THE second session of the New Brunswick Legislature was called for the 13th ol February, 1787, but it was the 15th before a quorum could be obtained. On that day the Governor's speech was delivered. It referred to the arrival of Lord Dorchester at Quebec as Governor General, a change which reduced the Governors of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to the rank of Lieutenant Governors. It recommended the establishment of a militia force for the defence of the Province, and it mentioned the arrival of the commissioners who had been sent from England, to take evidence with reference to the claims of the Loyalists. As the amount of business to be done was small, the session was a short one, the House sitting only nineteen days. A statement laid before the House showed that the revenue of the province from customs and excise duties, collected by the provincial officers amounted to £742 1s. 6d The larger part of this came from rum, of which 97,990 gallons were imported in ten months and a half, a rather large allowance for a population of less than 20,000. The revenue from breadstufis, on which five per cent, was paid, amounted to £221 2s. 11d. The imports of wheat flour amounted to 3013 barrels, and of rye Hour 405 barrels. Rye was largely used at that time,, and for many years afterwards in tie province, as an article of food. It will be seen from these figures that the amount of money to be voted by the Legislature was very limited, hardly enough to pay one good salary. As for the sums received in duties by His Majesty's customs officials, the Legislature had no information in regard to them, and no control over them.

As the revenue bill of the previous session was only for one year, a new revenue bill had to be passed. This imposed a somewhat higher scale of duties, the duty on spirits being increased to 12s. 6d. a puncheon, and a specific duty placed on brown sugar and coffee. The appropriation bill of this session contained an item which may be regarded as the first movement in a matter which placed the House of Assembly and Council in conflict with each other, in subsequent years. This was a vote of fifty pounds to the Speaker for his services. This was carried in the House by a vote of nine to seven, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Chipman, and his following being against it. It passed the Council without a division. This was looked upon by many as merely the first step towards the payment of members of the legislature, a policy which men like Chipman viewed with great disfavor. They professed to regard it as un-British, assuming that all the excellence in the world was contained in the British constitution. The real objection to it seemed to be, that it would enable men to sit in the Legislature who otherwise could not afford it, so that the wealthy would not have a monopoly of the business of legislation.

In compliance with the recommendation of the Governor, a Militia bill was passed, requiring all persons between the ages of sixteen and fifty, to enlist in the militia, and to be mustered and exercised i n companies and regiments twice a year. The companies were to consist of fifty men besides officers. Each member of a militia company was to be provided with a good musket, bayonet and a supply of powder and bullets, and a supply of powder and bullets was always to be kept in hand by each militiaman. A few persons, such as clergymen, teachers, doctors, millers and ferrymen, were exempt from the operation of this act, but practically, it included every person of the proper age for military service. This was the first of a long list of militia acts, which were passed by the legislature, in its early days, there being no less than fourteen militia acts passed between the year 1787 ami 1816. These acts were all based upon the same principle of universal military* service, but owing to the sparse and scattered state of the population, it was difficult to make them effective. At this period there was a real need for a militia force, because for more than twenty years Great Britain was at war with France and also with the United States. It was fortunate that during all these years of war the efficiency of the militia was never tested, for. however loyal and zealous they may have been, they were very deficient in discipline. Even at a period half a century later, when the population was comparatively dense, a militia training was looked upon as almost a farce and much more likely to produce disorder and drunkenness in the place a\-here it was held, than any display of military efficiency. The circumstances of the, country were not suited to a stringent military system, such as exists among European nations in modern days, for the people had much work to do in bringing a savage wilderness into subjection and placing their land m such a condition that they could live upon it.

Among the other acts of the session was one to empower the Justices of the General Sessions of the Peace in the several counties, to grant licenses to tavern keepers and retailers of spirituous liquor. The amount of the license fee was left to the discretion of the Justices, but it was not to exceed four pounds for one year or to be less than ten shillings. This system of granting licenses continued for almost a century, until the Municipal Councils took the place of the Sessions in the work of governing the counties. Since then the adoption of the Canada Temperance Act in most of the counties, had reduced the work of granting licences in the rural districts to very small dimensions.

The extremely primitive condition of affairs in many parts of the Province at this time, was shown by the passage of an act to enable the Justices of the Peace in the several Counties, wherein no sufficient gaols are erected, to send persons charged with grand larceny and other offences to the gaol of the City and County of St. John. The people were so poor, and the amount of public money available was so small, that gaols and other necessary public buildings could not be immediately provided. In the meantime, therefore, the gaol at St. John was available for the confinement of criminals from other counties, the maintenance of such criminals being at the charge of the counties from which they were sent. The inadequate gaol accommodation seems at this period to have mainly been used by harsh creditors for the imprisonment of their debtors. At this session a bill passed the House of Assembly for the relief of confined debtors. It provided that a confined debtor who could swear that he did not possess property of any kind to the value of twenty shillings, except his clothing and tools of trade should be liberated, unless his creditor was willing to pay five shillings a week for his maintenance. Apparently under this bill, a creditor could have kept his debtor in gaol as long as he pleased, at the expense of five shillings a week, and, after the debtor was liberated, the creditor could still levy on any property the debtor might afterwards acquire. This was apparently sufficiently hard 011 the unfortunate debtor, but the Council thought otherwise, and summarily rejected the bill without a division. The bill professed to be for the benefit of mechanics, laborers and others and perhaps this was the reason why the Council regarded it with such disfavor. It could not have been that they had any objection in the abstract to debtors being treated leniently for some of the members of that body were themselves heavily in debt, and must on many occasions, have found it necessary to ask mercy from their creditors. But it was not in the power even of the Council to put a stop to this necessary legislation. The clamor for relief became too loud to be resisted, and, 1791 a bill embodying the same principles as the rejected hill of 1787 was introduced in the Council by Mr. Justice Upham and passed. It also passed the House of Assembly and became law.

The papers laid before the legislature at this session, in regard to the public roads of the Province, showed that some progress had been made in the course of the year. Two sets of commissioners had been appointed to lay out a road between St. John and Sackville and this had been accomplished. This was the highway generally known as the Westmorland road which passed through Hammond River settlement to Sussex Yale and thence by the Rend of Petitcodiac to Sackville, a distance of 135 miles. There was also a road explored from Fredericton which lay along the east side of the River Jemseg and the rapids of the Wasliademoak and from thence to the Petitcodiac where it joined the Westmorland Road. This road was laid out by Israel Perley, but it was found to be too circuitous and never seems to have been completed. Roads were also laid out from Fredericton to St. Andrews and from the Oromocto to St. John on the west side of the River. Rut it was many years before the province possessed good roads. In most cases the roads were without bridges, so that the rivers had to be crossed by ferries or fords, and the road itself was little better than a path through the woods. The first settlers of the Province suffered many hardships in consequence of the lack of good roads ami they rightly regarded facility of communication with their neighbors as the lirst requisite of their comiort and welfare. Yet the means of the Province were so small and the settlers so few that we need not feel surprised if they looked wdth dismay on their prospects, and sometimes even gave way to despair. They were surrounded hy difficulties of every kind, yet out of these difficulties arose a self-reliant, industrious and .ngenious population, capable of overcoming every obstacle and laying the foundations, deep and strong, of new and prosperous communities.

In the latter part of 1786, the Commissioners appointed to take evidence with regard to the losses of the Loyalists arrived in New Brunswick. Immediately after the close of the war the Loyalists petitioned the King and Parliament foi compensation for the losses they had sustained by their property being confiscated by the rebels during the war, and for being driven from their homes and deprived of their employment. Their claims were admitted and legislation was passed for the purpose of having them adjusted. The act passed created a board of commissioners who were empowered to examine all persons presenting claims under oath, and to send for books, papers and records. The claimants were required to state in proper form, every species of loss which they had suffered and for which they thought they, had a right to receive compensation. About six years elapsed before the business of the commissioners was brought to a close, and all the claims adjusted. The claimants were divided into eight different classes, of Which the first three were the most numerous, as well as the most meritorious.

There were: First, Loyalists who had rendered services to Great Britain, of which there were 204. Second, Loyalists who had borne arms in the service of Great Britain of which there were 626. The other claimants, who were ranch fewer in number, were Loyal British subjects, resident in Great Britain persons who took the oath to the Americans, but afterwards joined the British; persons who suffered losses under the prohibitory act; Loyal British proprietors, subjects or settled inhabitants of the United States and Ioyal British subjects, who appear to have relief by the Treaty of Peace, but state the impossibility of obtaining it. The British government undertook to pay the first seven classes of loyalists in full, where their liquidated losses did not exceed £10,000. Where the losses did not exceed £35,000, ten per cent was to be deducted from the excess over £10,000 and where they were between £35,000 and £50,000, the deduction was to be fifteen per cent for the excess over £10,000. For losses over £50,000, the deduction was to be twenty per cent.

With regard to these classes of Loyalists whose losses principally if not solely arose from their loss of office or profession, such as holders of government offices, lawyers, clergymen and doctors, it was proposed that those who had lost incomes not exceeding £400 per annum should receive pensions equal to fifty per cent, of that sum, while on incomes not exceeding £1,500 they were to receive £30 for every £100 exceeding £400. On incomes exceeding £1,500, they were to receive £30 for every £100 exceeding £400. These were liberal arrangements and they were carried out in a liberal spirit, but the long delay, in adjusting and paying the claims, necessarily caused much suffering. Many of the Loyalists died before their claims were liquidated, but in most of such cases their widows or children were provided for. The final report of the commissioners who hail been appointed in 1783 was made in May, 1789, from which it appeared that the total number of claims presented was 5,072, of which 954 were disallowed, withdrawn or not prosecuted. The amount of losses was £8,020,045, of which the sum of £3,292,452 was allowed. The amount of pensions paid to 204 Loyalists on account of losses of office or profession was £25,785 per annum, besides annual allowances to 588 persons, chiefly widows, orphans and merchants who hail no means of livelihood, but had lost no real or personal estate except debts due them. It must be admitted that the conduct of the British government towards the Loyalists was liberal, for in addition to these large payments it must be remembered that all the Loyalist officers who fought in the war received half pay during the remainder of their lives. Still there were many complaints, for the owners of property which was confiscated during the war were not likely to rate its value at too low a sum, so that there was a great difference between the claims made and the sums allowed. The commissioners who came to New Brunswick to adjust the claims of the Loyalists, were Colonel Thomas Dundas and Jeremiah Pemberton. They had been about a year in Nova Scotia, having opened an office in Halifax in November, 1785. They visited all the settlements in Nova Scotia, and in October, 1786, arrived in New Brunswick. Business in this province was finished in the spring of 1787 and then they went to Canada returning to England the following year.

Col. Dundas, in a letter which he wrote from St. John to Lord Cornwallis, in December, 1786, makes some interesting statements with regard to the settlers of the two provinces. The new settlements of the loyalists in Nova Scotia were in a thriving way, although rum and idle habits, contracted during the war, were much against them. These settlers, according to Col. Dundas, had "experienced every possible injury from the old inhabitants of Nova Scotia" who were "even more disaffected-towards the British government than any of the new states. ever were." This made him doubt whether they would long remain dependent. In New Brunswick lie found a very different condition of affairs. It contained good lands, and the farmers who had fled from the states, were well pleased with the soil. The number of loyalists was 12,000; the old inhabitants were not 3,000, and they, says Col. Dundas, "are a despicable race, ready to sell their improvements, as the Loyalists are enabled to purchase from them." Col. Dundas had evidently obtained his information in regard to the old inhabitants from some persons who were very unfriendly to them, for the fact that the inhabitants of a new country, where there is plenty of land, are ready to sell their improvements, is no proof that they are a "despicable race." On the contrary, it shows that they have sufficient skill and energy to go into the wilderness and create for themselves new homes, under more favorable conditions than they enjoyed before. Many such transfers of property were made after the loyalists came, and they were mutually beneficial, for they enabled loyalists who were not famliar with woodcraft, to settle down at once upon improved farms, while those who sold, obtained sufficient compensation to reconcile them to beginning anew, the work of hewing out for themselves, homes and farms in the forest. With regard to the productiveness of the country, Col. Dundas said: "To all appearances, the country will be able to furnish corn, vegetables, and cattle to the West India Islands. Lumber, in the quantity required, they must look for elsewhere. I cannot say much for the industry of the disbanded soldiers, indeed, I cannot say that I ever saw the policy of bribing the soldiers of the line, to leave their regiments— it has by no means answered. All the tradesmen, who would be available at home, are starving here, or gone to the States. The half pay Provincial officers are valuable settlers, as they are enabled to fite well, and improve their lands. "

Colonel Dundas was no doubt right ite thinking that the disbanded soldiers were not good settlers, but he seems to have forgotten that these men, so far from being bribed to leave their regiments, had been disbanded because the war was over and the government had no farther need of their services. With regard to the half pay officers, he mistook appearances for the reality of prosperity. A half pay Captain received £96 sterling a year, equal to about $465 of the money of the present day. This sum was just sufficient tu induce liim to think that he might lire like a gentleman without work, and on a scale of expense altogether out of proportion to his means. He must keep a liberal table and have wines for his guests, as well as for his own consumption. The result of this system was that most of the half pay officers got heavily in debt, and many of them lost their properties. But the evil did not end with their own lives. Being gentlemen themselves they were ambitious that their sons should follow in their footsteps, and become officers of the army or navy or members of the learned professions. As the ranks of the learned professions were quickly filled, the army or navy became the goal of many an ambitious youth and fathers were ruined, by the expenses incurred by keeping their sons in these services. In families which aimed to make a figure in society, habits of industry were not likely to be learned, and no men were more to be pitied than the sons and grandsons of Loyalist officers, who were brought up with high notions of their own importance and position, without adequate means to support their pretentions. They had no chance in the race of life against men, who had no hopes of prospering, except by the sweat of their brows, and it is sad to think that the names of some of the leading Loyalist families have disappeared entirely, or are represented by persons, whom their ancestors would be ashamed to acknowledge.

The session of 1787, was the last that was held in the City of St. John. Governor Carleton had, for reasons best known to himself, decided that St. Anne's Point should be the Capital of the Province, and accordingly a town hail been laid out at that place, which was named Fredericton, after the second son of the King. The transfer of the seat of government took place in October, 1786, at which time Governor Carleton took up his residence at Fredericton, the first meeting of the Council at that place being held on the 30th October. At that meeting Carleton's new commission as Lieutenant Governor was read, and he was duly sworn into that office. This commission placed Lieutenant Governor Carleton under the jurisdiction of the Governor General at Quebec, but practically it made no real difference in the administration of affairs. Quebec was then farther away from Fredericton that England is now, the only means of reaching ^:t being by a path through the woods from the St. John to the St. Lawrence, over the route, which had been followed during the war of the Revolution, by the bearers of despatches between Quebec and Halifax. The difficulty of communication was illustrated in Carleton's own experience, during the winter of 1787-88, as related by him in a despatch to the Secretary of State. In March, 1788, hearing of the serious illness of his brother, Lord Dorchester, he walked on snow-shoes from Fredericton to-Quebec, a distance ol nearly 400 miles. So little was the country settled, that he had to pass eight nights in the woods.

At the time when Fredericton was made the seat of government, it had no means of communication with other parts of the province, except by the River St. John. The change from St. John to

Fredericton was therefore looked upon with great disfavor by a majority of the members, as well as of the inhabitants of the province. But in this matter, the Governor was all powerful and could not be controlled, except by the home authorities, who knew nothing whatever about the circumstances of the case, or the inconvenience the change would cause. Looking at the matter now in the light of experience, it is evident that the selection of St. Anne's Point was a mistake. St. John was certainly the most convenient place for the seat ot government, but if it was necessary to place the capital 011 the river, the land at the mouth of the Oromocto should have been chosen. That point is the head of deep water navigation, it is at the junction of a navigable river with the St. John, and the land is much better suited from a sanitary point of view, for the site of a city, than St. Anne's Point. This, however, is a matter which cannot now be amended, and which is only mentioned for the purpose of showing much injury may be inflicted on a community, by the error of one man who happens to be in a position of authority.

As there were no roads to Fredericton, it was impossible to hold the session of the Legislature-there during the winter, so that the Assembly did not meet until the 18th July, 1788. The House-had been called together three days earlier, but there-were not enough members then present to make a quorum. Some of the members did not attend at all. Mr. John Yeomans, the member for Queens, in answer to the summons requiring his immediate attendance, wrote to the House drat he could not attend, because it was the worst season of the year, both his grass and grain being fit to cut and there being nobody to do it but himself. There were other members of the House in the same position as Mr. Yeoinans and who like him, were unable to attend. This was one of the difficulties which were the direct result of the change in the seat of government.

The principal subject at this meeting of the Legislature, was the payment of members of the House. This matter became a political issue, and in the end brought on a conflict between the Assembly and the Council, which resulted in the province being left without an appropriation bill for four years, and without a revenue bill for three. This deadlock, however, did not occur immediately, and ^:n 1788, the contest over the payment of members was confined to the floors of the House of Assembly. The principal opponent of the payment of members was .Mr. Chipman, the Solicitor General, a gentleman who was in the enjoyment of a military pension from the British government, and who, during the whole course of his life, was always looking for public money. Yet Mr. Chipman, was so determined that 110 other member of the Legislature should get any public money, that he divided the House no less than twenty-three times, on the question whether the sum of one hundred and forty pounds should be paid to the members by way of indemnity for their expenses. This sum divided among twenty-six members would give them less than twenty-two dollars each, which was certainly not an excessive sum for sixteen days attendance as members of the Legislature. Mr. Chipman, sought to commit the House to the principle that the payment of members was contrary to the ancient and established usage of Parliament, and to the spirit of patriotism and magnanimity, which, should characterize the House of Assembly, and also because it would introduce a precedent pregnant with injustice and derogatory to the honor and dignity of the House. He was only able to rally four members to his support, when the vote was taken, the Attorney General, Colonel Billopp, and Messrs. Wm. Pagan, and McGeorge, all representatives of St. John. On the other side, eight members voted, Major Murray, and Mr. Stelle of York, Messrs. Hubbard, and Vanderburg, of Sunbury, Mr. Dickinson, of Queens, Mr. Campbell, of Charlotte, and Messrs. Hardy, and Davidson, of Northumberland. Only thirteen members, exclusive of the Speaker, out of a House of twenty-six, took part in these divisions, and the journals show that during this session, twelve members were absent, three each from Westmorland and Charlotte, two each from York and Kings, and one from Queens and St. John. The only counties fully represented were Sunbury and Northumberland: Kings was not represented at all.

The revenue of the province continued to increase, but not very rapidly. From the 15th February, 1787 to the 30th of June, 1788, the sum of £1,308 2s. 7|d. was collected in duties of which, £1,218 11s. 9d, was obtained in St. John. At that port no less than 139,020 gallons of rum paid duty, an enormous consumption of liquor for so small a population.

The founders oi New Brunswick had many excellent qualities, hut temperance was not one of them. The report on the Treasurer's accounts gives no detailed statement of the expenditure for the year, so we are left without that very necessary information. The gross sum expended was £909, 4s. 0d., leaving a comfortable balance of £1,127, 19s. 6d. still remaining unappropriated, or at all events unexpended. Perhaps it was the existence of this balance which emboldened a majority of the members of the House to vote themselves an indemnity for their services.

The legislation of 1788 was not very important-Only ten acts were passed, and most of them were amendments to previous acts. The growing importance of the port of St. John was recognized by the passing of an act to provide tor the support oi a light-house to be built on Partridge Island. This light was to be maintained by dues levied on vessels entering that port. Another act empowered the Justices of the several counties In sessions, to make regulations respecting markets and ferries. The justices in session, were also required to appoint overseers of the fisheries whose duty it was to see that the law was not violated with respect to the setting of nets and other matters connected with the fisheries.