The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-19 00:00:00

AFFAIRS OF GREECE

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY was desirous of
saying that he was unable to understand the foreign po-
licy of his Majesty's Ministers, and be should persevere in
his motion on Tuesday next, unless the papers relative to
Greece were laid before the House. They had now been
promised nearly two months. If they were to be pro-
duced, he would withdraw his motion until the House had
time to examine them. These protocols had been hawked
about in foreign papers, and the British Parliament was
the only place where any information on the subject was
to he learned. More complication had grown out of this
arrangement with aspect to Greece than from any other
transaction in the foreign diplomacy of Great Britain.
Ministers had changed the arrangements from an inde-
pendent kingdom to a sovereignty dictated by themselves.
The sovereign appointed would annually withdraw a large
sum of money from this country, and he questioned how
the people of England would like to see a subject of their
country become Sovereign of a foreign state, and draw
money from them for his support, and to spend among a
people who did not deserve such a boon. The illustrious
person himself appeared to have some doubts of the policy
of the arrangement, and to hesitate whether he should ac-
cept the crown. If this were true, he had, in his opinion,
acted very wisely. The policy of Ministers, with respect
to Turkey, was disgraceful to the nation. They had first
offered an amicable intercession, and then converted it to a
hostile aggression. France had now an immense arma-
ment afloat, and if France and Russia were to coalesce,
what would become of Great Britain under the present
system of foreign policy.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said, that the papers were
now in the printers' hands, and he should lay them on the
table of the House on Monday next. He should do this—
not from the motion of the Noble Marquis, nor because
they had been published in foreign Gazettes—but merely
because the negociation had arrived to that point when
Ministers thought proper to lay them before the House.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY then withdrew his
motion. . .

The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition
from the Justices of Montgomeryshire, praying that they
might be relieved from the duty of discharging persons
from the Courts of Conscience.
The Hungerford Market Bill was read a third time and
passed.
Several Private Bills went through different readings.
Messages from the Commons brought up several Pri-
vate Bills that had passed the Lower House.
EAST RETFORD.
The House they resolved itself into a Committee on the
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill, and proceeded with
the examination of witnesses until a Quarter before Eight
o'clock, when the further consideration of the Bill was
postponed until Ftiday, and their Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(LAST NIGHT.)
WALLACE'S DIVORCE BILL.
The House went into a Committee on this Bill. Wit-
nesses were examined, the Report brought up and agreed
to, and the Bill read a third time and passed.
Mr. BRAMSTONE presented a petition from the in-
habitants of Chelmsford, against the Beer Bill.
Mr. AGAR ELLIS moved for a return of the number
of persons convicted of forgery on the bank of Ireland.
Lord G. SOMERSET presented a petition from a place
in Somersetshire, against the renewal of the East India
Company's Charter.
Mr. KNOX presented a petition from Dungannon,
against the proposed increase of duty on spirits.
Mr. SLANEY presented a petition from Salop, against
the truck system.
Colonel LYGON presented a petition from Kiddermins-
ter against the Insolvent Debtors' Act.
Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from the Letter-

press Printers of Kilkenny, against any increased duty on
Newspaper Stamps.
Mr. LENNARD presented a petition from the Dissen-
ters of Exeter against the punishment of death for forgery,
and also a similar one from Ipswich.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the Presi-
dent, Vice-President, and Members of the Chamber of
Commerce, at Manchester, praying that the House would
take steps to prevent the invasion of Mexico by Spain.
The Noble Lord wished to call the particular attention
of his Majesty's Government to the facts stated in the pe-
tition.—Ordered to be printed.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a petition from a
place in the county of Kent against the Beer Bill, and
two others from places in the same county against the
punishment of death for forgery.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
understood to say, that it was in contemplation of the Go
vernment to reduce the duty to 10s. in cases where the
premium did not exceed 201.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL then presented petitions from
Lieutenant-Colonel Gunning, against the present system of
poor laws; from the proprietors of public-houses in Tun-
bridge Wells, against the Beer Bill; and from the inhabi-
tants of Ashford, in Kent, and the bankers and others of
Margate, against the punishment of death for forgery.
With respect to the last petition, he observed that he be-
lieved the time had now arrived when that punishment
Was universally desired to be removed.

Mr. C. BILLER presented a petition from the trades
of the city •f Glasgow, on the subject of the state of the
Mexican trade.

Mr. EGERTON presented a petition from certain
persons in Chester, against the proposed alteration of the
local jurisdictions there. _ . _

Mr. HUME presented a petition from the distillers of
Aberdeen, complaining of the Bill new in progress through
the House, fettering their mode of carrying on business,
and which Bill they prayed might not pass into a law.