confused in this case. The original donor was not Mr. Gillian but Mr.Horatio Mann, although Mr. Gillian, as son— in-law and attorney for Mr. Mann's widow, did apparently promise the people of Sou West, while on a Visit soon after Mr. Mann‘s death, to grant an additional thirty acres to the original grant of seventy. (See Burke and Blanchard, 1953) The petition was presented by Hon. J. C. Pope as part of his opposition to a bill before the House at the time for the incorporation of the Catholic Bishop in the Diocese of Charlottetown. Mr. Pope linked the petition with his opposition to the bill on the reasoning that the people of Sou' West somehow thought that a transfer of church property was i;;£$;:% in the act of incorporation and such could be "injurious to their interests". (19) As their proprietor faoK on. Hug role o+

and political representative he nudaankimgoan their pro—

tector.

The case raises some interesting suggestions. There aff<aars {a have aééTmisunderstanding about the original grant of land among the petitioners; it is doubtful that Mr. Pope had any mis— understanding of this. There is also misunderstanding over what the incorporation of the Bishop meant in practical terms; Mr. Pope referred to some‘understandings that the act gave the bishop the power to sell the chapel at Sou' West and to charge ten pounds fee for burying the dead. (20) It seems obvious also that despite the apparently pro-Liberal political leanings of the people in Uou' West there were Conservative supporters on the side of Mr. Pope. Certain

comments of Mr. Pope in the House reveal some admiration

on his part for the independent spirit of these Irish tenants;

36;.