The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-29 00:00:00

Lv.rd PORTMAN proposed some verbal amendments
in f.laase-21.,.
Lord STANIET objected to one of them as having a
'prejudicial effeet.ju a political point of view.
The other amendinents were agreed to, and the clause
was t as.sed.
CM* 22, after it. few words from Lord REDES-
LIALE:=was a reed WI
clause's 23,
.4, and 25 were next read and agreed to,
telauso26 w also agried to.
Lord PORTMAN proposed a verbal amendment in
,clause 27, which was also ae,o•reed to.
Clauses 2 and 29 were also agreed to.
Clause 30 Was agreed to.
Clause 31, after some dissuasion, was agreed to, as
were also clause's 32 and 33. - 7.

Clauses up` to 106 were also agreecirto:
On clause 107 being proposed,
Lord REDESDA LE asked whether there was any
'objection s leaving it in the option of the wardens
to let out the common lands or other lands ?
Lo,d. STANLEY thought that, if there were a slight
iuconyenience, it had better be borne than interfere with
the machinery of the Bill.
After a few words, from Lord PORTMAN and ano-
ther Peer,
Lord REDESDAIE said he was clearly of opinion
that the land should not be let for more than one year in
.auy parish, and he thou et there ought to be some
restriction en the permanency in the regulations. Were
the regulations permanesat or not ?

The LORD CHANCELLOR said according to the.
&Luse the regulations were clearly permanent.
Lord STANLEY proposed a restriction of five years
.er Jess, subject to the regulation of the Commissioners.
This 'night b'., dose, as the wardens were to be deemed,
for tli purpses of taxation and rating, the occupiers of
the allotment/.

The clause was then agreed to.
On the proposition of the 108th clause, a conversation
ensued as to the mode in which the growing crops were
to be adjudicated, but the clause was agreed to, as were
o clauses 109 and 110. The 111th clause was struck out.
Oa the 112th dense being proposed,
Lord PORTMAN asked where was the use of giving
a max compensation for that which he already possessed?
Lord STANLEY said that th• object of the clause
wax to make compensation for those small claims which
Wre in fact almost intangible.
Lord PORTMAN could not see the reason of that.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the object was
to provide for small holdings. Where the common
Tight was sufficiently stocked by cattle, the cotter enjoy-
ing the right could send in no more cattle, and conse-
quently there was no room for the owner of the stint ;
and under this Bill therefore he was to be paid in money.
If there was more than one stint, and not sufficient for
two, the owner was to have one stint in the inclosure,
and, receive money as a compensation for the surplus.
Clauses 113 to 122 were thskn passed.
On the proposition of the 123 d clause,
Lord PORTMAN objected that the expense of the
inclosure was to be borne by the individuals from whom
the right was taken away.
Lord STANLEY said that the expenses were to be
borne by thos6 who were to have the benefit, and the
CommissiOner3 were to be paid out of the portion of
Crown land appropriated for that purpose.
Lord PORTMAN objected to the form of notice which
was directed to be put upon the church door.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that it was some-
times difficult to find the person oa whom the notice
ought to be served, and that, therefore, it was better to
adopt the usual course, which was to stick the notice on
the church door. The Noble Duke the other night had
said, that one of his tenants went every Sunday fourteen
miles to church and fourteen miles back again. He sup-
posed, that they were as good in Cumberland as they
were in Scotland, though he doubted it. At any rate,
the notice was sufficient.
The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses
124 to 146.
Clauses from 147 down to 162 were also agreed to,
after abort discussions of an unimportant character.
Clauses 163, 164, and 165, were next agreed to with-
out opposition.
Lord,PORTMAN apologised to the House for having
occupied so much time as he had in the observations he
had deemed it necessary to make, but he could assure
the House ho did so from a sense of duty alone, as he
had not an inch of property that would be affected by the
Bill.