The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Domvile's Estate, London and Blackwall Railway, Os-
westry and Newtown Railway (Amendments), and Dublin
and Neath Railway Bills were read a second time.
The London and North Western (No. 1), the Oxford, Wor-
cester, and Wolverhampton, and Severn Valley RailwaT,
and East Somerset Railway bills were read a third time
and passed.

CHURCH RATES.
A great many petitions were presented for and against

the abolition of church rates.

SALE OF GAS.
On the motion of Lord REDESDALE this bill was read

a first time.
PETITION OF RIGHTS BILL.
This bill passed through committee, and was reported

with amendments.

SELLING AND HAWKING GOODS ON SUNDAY.
The report of the committee on this bill was received,
after Lord CHELMSFORD had moved an additional clause.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

Lord TEYNHAM moved the sec nd reading of this bill,
which was to compel tradesmen to sell articles by imperial
weights and measures.
Lord REDESDALE said it would be very inconvenient
to publicans, especially if their customers preferred to pur-
chase their articles otherwise.
The bill was read a second time.
ADULTERATION OF FOOD BILL.

Lord REDESDALE moved the second reading of this
bill, which was to prevent the sale of a vast deal of rubbish
which was now being sold in the form of meat and drink
in the metropolis. He said the idea that gave rise to the
bill was the manufacture of isinglass from very deleterious
articles ; and although the manufacturer thought by con-
verting these materials into gelatine they would lose the
injurious properties, such was not the case, as the gelatine
starch retained the dangerous properties. Unless some pro-
per person was appointed to examine certain articles of
food and drink, adulteration would go on to a much larger
extent than it was carried on at the present time.
Lord PORTMAN thought there would be great diffi-
culty in working this bill. The in•pectors to be appointed
would be the first difficulty, because he thought such per-
sons as the bill set forth should be appointed, could not very
readily be found. Then it was proposed that any person
selling adulterated articles, and being convicted,
was liable to have his name and address published
in one or more newspapers, which he thought was alto•
Bother a new principle in legislation.
The Earl of HARDWICKE thought the machinery of
the bill was too complicated, but he fully admitted that as
far as regarded the public the question was a very important
one.

The Earl of WESTMEATH supported the bill. Some
time ago an inquiry into the genuineness of certain articles
took place in Ireland, when it was discovered that a great
part of the bread consumed is one of the towns in the
county of Cork was composed of nothing but ground bones.
After a few words from Lord TETNIINM and Lord
WENSLEYDALE,
Lord REDESDALE said, as there was some difference
of opinion withrespect to the bill, he should propose to take
the second reading that evening, and he would then fix
the committee for a certain day after the holidays, when all
parties could then be ready with the amendments they
wished to be made in the measure.
This suggestion was adopted, and the bill was read a
second time.
BANKRUPT LAW (SCOTLAND) ACT AMEND-
MENT BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (£9,500,000) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
THE DISTURBANCES IN THE PARISH C EIURCH
OF ST. GEORGE'S-IN-THE-EAST.

Lord DUNGANNON rose pursuant to notice to call
attention to the continued disturbancesin the parish church
of St. George's-in-the-East. He said he thought he should
have the concurrence of every one of their lordships when
he asserted that the proceedings that took place Sunday
after Sunday in this church were not only an abomination
of themselves, but were both a scandal to religion and a
disgrace to a civilised country. They saw in the newspa-
pers accounts of disturbances every succeeding Sunday
morning worse than any that had preceded them. He did
not stand there as the advocate in any shape of the Rev.
Bryan King or any of his associates, He could not bit
look on his conduct as being, to use the mildest term, cul-
pably injudicious. It might be true that the ccremonieshe
had introduced were in conformity with the rubrics, but
there were many things sanctioned by them which were
obsolete, to which the public were unaccustomed, and
the public feeling was opposed to. He thought it a matter
of great regret that the Ordinary had not sufficient power
to lay down a rule with regard to these matters which must
be abided by. But be Mr. King's conduct ever so censur-
able, it was incumbent on the Government at once to put
down these riots. He was given to understand that most
of Mr. King's original congregation had left the church,
and that these riots were entirely got up by disorderly,
reckless persons, who came from other parts. He could
not for a moment believe that the Secretary of State,
when he gave dire?. ions to the chief of the metropolitan
police to have po'icemen placed in the church, did not
give instructions to put down the riots, but they had
acted as if such instructions had not been given. He
thought that if proper energy had been used by the
police these riots would have been put down long ago. If
they had occurred in any church at the west end of London
—at St. George's, Hanover-square, or St. James's, Picea-
dilly--orin any Dissenting place of worship they would have
been put down at once. He was told the policemen had an
idea that they might take any person into custody who
created a disturbance outside the church, but that they
would not be justified in interfering inside ; but he had
always thought that any person, be he a constable or not,
was justified in interfering to prevent a disturbance in a
place of worship. If the Ordinary had not sufficient power
to act in the matter some measure ought tJ be introduced to
give him the power. It was true that one or two perscns
had been brought before the magistrates, and one person,
who was said to move in a respectable sphere, was fined ;
the magistrate, from humane motives, inflicting a fine in-
stead of sending him to prison, which he might have done,
for 14 days. He thought that if that person had been sent
to prison the example would have gone far towards quelling
hese disturbances. He moved a resolution to the effect
that sufficient energy has not been displayed in putting
down these disturbances and bringing their perpetrators to
punishment.
Earl GRANVILLE said it was not so viz-4y to put down
these disturbances as the noble lord seemed to imagine. The
strong charge which the noble lord had brought against
the police was entirely unwarranted. The noble lord said
these rioters were entirely unconnected with the parish ; but
he (Earl Granville) was informed that a groat portion of the
congregation did belong to the parish. The police were ready,
on their own authority, to take into custody any person
whom they could swear to as having created or assisted in
creating a disturbance ; and they had orders if a person
were charged with participating in the riots to take him
into custody. But no person would give another in charge ;
and what were the police to do ? The other day a person
went up to a policeman, and pointed out a person who ho
said had taken part in the disturbance, but on being asked
if he would give the person into custody he refused. Seve-
ral persons had been taken before the magistrates, but in
every case except one they had teen let off. He assured
the noble lord that the Secretary for the Home Department
had a very strong desire 0 put down these disturbances.
The noble lord, he thought, had shown no ground for the
vote of censure that he proposed.
Lord WENSLEYDALE said there was a statute, the 2d
of Mary (aa wo understood), which provided that if any
person in any way disturbed a congregation he might be
taken, not only by a police officer or a churchwarden, but
by any person, before a magistrate, who might commit him
for three months. He thought if that act were put in force
it would soon put a stop to these disturbances.
The Earl of WICKLOW said it 'xi; alleged that proper
steps had not been taken to put down these disturbances.
Ho thought there could not be the slightest doubt that the
outrages were of such a gross and infamous nature that it
was utterly impossible for them to take place in any civilised
country on earth if the authorities had done their duty
in putting them down ; and that they had not done their
duty was perfectly clear. lle had ken told by persons
who were there that while these mitt ages were going on
in the most violent manner, the police, like so many auto-
mata, were standing by as mere spectators, au .l without
taking the slightest notice. It also appeared from the pro-
ceedings in the courts of justice, that in every case where
an offender had been brought before the magistrate he had
been let off without any fine, or with a merely nominal
punishment; whereas those gentlemen who, though not at
the solicitation or desire of Mr. Bryan King, had attempted
to interfere for his protection, and to put out of the church
the persons whom they saw transgressing, were heavily
fined. It was evident that a feeling of prejudice existed
against that unfortunate gentleman. He (the Earl of
Wicklow) did not approve of the course taken by Mr.
Bryan King, which he thought was injudicious, though
it was not a transgression of the law. But he hid read a
letter addressed by Mr. King to the bishop of his diocese,
which had been circulated among their lordships and
the members of the ""other house. Ile stated that he
got his 4iiitag from the late Bishop of London, at a time
when that bishop had published a letter to his clergy
requiring them to introduce an uniformity of ritual in their
churches; that in compliance with that letter he introduced
those practices, and did not feel justified in withdrawing-
them because of the disapprobation which they had met
with. Mr. Bryan King also stated that all these distur-
bances arose in consequence of the appointment of a person,
as lecturer, licensed by the present bishop of the diocese.
This was the Rev. Hugh Allen, who was an intimate friend
of Mr. Spurgeon, and who had assisted Mr. Spurgeon in
the establishment of his tabernacle. With regard to this
Mr. Allen, there were alleged to be some other circum-
stances, which might have exposed Mr. King to an action
for libel if they had been stated in his printed letter, but