THE conmssroxens’ AWARD. 161

you also to observe to them, that their refusal to concur frankly in a measure which was intended to compose exist- ing 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 govern- ment 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 lVilliam Ritchie, Esquire, to be our commissioners for inquiring into the said difl’erences, and for adjusting the same on fair and equitable principles.” If that was not, in every legitimate sense, a reference and sub- mission, the eommission 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. It" 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 M