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

BANT)ON AND BANTItY.

In this case their Lordships decided that the preamble of the Bill
had been proved, and that they would report it to the Rouse and act
it down for a third reading. •
MALLOW AND FERMOY. •

This is a line to join the Great Southern and Western at Mallow,
connecting Fermoy with ➢lallow. The length of the line is nineteen
miles, and the estimated cost is 150,0001.
Solicitors to the line, Sir Mathew Barrington, Son, and Co. ;
engineer, Mr. W. Tracey ; Parliamentary agents, Messrs. Burke
and Co.
The Committee decided that the preamble of the Bill had been
proved, and that they would report it to the House, and set it down
for a third reading.

MOUNTMELLICK JUNCTION RAILWAY.
This lino is an extension of the Great Southern and Western to
Mountinellick, a town which is very important from the quantity of
traffic passing through it. The length of the line is only three miles
and three quarters, and the capital of the Company is 22,5001. En-
gineer, Mr. Hogan ; solicitors;. Sir Mathew Barrington, Son, and Co.
The Committee decided that in this case also the preamble of the
Bill had been proved, and that it should be reported to the House,
nd set down for a third readily.
CLONMEL AND THURLES RAILWAY.

This case was adjourned for the want of one witness, who was not
in attendance. The length of this important line is 38% stillest
including a branch to St. Civardagh Colliery. The capital of the
Company is 400,0001, Sollcitors to the lire, Sir Matthew Barrington,
Son, and Company.
GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN EXTENSION AT CORK.
The formal proofs having been entered in this case, the Committee
adjourned it until Monday next, in order to give themselves time to
consider what quantity of land they should allow for the building of
a station at Cork. The promoters sought for fifty acres, and it was
urged that thirty would be Sufficient.
The following lines were then adjourned to give time for the ex-
amination of certain clauses in their respective Bills: -
MALLOW AND KILLARNEY ; OMAGH, DUNGANNON, AND
PORTSDOWN ; AND THE DUBLIN, BELFAST, AND COLE-

RAINS RAILWAY.
In the case of the London and York Railway, their Lordships inti-
mated that they would further adjourn their decision until Tuesday
next.
Their Lordships adjourned until Monday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Sub-Committee, No. 3.

This Committee re-assembled this morning at the usual hour. Pre-
sent—Mr. Aglionby (Chairman), Mr. Edward Bulwer, Mr. Aldam,
Mr. Broadley, and Mr. Thornely.
WILTS, SOMERSET, AND WEYMOUTH RAILWAY.
The consideration of the allegations of a petition, which was part
gone into on Wednesday last, was resumed this morning. After dis-
posing of the omissions, &c., which were of no interest, they pro-
ceeded to consider the allegation of an error of three feet and a de-
cimal of •66 in describing the height of the proposed line above a
canal. It appeared that the height mentioned in the plans was 149,
whereas it should have been 152 and a decimal •66.
Mr. VENABLES said that the promoters ware prepared to meet the
error.
The Committee accordingly reported non-compliance.
THE LESMAHAGOW, DALSEBF, AND COATBRIDGE
RAILWAY
was allowed to be proceeded with.
NEWPORT, ABERGAVENNY, AND HEREFORD RAILWAY
was also allowed to be proceeded with.
BIRMINGHAM, LICHFIELD, AND MANCHESTER

was also allowed to be proceeded with.
BEDFORD AND CAMBRIDGE RAILWAY

woe not allowed to be proceeded with.
The Committee then adjourned till Tuesday next.

Sub-Committee, No. 3.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
MIDLAND (CLAYCROSS TO NEWARK) RAILWAY.
The object of this line is to construct a branch from Use Midland
Railway at Claycross to the Nottingham and Mansfield Railway at
Newark. Estimated cost, 580,0001. ; Parliamentary agents, Messrs,
Burke and Co. ; ungineeers, Messrs. Stephenson and Swanwich.
The formal proofs having been given by Mr. Grubb.
The Committee postponed the further consideration of the case till
Tuesday to hear the advice of Mr. Cramp and Mr. Charles Lee. The
case will be the first taken on Tuesday.
MIDLAND (NOTTINGHAM TO MANSFIELD) RAILWAY.
The projectors of this line propose by it to connect Nottingham and
Mansfield—the distance being 16 miles. Estimated cost, 275,0001. ;
Parliamentary agents, Messrs. Burke and Co.; engineers, Messrs.
Stephenson and Swanwlch.
Messrs._
The formal proofs having been given, a question arose as to the
publication of the required notices for three successive weeks in the
months of October and November last, and as to the delivery of the
notice at the office of the Gazette two clear days previous to the time
that would allow of these three successive publications. It appeared
that in this case one publication took place in December.
Mr. VENABLES contended that, although tile last notice did not
appear till December, he was prepared to prove that the notice was
delivered in sufficient time to allow of the three successive publi-
cations.

^T
The Committee did not think this a satisfactory answer, and re-
ported that it amounted to a non-compliance.
WEST CORNWALL RAILWAY.

The objeet of this line is to connect Yenwyn, in the county of
Cornwall, with Penzance, a distance of 45 miles. Estimated cost,
500,0001. ; Parliamentary agents, Messrs. Burke and Co. ; engineer,
Mr. W. Johnson.
'1 be formal proofs having been riven, the further consideration of
the case was postponed till Tuesday.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock.

The Marquis and Marchioness of Londonderry had a
dinner party on Wednesday, after which the Marchioness had a
clan-tante at Holdernesse House. • The circle invited was very limited.
NATIONAL LAND AND BUILDING ASSOCIATION.—
Wednesday a public meeting was held in the National Hall, Holborn,
T. Wakley, Esq., M. the chair, for the purpose of forming an
association having for iti 1 objects a "National Land Association,"
and a "National Building Association." The Chairman described
the physical, political, n tore], and social benefits that would accrue
to the working classes b. r acquiring, through associations similar to
the one proposed that evening, land and a home for themselves and
families. Messrs. It. Moore, Hill, Bainbridge, Ireland, and other
gentlemen, explained tint objects of the Association ; and resolutions
favourable to those objects and the formation of the Society having
been carried, thanks we re voted to the Chairman, and the meeting
•arated.

SOUTH SEA COMPANY.—This Company held their
usual half yearly meeting y.ssterday, at the South Sea House, Thread-
needle-street, in complianite with the charter ; but the proceedings
did not last more than a few minutes, and were not of the lent public

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
fIOUSE 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
great 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 I
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 lease. Those Bills gave certain formula, and shortened
the conveyance, and was a great comfort to those who 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.
pence of conveyance was one of the greatest evils ander 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 reluetance in the
profession to use the forms prescribed in these Bills, and they
could not be compelled to do so, 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 quese
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 tlre conveyance.
The Bill was then read a first time.
MUTINY FULL
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. DUNCOAIBE, 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-
cembe, 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.
The Earl of CHARLEVILLE said the petition had beers
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 fullest opportunity was afforded for the Hon. Members 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-
combs), and it was perfectly competent for the latter Bon.
Member to deny these charges. 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 th
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 CHANCELLO7 said that at the presentation
of the Earl of Glengall'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. afe agreed with the .Noble and
Learned Lord, ougham) that any allegations that the
petition of th 6lengall 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 du with the
proceedings of the Court below.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought they had some-
thing to do with the Court below in this matter. Lord
Glengall was accused of having brought this accusation
against Mr. Duncombe, and of publishing it for the first time.
Now the fact 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
RAILWAY.
The Earl of ROSEBERRY reported from the Committee
on this Bill that they had passed the preamble.
Lord MELBOURNE presented a petition, signed by the
chairman of the board of the Glastonbury poor-law union, on
behalf of that board, praying that the present system of levying
poor-rates may be abolished, and a national rate substituted.
The Earl of HARDWICKE presented a petition from the
county of Cambridge, which was adopted by a meeting held
in the open air against free trade, and praying that all measures
having a tendency to reduce the protection on Briti,h industry
may be rejected.
The Earl of DENBIGH presented a petition from the
Trustees of the Rugby Charity, against the Chatitable Trust
Bill.

The Marquis of SALISBURY said he had to present a
petition of a similar nature, from the Mercers' Company. He
did not know whether he ought to move that they be heard by
counsel at the bar of the House, or that they be heard in the
Committee.
Lord BROUGHAM said they had the Bill before them last
year, and never was a Bill more fully heard. There were one
or two of the details which he would wish to have amended.
He considered, however, that the petitioners ought to have
presented their petition before, in order to allow them to be
heard against the Bill. He was himself a great friend to the
Bill, and for that reason he thought that a few amendments
introduced into it would save all opposition.
The Earl of ELDON said, that when the petition was pre-
sented to him, he pointed out to his Friend the difficulty under
which they laboured. He hoped the Noble and Learned Lord
would make such alterations in the Bill as would prevent op-
position, either on the second or third reading. Should no
alteration be made in the Bill, he should certainly oppose it in
all st ages.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the Bill was precisely
similar to the Bill of last session. That Bill was sent to a
Select Committee, was supported by the Right Reverend
Bench, was passed without opposition, and was sent down to
the other House, where it was only prevented passing by the
lateness of the session. He had no objection to refer this Bill
again to a Select Committe. There was one clause different
from the last Bill, and that was with respect to the persons trom
whom the selection of the tribunal was to be made.
After a few words from Lord Ennost and the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR,
Lord COTTENHAM said, that if the Bill should assume
the same shape as the last one, he should find it to be his duty
to reject it altogether.
Lord CAMPBELL said that as this was a proposal to put of
the Bill till after Easter, to afford more time for its considera •
tion, he could not oppose it. The Noble Lord, however, had
the whole of the long vacation to consider its provisions, since
it was formerly before their Lordships, and he (Lord Camp-
bell) considered it strange, if, at the suggestion of the Noble
Lord, who sometimes sat there (pointing to Lord Brougham's
seat), but who was now sitting on the Woolsack—( Great
laughter)—he should now postpone it till after the Easter holi-
days. He would like that the Noble Lord should confine it to
charities of small amount, so as to keep them out of the Court
of Chancery. The expenses there would entirely eat up small
charities. The object should be also to simplify the proceed-
ings as much as possible in that Court. He would most
heartily support the motion, but not with the machinery sought
to be introduced.
Lord BROUGHAM considered that his Noble Friend must
have grievously mistaken his intensions when he stated that
his proceeding was quite irregular. He had merely wished
that the consideration of the Hill should be put off for the pur-
pose of making certain changes, which would make the 13i11
pass—he would not say unanimously—but certainly with less
opposition in their Lordships' House. He had not had an op-
portunity of conferring with his Noble Friend, in consequence
of their many engagements. His Noble Friend would leave
town at the end of the week, and he should not have an oppor-
tunity of conferring with him unless the Bill was put off for a
few days. The present Bill was confined to small charities--
Lord CAMPBELL—No, no.
Lord BROUGHAM—If his Noble Friend would allow
him—he had read the Bill. The object in extending the pro-
visions of the Bill to all charities was not to interfere in their
management, or the disposal of their funds, but simply to in-
quire into their accounts. Nobody had objected to his two
Charity Bills. He believed that there were Companies, having
large funds at their disposal, who " dreaded the light," he
would not say " because their deeds were evil ;" he believed
them, on the contrary, to be very goood. They were
in the habit of very hospitably entertaining their
friends. Ho had himself partaken of their honitality,
They had great funds at their disposal, and they did not like
to have them inquired into. He knew of one roan who had
6001. a year at his disposal, and it surely was not too much to
ask for power to have such interests inquired after. He would
recommend that the further consideration of the matter should
be postponed for a week at the latest.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—The principle of the Bill
was to administer small charities. That was themain part of the
Bill. It was to call for an annual account of their receipts
and expenditure, and it would afford an opportunity. This
would be for the benefit of all. If the trustees of charities
thought proper to let out their property, why should they not?
He should be ready to make any personal sacrifice to pass this
measure.
Lord COTTNEHAM would remind his Noble and Learned
Friend, that he, by this Dill, gave a power to the trustees,

which the Crown and the Court of Chancery did not possess.
It gave the trustees the power of selling the property. This
power the Court-of Chancery never ha i, and never claimed to
have. The jurisdiction was limited in respect to small
charities, but with regard to large municipal charities it
would lead to the swamping of the existing charities. He
hoped that when the time came for the consideration and dis-
cussion of the Bill, these matters would be explained.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was necessary some-
thing should be done to meet existing difficulties. He had
often, when applications had been made to him to fill lip
vacancies, felt their force, and he never listened to their appli-
cations till such time as the number% were so reduced as to im-
peratively require the filling up of the vacancies, the costs
were so enormous in:the filling up of these charitable trusts.
He might instance, that the filling of a trust in Hereford cost
700/. ; in Shrewsbury, 400/. • and in Exeter, from 600:. to
700/. It was to rectify this &grant abust that he wished to
engraft this part of the Bill which he had prepared, on the
other portions of the Bill.
In answer to Lord COTTENHAM, .

The• LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the filling up of
a trust in the city of Norwich had cost the enormous sum
of 5,000'.
The further consideration of the Bill was then adjourned.

Lord ELDON presented a petition from the Merchant
Tailors of the City of London against the Charitable Trust,
Bid; also one to the same effect, from the Incorporated So-
ciety of Coopers, of the same city.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 27.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
SECOND READINGS.

The following Bills were read a second time and ordered to
be committed, viz.:—
Bristol and Birmingham and Midland Railways.
St. Alban's, Luton, and Dunstable Railway.
York Improvement.
Harrogate Waterworks.
Midland, Barnsley, Sheffield, Dewsbury, Leeds, and Bradford

Railway.
North of Norfolk Railway.
East Dereham and Norwich Railway.
Glasgow, Paisley, and Johnstone Canal Sale.
Warrington Warterworks.
Shrewsbury and Herefordshire Railway.
Bristol and Birmingham Railway (Gloucester and Stouehouse
Junction).
Buckinghamshire Railway (Tying to Banbury).
Birmingham, Wol►erhampton. and Dudley Railway.
Midland Railway ( Erewash Valley Extension).
Midland Railway (Erewash Valley Branches).
Reading, Guildford, and Reigate Railway.
Worcester and Portlidynllaen Railway.
`hrewsbury and Birmingham Railway.
West London Railway Improvement and Extensions.
Glasgow Union Arcade.
St. Austell Small Debts.
London and Birmingham Railway (Birmingham Extension.)
Bristol and Gloucester, and Birmingham and Gloucester

Railways.
The following reports were brought up, and ordered to be
laid on the table, viz.:—
Sunderland Gal.
Sundei land Waterworks.
Bromsgrove Improvement and Small Tenements.
Burnley Improvement and Waterworks.
Mallon, Witham, and Braintree Railway.
Eastern Union and Haileigh Junction Railway.
Brighton and Chichester Railway (Bognor and Littlehampton

granches).
South-Eastern Railway (Godstone Station to East Grinstead).
Mr. LAW moved that the Administration of Justice Bill
be read a first time. It was ordered to be read a second time
on Wednesday next.
Petitions were presented from the Chamber of Commerce
at Edinburgh, in favour of the Teri hour Factory Bill, and for
the aboliticn of the duties on Timber.