the conduct ofcivil actions ; and we do say, 
     
     that the present measures fully justify this 
     
     Conclusion, We come. however, now to a 
     
     tender and dangerous point; but duty is with 
     
     usa paramount consideration. We will salt 
     
     the learned Attorney General—we will ask the 
     
     venerable Judges of our Land, we will ask all the 
     
     Gentlemen of the Long Robe in this colony, whe- 
     
     ther His Ilajesty can sue a commision of the na. 
     
     turs referred to, out of the Court of Chancery? 
     
    
   
   
    
       
     
    
   
   
    
     934 
     
    
   
   
    
     We put the simple question, Can a Commission 
     
     for Escheat issue out of the Chancery Court 
     
     except in the cause of attainder, the entire fai- 
     
     lure of heirs, by which of course, the proper- 
     
     ty reverts to the original Granter, being the 
     
     Sovereign, or in the case of the proven com. 
     
     mission of such crimes as by law, produce the 
     
     forfeiture of the lands? We speak advisedly 
     
     when we say, that in these cases only, would 
     
     the present mode of proceeding be agreeable 
     
     to law; and we further ask, whether the pre- 
     
     sent Commissions or synonymous precepts, 
     
     should not have been issued out of the Supreme 
     
     Court, returnable at a distant, future day? 
     
     Perhaps some of the learned Gentlemen will 
     
     set us right in these particulars, silence will 
     
     only confirm our present opinions; and as we 
     
     have thus openly expressed such opinions, it 
     
     is the duty ofthose who are prepared to prove 
     
     a contrary fact, at once, and boldly, to refute 
     
     our assertions. But, laying. aside all argu- 
     
     ments of injustice, inexpediency, or illegality, 
     
     We now come to a most important question.— 
     
     the manner in which the order for the collec- 
     
     tion of Quit Rents has been waived. 
     
    

    
     During the Legislative Session of 1830, on 
     
     the 22d of January, a Presidental Message was 
     
     laid before the House of Assembly, accompa- 
     
     nied bya proposition from the then colonial 
     
     Secretary, for a commutation of the QuitRents, 
     
     fora permanent grant of a smaller amount-— 
     
    

    
     ' - ,- «ea..- 0:) the 27th January, the As- 
     
    

    
     ' it will be necessary for 
     
    

    
     v  ing any definite measure 
     
     6 a  Quit Rents, to obtain 
     
     informatiod' ‘ « ‘ u number of acres of Land 
     
     which have been granted within the Province, 
     
     with the annual amount of Quit Rent.’ Con- 
     
     formably to which resolution, an address was 
     
     presented‘to His Honor the President,_pray- 
     
     ing that they may receive the necessary in. 
     
     formation ; this appears to have been furnished 
     
     to them, for on the 27th day of February; there 
     
     is inserted in the Daily Journal of the House, 
     
     the copy ofan Address to His Majesty upon the 
     
     subject, alleging that the total annual amount 
     
     of Quit Rent is only 1.2258, being Only L758 
     
     more than thesum which was demanded by the 
     
     Colonial Setretary. In this Address‘, the House 
     
     of Assembly t most earnestly implore His Majsso 
     
     ty to take the matter into His htajest ’.s most 
     
     gracious consideration, and relieve is Ma- 
     
     jesty’s subjects in this province from the opera. 
     
     tion of the Quit Rents,’-whicb address the 
     
     President promised he would.‘ transmit forth. 
     
     with.’ To this address, no answer, we believe, 
     
     has ever been returned, but in Open violation 
     
     of all decorum and of courtesy, an imperative 
     
     mandate is issued that the Quit Rents shall be 
     
     forthwith collected. Verin this was cavalier 
     
     treatment to the Legislature, to the Repre- 
     
     sentatives of the people, with a witness! We 
     
     would at all events have expected that some 
     
     answer would have been deigned to the una- 
     
     nimous, and loyal, and respectful memorial 
     
     at the_Assembly; but we fortunately have heard 
     
     something of the proceedings in the Colonial