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