The lieutenant-governor was instructed by the home government that, in the event of the absence of harmony between the legislative council and the assembly, he should increase the number of councillors, and thus facilitate the movements of the machine. Five additional members were accordingly added to the council. During the session, several acts were passed relating to education, including one which provided for the establishment of the Prince of Wales College.

The governor laid before the house a despatch, which he had received from the colonial secretary, the Duke of Newcastle, relative to the subject of the proposed commission on the land question. His grace had received a letter, signed by Sir Samuel Cunard and other proprietors, in which, addressing his grace, they said: “We have been furnished with a copy of a memorial, addressed to Her Majesty, from the house of assembly of Prince Edward Island, on the questions which have arisen in connection with the original grants of land in that island, and the rights of proprietors in respect thereof. We observe that the assembly have suggested that Her Majesty should appoint one or more commissioners to inquire into the relations of landlord and tenant in the island, and to negotiate with the proprietors of the township lands, for fixing a certain rate of price at which every tenant might have the option of purchasing his land; and, also, to negotiate with the proprietors for a remission of the arrears of rent in such cases as the commissioners might deem reasonable; and proposing that the commissioners should report the result to Her Majesty. As large proprietors in this island, we beg to state that we shall acquiesce in any arrangement that may be practicable for the purpose of settling the various questions alluded to in the memorial of the house of assembly; but we do not think that the appointment of commissioners, in the manner proposed by them, would be the most desirable mode of procedure, as the labors of such commissioners would only terminate in a report, which would not be binding on any of the parties interested. We beg, therefore, to suggest that, instead of the mode proposed by the assembly, three commissioners or referees should be appointed,—one to be named by Her Majesty, one by the house of assembly, and one by the proprietors of the land,—and that these commissioners should have power to enter into all the inquiries that may be necessary, and to decide upon the different questions which may be brought before them, giving, of course, to the parties interested an opportunity of being heard. We should propose that the expense of the commission should be paid by the three parties to the reference, that is to say, in equal thirds; and we feel assured that there would be no difficulty in securing the adherence of all the landed proprietors to a settlement on this footing. The precise mode of carrying it into execution, if adopted, would require consideration, and upon that subject we trust that your grace will lend your valuable assistance.

“If the consent,” said the colonial secretary, “of all the parties can be obtained to this proposal, I believe that it may offer the means of bringing these long pending disputes to a termination. But it will be necessary, before going further into the matter, to be assured that the tenants will accept as binding the decision of the commissioners, or the majority of them; and, as far as possible, that the legislature of the colony would concur in any measures which might be required to give validity to that decision. It would be very desirable, also, that any commissioner who might be named by the house of assembly, on behalf of the tenants, should go into the inquiry unfettered by any conditions such as were proposed in the assembly last year.”

The proposal of the colonial secretary, as to the land commission, came formally before the house on the thirteenth of April, when Colonel Gray moved that the house deemed it expedient to concur in the suggestions offered for their consideration for the arrangement of the long pending dispute between the landlords and tenants of the island, and, therefore, agreed to the appointment of three commissioners,—one by Her Majesty, one by the house of assembly, and the third by the proprietors,—the expense to be divided equally between the imperial government, the general revenue of the colony, and the proprietors; and that the house also agreed, on the part of the tenantry, to abide by the decision of the commissioners, or the majority of them, and pledged themselves to concur in whatever measures might be required to give validity to that decision. Mr. Coles proposed an amendment, to the effect that there were no means of ascertaining the views and opinions of the tenantry upon the questions at issue, unless by an appeal to the whole people of the colony, in the usual constitutional manner, and that any decision otherwise come to by the commissioners or referees appointed should not be regarded as binding on the tenantry. On a division, the motion of Colonel Gray was carried by nineteen to nine. It was then moved by Mr. Howat, that the Honorable Joseph Howe, of Nova Scotia, should be the commissioner for the tenantry, which was unanimously agreed to.

During this session, that of 1860, the assembly agreed to purchase the extensive estates of the Earl of Selkirk; and the purchase of sixty-two thousand and fifty-nine acres was effected, at the very moderate rate of six thousand five hundred and eighty-six pounds sterling,—thus enabling the government to offer to industrious tenants facilities for becoming the owners of land which was then held by them on lease.

On the fourth of May, 1860, died Mr. James Peake, at Plymouth, England. From the year 1823 until 1856, Mr. Peake was actively engaged in mercantile pursuits on the island. He was a successful merchant, and for some years held a seat in Her Majesty’s executive council. Of a kind find generous disposition, he did not live to himself, but was ever ready to extend a helping hand to industrious and reliable persons, who might need aid and encouragement. He was highly esteemed as a liberal, honorable man. His integrity and enterprise placed him in the front rank as a merchant. “None,” said the Islander, “was more deservedly respected, and by his death the world has lost one who was an honest and upright man.”

CHAPTER VIII.

Arrival of the Prince of Wales—His Reception—The British Colonial Secretary expresses satisfaction with the Assembly’s proceedings in regard to the Land Commission—The Report of the Commissioners—Its cardinal points presented—Their views with regard to Escheat and other subjects—The case of the Loyalists and Indians. Remarks on the Report: its merits and its defects. The evils incident to the Land Question fundamentally attributable to the Home Government—The Immigrants deceived—The misery consequent on such deception—The burden of correction laid on the wrong shoulders—Volunteer Companies—General Census—Death of Prince Albert—The Duke of Newcastle and the Commissioners’ Report.

The Prince of Wales having, in compliance with an invitation from the Canadian parliament, resolved to visit British North America, he was invited by the authorities to pay a visit to Prince Edward Island. Having signified his intention of doing so, suitable preparations were made for his reception. His Royal Highness having proceeded to Newfoundland, and thence to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, he, after a short stay in these colonies, arrived in Charlottetown, in the ship Hero, on Thursday, the tenth of August, about twelve o’clock, m. On the Hero swinging to her anchors, the lieutenant governor, attended by Colonel Gray, stepped into a barge and proceeded on board the ship. After a short interval, his excellency returned, and intimated that the royal party would disembark in half an hour. The governor received His Royal Highness as he stepped on the pier, and, in the name of the colonists, welcomed him to the island. The governor then presented the mayor to the Prince, and the recorder and city council, collectively. A guard of honor, consisting of a detachment of the 62nd regiment, and a body of volunteers, lined the way from the landing place to the royal carriage, into which, amidst the cheers of the people, the Prince stepped, inviting the governor to occupy the vacant seat. The procession was then formed, headed by an escort of volunteer cavalry, commanded by Major Davies. Immediately in advance of the first carriage walked the mayor, supported by the recorder and the city treasurer, and after the carriages, the procession was composed of the judges, the executive council, the members of both branches of the legislature, the clergy, the public officers, the city councillors, the committee of management, the members of the bar and other gentlemen, the troops, and societies and associations. There were four triumphal arches through which the procession passed. These were erected at the public expense. On passing through Rochfort Square, the procession halted for a moment opposite a platform, on which were assembled upwards of a thousand children, neatly attired, and belonging to the sabbath schools. When the carriage of the Prince reached the platform, a thousand youthful voices united in singing the national anthem, when the emotion of the Prince was such that he actually shed tears.

At the door of Government House, His Royal Highness was received by Mrs. Dundas, and conducted to the drawing-room, where the members of the executive council were presented by the governor. Rain, which had threatened all day, now began to descend; but there was a pleasant interval in the afternoon, during which the Prince rode, taking the Saint Peter’s and Malpeque roads, and returning in time for dinner, at half-past seven o’clock. There was a general illumination in the evening, the due effect of which was marred by heavy rain. But the following day was a splendid one. His Royal Highness, in the uniform of a colonel, held a levee in the forenoon, after which he inspected the volunteers, to the number of about four hundred and fifty men, in front of Government House. They were commanded by Major the Hon. T. H. Haviland, who was complimented on the appearance of the force. Major Davies’ troop of cavalry also received its share of royal commendation.

His Royal Highness drove to the Colonial Building for the purpose of receiving the addresses of the executive council and of the corporation of the city. He was received by Mr. Palmer and the Mayor, at the entrance. Two large stands had been erected for the accommodation of ladies wishing to witness the interesting ceremony. The civic and executive addresses were respectively read by the Recorder and the Honorable Edward Palmer. We may be permitted to say that these addresses, in point of good taste and expression, were far above the average of such compositions. To these addresses the Prince made suitable replies. In the afternoon His Royal Highness took another ride into the country, making a brief halt at the farm of Mr. H. Longworth, whence he obtained an extensive view of Charlottetown and the harbor.

In the evening there was a ball in the Colonial Building, which was attended by a numerous and brilliant assemblage, and where His Royal Highness danced with much spirit, remaining till after three o’clock.

On Saturday the prince departed from the island, where he had produced a most favorable impression,—leaving one hundred and fifty pounds to be disposed of in charity, according to directions communicated to the lieutenant-governor and his lady.

On the sixteenth of June, 1860, the Duke of Newcastle addressed a despatch to the lieutenant-governor, expressing his sense of the promptitude and completeness with which the house of assembly had given its support to the plan devised in the hope of terminating the differences on the question of land, by which the island had been so long agitated, and intimating that a commission would be forwarded, under the royal sign manual, containing the appointment of the Honorable Joseph Howe, Mr. John Hamilton Gray, and Mr. John William Ritchie, as commissioners,—Mr. Howe being the representative of the tenants, Mr. Gray of the Crown, and Mr. Ritchie of the proprietors. The commissioners accordingly opened their court at the Colonial Building, on the fifth of September, 1860,—Mr. Gray presiding. There appeared at the court, as counsel for the government of the colony, on behalf of the tenantry, Mr. Samuel Thomson, of Saint John, N. B., and Mr. Joseph Hensley; and for the proprietors, Mr. R. G. Haliburton and Mr. Charles Palmer. Mr. Benjamin DesBrisay was appointed clerk to the commissioners. On the first day, the court was addressed by counsel representing the various interests, and on the succeeding days, a very large number of witnesses were examined, for the purpose of eliciting information for the guidance of the court in coming to a decision. After the evidence had been heard, the court was addressed by counsel.

The report of the commissioners was dated the eighteenth of July, 1861; and, as any history of the island would be incomplete without an outline of its contents, the writer will now proceed to give such outline, which, whilst it presents leading facts and arguments adduced, will not, it is hoped, be open to the charge of undue prolixity.

As we have, in the course of the narrative, given an incidental sketch of the history of the land question, we shall pass over that portion of the commissioners’ report which is occupied with facts that have already been partially submitted, and to which we must again refer at a more advanced stage of the narrative, and give the substance of the remedies which the commissioners proposed for existing evils. The commissioners expressed the hope that they might be regarded as having entered upon the discharge of their duties, not only with a high appreciation of the honor conferred by their appointment, but also with a due sense of the grave responsibilities which they assumed. When they commenced their labors there was a general impression that the act of the provincial legislature, which made their award binding on all parties concerned, would receive the royal assent; and, although the decision of the colonial secretary—not to submit that act for Her Majesty’s approval—somewhat relieved them from the weight of responsibility necessarily involved in the preparation and delivery of a judgment beyond appeal, they still felt that, as their award was to affect the titles of a million of acres, and the rights and interests of eighty thousand people, a hasty decision would not be a wise one, and that the materials for a judgment ought to be exhausted before the report was made.

By traversing the island and mixing freely with its people, the commissioners had become familiar with its great interests and general aspects. By holding an open court in all the shire towns, they had given to every man on the island, however poor, an opportunity to explain his grievances, if he had any. By bringing the proprietors and tenants face to face before an independent tribunal, mutual misunderstandings and exaggerated statements had been tested and explained, and the real condition of society and the evils of the leasehold system had been carefully contemplated from points of view not often reached by those whose interests were involved in the controversy. The evidence collected, though not under oath,—the commissioners not being vested with power to administer oaths,—was most valuable in aiding them to form a correct estimate of the evils of which the people complained.

The documentary history of the question extended over nearly a century of time, and was to be found in the journals of the Legislature, in the newspaper files of the colony, and in pamphlets more or less numerous. The amount of time and money wasted in public controversy no man could estimate; and the extent to which a vicious system of colonization had entered into the daily life of the people, and embittered their industrial and social relations, it was painful to record.

The commissioners felt that as the case of Prince Edward Island was exceptional, so must be the treatment. The application of the local government for a commission, and the large powers given to it by the Queen’s authority, presupposed the necessity of a departure from the ordinary legal modes of settling disputes between landlords and tenants, which the experience of half a century had proved to be inadequate.

Finding that it was impossible to shut out of their inquiry, while on the island, the questions of escheat, quitrents, and fishery reserves,—the claims of the descendants of the original French inhabitants, Indians, and loyalists,—they thought it quite within the range of their obligations to express their opinions freely upon these branches of the general subject.

The question of escheat, though apparently withdrawn from the scope of their inquiry by despatches from the colonial office,—received long after the opening of the commission,—could not be put aside. The discussion of the question was forced upon them from the day the court opened until it closed. The commissioners, therefore, thought it comported with their duty to express the conclusions at which they had arrived.

In considering the best mode of quieting the disputes between the proprietors and their tenants, and of converting the leasehold into freehold tenures, the commissioners remarked that the granting of a whole colony in a single day, in huge blocks of twenty thousand acres each, was an improvident and unwise exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. There was no co-operation on the part of the proprietors in peopling the island. Each acted on his own responsibility, and while a few showed energy in the work, the great body of the grantees did nothing. The emigrants sent out by the few were disheartened by the surrounding wilderness owned by the many, who made no effort to reclaim it, or were tempted to roam about or disregard the terms of settlement by the quantity of wild land, with no visible owner to guard it from intrusion. By mutual co-operation and a common policy, the proprietors might have redeemed the grants of the imperial government from the charge of improvidence. The want of these indispensible elements of success laid the foundation of all the grievances which subsequently afflicted the colony.

The commissioners regarded the land purchase act as embodying the most simple and efficacious remedy for existing evils. Under that act the Worrell and Selkirk estates had been purchased,—covering about one hundred and forty thousand acres, by which signal advantages were secured, the proprietors being dispossessed by their own consent, the tenants being enabled to purchase their holdings and improvements, not necessarily at a price so high as to represent the rents stipulated to be paid, but at the lowest price which the expenses of management, added to the aggregate cost of the estate, would warrant; and the wild lands were at once rescued from the leasehold system, and were subjected to the wholesome control of the local government, to be hereafter disposed of in fee simple, at moderate prices, as they are in all the other North American provinces. The commissioners unanimously recommended the application to the whole island of the principles embodied in the land purchase act, under modifications which appeared to be essential to their more extended adoption.

With respect to escheat, the commissioners reported that there was no light in which the present escheat of the titles, on the ground of the conditions of the original grants having been broken, could be viewed, which would not exhibit consequences most disastrous to the island. They therefore reported that there should be no escheat of the original grants for non-performance of conditions as to settlement.

The commissioners recommended that the imperial parliament should guarantee a loan of one hundred thousand pounds, so that the money could be borrowed at a low rate of interest. With the command of such a fund, the government would be in a condition to enter the market, and to purchase, from time to time, such estates as could be obtained at reasonable prices. They did not doubt that many of the proprietors would be glad to sell, and the competition for the funds at the disposal of the government would so adjust the prices that judicious purchases could be made without any arbitrary proceedings or compulsory interference with private rights. The commissioners felt that it might be beyond their duty to make such a suggestion, but they hoped Her Majesty’s government would regard the case of Prince Edward Island as exceptional, its grievances having sprung from the injudicious mode in which its lands were originally given away.

Assuming that the imperial parliament guaranteed a loan, there remained to be considered the nature of the security which would be offered. Although it was not improbable that doubts might have arisen as to the ability of the colony to repay so large an amount, a glance at its financial position would show that the required relief might be given without the risk of any loss to the mother country. The commissioners showed that the revenue of the island had increased from seventeen thousand pounds in 1839, to forty-one thousand in 1859,—more than doubling itself in twenty years. It seemed apparent, therefore, that without disturbing the tariff or reducing the ordinary appropriations, in five years the natural increase of population, trade, and consumption would give six thousand pounds a year, or a sum sufficient to pay the interest on a hundred thousand pounds, at six per cent. As it was not improbable that five years would be required to purchase the estates, and expend the loan to advantage, it might happen that the revenue would increase as fast as the interest was required, without any increase in the tariff, or diminution of the appropriations. But it might be reasonably assumed, when a new spirit was breathed into the island, and its population turned to the business of life, with new hopes and entire confidence in the future, that trade would be more active, and the condition of the people improve. The very operation of the loan act might therefore supply all the revenue required to meet the difference; but if it should not, an addition of two and a half per cent, upon the imports of the island, or a reduction of the road vote for two or three years, would yield the balance that might be required.

In making their calculations, no reference was made to the fund which would be at once available from the payment of their instalments by the tenants who purchased. Two thousand five hundred pounds had been paid by the tenants on the Selkirk estate in the first year after it was purchased. Guided by the experience thus gained of the disposition and of the resources of the tenantry, it was deemed by the commissioners fair to conclude that if such a sum could be promptly realized from sales of land, admitted to be among the poorest in the island, the local government might fairly count upon the command of such an increase, from the re-sale of the estates they might purchase, as would enable them to keep faith with the public creditor, without any risk of embarrassment.

In considering the remedies to be applied, three conclusions forced themselves on the commissioners: that the original grants were improvident and ought never to have been sanctioned; that all the grants were liable to forfeiture for breach of the conditions with respect to settlement, and might have been justly escheated; and that all the grants might have been practically annulled by the enforcement of quitrents, and the lands seized and sold by the Crown, at various times, without the slightest impeachment of its honor. But whilst this opinion was firmly held, still, the Sovereign having repeatedly confirmed the original grants, it was impossible to treat the grantees in any other manner than as the lawful possessors of the soil.

Assuming, then, the sufficiency of the original grants, and the binding authority of the leases, the commissioners were clearly of opinion that the leasehold tenure should be converted into freehold. It was, they said, equally the interest of the imperial and local governments that this should be done, that agrarian questions should be swept from the field of controversy, that Her Majesty’s ministers might be no longer assailed by remonstrance and complaint, and that the public men in the island might turn their attention to the development of its resources.

Assuming, therefore, that a compulsory compromise was inevitable, the question arose: upon what terms should the proprietors be compelled to sell, and the tenants be at liberty to purchase?

In answer to this important question, the commissioners awarded that tenants who tendered twenty years’ purchase to their landlords, in cash, should be entitled to a discount of ten percent., and a deed conveying the fee-simple of their farms. Where the tenant preferred to pay by instalments, he should have that privilege; but the landlord would not be bound to accept a less sum than ten pounds at any time; nor should the tenant have a longer time than ten years to liquidate the debt. The tenants whose lands were not worth twenty years’ purchase, and who therefore declined to pay that amount, might tender to their landlords what they considered the value of their farms. If the landlord declined to accept the amount offered, the value should be adjusted by arbitration. If the sum tendered was increased by the award, the tenant was to pay the expenses; if it was not, they should be paid by the landlord. It was provided that the rent should be reduced in proportion to the instalments paid; but no credit should be given for any such instalments until the three years arrears allowed by the commissioners’ award were paid, nor while any rent accruing after the adjustment of the value of the farm remained due. Proprietors who held not more than fifteen thousand acres, or such as desired to hold particular lands to that extent, were not to be compelled to part with such lands under the award. Leases under a term of less than forty years were not affected by the award.

With regard to arrears of rent due, it was awarded by the commissioners that a release of all arrears, beyond those which had accrued during the three years preceding the first of May, would be for the benefit of both landlords and tenants.

With regard to the case of the descendants of the loyalists who sought homes in Prince Edward Island after the confiscation of their properties in the old revolted colonies, the commissioners considered that they had claims on the local government. His Majesty’s government, in 1783, felt the full force of the claims of their ancestors, and was sincere in its desire to make a liberal provision for them; but the rights which they had then acquired, when the proprietors had engaged to make certain grants of land for their benefit, were, unfortunately, not enforced. The commissioners recommended that the local government should make free grants to such as could prove that their fathers had been lured to the island under promises which had never been fulfiled.

With regard to the claims of the descendants of the original French inhabitants, the commissioners, with every desire to take a generous view of the sufferings of persons whose only crime was adherence to the weaker side in a great national struggle, could not, after the lapse of a century, rescue them from the ordinary penalties incident to a state of war.

The Indian claims were limited to Lennox Island, and to grass lands around it; and as it appeared by evidence that the Indians had been in uninterrupted occupancy of the property for more than half a century, and had built a chapel and several houses on the island, the commissioners were of opinion that their title should be confirmed, and that this very small portion of the wide territory their forefathers formerly owned should be left in the undisturbed possession of this last remnant of the race.

The commissioners closed their report by expressing their conviction that, should the general principles propounded be accepted in the spirit by which they were animated, and followed by practical legislation, the colony would start forward with renewed energy, dating a new era from the year 1861. In such an event, the British government would have nobly atoned for any errors in its past policy, the legislature would no longer be distracted with efforts to close the courts upon proprietors, or to tamper with the currency of the island; the cry of tenant-rights would cease to disguise the want of practical statesmanship, or to over-awe the local administration; men who had hated and disturbed each other would be reconciled, and pursue their common interests in mutual co-operation; roads would be levelled, breakwaters built, the river-beds dredged, new fertilizers applied to a soil annually drained of its vitality; emigration would cease, and population attracted to the wild lands would enter upon their cultivation, unembarrassed by the causes which perplexed the early settlers. Weighed down by the burden of the investigation, the commissioners had sometimes felt doubtful of any beneficial results; but they now, at the close of their labors, indulged the hope that, if their suggestions were adopted, enfranchised and disenthralled from the poisoned garments that enfolded her, Prince Edward Island would yet become the Barbadoes of the Saint Lawrence.

Our limits will not admit of a more extended account of the commissioners’ report, which constitutes a most important portion of the annals of the island. We hope we have succeeded in giving the kernel of it. It is impossible for any candid person to rise from the perusal of the document, as well as of the voluminous body of facts and evidence on which it is based, without the conviction that the work was committed to men whose experience and acquirements eminently fitted them for the onerous duty entrusted to them, and without feeling that they were inspired with the desire to do justice to all the interests involved. They condemned—and most justly—the imperial government, which had originally granted the land in such enormous quantity to each grantee, on the ground of public services, the merits of which it was most difficult for the commissioners to estimate. To say the truth, in the case of many of the grantees, it would require a microscope of no ordinary power to detect their existence. The conditions attached to the grants were deliberately disregarded by the bulk of the proprietors, who, up to the time the commission was appointed, continued to wield an amount of influence in the councils of successive Sovereigns, which successfully frustrated every effort made by the people to obtain justice. The emigrants who left their native land were under the impression that they were to be conducted to a country where they might speedily attain, by moderate industry, to independence; where advantages were to be obtained which could not be got in other portions of the vast continent of America. In four years from the date of the original grants a third of the land was to be actually settled; within ten years there was to be a settler to every hundred acres of land; as evidence that there was to be no lack of protestant clergymen, one hundred acres were allotted for a church and glebe; and as a guaranty that the schoolmaster would be found at home, thirty acres were allotted to him in this prospectively populous and happy island. The honor of the British government was committed as a guaranty for the realization of these brilliant promises. But during the first ten years the terms, as to population, were complied with in ten townships only, nine being partially settled, and forty-eight utterly neglected. The proprietors, knowing that they could get the British government to do what they pleased, petitioned, in the year after the grants were made, for a separate government, and the expense was to be met by the quitrents, which, however, they took good care not to pay; and as a reward for the concession of a separate government, Britain had to pay for the maintenance of the civil establishment of the island. Thirty years after the grants were made, the assembly passed resolutions which set forth clearly the extent to which the obligations under which the proprietors had come were disregarded, and petitioned that they might be compelled to fulfil the conditions on which they had obtained the land, or that it should be escheated and granted in small tracts to actual settlers. In shameful violation of the principles of national honor and justice, the representations of the people, through their representatives, were disregarded, in consequence of the influence brought to bear, by the grantees, on a weak and incompetent government; and thus there was on the part of Britain a flagrant breach of faith with the immigrants who had been tempted to leave their native country, trusting to guarantees the violation of which was never suspected. The people of the island continued for ninety years to protest against the injury under which they suffered, till at last a commission was appointed. Credit must be given to the commissioners for the thoroughness of their investigation, for the reliability of their facts, and for the impartiality and general soundness of their awards. Yet the report seems to lack necessary pungency and power in dealing with the iniquity of successive governments in failing to make compensation to the island immigrants and their successors for injuries persistently inflicted, and borne with a degree of patience that excites our wonder. Instead, however, of such injuries generating sympathy or admiration, leading to a rectification of admitted evils, the only result was a flow of official twaddle about the sacred rights of property, and the duty of obedience to imperial edicts relating to the soil,—edicts of which any civilized country might well be ashamed, and to which no parallel can be found in the voluminous annals of the colonial possessions of an empire on which the sun never sets. While immigrants to other portions of America obtained good land in fee-simple for the merest trifle, and were working their way to competence and independence, the farmers of Prince Edward Island, weighed down by rent, were doomed to clear the forest and improve the land, finding themselves in many cases, in their old age, no richer than on their arrival in the country, with no prospect before their families but hard work, and with no hope of a permanent or adequate return. Happily, the fearful difficulties encountered by the early settlers do not exist—at least in the same degree—now; and by dint of economy, hard work, and self-denial, not a few have attained to comparative comfort and independence. The commissioners say: “the grievances of the island have sprung from the injudicious mode in which the lands were originally given away.” That is only half the truth. The Crown had the abstract right to grant the land in blocks of twenty thousand acres each; but the Crown had not the right, after the conditions on which the land had been allotted were published, and its good faith had been committed to the fulfilment of these conditions by the owners on pain of forfeiture, to permit their violation without the infliction of the penalty. Thousands, on the faith of these conditions being honestly implemented, had staked their prospects in life. The original immigrants would not have come to Prince Edward Island as tenants while they might have obtained free land elsewhere, unless compensatory advantages had been offered. These advantages were implied in the conditions of settlement attached to the grants. When, therefore, the British government permitted the violation of the contract, they broke faith with the immigrants, and became morally and constitutionally responsible for the consequences of such violation. The remedy was in the hands of the Crown. The original proprietors having failed to keep their engagements, the clear and honest duty of the Crown was to declare the land of such proprietors escheated, and, as compensation to the emigrants, to make moderate free grants to them of a portion of it. Instead of adopting this manly and honest course, the Crown ignored the injury inflicted on the tenants, and allowed the proprietors to retain their land in a wilderness state, thus causing long-continued misery and bitterness in the island, and almost permanently obscuring the lustre of one of the brightest gems in the British colonial diadem. The charge of indifference to the just complaints of the people cannot be brought against the successive local legislatures and governments of the island. Law after law was enacted, and petition after petition was laid at the foot of the throne. The people met in masses and prayed for relief. Verily, there was no lack of importunity; but the official ear—always open to the complaints and representations of many landholders and their satellites, who were ever sensitive to the imaginary rights, but totally oblivious of the real duties of property—was conveniently deaf to the groans of an oppressed people. Year after year passed without any effectual remedy being applied, and the original proprietors either died or transferred their property to others; and for a long period, before the appointment of the commission, the answer to all applications to the colonial office for escheat was the melancholy chant of too late! too late! Father Time and his progeny proscription now presented barriers which were deemed insuperable. Every successive minister for the colonies became expert at counting on his fingers the number of years that had elapsed since the British government broke faith with the people of Prince Edward Island, and re-echoed the chant, “Too late! too late!” It must be conceded that, after the lapse of so long a period, it was impossible, without positive injury to proprietors who were in no way responsible for existing evils, to escheat the land, and the views taken by the commissioners on this point must commend themselves to every unprejudiced mind; but, admitting all this, the question occurs, was it too late to fix blame in the proper quarter, and to repair the damage sustained by the island? Certainly not. We think it must be regarded as a radical defect in the report of the commissioners that no pointed answer was given to that question. It was unfortunately too late to make compensation to those who first came to the country on the faith of imperial pledges which were not redeemed, and who, after a life of toil, had passed the bourne whence no traveller returns, leaving an inheritance of difficulty and trouble to their sons and daughters; but it was not too late to make honorable compensation to the latter, and, at the same time, justice to the present owners of the soil, by buying the land with money out of the public treasury of the mother country, and giving it to those whose just claims had been so long criminally disregarded. Whilst in the plainest terms the commissioners admitted that the island grievances sprung from the injudicious mode in which the lands were originally given away, they did not press for due compensation being made by the country whose rulers had produced these grievances, but recommended that the imperial government should guarantee a loan for the purchase of the land of one hundred thousand pounds, on the production, by the island authorities, of most satisfactory security for the payment of principal and interest. In plain English, the aggrieved parties were made practically responsible for oppression in the production of which they had no hand, and for which, therefore, they could in no legitimate sense be held responsible. On the assumption that the British government were not accountable, the award of the commissioners was admirable; but, assuming their responsibility, the cost of rectification was recommended to be borne by the wrong parties.

Let it not be for a moment supposed that it is intended by these remarks to foster discontent in the island, to weaken the bonds which unite it to the old country, or to generate a spirit of disloyalty to the Crown or dissatisfaction towards good landlords. Were the writer inspired by so criminal a desire, his efforts would fail in the production of any such consequences. The people have learned to put no confidence either in governments or princes; but, under Almighty favor, by economy, temperance, and hard work, to trust to their own efforts in sweeping from the island the remnants of a pernicious system, and of attaining that measure of independence and prosperity to which such formidable obstacles have been presented, but the ultimate realization of which the capabilities of the island warrant. Since the island became British property, not a petition or complaint has been laid at the foot of the throne which has not breathed the most devoted loyalty; and the people, under trials which might have tested the patience of Job, have borne them with a degree of meekness and patience to which few parallels can be produced; and at this moment the beloved Queen of Great Britain has not more sturdy, faithful, and resolute defenders of her throne and person than the inhabitants of Prince Edward Island. Loyalty must be indigenous to a soil where, under such adverse conditions, it has taken such deep root and flourishes.

In the very year when the commissioners were prosecuting their inquiries, Prince Edward Island responded to the call for a defensive force by organizing twenty companies of volunteers, mustering upwards of a thousand men, showing a degree of loyalty, zeal, and energy in that direction inferior to no other portion of the Queen’s dominions.

A general census of the island was taken in 1861. The population was then—as certified in the most accurate returns—eighty thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, including three hundred and fifteen Indians. The churches numbered one hundred and fifty-six; schoolhouses, three hundred and two; and public teachers, two hundred and eighty. There were eighty-nine fishing establishments on the island, which produced twenty-two thousand barrels of herrings and gasperaux, seven thousand barrels of mackerel, thirty-nine thousand quintals of codfish, and seventeen thousand gallons of fish-oils. There were one hundred and forty-one grist-mills, one hundred and seventy-six saw-mills, and forty-six carding-mills; fifty-five tanneries, manufacturing one hundred and forty-three thousands pounds of leather.

The executive government having, in 1861, appointed commissioners to superintend the collection of products and manufactures of the island for the London exhibition of 1862, the duty was judiciously performed, and the articles forwarded to the exhibition under the charge of Mr. Henry Haszard, the secretary to the commissioners.

A profound sensation was caused in the island by intelligence of the seizure of Messrs. Mason and Slidell, civil servants of the Southern States, when under the protection of the English flag, on their passage from Havana to England on board the steamship Trent. A remonstrance was forwarded by the British government to that of the Northern States; and the act of the commander of the San Jacinto—the American vessel by which the outrage was committed—having been disapproved of by the American government, the Southern commissioners were set at liberty, and the dispute happily terminated.

On the eighth of January, 1862, intelligence of the death of His Royal Highness Prince Albert reached the island. He died at Windsor Castle on the fourteenth of December, 1861, in the forty-second year of his age. Official intimation of his death was communicated to the lieutenant-governor by the Duke of Newcastle, and His Excellency ordered that forty-two minute-guns should be fired from Saint George’s Battery at twelve o’clock, noon; and Her Majesty’s faithful subjects were enjoined to put themselves into mourning. The life of the departed Prince was one of singular purity and usefulness, and his memory will forever stand honorably associated with that of Queen Victoria, than whom a more virtuous and beloved Sovereign never swayed a British sceptre. An address of condolence to Her Majesty was adopted by the legislature.

In answer to a despatch from the governor to the colonial secretary, requesting that he should be favored with a copy of the land commissioners’ report, His Excellency received a despatch from the Duke of Newcastle, dated the seventh of February, 1862, accompanied by a copy of the report, which was anxiously desired by the people. His Grace said that he was desirous of expressing his appreciation of the painstaking, able, and impartial report which the commissioners had furnished,—a report which would derive additional weight from its unanimity, and which was the result of an investigation so complete that it had exhausted the material for inquiry into the facts of the case. The difficulties that remained were those which were inherent in the subject, and which had, for a long course of years, baffled every attempt at solution. His Grace, at the same time, held out no hope—for reasons which he did not state—that the loan of one hundred thousand pounds, in order to buy the estates of Prince Edward Island from their present owners, would be guaranteed. Mr. Labouchere, the colonial minister, suggested such a loan in 1855, and it was warmly advocated by Lord Stanley in 1858, when he held that office; and the people of the island had fair ground for additional complaint against the home government, when that government did not condescend even to state manfully the reasons for such a point-blank refusal, more especially as the commissioners had advocated most earnestly the imperial guaranty of such a loan,—such recommendation being one of the cardinal points in their award. The duke further intimated in the despatch that there appeared to be insuperable objections to that multiplicity of separate land arbitrations which would be the effect of the alternative measure alluded to in the commissioners’ report. Shorn of the vital portions of the award, which were thus politely ignored, the report was divested, to a large extent, of its immediate practical value; and the official compliment paid to the commissioners was but very poor compensation for the rejection of incomparably the most important portions of an award which had been arrived at after a painstaking and complete investigation, in the conduct of which was enlisted an amount of patience, impartiality, discrimination, and ability which it would be difficult to match. The secret of the mild manner in which imperial delinquencies, in the treatment of Prince Edward Island, were touched upon in this production may probably be found in a due appreciation by the commissioners of governmental sensitiveness on the point, producing the conviction that to ask for more than would probably be granted would injure—rather than promote—just claims to compensation.

The assembly met in February, and adopted a resolution, by a vote of twenty-three to six, pledging itself to introduce a measure to confirm the award of the commissioners in all its provisions. The action of the assembly in thus, without hesitation, honorably abiding by the award of the commissioners, without cavil or complaint, was highly creditable to its character; but the award did not meet with the same degree of approval at the hands of the landowners who were parties to the appointment of the commission. The Duke of Newcastle addressed a despatch to the governor, dated the fifth of April, 1862, enclosing a draft bill, drawn up by the proprietors, for settling the differences between landlords and tenants on certain townships, in the preamble of which it was stated that the commissioners, in providing that the value of land should be ascertained by arbitrators, to be appointed by the landlords and tenants, exceeded the authority intended to be given to them by the assembly and the proprietors, and if their suggestion were adopted, disputes and litigation between the landlords and tenants would ensue. Thus these gentlemen completely ignored the award of the commissioners, and proposed to substitute a remedy of their own. In thus acting, they had the support of the colonial secretary, for although, in the despatch by which the draft bill was accompanied his Grace did not express positive approval of the landowners’ proposals, he, nevertheless, stated that it would give him great pleasure if Sir Samuel Cunard’s anticipations as a proprietor were realized in reference to the bill.

Two acts had been promptly passed by the assembly on the land question,—one to give effect to the report of the commissioners, and another to facilitate the operation of the award in cases of anticipated difficulty; and the local government framed a minute in which they affirmed, in reference to the landlords’ proposed bill, that they could not believe that the legislature would sanction any measure bearing on the land question which might differ essentially from the principles embodied in the commissioners’ report. They asserted that the assembly deemed the government pledged to carry out the award of the commission, and they denied that the charge preferred in the preamble of the proprietors’ bill, that the commissioners had exceeded their commission, could be substantiated. From the language of the commission, the government argued that the powers conferred upon them were unlimited,—amply sufficient to empower them to define any mode of settlement of a purely equitable character. By a passage contained in a despatch of the colonial secretary, he seemed to apprehend that the arbitration system prescribed by the commissioners would necessitate a multiplicity of separate local arbitrations, which would constitute insuperable objections against this mode of adjustment. The government, however, did not anticipate that many of these arbitrations would take place in the practical working of the system. In their opinion, two or three cases on a township would have the effect of establishing a scale of prices which would become a standard of value. The minute—a temperate and well-reasoned document—concluded with an expression of the hope that the bills passed by the house of assembly would receive the royal sanction. They reminded the colonial secretary that the differences which the commissioners were appointed to determine had, for half a century, exerted a most baneful influence upon the colony, and that the people hailed with much satisfaction the prospect of having them adjusted. Should anything occur to prevent such adjustment, the consequences would be of a very serious nature, and result in causing much anxiety to Her Majesty’s ministers, and also to the local government.

To this minute, which was dated the twenty-second of July, 1862, the Duke of Newcastle replied in a despatch of the ninth of August, following. He expressed regret that he could not concur in the views of the government. The main questions which the commissioners were appointed to decide were: first, at what rate tenants ought to be allowed to acquire freehold interests in their property; and, next, what amount of arrears of rent should be remitted by the landlords. On the first and most important of these questions, the commissioners professed themselves unable to come to any conclusion, and, instead of deciding it, they recommended, virtually, that it should be decided by other arbitrators, to be hereafter nominated. This, however, he said, was not what they were charged to do: they were authorized by the proprietors to make an award themselves, but they were not authorized to transfer the duty of making that award to others. The trust confided to them was a personal one. The proprietors relied on the skill, knowledge, and fairness of the three gentlemen appointed in 1860; and they could not, therefore, be called upon, in deference to these gentlemen’s opinion, to confide their interests even to arbitrators specially designated in the award, much less to persons whose very mode of appointment was undetermined by it. This objection might be waived by the proprietors, but it was not waived; and being insisted on, the colonial secretary said he was obliged to admit that it was conclusive, and he was bound further to say that it was, in his opinion, an objection founded, not on any technical rule of law, but on a sound and indisputable principle of justice,—the principle, namely, that a person who has voluntarily submitted his case to the decision of one man, cannot, therefore, be compelled, without his consent, to transfer it to the decision of another.

For these reasons, the colonial minister did not advise Her Majesty to sanction the two acts which had been forwarded, and which were, of course, intended to render the award obligatory on all who had consented to the reference. The report of the commissioners was therefore regarded by the home government simply as an expression of opinion which was not binding, and which ought not to be allowed to stand in the way of any other proposal which promised an amicable settlement of the question.

CHAPTER IX.

Bill to make the Legislative Council elective—Change of Government—Address to the Queen, craving to give effect to the Commissioners’ Award—A Review of recent Proceedings in regard to the Land Question—The Assembly willing to meet the views of Proprietors in regard to the appointment of Commissioners—The Assembly and the Commissioners right, and the Colonial Secretary wrong—The Reason-why given—The rejection of the Award unreasonable—Delegates sent to England on the Land Question—The Result.

The house of assembly met on the second of December, 1862, for the purpose of considering the present position of the land question, with a view to a speedy solution. In his opening speech, the lieutenant-governor stated that he had received a despatch from the colonial secretary, informing him that the royal assent had been given to an act (which had been introduced by the Honorable Mr. Haviland) to change the constitution of the legislative council, by rendering the same elective. This made it necessary to dissolve the house before it could enter on the special business for the transaction of which it had been convened. The new election would afford an opportunity to the people to express a decided opinion as to the award; and the issue was looked forward to with deep interest. The election resulted in a large majority approving of that document. The new house met early in March. The opening paragraph of the governor’s speech referred to the marriage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to the Princess Alexandra, of Denmark, which had been recently consummated. Reference was also made in the speech to the decision of the colonial secretary, that the commissioners on the land question had exceeded their powers in their report; but His Excellency expressed his conviction that the house would exert itself to find a satisfactory solution of the difficulties which had so long retarded the prosperity of the island.

On the governor’s speech being read, Colonel Gray said that the members of the government having tendered their resignations, he had been commanded by His Excellency to form a new administration, and he accordingly announced the following names as comprising His Excellency’s responsible advisers: John Hamilton Gray, president of the council; Edward Palmer, attorney general; James Yeo, John Longworth, James C. Pope, David Kaye, James McLean, Daniel Davies, and William Henry Pope, colonial secretary. Amongst the first business submitted to the house was an address to the Queen, in which the whole history of the appointment and proceedings of the commission was detailed, and praying that Her Majesty would cause it to be notified to the proprietors affected by the award that unless cause to the contrary should be shown before a judicial tribunal, to be appointed by Her Majesty, her sanction would be given to the bills passed to give effect to the award. That address was duly forwarded by the governor to the colonial secretary, and His Grace’s decision in regard to its contents was given fully in a despatch, dated the eleventh of July, 1863. The duke observed that, as he was not aware of any method by which the question could be submitted to any court of justice, and as the council and assembly had not suggested any such method, he considered that the course most satisfactory to them would be that of ascertaining from the law officers of the Crown, first, whether the so-called award was, in itself, liable to any objection founded upon any principle of law or equity; and next, whether it was possible, by any proceeding in law or equity, to give effect to the wish of the Prince Edward Island legislature, by enabling the proprietors or tenants to show cause why Her Majesty’s assent should or should not be given to the proposed bill for giving effect to the award of the commissioners. In their replies to the questions put, the law officers of the Crown, Sir William Atherton and Sir Roundell Palmer, said that they did not consider the term “award” applicable with any propriety to the report of the commissioners of inquiry. There was no reference or submission, properly so-called. The gentlemen who signed the letter to the duke, dated the thirteenth of February, 1860, were incompetent to bind the general body of proprietors of land in Prince Edward Island, and had not attempted or professed to do so. And on the other hand, it was clear that they did not propose or intend by that letter to bind themselves individually, unless the general body of proprietors would be also bound. The writer has put some of the words of the law officers of the Crown in italics, in order that the reader may specially mark them as bearing upon subsequent remarks which he intends to offer. The law officers were further of opinion, upon the substance of the case, that the commissioners had not executed the authority which alone was proposed to be conferred upon them on the part of the landowners who signed the letter of the thirteenth February, 1860; and that a recommendation that the price to be paid by a tenant for the purchase of his land should be settled, in each particular instance in which the landlord and tenant might differ about the same, by arbitration, was not, either literally or substantially, within the scope of that authority. The law officers of the Crown thus fortified the position taken by the Duke of Newcastle and the proprietors, in reference to the award of the commissioners.

In coming to a just decision respecting the conflicting opinions which we have endeavored to present with precision and clearness, it is necessary to review the whole proceedings.

In the year 1858, Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, secretary of state for the colonies, intimated to the lieutenant-governor of Prince Edward Island that the whole question of the land tenures was engaging his anxious attention, and that it would give him unfeigned pleasure to receive such suggestions for their amicable settlement as could be accepted by Her Majesty’s government. In consequence of the expression of this wish, the house of assembly adopted certain resolutions praying for the appointment of a commission as offering in their judgment the best means for the satisfactory adjustment of existing disputes, intimating at the same time that, in the opinion of the house, the basis of such adjustment would be found in a large remission of arrears of rent, and in giving every tenant, holding under a long lease, the power to purchase his farm at a certain fixed rate. In the mean time a change took place in the imperial government, and the Duke of Newcastle became colonial secretary, who wrote in a despatch dated the sixth September, 1869, “that any prospect of a beneficial result from the labors of the commission would be nullified if its action were fettered by conditions such as the assembly proposed. I cannot,” said his grace, “advise Her Majesty to entertain the question, unless it is fully understood that the commissioners are at liberty to propose any measure which they themselves may deem desirable.” A copy of the memorial of the house was sent by order of the Duke to Sir Samuel Cunard, requesting him to call a meeting of landlords, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there were any concessions which they were willing to make, with a view to bring the questions in dispute to an amicable issue. To the letter of his grace, Sir Samuel and other proprietors replied, that they would readily acquiesce in any arrangement that might be practicable for the purpose of settling the various questions alluded to in the memorial of the house of assembly, but that they did not think the appointment of commissioners, in the manner proposed, would be the most desirable mode of procedure, as the labors of such commissioners would only terminate in a report which would not be binding on any of the parties interested, and they—the proprietors—proposed that three commissioners or referees should be appointed,—one to be named by Her Majesty, one by the house of assembly, and one by the proprietors,—and that they should have power to enter on all the inquiries that might be necessary, and to decide on the different questions that might be brought before them, giving, of course, to the parties interested, an opportunity of being heard.

The house of assembly, instead of throwing any obstacle in the way of the proposed arrangement, at once agreed to the suggestions of the colonial secretary and the proprietors, and to abide by the decision of the commissioners, or the majority of them, and pledged themselves to concur in whatever measures might be required to give validity to the decision,—naming the Honorable Joseph Howe as commissioner in behalf of the tenantry of the island.

The duke, as previously stated, expressed his satisfaction at the promptitude of the concurrence of the assembly in the suggestions offered, and the home government and the proprietors having named the other two commissioners, a commission was drawn up, dated the twenty-fifth day of June, 1860. The commissioners executed the task committed to them, and on the eighteenth of July, 1861, transmitted their report and award to the Duke of Newcastle, who complimented the commissioners on their ability and impartiality, but at the same time objected to some of the cardinal points of their award.

Whilst the proprietors objected to the award, and regarded it as not binding upon them, the house of assembly honorably adopted it in all its provisions. Then followed the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, which was emphatically favorable to the views of the colonial secretary and the proprietors.

It is, we think, impossible to review these proceedings carefully and impartially without coming to the conclusion that the colonial secretary, the proprietors, and the Crown lawyers were wrong, and the government and the legislature of Prince Edward Island right, in the view which they took of the powers and functions with which the commissioners were invested. There is a very strong presumption, it may be remarked, that the commissioners—three gentlemen of acknowledged ability and experience—could not have mistaken, so completely as the rejection of their award assumed, the nature of their duties; and during the course of the investigation there is not the shadow of a doubt that the almost universal opinion in the island was, that the coming award of the commissioners was to be held as a final settlement of the questions at issue, so far as the parties who deliberately appointed them were concerned. That such was the opinion of the proprietors, is proved by the most important and significant fact that, in the communication they addressed to the Duke of Newcastle on the thirteenth of February, 1860, they took exception to the appointment of a commissioner or commissioners in the manner proposed by the legislature, on the specific ground that the resulting decision “would not be binding on any of the parties interested”; and, in order to make the anticipated award positively binding, they proposed an alteration in the constitution of the proposed commission, which was unhesitatingly adopted. How, in the face of this fact, Sir William Atherton and Sir Roundell Palmer could come to the conclusion that the consenting proprietors did not intend, by the letter to which we have alluded, “to bind themselves, individually, unless the general body of proprietors would also be bound,” seems incomprehensible. The proprietors who subscribed the letter were perfectly aware that unanimity amongst the proprietors could not at present be obtained. They did not complain of the absence of such unanimity, nor did they even insinuate that it would by them be regarded as a necessary condition of adherence to the anticipated decision of the commissioners. It is impossible that clear-headed men, sensitively alive to their own interests, could have a mental reservation to that effect, without giving it form and substance in so important a communication; nor can the monstrous notion, that whilst they insisted on the legislature being bound, they did not regard themselves as equally bound, be for a moment entertained. Is it credible that the esteemed gentleman, J. W. Ritchie (now Judge Ritchie), whom they entrusted in the reference as their representative, could have been left in ignorance on so important a point? But the words of the Duke of Newcastle are decisive on this point. In his despatch of the second January, 1861, to the lieutenant-governor, he says: “I trust you will impress upon the commissioners, if requisite, the necessity of avoiding, as far as possible, any steps calculated to excite unreasonable expectations, or to stimulate agitation; on the other hand, while assuring the proprietors that the award of the commissioners will not be enforced by Her Majesty’s government against any persons who have not, either personally or by their representatives, consented to refer their claims to arbitration, I should wish you also to observe to them, that their refusal to concur frankly in a measure which was intended to compose existing differences, and which, so far as it has yet proceeded, has been assented to by a large portion of their body, may materially influence the conduct of Her Majesty’s government if called upon to support them in any future disputes with their tenants.” If his grace regarded the proprietors who had not concurred in the reference as not bound to abide by it, it surely must be conceded to be good logic that he must have believed the concurring proprietors as firmly bound, both in point of fact and law. But it remained for the learned law officers of the Crown to put a climax to their decision by broadly asserting “that there was no reference or submission, properly so called.” Now, the most effectual answer that can be given to this statement is the very words of the royal commission, “Now, know ye, that we, taking the premises into our royal consideration, are graciously pleased to nominate and appoint, and do by these presents nominate and appoint our trusty and well-beloved John Hamilton Gray, Esquire, Joseph Howe, Esquire, and John William Ritchie, Esquire, to be our commissioners for inquiring into the said differences, and for adjusting the same on fair and equitable principles.” If that was not, in every legitimate sense, a reference and submission, the commission was a transparent farce, and the English language has ceased to convey definite ideas. How did the commissioners regard the matter? “Perhaps,” said they in their report, “no three men in British America were ever called to arbitrate upon interests of the same magnitude, or questions of greater delicacy affecting the welfare of large numbers of people. If a judge or a juror, about to decide the title to a single estate, feels the responsibility of his position, the undersigned may be pardoned for admitting that, with hundreds of estates, and the interests of many thousands of persons dependent upon their adjudication, they have only been sustained by a very sincere desire to restore peace to a disturbed province.” And what did all the legal gentlemen who, as counsel, represented before the commissioners the various interests involved, think of the powers with which they—the commissioners—were invested? Why, all their speeches assumed that they were addressing themselves to adjudicators who had ample authority to solve the questions in dispute. This was admitted by Sir Samuel Cunard, as representing his co-proprietors, after the award of the commissioners was given; for in writing the Duke of Newcastle, the law officers of the Crown represent him as saying “that the landlords were ready to be bound by the decision of the three commissioners, but that they were not prepared to hand over their interests to the proposed arbitrators, and to embark in the expense and dispute consequent on a multitude of petty arbitrations,”—referring to the arbitrators proposed by the commissioners to determine the value of every individual property, with a view to purchase by the tenant. Yet, in the face of such overwhelming evidence, the colonial secretary had the coolness to parade the opinion of the law officers of the Crown before the government, legislature, and people of Prince Edward Island, that there was no reference or award, properly so called, very prudently abstaining from any expression of his own opinion on the point.

The principle on which the Duke of Newcastle rejected the award was, that a man who agrees to refer his case to one tribunal cannot, therefore, be forced to submit it to another. The equity of that principle cannot be denied. What are the facts? The commissioners, unable to conduct an examination into all the cases, recommended that arbitrators, mutually chosen, should undertake the work. They laid down general principles, and left the details to be executed by others. According to his grace’s determination, as expressed in his own words, “It was very desirable that the commissioners should go into the inquiry unfettered by any conditions such as the assembly wished to impose.” The commissioners were enjoined by his grace “to devote their efforts to framing such recommendations as should be demanded by the equity of the case,” and their conclusions “would possess double weight if, happily, they should be unanimous.” Their recommendations and conclusions were adopted unanimously; yet, in the estimation of his grace they, after all, amounted to nothing more than an expression of opinion; for, said his grace, addressing the lieutenant-governor, “I must instruct you, therefore, however unwillingly, to treat the commissioners’ award only as an expression of opinion, which, however valuable as such, cannot be made legally binding on the parties concerned.” If it was simply the opinion of the able men appointed as commissioners that was required, it could have been probably obtained without the formalities of a royal commission, and unaccompanied by some of the solemnities of a judicial tribunal; and if these gentlemen had been aware that their investigations and decisions were to be so easily “put out of the way,” it is certain they would never have condescended to undertake the work; nor would the government or the legislature of the island have gone through business which they thought possible to come, through no fault of theirs, to so comical a termination.

But, assuming that the commissioners had mistaken the nature of their functions in one or two particulars, on what ground could all their decisions be rejected? Because an error in judgment was committed in certain cases, was that any good reason for superciliously brushing aside the whole report, and divesting it of all binding authority? We must leave the reader to answer the question according to his judgment. Practically, the colonial secretary said to the commissioners, on the conclusion of their labors: You have conducted the investigation with ability and impartiality; you have presented a report which has exhausted all the facts necessary to a just decision; but you, at the same time, have completely mistaken the nature of your duties, and your award, if such it can be designated, is without any binding value, and must, therefore, be treated as simply your opinion, and nothing more.

On the case being submitted to Sir Hugh Cairns, for his opinion as to its legal aspects, he stated that the commissioners were invested with authority to inquire into all differences existing between landlords and their tenants, and to propose, as a remedy for the settlement of such differences, any measure which they might think desirable,—that in consequence of the unconstitutional course adopted by the colonial office in reference to the commission, there was no legal validity in any of the proceedings which had taken place. But he expressed, at the same time, the opinion that the proprietors who proposed the commission were not morally justified in repudiating the finding of the commission merely because there were certain other proprietors who did not become parties to the proceeding. Sir Hugh Cairns might have added, that the home government were, in honor, bound to sustain the award of the commissioners, and to give validity to the acts of the assembly.

Impressed with the conviction that the home government, notwithstanding its treatment of the commissioners’ award, would be disposed to give effect to principles of settlement akin to those recommended by the commissioners, the island government resolved to send Messrs. Edward Palmer and W. H. Pope as delegates to England to submit fresh conditions, which might prove acceptable. In October, 1863, these gentlemen had an interview with the colonial secretary (the Duke of Newcastle), when the land question was discussed. The proposals of the delegates were subsequently embodied in a communication addressed to the colonial secretary, and dated the thirteenth of October. A copy of that communication was sent from the colonial office to Sir Samuel Cunard, with the view of having its contents submitted to the proprietors by that gentleman. On the fourteenth of November, the baronet sent to the Duke of Newcastle a reply, in which he presented, at considerable length, his own views of the points at issue. He contended at the outset that the granting of the land originally in large blocks was “an act of necessity,—that the grantees had all lost very heavily by accepting the grants, and that no individual at present on the island had been injured by that proceeding, but, on the contrary, the grants had been a fruitful source of profit to the present generation.” This novel and intensely absurd proposition Sir Samuel proceeded to establish by reference to the taxation to which the proprietors were subjected, and the various measures which had been passed by the local legislature, and confirmed by the home government. Early in December following, Sir Samuel addressed another letter to the Duke of Newcastle, enclosing a bill which, he said, would be acceptable to the proprietors if adopted in its integrity. To the baronet’s letters and bill, Mr. Pope replied, in an able and exhaustive communication, dated the eighteenth of December, which concluded in the following words: “I regret to say, that I cannot construe Sir Samuel Cunard’s communication, on the subject of the proposals for the settlement of the land question, in any other sense than as indicative of unwillingness, on his part at least, to make any such reasonable concessions to the tenantry as would afford that relief which is essential, in order to secure the colony generally from those much-to-be-dreaded evils which necessarily result from wide-spread agrarian agitation.”

The delegates returned to Prince Edward Island, and presented an elaborate report of their proceedings. No further attempt was made to settle the land question till, at the suggestion—as we are given to understand—of the proprietors, an act was introduced, in 1864, for settling the differences between landlord and tenant, and to enable tenants on certain townships to purchase the fee-simple of their farms at fifteen years’ rent. This act passed, and was supplemented in the following year by another act to facilitate the working of the previous one,—authorising the government to provide a sum not exceeding fifty thousand pounds, in order to enable tenants to purchase their lands,—no leaseholder or tenant being entitled to aid beyond one half the purchase-money of his farm.

Here we must refer to an important mission on which the Honorable Joseph Hensley was sent by the island government to England, in the year 1867. He was authorized to raise a loan of money for the public services of the island; to apply to the various proprietors of township lands in Great Britain and Ireland, and ascertain the terms upon which they would be willing to sell their lands to the government; and also to submit the views of the executive council to the imperial government in relation to a demand for the payment of nearly five thousand pounds, sterling, made for the transport and maintenance of troops. This force had been demanded to suppress disturbances which occurred on the island in 1865, and which were the very natural result of that vicious system of land tenure, for the origin and continuance of which the imperial government was responsible. Mr. Hensley poured into the ear of the colonial secretary (the Duke of Buckingham) wholesome truths concerning the constant source of trouble, expense, and discontent the system had proved, and the extent to which the prosperity of the colony had been thereby retarded. The demand of the imperial government was consequently modified. With respect to the loan of fifty thousand pounds, sterling, which Mr. Hensley was empowered to arrange, he wisely deferred, for solid financial reasons, placing the application before the public, and otherwise executed his commission with discretion, diligence, and ability.