4<> PAST AND PRESENT OF imagine what would happen to a bill pre¬ sented in this manner. In the beginning of 1784, Patterson dis¬ solved the Assembly , and a general election was forthwith held, when an Assembly was elected which was hostile to the Governor . It began to criticise his administration, to condemn the land-sale proceedings of 1781, and was preparing a complaint to the King against him when he summarily dissolved it. Mr. John Stewart , author of the work already mentioned in these pages, took a prominent part in opposition to the Gov ¬ ernor. Another election was held in March, 1785, when a House entirely favorable to the Governor's views was elected, though, according to Mr. Stewart , who says this election cost Patterson and his friends nearly two thousand pounds sterling, "this was not accomplished without a severe struggle, much illegal conduct and an enor¬ mous expense, considering our small num¬ bers and the infant state of the colony." Mr. Stewart 's work is a very valuable one, but its author was hostile to Patterson and partial to his successor. Hence, what he says about the former should be accepted with reserve. Nothing was done in the first session of the new House, but the following year, 1786, a bill was passed to confirm the proceedings of 1781. This was an unwise proceeding on the part of Pat¬ terson and his friends. It was really a defiance of the home government, and while it may be heroic to defy those in whose power one is, yet it is usually wiser not to do so. The final result was that he was su¬ perseded. In the meantime the act was dis¬ allowed, the bill making the sales voidable was sent back with directions to lay it before the Assembly , which, being done, that body forthwith rejected it A private bill was then brought in, at Patterson's instance, purporting to be at the request of the pur¬ chasers, and passed, for restoring to the original proprietors the lands sold in 1781. But this was disallowed. The proprietors preferred a complaint against Patterson and his council, and an investigation took place in 1789 before a committee of the Privy Council, which re¬ sulted in the dismissal of all the councillors from the board and the attorney general from his office. Patterson had been dis¬ missed in 1787. Nothing further was ddne by the government with regard to the lands in dispute. Although Patterson had been dismissed, the land question had not been laid. Com¬ plaints were made on behalf of the pro¬ prietors against the new governor, Fan¬ ning, and members of his Council, which they were compelled to meet in London, but they managed to vindicate themselves, though at great loss and inconvenience. In 1797, the Legislature took the matter up, and, after careful inquiry, formulated the grievance of the province with regard to the lands, in a series of resolutions, in which the facts of the present conditions were fully and clearly set out. The first resolution declared, after full investigation, that twenty-three townships (mentioning them), containing 458,580 acres, had not one settler resident thereon. Second, twelve townships (mentioning them), containing 243,000 acres, have in all only thirty-six families. The townships mentioned in the two resolutions together embraced upwards of one-half the lands of the Island. Thirdly, six townships, containing 120,- 000 acres, had only fifty families.