160 HISTORY or PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

stitution of the proposed commission, which was unhesitat— ingly adopted. How, in the face of this fact, Sir “Tilliam Atherton and Sir Roundell Palmer could come to the con- clusion 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 unan- imity amongst the proprietors could not at present he 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 impos- sible 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 com- munication ; 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. \V. 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 New- castle 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 requi- site, the necessity of avoiding, as far as possible, any steps calculated to excite unreasonable expectations, or to stimu- late agitation; on the other hand, while assuring the pro- prietors 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