Mr. SITGREAVES would vote for striking out the clause as it stood, not from any knowledge he had on the justice of the claims, but, if just, satisfaction should be given. The committee had not reported as to the value of land necessary to be given; the value of land was proportioned to its different qualities and location; he thought it would be as well for these people, to give them military land warrants, and let them locate by lot: this had heretofore been the method, and he thought it would be as advantageous to them as any, and avoid many difficulties with respect to the grant. Mr. MACON hoped the question would be divided; he liked the proposition of the gentleman last up, to strike out, and insert the words proposed; he therefore would wish the committee to rise, and report progress; or, if the House do not adopt the substitute, he hoped it would be recommitted. Mr. DAYTON moved to strike out the words relative to location, and substitute the following resolution: "_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law for granting donations of land to Canadian and Nova Scotia refugees, in conformity to the resolves of Congress of the 23d of April, 1783, and the 13th of April, 1785." This resolution was adopted. The third was-- "_Resolved_, That five hundred acres of land be granted to each refugee from Canada and Nova Scotia." This resolution was attended with three explanatory restrictions. It passed, and the Chairman read the first of these rules, which was, "that the applicant shall make proof, before some Court of record, of his actual residence in one of the provinces aforesaid, previous to the ---- day of ----." Mr. GREENUP supposed this was meant merely as the outlines of a plan to be completed when the bill was brought in; at this time it was necessary that instruction should be given to the committee that they may bring in a bill consistent with the will of the House. Mr. DAYTON objected to this, and the two following clauses. He objected also to the resolution for an indiscriminate grant of five hundred acres of land to each refugee. Some of these people would be found to deserve more and some less, in proportion to their exertion and sufferings. Some might have lost large property, or have had large families. If Mr. DAYTON had observed what the committee were doing, he would have objected to the passing of that clause. He likewise opposed the present one. This clause and the remaining two were negatived. The Committee of the Whole then rose. The Chairman reported progress. The House took up the report. The first resolution and the second, as altered in the committee, were agreed to. The question on the third resolution was then put. Mr. MACON thought that it would be exceedingly improper to grant an equal quantity to each; it ought to be entirely circumstantial.