The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-03 00:00:00

might come to another and interfere with those holding
thld gardens.
Mr. COWPER beg•ged to remind the Hon. Member
that those gardens were not to be r4gulated by parochial
limits. However, he would have no objectio.i to insert
the words " within such parish."
The clause with the amendment was then greed to.
On the 9th clause being read,
Mr. ESTCOTT would wish to know if it was intended
to have paid surveyors ?
Mr. COWPER would wish to postpone deciding upon
that point for the present.
Mr. HINDLEY suggested, that due notice should be
served on occupying tenants, when land was about to
be taken.

Mr. CO WPER had no objection to that suggestion
being complied with.
Mr. COLLETT said that with respect to the liability to
rating to the poor-rate, that persons possessing half an
acre were not to be rated. _

Mr. MARK PHILLIPS was in doubt whether the
land when taken by the wardens or surveyors was to be
for a permanency or not. He confessed the point was
to him a great difficulty.
After some further conversation, the clause was agreed
to.
Clauses 10 and 11 were also agreed to.
On clause 12 being read,
Mr. BOUVERIE objected to the clause altogether.
He did not see why the power of devising land for 21
years should be given to these wardens.
A desultory conversation ensued, in which several
Members took part. The clause, however, was allowed
to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 was struck out.

Sir R. PEEL thought that the possession of small
portions of land by the labouring population would be
most beneficial to them. He would not stop to inquire
what the effect of such a system would be a hundred
years hence. He would rather look to the immediate
result of such a system, and that result, he believed,
would be most beneficial to the classes more immedi-
ately interested. He would, therefore, support the mea-
sure of the Hon. Member for Hertford.

Mr. BRIGHT believed that if the Bill were to pass it
would be inoperative.
Mr. WAKLEY thought the House was very much in-
debted to the Government for having given their sup-
port to this measure. He was very much surprised at
the Hon Member for Durham opposing the Bill, because
allotments of land to the poor must be the means of
increasing the food of the poor. There was gross in-
consistency in the course which had been taken by th.
Hon. Member for Durham.

Sir IL PEEL would ask if be might give the ion.
Member one piece of advice. It was, that if friendly
to the Bill, he should not at half-past ten at night raise a
discussion on the corn-laws.—(Laughter.) This clause
—together with the 16th—was then agreed to, and
After a desultory conversation between Messrs.
Bright, Collett, and Darby, clauses 17, 18, 19, and 20,
were withdrawn.

Clause 21 was also passed without opposition.
Mr. BRIGHT inquired if, under clause 22, the Hon.
Member (Mr. Cowper) intended that women should be
eligible for the office of landwardens ?—(Laughter.)
Mr. COWPER could see no objection to the selection
of females who should be found competent.

Mr. BRIGHT stated his intention of withdrawing the
clause of which ,he had given notice respecting the kill-
ing of game.
Clause 23, and the preamble of the Bill, were then
passed without discussion, and the report was ordered
to be printed and brought up to-morrow (this day).
The House then resumed.
LUNATIC ASYLUM AND PAUPER LUNATICS