The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-08 00:00:00

o

LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 8, 1844.

fn the House of Lords last evening, after the pre-
sentation of a few petitions, some interest was ex-
cited by the entrance of his Majesty the King of
Sax°Nv, who took a seat that had been placed for
him opposite the Bench of Bishops, and near the
Woolsack. His MAJESTY exchanged a few words
with the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, but did not
enter into any general conversation with the n oble
Lords present.
The occasion of his MAJESTY'S visit was rather
unfavourable, as the business was very unimportant.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked Lord MONTEAGLE
to postpone his motion on the corn-laws, as the bring-
ing it on then would be exceedingly inconvenient to
the Government.
Lord MONTEAGLE assented, regretting the delay
he had experienced in bringing it forward. Monday
was named as the day on which the discussion is to
be taken.
Lord BROUGHAM and the Marquis of LANSDOWNE
both expressed a hope that it would not be again
postponed.
Lord CAMPBELL, as a remedy for these frequent
delays, suggested that their Lordships might with
advantage recur to the old system of meeting at eight
o'clock in the morning!
The Duke of WELLINGTON expressed his readiness
to be in his place at that hour, but with some irony
remarked that younger men, who had more to do than
himself, might find it difficult to attend so early.
The motion of Lord MONTEAGLE was eventually
postponed till Thursday next, and their Lordships
adjourned.
The House of Commons met at the usual hour.

The SPEAKER communicated to the House the
acknoNledginent by the Governor-General of India
of the vote of thanks to the army of India, passed by
the House on the 20th of February last.
Nu nerous petitions were presented both for and
against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Mr. SHAW gave notice that, in Committee on the
Bill, he should propose a possession of sixty years in-
stead of twenty-five.
On the motion that the House do resolve itself into
Committee on the Parishes (Scotland) Bill,
Mr. DuNcart M'NEILL explained the object of the
Act. It had for its object to facilitate the division of
parishes in Scotland. By the law as it now existed,
the patronage of a new parish belonged to the patron
of the old one; but where other parties bore the bur-
den of erecting the new parish church, it seemed but
reasonable that some other provision should be made,

saving, of course, the rights of the heritors. The
present Bill gave a power, in such cases, to attach
a district to the church, and to erect it into a separate
parish, without the consent of the heritors, who, as
they were not called upon to contribute, had certainly
no right to interfere capriciously to deprive persons
of that religious instruction for which they were
themselves willing to pay.
Mr. Fox MAULS said no necessity had been shown
for the Bill, or for legislating on the subject at all,
and moved that it be committed that day six months.
A discussion ensued, in which the provisions of the

Act were discussed in connexion with the late move.

ment in the Church of Scotland. During this dis-
cussion the King of SAXONY entered the House ; he
sat for some time in the chair of the Sergeant-at-
Arms.

Sir J. GRAHAM statel that the principle of the Bill
was one that had always been upheld in the best days
of the Scotch Church. He charged the Member for
Perth (Mr. Fox MAur.E) with inconsistency. It
was scarcely a fortnight since that Right Hon.
Gentleman brought forward a motion for the aboli-
tion of subscription of tests in the Scottish Univer-
sities, and yet on the previous night he was found in
the course of the debate advocating the continuance of
tests. This reference to a recent debate being irre-
gular, was followed by loud cries of " Order."
After the usual explanations and apologies, Mr. F.
MAULE'S amendment was rejected, on a division, by a
majority of 54, and the House went into Committee
on the Bill. ,

In the discussion on the first clause Mr. Fox
MAULE retorted the charge of Sir JAMES GRAHAM.
He thought the last person to make a charge of in-
consistency ought to be the Right Hon. Baronet
himself. "'1 he man who wrote Corn and Currency,'
and who now sat as the supporter of the agricultural
interest, ought to be very captious in charging another
with inconsistency. In a celebrated caricature pub-
lication of the day, the Right Hon. Baronet was
represented as receiving a deputation from the dis-
tressed thimble-riggers.—(Laughter.) One of these
thimble-riggers was made to ask the Right Hon
Baronet if he had any objection to allow a game of
round-about ? and the Right Hon. Gentleman replied
—` Oh, no, for I have patronised round-about all my
life.'—(Great laughter, in which Sir JAMES GRAHAM
joined.) The Right Hon. Baronet should be careful

how he made a charge of inconsistency against
another."—(Hear.)
The Committee divided on the clause, which was
carried by a majority of 32.
Another division took place on clause 8, which was
also carried by a majority of 36 ; and on clause 9,
which was carried by 41.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the
House resumed. The report is to be received on
Monday.

The house adjourned at a Quarter to Ten o'clock.

We know of no functionaries who require more
careful looking after than the police constabulary of
our towns, and the Right Hon. Secretary of our
Home Department. We have had such frequent
occasion to advert to the reported cases of gross mis-
conduct on the part of the one, and we detect so many
arbitrary and unconstitutional tendencies in the ad-
ministration of the other, that this statement will need
no further commentary for its justification. But if it