The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-17 00:00:00

POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT BILL.

The SPE AKER then put the question for the
house resolving Itself into a committee of the whole
house on the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill.
Mr. COBBETT rose for the purpose of moving
the amendment of which he had given notice, relative
to the appropriation of one-fourth of the income
of incumbents, and of the revenues of the abbey lands
and inappropriate tithes in each parish previous to any
assessment being made for the relief of the poor of such
parish. His great object in proposing the amendment
was to establish the right of the poor to receive relief
from abbey lands and impropriate tithes. The bill now
before the house proceeded on the ground that unless
some change took place, the poor rates would ulti-
mately swallow up the whole property of the land-
owners. Persons in 'the middle classes of life were
suffering more from the poor rates than the landed pro-
prietors. The poor had now a right to relief under
the 43d of Queen Elizabeth. This was given as a
compensation for what they lost by being
.deprived of
their right to relief from abbey lands and impropriate
tithes, which were taken from them at the time of the
Reformation. His proposition was not a new one. It
was suggested to Mr. Pitt by a Magistrate for two
counties, a gentleman who had learned the law and
.retired from it. Mr. Pitt did not deny the justice
of
the clause, but was unwilling to raise the question in
consequence of the French Revolution. The poor
had this right by canonical law, by common law, and by
statute law. Henry VIII. took from them that to which
they were justly entitled. By the Act of Richard 11.
it was provided that enough should be applied from
the abbey lands and the impropriate tithes for the sup-
port of the poor, and this was confirmed by the act of
Edwa d the Fourth. Those, however, on whom the
abbey lands and tithes were conferred by Henry the
Eighth refused to contribute. An attempt was made
to compel them, but it failed. He contended that the
repealing of the 43d Act of the reign of Elizabeth was
a great injustice. It granted compensation to the
poor for having the rights they formerly enjoyed taken
from them,and this compensation was now taken from the
poor by the bill before the house. He should like to
hear the arguments of any hon. gentleman of that house
against the claims he said the poor had. If he went back
two or three centuries to prove those rights he could not
be blamed for so doing, since the government went back
to a similar period to take them away. If the go
vernment went back to take away the rights of the
poor which they held by act of Parliament—if the
government thought fit to repeal that act—then the
poor ought to go back to their pristine and pre-
t-riptive rights, and claim, as they did at the time of
riots, what they had an ancient title to, viz., one-third
part of the tithes. He would assert, without fear of
cont-adiction,• that one-third part-of the tithes and of
the abbey lands belonged formerly to the poor. Some
gentlemen might imagine that when he was making
this assertion he was aiming a side blow at the church.
He was doing no such thing, but quite the contrary ;
ho was doing good to the church by putting forward
such an assertion. And if the church thoroughly un-
derstood its own interests it would co-operate with
the poor in asserting their claims ; it would join its
rights to those of the poor, and the more so since both
the church and the poor were going to be plun-
dered, and that shamefully, by the measure before the
house. This was not his single opinion. Mr. Townshend,
a clergyman of the Church of England, accused the
owners of abbey lands and of great tithes of having
broken their original compacts, by which they became
possessed of such description of property. They had
betrayed their trust and broken their compact ; first,
as regarded the rights and claims of the
poor • and,
secondly, they had most scandalously broken them as
regarded the clergy, and particularly the working
clergy. H
i e knew many instances in which in parishes
the lay impropriators took away in shape of tithes
three or four hundred pounds a year, and left to the
working clergyman the miserable pittance of ten
pounds a year. That was the case in ldersham. In a
parish in Hampshire, with which he was acquainted,
it was even worse. In that parish six hundred
pounds a year were taken away, and only fifteen pounds
a year were left to the working clergyman. He would
make a bet with the noble lord opposite—he would
stake all he was worth in the world—that his ( Mr.
C.'s) resolutions would be adopted by an English Par-
liament, and be made the law of the land, before the
detestable bill then before the house. He would again
refer to the rev. gentleman he had before quoted, viz.,
Mr. Townshend, who was a prebendary of Durham,
and who held doctrines averse to the holding og tithes
by lay impropriators and to the present possession of
abbey lands, and who thought that it was the absence
of resident clergymen that caused all the danger to
the church under which she laboured at present. In
Botley, the parish in which he was horn, 9001. a year

was taken away by the lay impropriator, who allowed
no more than 28/. a year to the working clergyman.
The consequence was that the clergyman could not
reside in the parish, and only went to perform divine
service there once a month, or thereabouts. If the
church was in danger, and if it fell now, it was be-
cause on the present measure it was not making com-
mon cause with the poor. The measure tended equally
to plunder the church and the poor. Mr. Townshend,
when he wrote his book and made his statements, ne-
ver dreamt that these Poor Law Commissioners would
arise and take from the poor the Act of Elizabeth.
If that statute was taken away—if the rights of the
poor to compensation were taken away, and such
would be the effect of the passing of the bill before
the house—Englishmen would have a right to go back
to tithes and abbey lands, and to take with their own
hands what belonged to them formerly by right. If
they did not do so, they would not be showing them-
selves as awake to their own rights as they generally
were. If part of the tithes were now restored to the
people, then would he say that the Church was built
upon a rock. But it would be built on sand and would
certainly fall if the rights of the poor were taken
away ; and the passing of the bill before the house
would without any doubt deprive the people of those
rights.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR seconded the amendment.

The question having been put from the Chair,
Lord ALTH OR P agreed to the intimation made
by the hon. member, that the object of his amend-
ment was the relief of the poor, and such was also
the object of the bill before the house. If the hon.
member would consent to bring forward the question
in the shape of a substantive motion he (Lord Althorp)
would be prepared to meet it in that form. He hoped
the house would not agree to the mode in which the
question was introduced.
Mr. GODSON did not mean to detain the house,
nor prevent it from going into committee ; but he really
thought, that before the bill was finaly passed this
question as to the rights of the poor to relief ought to
be maturely discussed.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee
For Mr. Cobbett's amendment
Majority —lo3
On re-entering the gallery we found the house in
committee.
The 60th clause (that which relates to emigration)
having been past,
Mr. W. W IT M 0 E said that provided this clause
were fairly considered, he thought very great facilities
would be afforded to the final passing of the measure
before them. Great good he now considered might be
done if a surplus labouring population were sent out of
an old and overgi own country to new and thinly-popu-
lated countries, where labour was necessarily in high
demand. The only objections to sending away a sur-
plus population was the constant and heavy expendi-
ture it would entail on the country that sent them if a
large stream of emigrants was continued to be sent
away. He certainly was of opinion that in some parts
of England there was a surplus labouring population;
that was that there was more labour than was demanded.
He had looked into the report of the Poor Law Com-
missioners, and he found that in the ten years preced-
ing 1821 the increase of population was ninet2en
per cent. ; in 1831 it was fourteen per cent. In the
counties of Buckingham and Nottingham it was in
1821 about fifteen per cent., and nine per cent. in
1831. In Cambridgeshire the returns exhibited an
increase in 1821 of twenty per cent., and in 1831 of
eight per cent. These increases were on the ten
years previous, from 1811 to 1821, and from the lat-
ter year to 1831. In Sussex one of the commis-
sioners stated that the amount of population for the
last twenty years had increased from 161,577 to
204,707, or about an average of 26 per cent. From
1811 to 1831 he found that in thirteen counties in
which the poor laws were ill administered, there was
an increase in the thirteen counties of 48,425 &raffles.
Now, when he contrasted these thirteen counties with
thirteen northern counties in which the poor laws were
well administered, he found that the increase in the
same period of the agricultural population was not
more than five thousand families. If in the southern
counties it were found that no increase had taken
place in agriculture, was it not a reason for believing
that there was a considerable surplus in the agricul-
tural population of those counties in which the poor
laws were ill-administered ? He confessed that he
was one of those who entertained the opinion that in
those last-mentioned counties there was a population
somewhat redundant. If there had not been so much
poor rates taken out of the pockets of the farmers in
those counties they would be able to afford more em-
ployment to agricultural labourers. He still, however,
believed that in certain portions of the country there
was not sufficient employment to afford its fair value
to labour. If such were then the case—and he believed
that it was—he would say with respect to this clause,
which gave the commissioners the power of raising
money, that it deserved to be supported. In the view
that he took of England, he considered that it was
perfectly possible to introduce a system of emigration,
the expenditure attendant upon which would not de-
pend on any funds raised in this country, but on funds
that would accrue from the sale of colonial waste
lands. When he put forward this opinion it might
be necessary for him to give the house an idea of the
extent of those waste lands. In our North American
colonies the extent of land ungranted and uncultivated
amounted to twenty-three millions of acres. In Aus-
tralia there was an extent of territory measuring from
east to west 2,000 miles, and from north to south
1,700 miles. At the Cape there was unoccupied a
tract of land measuring in breadth 240 miles and in
length 270. Therefore the -only question that re-
mained was as to what value would accrue from these
waste lands if they were brought into the market to be
sold. There was very little doubt but that there
would be a considerable value arising from such a
sale. When capital and labour were applied to these
lands no one could doubt but they would yield
considerable value, and he believed that the amount
would be greater than many gentlemen imagined.
He had but a very few words to say upon this
point. He found that the proceedings of the Canada
Company had been attended with very great profits.
Large sums had accrued to them from sales of land,
and their profits were likely to go on increasing. He
had in his possession several statements showing the
large profits made by this company. The shares were
nominally of 1001. each, on which 181. had been paid,
and these were now selling in the market for 491.
This was to him a conclusive proof of the increased
value given to land by emigration. The progress
made in the United -States was also very striking.
Formerly uncleared land in the United States sold for
seventeen dollars an acre. At present uncleared land
sold for from two to four dollars, and land partially
cleared for from four to sixty dollars. If they looked
also to the land in the different townships they would
find a corresponding increase of value. A document
had been put into his hand as he came down to the
house, showing the change that had taken place in the
value of land in a township at the extremity of Lake
Michigan, where building land, which a short time ago
sold for 400 dollars an acre, was now selling for
3,000 dollars. If reference was made to the value of
land in York, North Carolina, similar circumstances
would be found to obtain. Indeed so great appeared
the change that it was almost startling. In the
' United States the most extensive tracts of land had
been taken into cultivation by means of emigration.
He was extremely anxious to impress upon the house the
fact that to whatever point the stream of emigration had
been directed there the price of land had been raised.
The question, then, was, whether, when, by the applica-
tion of labour and capital in the neighbourhood the value
of unenclosed lind was raised, that the money for tilt-
sale of such land should not be appropriated towards
promoting emigration ? He was satisfied that the
greatest benefits would accrue to the country from en-
couraging. the tide of emigration to our North Ameri-
can colonies. He had intended to move for a com-
mittee on the subject of emigration at the early period
of the session, but circumstances had prevented him
doing so ; but if he found other members coincided
with him in the view that he took of the subject, he
should in the next session move for a committee. The
hon. member then proceeded to dwell on the advan-
tages that would result from establishing a colony in
the south east corner of New South Wales, founded
on principles which were fully developed in a bill.before
the house. With reference to the bill then under
consideration, he recollected no measure that had ever
been brought forward which was likely to be attended
with greater advantages to the country than the one
under consideration. He was convinced that none
would derive more advantage from it than the hon.
member. ( Hear, hear.) He could not help feeling
that the man who could stand up and advocate the
present system had something of the nature of the fiend
in him. Parts of the present system of poor laws
tended to make the labourers of the country slaves, to
, dry up the sources of morality, to destroy the' best
feelings of our nature, and to spread vice and immo-
rality through the land. The hon. member concluded
with moving an amendment to the effect that it shottld

be lawful for the Secretary of State for the Colonies
+to advance to the overseers of parishes requesting cer-
tain sums out of any money accruing from the sale of
land in the colonies, and that such money should be
so advanced for the purpose of encouraging emigration
of labouring men and their wives, being chargeable to
the parishes.

Colonel T ORR ENS gave his cordial support to
the amendment. He had ever been favourable to the
principle of emigration, and thought that the present
bill could not in many respects be enforced without
applying emigration. It was impossible also to apply
the principle of emigration with any advantage in Eng-
land without also doing so to Ireland. To benefit
the English labourer permanently they must raise the
condition of the Irish labourers. They could only
benefit Ireland to any great extent by turning the tide
of emigration from that country. He knew that some
hon. members were opposed to his views. He believed
that the hon. member for Oldham was opposed to
them. [Mr. Cobbett—" Yes."] He (Col. Torrens)
was glad to hear the hon. member make such an ad-
mission, because it convinced him (Colonel Torrens)
that the view he took of the subject was correct. ( A
laugh.) If they acted according to the principles of
the hon. member they ought to abandon the North
American Colonies.

Mr. COBBETT said, the hon. member for Wol-
verhampton and the gailant colonel had both dwelt on
the fertility of the land in Canada; but he (Mr. Cob-
bett) knew that the most fertile lands there were not
better than that barren place, Bagshot-heath. ( A
laugh.) Was the house prepared to adopt such ex-
travagant notions as had been set forth by the hon.
member for Wolverhampton ? The case was simply
this :--A man had money to cultivate his farm and pay
his labourers, and yet, instead of doing this, he was
to give the money to the labourers, and tell them to
go to North America. Now if he (Mr. Cobbett)
acted in that way, would not that wise, learned, and
sober-minded Judge, the Lord Chancellor, have him
shut up in a madhouse ; and would any man say that
he (Mr. C.) was not very properly treated? The
clause, he contended, was as absurd as it was unjust.
Mr. Secretary RICE said that the great endeavour
of the hon. member for Oldham seemed to be to im-
press not on the minds of the members of that house,
but upon the public mind, that the whole of the colonial
possessions of this country were nothing more nor less
than a parcel of swamps and rocks which no industry
could render productive. The hon. member was,
however, too well informed to pledge himself to any
thing of the kind, and therefore he (Mr. Rice) had a
right to complain of the line of argument which the
hon. member had taken. The hon. member con-
tended that the object of this clause was compulsion ;
that it would first drive the labouring classes into a
state of bankruptcy, and then force them to emigrate
whether they would or not. But was this fair, when
nothing was contained in the clause but a mere per-
mission, when the consent of the party emigrating was
indispensable before any one step could be taken?
The same representation had been made out of doors.
It had been said that this was a new mode of trans-
portation ; but he would ask how that could be when
the party was left to his option, when he might emi-
grateoseHde
by
yhouhlids
erhampton.
oo uproaarsbsl
el let
or
iiet atnod tothhneee
member
int e
mehnibsdemrp
el eof aot sr u
pr
NerNo,?o v
p
The object of that amendment was, that the
surplus of any monies arising from the sale of
crown lands should be applied to defray the ex-
pense of conveying labourers and their families
desirous of emigrating to such of the colonies as they
might fix upon for their final destination; but was his
hon. friend not aware that this had in point of fact
already been done ; that the surplus of moneys arising
out of the sale of crown lands had been applied in
strict conformity with the terms of his motion ? He
( Mr. Rice) would mention Van Diemen's Land as an
instance of this. There a sum of 15,000/. was ob-
tained by the sale of crown lands, and of that 10,000/.
were applied to the encouragement of emigration.
He hoped, therefore, that his hon. friend would not
press his amendment, but leave the matter as it was at
the discretion of the government, with the understand-
ing, if he pleased, that he might bring it forward on
a future occasion, if he saw a necessity for doing so,
as a substantive question. It was complained by his
hon. friend the member for Bolton, and other hon.
members, that the experiment of a new colony was not
tried. Now he ( Mr. Rice) could tell his hon. friends
that the government would be favourable to such an
experiment if it were practicable ; but, feeling that
great difficulties must be got over before any step of
the kind was taken, they objected, and not without
ample reason, to take upon themselves the responsi-
bility of so important an undertaking as that of found-
ing a new colony. But the experiment had, in point
of fact, been made in the case of the Swan River
Settlement. That colony had already cost a great
deal of money, and surely Until it was ascertained
whether that project answered or not it would not be
prudent on the part of the government to try any
further experiments of the de3cription....
• •

Mr. HODGE S should move an addition to the
clause to the effect—" Provided always that no sum
of money for any such purpose as aforesaid shall be
raised and expended until some provision for the relief
of the poor of Ireland be by law established."
The CHAIRMAN asked whether the hon. gentle-
man wished his amendment to follow that which had
previously been moved ?
Mr. HODGE S replied in the affirmative.
Mr. CLAY considered that emigration would be
advantageous rather than injurious, and it was on that
ground that he approved of the clause.
Mr. E. DENISON should support the clause, not-
withstanding his doing so might incur the animadver-
sion of the hon. member for Oldham. But one fact
was worth a hundred arguments ; and he could assert
that the persons who had emigrated to Canada from
the parish in which he resided, Dorking, in Surrey,
instead of being dissatisfied with the alteration which
had taken place in their condition, were so pleased
with the prosperity they enjoyed that they had written
for their relatives and friends to go out to them.
Mr. GROTE hoped that the hon. member for
Wolverhampton a ould withdraw his amendment. In
his firm opinion no possible mischief could arise from
the clause as it stood. He would go further. He
was fully persuaded that the effect of the clause would
be most highly beneficial to all parties. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUTT was understood to support the amend-
mend ; as did Mr. GORDON.
Mr. SL ANE Y defended the clause.

Mr. CART W RIG HT supported the clause, and
mentioned a case where, out of a parish containing
four hundred persons, one hundred had emigrated to
Upper Canada, with the advantageous result to them-
selves of plenty of well-paid labour ; and to those who
remained behind,
abeghoionddt,otthhfoaoinfnrgeciagionfnn,siderably diminished poor-
rates, and sufficient employment.
Mr. BEN ETT would not concede that there was
any surplus population. The dreadful distress which
pervaded the country was attributable to nothing of the
sort. The whole and sole cause of that distress con-
sisted in the overwhelming embargo laid upon the in-
dustry and capital of the country, connected with land,
in the shape of enormous taxation. Human labour
was the wealth of the country, and the more we sent
abroad the more we must really impoverish the coun-
tr
wasy. w Theor
th 15 s meanest., but
a beastohil
adl
without
aswisnwtrhda
saos had,
nufedtoorarvtsavahi
sdinenefilaroraesrtssiduke
p(neapAeoeop:frli
itiaalsu:al
lgoobthchuue)ert:
and according to some of our political economists, it
laws of humanity, wheencoaulpdeoppulet
baeethammelsasnodnacmhieldrorenns
to death at a time. Nowflnd
shnebshiestldenaeechaitfdhotombee aitmlovares
at that state yet, as there was
peopleasl
employed,
acul t
nueuloahr,
tea llrl
aceat
tnot
oat
dl nuolbii
opt meneo
akanEarl.
home.brnilgve
(elNat:Ho'n
Hear,
a,
r,betterh e a r .p) e r hI at p, thana s.
he that
repeated, which
t hthee embargot
h peopleat
rendered
laiwentd abroadupon
ptho nethe
net;
land
cultivate,aonydn
employment
e innt
thee i If
shape
hhr
an thempuer
oof
t o b
taxa-
tionunprofi-
tablee
economists in this
e al
io country,
that andh house,
hs
oe,
v, wonderedho nt os
must
hhaet
acquainted
p ol i ti-
with the fact, had not once mentioned it.
Mr. HUME approved of the motion of the hon.
member for Wolverhampton, because it involved the
principles he much wished to see established, viz., a
Parliamentary sanction given to the proper mode of
selling Crown lands, and the appropriation of the pro-
duce to purposes advantageous to the colonies them-
selves. ( Hear, hear.)
Major II ANDL E Y warned the government, and
the gentlemen connected with the landed interest,
against a measure which they were told was to have
the same effect as letting the people have cheap corn
from abroad.
Mr. E WART called the attention of the hon.
Secretary for the Colonies to the necessity of proper
superintendents being employed at the different ports
to protect emigrants.
After a few words from Major HANDLEY,
Mr. WHITMORE said that he should withdraw
his amendment.

Mr. COBBETT could not but disapprove of tha

system of sending some of the best part of the agri-
cultural labourors out of the country when the land
was not half cultivated at home.

Lord SANDON was glad his hon. friend had with-
drawn his amendment. Ile should support the clause
as it stood in the bill.

Mr. TOWER supported the amendment.
Mr. PETER said a few words in support of the
original clause.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that those who talked
so much about the causes of the surplus of po-
pulation, as it was called, of Ireland, evidently
knew nothing whatever about the real state of
that country. Why, it was notorious that more
than one half of the land in Ireland was out of culti-
vation, and yet people talked of a surplus population.
The apparent surplus population, for it was nothing
else, and the bad consequences that followed, pro-
ceeded solely frOm the long-continued misgovernment
and misrule ui.der which that country laboured, and
he was sorry to see that the present government
seemed as fresh to continue that misrule as if it had
never been tried ; but thanks be to God, they would
fail of success in this as in everything else.
Mr. HODGE S should wish very much to see a
system of Poor Laws established in Ireland, for he was
sure nothing could tend more to ameliorate the condi-
tion of the labouring classes in that country. He should
press his amendment to a division.
of Mr.
re
aPm.enSdCmßen(t),PaEndeohueldslnioout lsduptphefoerrttohree
the original clause.
After a few words from Mr. PLUMPTRE, the
house divided on Mr. Hodge's amendment, when the
numbers were—
For the amendment • 20
Against it
Majority
The clause was then agreed to. pvroitnecipfoler
Clause sixty-one was agreed to, with some verbial
.amendments.

On clause sixty-two, which related to the mode of
acquiring settlements, being read.
Lord ALTHORP said. that they had now arrived
at those clauses of the bill relating to the law of set-
tlement. Originally it was proposed to confine the
right of settlement to birth, hut that having been
much objected' to, he was ready to adopt another
mode, not so liable to objection, of obtaining the ob-
ject that plan had in view. The object they had in
view was to giN e freedom of labour throughout the
country ; and not wishing to embarrass the bill by any
objectionab'e clauses, he proposed to omit several of
those now immediately before them, and to change
the principle of the law of settlement as to be esta-
blished by the bill. (Cheers.) He intended to pro-
pose to the committee that settlement by hiring and
service should be abolished (Hear, hear), and also
settlement by apprenticeship. By this means they
when
o ofhe
settlements
wasbirth
one alone
mode
i wdeh
o f was
gaining
would do away with all that part of the law of settle-
menthe had been
proposed which obstructed the free circulation of labour,
and would therefore gain the object intended to be
gained
to be established. There would certainly be still left
several
productive of liticration, and which he thought would
be productive of'more than settlement by birth onl•
would modes
have done.
e . settlementgaining
There
e r y
settlement at present very difficult of proof it was
that of the occupation of a tenement. It was pre-
posed to diminish that difficulty of proof, by making it
necessary for a party to be rated for a year, without
mentioning any amount, in order to gain a settle-
ment. (Hear, hear.) He proposed, then, that clauses
62, 63, 64, and 65 be omitted, and that part of
clause 66, down to the word " hereafter," for the
purpose of inserting these words, " And be it further
enacted, that from and after the passing of this act,
no settlement shall be acquired by hiring or by appren-
ticeship," leaving the rest of the clause as at present;
for although they were not called upon to say that
settlements should be completed by present hirings, it
was otherwise with present apprenticeships, for money
had been paid with apprentices for the purpose of
gaining settlements. It was just, therefore, to pre-
serve corporate rights
for which a valuable considera-
tion had been thus given.
The question was then put on these amendments.
Lord G. SOMERSET asked if a man were rated
—no matter at what sum—say 11. or 101. per year—
such rating would entitle him to a settlement? He
begged to saggest to the noble lord that the clauses
proposed to be altered should be printed in their
amended form.
Lord A L THORP said his first intention was to
draw the clauses so that the rate should be limited to
at least 101. per annum ; but as he was aware that it
was the intention of an hon.-gentleman to move in_the
committee that landlords should be rated for all such
tenements, and not occupiers, he did not think it de-
sirable, at all events, in the present stage, to insert
such a clause. If, however, the
committee should de-
cline to adopt the proposed resolution, he would then
feel it his duty to insert a clause embodying such .a
principle. It aid not appear to him at all necessary
to go to any further expense in printing, especially
when the main alteration which he proposed was the
absolute omission of four clauses.
After a desultory conversation, in which Mr. Hol-
comb, Lord Sandon, Mr. Frankland Lewis' Mr.
Pryme, Mr. Slaney, Sir G. Strickland, Mr. Pease,
Mr. Baines, Mr. Curteis, and Mr. Benett took party
The question was put that clause 62 stand part of
the bill. The clause was negatived. Clauses 63, 64,
and 65 were also negatived.
The amendment proposed by Lord Althorp on
clause 66 was then agreed to, and the clause, as
amended, was ordered to stand part of the bill.
Clause 67 was agreed to.
In clause 68 it was agreed to insert the following
words :—" And be it further enacted, thafro.me nafter the passing of this act, no settlement shall b
ac-
quired or completed by the occupant of a tenement,
unless the person occupying the same shall have been
assessed to the poor-rates in respect of such tenement
for one year." to stand
Clause 68, as amended, was ordered
part of the bill. report
The house then resumed, the Chairman rep
progress, and obtained leave to sit again.
The Four per Cent. Annuities Bill was read a se-
cond time, and ordered to be committed this day.
LIME TOLL-EXEMPTION BILL.
Mr. PARROT moved that this bill be read
second time.
Mr. C URTE IS seconded the motion.
d the bill, and
Sir G. STRICKLAND oppose
moved that it be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. J. Buller, Mr. Tower, and Mr. Pease sup-
ported the bill.
Mr. Hodges, Lord Clive, Mr. F. Lewis, Mr. Slig-
herd, Mr. R. Palmer, and Mr. Rice opposed the bill.
The house divided—
For the Amendment
For the second reading 49
Majority for the amendment _—l l
CORONERS BILL.
Mr. CRIPPS moved the third reading of the
County Coroners' Bill.
Mr. GREEN opposed the motion, on the group
that a committee were sitting on the county-rates, and
had not yet made their report.
• •
The gallery was then cleared, but no division took
place, and the bill was read a third time and passed.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL BlLL.a.corn_
The Greenwich Hospital Bill went through
mittee, the report of which was ordered to be received
this day. were then disposed of,
The other orders of the day .
house this morning the
and at half-past two o'clock rni
ad-
journed.

BIRTHS.
On
at Bryanston, the Lady Emma Port.
On the 15th inst.,
of a daughter.
man, the 16th inst., the lion. Mrs. Howard, of a daughter.
16th inst., the Duchess of Sutherland, of a
daughter.On
On the 14th inst., in Hertford-street, the lady of
Wynne, jun, Esq., of a son and heir.
theOn 9th inst., at Uyon, on the Lake of Genera, the
lady of Henry Baynes War.:(.1.13..

MARRIED. 7
On the 10th inst., at St. Clement De,ne',:oortni-
eldest daughter of Robert Williams,' E.sciclf:,T6t-
drowaelod, Denbighshire, to Mr. John fler,°;
tenham-court-road.
_„ Janos Hunt, of
On the 12th inst., in Blarney Churc`;' Anne, jrounge.st:
Aldworth, in the county of Cork, Esti hf Abbeville, ;the 111
daughter of the Rev 'William Stoproi-",
same county.
DIED.
ent, David
On the 14th inst., at Letrishein, K
Esq., of Whitchureh, Hante;inhis-43aleffel...,tain 'rho.
On the 7th inst., at YercheylartNAo76...7,7
Fitzgetaid, late of the 2*‘Ralgesteouto,:- EkisabeOt
On the 14th.
sq.,
of Sotterley_oo"•
daughter of the late
Sufi lk• • "
11:
Printed and Pabribistlliy.MPßOQ leOrqr°
114V1,i the' BaiaOffiei;l4:ll2;lliririct: •
•. .