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.