The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-28 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 27.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
SELLING SPIRITS ON SUNDAY.
A petition was presented at the bar from the Lord Mayor,
Aldermen, and Common Council of the city of London,
against the sale of spirituous liquors on Sunday.
LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a person
near Barnet against this line of railway, on the ground of the
grist damage it would do to his property. Also, a petition from
a place in Lincolnshire to the same effect.
CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY.
Lord BROUGHAM held in his hand a Bill, the first read-
ing of which he should now move, the object of which was to
redeem the pledge which he had last year given of extending
the wholesome and salutary provisions of two Acts passed last
session for simplifying the conveyance of landed property by sale
and tease. Those Bills gave certain formula, and shortened
the conveyance, and was a great comfort to those whe had
property to convey, although it was a discomfort to the coun-
sel and practitioners. But he did not care for that, he looked
only to the client and his interests. The Bill also extended
to town leases, to mortgages, to settlements, and sales ; and
exchanges of all sorts, and to wills and farm leases. The ex.
pense of conveyance was one of the greatest evils under which
the landed interest laboured. They had a body of evidence
upon the subject which was frightful. They found that the
price of land in other countries, where the expense of con-
veyancing was little or nothing, was thirty-five and thirty-six
years' purchase in one country, thirty-eight in another ; and
another, where the expense of conveyance very small, it was
forty-eight years' purchase. There was a reluctance in the
profession to use the forms prescribed in these Bills, and they
could not be compelled to do se, but he had inserted in this
Bill a provision, giving taxing masters power to disallow the
expense of a long conveyance when.the short one could be used.
Lord CAMPBELL heartily concurred in the Bill brought
forward by the Noble Lord. He was glad to see that the
Noble Lord had become a convert to the principles which he
(Lord Campbell) had long since advocated on the same ques-
tion. It was, therefore, a source of satisfaction to him
that the Noble and Learned Lord now supported a system
which he formerly opposed. He was quite sure that it would
be supported also by the legal profession.
Lord BROUGHAM intimated that the most eminent bar-
risters were advocates of the plan now proposed.
Lord BEAUMONT congratulated all interested in the sub-
ject that it was now taken up by such able hands as the Noble
Lord, who had brought it forward. He could state, that owing
to the difficulties which surrounded the conveyance of property
by the existing law, a large amount of capital, which would
find its way to investments of this nature, was diverted into
another channel. He merely rose for the purpose of congratu-
lating all interested in the matter, that a Bill was at length
brought forward for doing away with those difficulties, and fa-
cilitating the conveyance.
The Bill was then re first time.
MUTINY BILL.
The Duke of WELLINGTON moved the second reading
of the Mutiny Bill.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
CASE OF T. S. DUNCOMBE, ESQ., M.P.

Lord BEAUMONT said he had to present a petition from
a Member of the other House of Parliament, complaining of
having had great injustice done him by certain allegations
which had been introduced by petitioners in an appeal case in
allusion to him. The petitioner was Thomas Slingsby Dun-
combe, Esq., and the petition further stated, that that gen-
tleman was in no way interested in the appeal case mentioned,
and it prayed that their Lordships. would immediately adopt
such means as would allow the petitioner to disprove, on oath,
the grossly injurious slanders which were aimed at his cha-
racter.
Thu Earl of CHARLEVILLE said the petition had been
presented by the Earl and Countess of Glengall in an appeal
case. Extracts were subsequently taken from it, and it was
designated as a gross perversion of the truth. The petition
was presented in the usual way, and when it was brought under
the consideration of the House it was referred to the Appeal
Committee. This was on the 27th of February. The Lord
Chancellor would then have received any petition with the object
of showing that the Earl of Glengall's petition was incorrect,
and contained irrelevant matter, and the solicitor who appeared
on behalf of the Hon. Member who now addressed the House
had had every opportunity of objecting altogether to the allega-
tions it contained. The Earl of Glengall's petition did not
allude to any individual in. particular; but as to the appellant
acting under the influence of a certain individual, that was a
sufficient ground for going before the Appeal Committee and
having the case adjudicated on. Every allegation in the Earl
of Glengall's petition was founded on affidavits, and
the case was proceeding in the Vice-Chancellor's Court, where
the fukest opportunity was afforded for the Hon. Member to
meet those allegations, instead of petitioning that House.

Lord BROUGHAM said there was one circumstance to
which he would refer. It was quite a mistake to suppose that
a breach of privilege was committed in presenting these peti-
tions. The petition of the Earl of Glengall was presented, not
in his capacity as a Member of that House, but as a private in-
dividual. In that capacity he came before the House and pre-
ferred certain charges against the Hon. Member (Mr. T. Dun-
combe), and it was perfectly competent fur the latter Hcn.
Member to deny these dharges. This was no breach of pri-
vilege, as each had a perfect right to prefer charges
in their individual capacity. But he by no means agreed with
the prayer of the petition presented that night. The Appeal
Committee agreed that it was not a matter for the conside-
ration of the House, but for the Court below. He (Lord
Brougham) considered that the Hon. Members ought to seek
redress from the court below. Still he did not complain of the
presentation of the petition under the circumstances.
The• Earl of CLARE quite agreed with the Noble and
Learned Lord. Mr. Duncombe had filed an affidavit in the
Vice-Chancellor's Court, and he would have an opportunity of
meeting the charges there without coming as a petitioner to that

House:
The LORD CHANCELLOA said that at the presentation
of the Earl of Glen all's petition, it was considered that it
was referred to the Committee, and that therefore the House
had no jurisdiction in the matter. The Appeal Committee
was of opinion that the proper course was to refer it to the
Court below, and decided accordingly. Certainly the petition
reflected on the Hon. Member, but the proper course for him
swas to seek redress in the Court below ; and if he was not
atisfied with the decision, then it was competent in him to
bring the matter before their Lordships in the form of an
appeal against the judgment. He agreed with tl:e Noble and
Learned Lord (Lord Brougham) that any allegations that the
petiiion of the Earl of Glengall might contain could not be
looked upon as a breach of privilege.
Lord BEAUMONT said that after what had fallen from
the Noble and Learned Lord he had not another word to say.
He must say, however, that they had nothing to do with the
proceedings of the Court below.
The Marquis of CL AN RICARDE thought they had some-
thing to do with the Court below in this matter. Lord
Glenp,all was accused of having brought this accusation
against Mr. Duncombe, and of publishing it for the first time.
Now the fart was that the accusation was first embodied in a
petition presented to the Court of Chancery by the solicitor
of Lady Byng. It was the letter of Mr. Kensett, embodied in
an affidavit, which gave rise to this matter. A copy of that
therefore could have been obtained from the Court below.
After a few words from the Earl of CLARE, the subject
dropped.
NEWRY, ROSSTREVOR,
_AND WARRENPOINT