Bristol to what was stated in the Appendix respecting desultory emigration without capital. Was that hon. member aware of the deprivations endured by such emigrants? In the Report of the Quebec Emigrant Association, it was stated, that those emigrants were employed in breaking stones upon the road, as the association had resolved not to give any relief in the shape of money to able-bodied men. The complaint of those emigrants was the same as that which they had expressed at home; namely, want of employment. Such was the situation of settlers without capital; and such would be the situation of those men whom the hon. member pro- | posed to set down in Canada, by the cheapest mode of conveyance from Ireland. How, he asked, was it possible for men thus thrown down, without capital, to prosper in a new country? He could assure the House, that the opinion in North America, respecting such emigration, was not such as had been stated by the hon. member for Bristol. The opinion entertained by all classes in North America, from lord Dalhousie down to the humblest individual, was, that "if we adopted emigration without capital, and the emigrants were to depend upon chance for employment, our plans of emigration would fail; and that the prosperity of the emigrants depended upon capital." The questions to be considered by the committee would be, whether repayment of the expense incurred by government, in making an advance of capital to the emigrants, was practicable, or whether the emigrants should be sent out wholly unprovided with capital. When he looked to the published evidence, he looked with confidence to the decision of the committee in favour of his opinions. He, for one, was glad that the evidence before the committee, and the plans of government, were published, because the publication would induce the public to turn their attention to the subject; and, by this means, suggestions would be made, which would enable parliament to come to a sound and practical conclusion.

The Amendment was negatived without a division. After which the original motion was agreed to, and a Committee appointed. Ju

boo stow mouldy

COMMITTEES OF APPEALS ON PRIVATE BILLS.] Mr. Littleton said, that the machinery of the resolutions which he had VOL. XVI,

7

די

formerly introduced, relative to appeals on private bills, would be incomplete, if the House did not sanction an resolution, subjecting the party appealtion an additional ing to the payment of all costs and expenses, in case the committee of appeal declared the petition to be frivolous and vexatious. It was necessary that the House should do this with as little delay as possible, because he knew that one report at least was about to be presented, relative to which it was probable there would be an appeal. He had, some time! since, proposed two measures for the purpose of carrying his object One was, to compel the petitioner to enter into effect. into recognizances to defray such costs as might have been incurred before the committee, in case the appeal should be considered frivolous and vexatious. Some gentlemen, however, especially those of the learned profession, had objected to this, on the ground, that there existed no precedent, where one branch of the legislature assumed the power of taking money from individuals. In all cases of that nature, it was observed, it must be the concurrent act of the three estates, He had next proposed, that the party or parties appealing should deposit a certain sum of money to meet the expenses incurred if the appeal should be considered frivolous and vexatious. Against that, however, it was objected, that where the parties were poor, the call for a deposit of money would effectually prevent the appeal, let the grounds of it be ever so just. He had, therefore, in the interval since the former resolutions were carried, endeavoured collect the opinions of the gentlemen (especially of the legal profession) who had objected to these two propositions; and he had now their concurrence in the propriety of the resolution which he was about to lay before the House. His proposition was, that one or more of the parties appealing should enter into a penal bond, for a certain sum, covenanting to defray such costs and charges as might be incurred by the other side, in case the committee of appeal reported the petition to be frivolous and vexatious. The hon. gentleman then moved, "That no proceeding shall be had on any petition so referred to a Select Committee, unless the petitioner, or one of the petitioners, in case there be more than one, shall, within two days after presenting such petition, or within such further time as $

shall be limited by the House, enter into a bond or obligation to the agent or agents, or some person named for that purpose by the agent or agents of the opposite party or parties, according to a form to be approved of by the Chief Clerk, or one of the Clerks Assistants of this House, in the penal sum of 500l. and with two sufficient sureties, to be approved of by one of the said Clerks in the penal sum of 2501. each, conditional, to be void, in case the said Petitioner, or Petitioners shall duly pay all costs, charges and expenses of the party or parties who shall appear before the House in opposition to such petition (such costs, charges, and expenses to be found and assessed by one of the Clerks of this House, for the time being) in case the said Select Committee shall report to the House that the said Petition appeared to them to be frivolous and vexatious."

Mr. G. Bankes was anxious that the question, which was of considerable importance, should be postponed to another night, in order that it might be properly discussed. In his opinion, the objections which were raised against the resolution which called on parties to enter into recognizances, applied with equal strength to the present proposition. If a man was poor, he could not enter honestly into a bond for 500l., since he knew that if the committee voted his petition frivolous and vexatious, he could not meet it: and thus the right of appeal was virtually denied to him. Besides, how could they expect a poor man to procure two sureties in 2501. each? The resolution gave a great advantage to the rich man, while it precluded the poor man from seeking redress. In fact, he thought it was very unjust to impose on individuals the necessity of entering into such a bond. He did not wish that the expenses attending the private business of the House should be increased. On the contrary, he hoped they might be lessened; and if no other member made the attempt, he would hereafter bring before the House some proposition with the view of effecting a diminution of the expenses attendant on private bills. He was convinced that such expenses frequently operated as impediments to improvements in the country. effect such diminution of the expenses would not affect the officers of the House, as they were not paid by fees; those fees going to a treasury fund. The expenses

To

frequently operated as reasons for not applying for bills, or for not coming to the House to renew most useful acts respecting roads, &c. The parties were deterred by the expenses; they being 5007. or 6004. for each bill. There was no necessity for the enormous expense to which parties were now exposed. On account of the importance of the present proposition, and that it might be considered before a fuller House, he would move, "That the Debate be adjourned to Monday."

Mr. Alderman Waithman observed, that the expenses incidental to getting private bills through the House were enormous; and, instead of increasing them, some means ought to be devised for reducing them.

He was of opinion that the debate ought to be adjourned.

Mr. Littleton said, that the House could not be considered to be taken by surprise, as the measure had already been discussed twice. He understood also, that it had been agreed to in its present shape, by those gentlemen who, on the former occasions, objected to its adoption. He was anxious that the measure should be speedily disposed of, as he understood there were several reports ready to be brought up, and that in one of them an appeal was to occur. As the resolution did not possibly impose any grievance, but merely specified the mode in which a favour was to be granted, he was determined to take the sense of the House on the question.

Mr. Batley agreed with the hon. member for Corfe Castle in thinking the measure impolitic. It might also have the additional inconvenience of bringing the privileges of the House in contact with a court of law.

Mr. S. Bourne thought that all scruples on legal points might be silenced, when it was recollected, that the resolution was drawn up by the Attorney-general. Unless this resolution was carried, the other measure of the hon. member would be incomplete.

The House divided: For the Resolution 32. For the Adjournment 10.

HOUSE OF LORDS.*. Friday, February 16. o yan GRANT TO THE DUKE AND DUCHESS or CLARENCE.] On the order of the day for taking his Majesty's Message into consideration,

annum in consequence. This act was passed about the year 1778. On the death of the duke of Kent, the right of survivorship raised the sum of 10,000l. enjoyed by the younger princes, to 12,000l. It was under that law, then, that his royal highness the duke of Clarence receives 12,000l. a-year. In 1806 another act was passed, giving 6,000l. per annum additional to the younger princes of the royal family. This raised the amount of his royal highness's income to 18,000. By another act, the date of which I do not now exactly call to mind, a further allowance of 2,500l. was made; but this ceased at the death of his late majesty. It was renewed in 1820. This made his royal highness's income 20,500l. When his royal highness married, a proposition was made to increase his allowance on that account. An increase of 10,000l. was, therefore, proposed to the House; but it was thought too much, and upon discussion was reduced to 6,000l. Under all the circumstances, his royal highness felt that it would be more becoming in him to decline to accept the reduced grant. He, accordingly, did decline it; and that grant, therefore, was never carried into effect. In 1822, I think it was, that the proposition was renewed of allow ing him 6,000l. additional; as had already been done in the cases of the duke of Cambridge and another of his royal brothers. The House, I believe, almost unanimously consented; and this raised his royal highness's income to 26,500l. the sum I have already alluded to. It may be well for me here to state, that, in 1820, until the civil list could be settled, which did not take place until some months after the demise of his late majesty, the allowances to the different princes of the royal family were charged upon the hereditary revenues, which occasioned some confusion in the accounts of that year; but in June an act was passed to regulate their payment. It was, at the same time, re-enacted, that the portion of the duke of Clarence, and the other younger princes' income, which had ceased by the death of his late majesty, should be continued. That act secured the same benefit of survivorship which had before existed. The effect of that was, by the death of the late duke of York, to put his royal highness the duke of Clarence, into the possession of 3,000l. per annum beyond what he enjoyed previous to that event,

This raised his income to 29,500l.; the law, at the same time, preventing the possibility of any further increase by right of survivorship, as that 3,000l. made the sum of 15,000l., which was the limit the law had set to the operation of that right. I have thus explained to the committee the amount of his royal highness's income; but nothing, as I before stated, is allowed for her royal highness the duchess. I therefore propose to submit to the e consideration of the committee, the propriety of placing their royal highnesses on the same footing, with respect to income, with that enjoyed by the duke of York. There are certain differences between them, which I beg leave to state. The late duke of York, in addition to his income of 33,000l., had an allowance, as I before mentioned, of 4,000l., on account of her royal highness the duchess. I shall, therefore, propose to add 3,000l. to the income of 29,500l. already enjoyed by his royal highness the duke of Clarence, which will raise his allowance to 32,500l. I shall further propose, that an annuity of 6,000l. per annum, be granted to the duchess during her husband's life-time. [A member called out, that that was, altogether, more than the duke of York had had.] That is true; but, in looking at this matter, it is necessary to take into consideration the difference between the professional emoluments of the one and of the other. It has always been considered, that the duke of Clarence, in the profession he embraced, was placed in a less favourable position than his royal brothers who entered the army. on this consideration, that the 2,500l. I alluded to before was granted him, over and above the allowance made to the other junior princes. Upon these grounds it is, that I propose the grant. When matters of this kind are considered in this ed in this House, it is not considered necessary, and very properly, nor would it be consistent with dignity, to enter into any account of the personal merits of the royal individual, whose claims we may have under er consideration. Grants of this kind are not made to the individual as an individual, but on account of his public station, and na nearness to the throne. It is makes it the duty of this is country to be liberal in its allowances to the members of the royal family. I therefore decline to rest the question upon claims of a per sonal nature; but I think I may say, with