CAPTAIN MACDONALD, THE I’ROPRIETOR. 29

which passed between the governor and this gentleman. ’l‘hese throw considerable light on the island history of this 'period. The sales of land recently made excited intense indignation against the governor on the part of those whose property had been confiscated, who were backed in their applications for redress by the general body of proprietors. The act sent to the governor, and which he failed to present to the house of assembly, was the result of these applications. In the preamble of that portion of the .act which provided for relief to the complainants, it was stated that the governor and council, on the first day of December, 1780, unanimously resolved, in order to give .absent proprietors whose lands were liable to be sold an opportunity of relieving their property, that no sales should take place until the first hIonday of November following, and that in the meantime the colonial agent in London should be instructed to inform the proprietors of the pro- posed sale; and “ whereas," runs the act, “notwithstanding such determination and resolution, no such notice was given by the colonial agent to the proprietors, it seems reasonable that they should obtain effectual relief in the premises.” It 'is only fair that the governor should be allowed to reply in his own words, as contained in a letter now before us, which he addressed to his friend Stuart on the twelfth of May, 1783. In order that a portion of that letter may be under- :stood, it is necessary to say that Captain McDonald, one of the proprietors resident in London, had written a pamphlet

person whose name appears on the Island Statute 01‘30 George. III, eap. 5,01’ the year 1790, as the owner of ten thousand acres of land; and who, I have always understood, was a personal 1‘; iend of Governor Patterson, and if not an original grantee, must have acquired his land by the instrumentality of his friend the governor, under the sale of the lands tor the non-payment .of quitrents,=so frequently alluded to in the correspondence.” The writer ‘5an carefully gone over the list 01' original grantees, in which there is one niamed John Stewart, but not one who spelt his name Stuart.