in Township 26 wished to buy their farms, but the landlord
refused. The proprietor, Mr. A.E.C. Holland replied that
he regarded rents as “good interest? and since the “tenants
paid their rents regularly”, he was satisfied with the existing
setup.5 Although there was a complaint made against James
C. Pope for trying to force his tenants to pay back rents,
a charge he strongly denied,6 there is no evidence to show
resistance by these tenants, or membership by any of them
in the popular P.E.I. Tenants’ League. So they could not
be called agitators.

The 18605 was a decade of political and religious turmoil
in P.E.I. Tenants became more frustrated with rising rents
and the refusal of landlords to sell their lands. In 1863
tenants in many parts of the Island joined the Tenants’
League to support those who refused to pay their rents until
landlords would agree to sell. Controversy between Protes-
tant and Catholic leaders increased. Catholics were anx—
ious to obtain financial support for St. Dunstan’s College,
begun in 1855; but believing this might start the Island
down the road to separate schools for the different religious
groups, most politicians, Liberals and Conservatives,
opposed it, as did Protestant educators. In 1863 a bill to
incorporate the Orange Lodge in P.E.I. was bitterly Oppos—
ed by Catholics, and some Protestants, including Hon.
William W. Lord, one of the political representatives for
the five communities. The bill passed the House of
Assembly but Catholics organized a petition with 11,000
names to have it rejected by the British colonial Office;
which is what happened.7 A bill to incorporate the Catholic
Bishop of Charlottetown, was passed into law in 1862, but
not without opposition of a different sort. Hon. James C.
Pope, the Conservative representative for the five com-
munities, opposed this bill on the grounds that it violated
the terms under which St. Malachy’s Parish had received
a land grant from his predecessor, the landlord of the Mann

26

estate. In his defense he tabled a petition from the trustees
of St. Malachy’s. (In the absence of the petition we must
rely on the debate in the House of Assembly.)

A petition of Patrick Murphy, Bernard M cCourt and
others, styling themselves “Trustees of St. Malachy’s
Church, South West, Bedeque,” was presented to the
House by the Hon. Mr. Pope, and the same was receiv-
ed and read, setting forth that Mr. Gilian, (sic) pro-
prietor, gave seven ty—two acres of land to them (the said
Trustees) and their successors, to be held for the sup-
port of a Priest, on condition that the said land should
never be given to either Priest or Bishop by deed or any
other document whatsoever, and praying that the in-
tention of the said proprietor be carried out.”

Hon. Mr. Pope explained his opposition to the bill further
by suggesting that he believed the bill gave the Bishop the
right to sell church property, and was therefore transferr-
ing property to the Bishop. He continued:

His father Joseph Pope had been requested as agent
to transfer, but had declined. He himself had been ask-
ed, but refused unless the names of the Trustees were
in the transfer. He could not support the Bill as he was
aware that the people of the district did not Wish it —
they think the transfer of the lands, in the way sought
for by the Bill, would be injurious to their interests. . . .

The Bill would have the effect of gi Ving to the Bishop
land which had been given to the petitioners on the eX-
press condition that he should not have it.9

The petitioners probably misunderstood the bill; and
given the hostile relationships between landlords and
tenants, and Catholics and Protestants at the time, they
were understandably afraid of losing the parish property.
In addition, Island parishioners did not always agree with