The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(LAST NIGHT.)
Lord HOLLAND presented two petitions against
inflicting death for forgery ; one from a parish of
Somersershire, and the other from Dorking.
The Duke of GLOUCESTER presented a peti-
tion from the Ant:-Slavery Society, for the entire
abolition of slavery.
Lord KING presented a petition from a town of
Devonshire, against the monopoly of the East India
Company.
The Earl of LIMERICK presented a petition
from the county of Galway, in favour of the Gal-
way Franchise Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a peti-
tion with a contrary prayer, from the Rev. Mr.
Morgan, Vicar of one of the parishes of Galway.
Earl GROSVENOR presented a petition from
Chester, against the East India Company's Mono-
poly ; and another from the lead miners of Flintshire,
for teprotecting duty on foreign lead.
Lord GODERICH presented a petition from car-
_tain brewers of Surrey for the removal of existing
restrictions.

.COMPOSITION FOR TITHES.
Lord DURHAM referred to a measure upon the
table, called the Tithe Composition Bill, which had
been brought in by a Right Rev. Prelate. He
wished to know when, after a pause of several
.weeks, it was intended to propose the second read-
ing; and he gave notice that whether it went
through that stage in this Session or the next, he
would move that the whole question be referred to
a Select Committee, as he did not think such a Bill
`ought to emanate from parties so deeply interested.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, that
.having brought in the Bill, it was not his intention
to press it in the present Session. He should,
-therefore, merely suggest that it. should be read a
second time, pro .forma, and then committed, that
certain amendments might be introduced.
Lord KING contrasted the preamble of the Bill
with that of the Irish Tithe Composition Bill,
which expressly declared that it would be expe-
dient to extend the principle only to Ireland. He
wished to know the reason for now finding it expe-
dient to extend the principle to England.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY repeated
'that he wished dig Bill to be read a second time
only pro forma.
The Earl of MALINIESBURY complained of
some of the provisions of the Bill, and especially of
the manner in which the laity were compelled, in
every instance, to pay the expence of a composition.
Lord DURHAM hoped that ample notice of the
second reading would be given.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY was anx-
ious to collect the opinion of the country upon the,
subject.
Lord HOLLAND warned the House that by
conseuting to the second reading pro forma, it
pledged itself to the principle of the Bill.
Lord GOWER presented two petitions from
Ross—one in favour of the Scotch Judicature Bill,
and the other against the duty on inventories.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented two
petitions from the Magistrates and Roman Catholics
of Galway, in favour of the Galway Franchise Bill.
GREECE.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY rose to
move for additional papers regarding Greece. He
complained of not having been treated with much
courtesy by the Noble Earl at the head of the
foreign department, and expressed his hope that the
Noble Duke (Wellington) would give him more
full and satisfactory information on, perhaps, the
most extraordinary diplomatic transaction in history.
The House would not fail to remember that the
Noble Earl had called the great event of the con-
sent of Turkey to the arrangements for Greece
" an insulated fact ;" and he hoped the House
would always bear this singular expression in mind.
The Noble Earl said that he could produce no let-
ters between Prince Leopold and himself prior to
the first communication in the papers upon the
table ;. but, nevertheless, it was clear that some-
faing had passed between them. He now begged
to put the same question to the Noble Duke. On
the 31st January the Noble Earl had warned
Prince Leopold against certain political advi-
sers, who would counsel him to a course
inconsistent wits the dignity of his 'character;
and yet, on the 9th February, Prince Leopold had
stated to the Duke of Wellington that he should not
ask the advice of any person until he had received an
answer to his letter, or before he had named to his
Grace the individual by whose judgment he should
like to be assisted. He (the Marquis of London-
derry) wished to know whether the Noble Duke
believed that assertion of Prince Leopold ? If he did
believe it, then lie must necessarily agree with him
(Lord Londonderry) that the letter of the Noble
Earl, on the 31st January—asserting, in the strongest
terms, that Prince Leopold had consulted political
a Ivisers—was not by any means warranted. He
hoped that the Noble Duke would give him an an-
swer whether he did or did not believe the statement
of Prince Leopold ? He also wished for some fur-
ther information on another part of the same letter
horn the Prince, in which his Royal Highness re-
ferred to the separation of Candia from Greece, and
observed, that " the hidden interest which caused
that separation to be determined upon, augured no
good to the new State. There was a further point
ill the papers, which required more explanation than
the Noble Earl had attempted to give, and before
lie adverted to the Protocol of the 12th July, 1827,
he would remark, that all the great treaties
were conducted by the five Great Powers of
Europe ; here, however, a new position was taken
up, and Austria and Prussia were for the first time
excluded from their share of weight and instru-
mentality. Surely it was of importance, neverthe-
less, that the opinions and wishes of those two
Powers should be ascertained and consulted, and
when the Protocol of the 12th of July, 1827, said
--" Vous pourriez d'ailleurs lc prouver, car les
Plenipotentiares d'Autriche et de Prune recevront
l'ordre de seconder vos denzarches, et cellos de vos
collegues de France et de Russie ; c'est dtc moins
l'ussurance gui nous est donnee"—he wished to
,know what the assurance was—in what form—and
to what :.'teat ? He afterwards saw no statement
of the positive opinions cf Auatria and Prussia upon
the subject, and for this reason he intended to move
for copies of all correspondence relating to that as-
surance alluded to in the Protocol of the 12th
of July. Ile thought it very important that
the House should be informed upon the subject, for
if his intelligence were correct, Austria, whom he
regarded especially as Puissance conservatrice of the
peace of Europe, entertained an opinion the
veep opposite of what was implied by. the Pro-
tocol. It seemed unaccountable that she
should have been so kept in the back ground,
or perhaps kept herself there; she seemed
to have put the Noble• Earl forward, and to be con-
tented to pull the wires, as if she thought the whole
transaction disgraceful, and she would not personally
appear in it. This was a species of policy hardly
justifiable at any time, and Great Britain had fallen
into it by the endeavour of her Ministers to steer too
near the opinions of various preceding statesmen,
without having any decided straight-forward course
of their own; first, they had guided themselves by
the opinions of his lamented and illustrious relative
—next, by the opinions of Mr. Canning—and lastly
by the notions of some other statesmen whom they
were willing to follow. The effect was to paralyse
everything, and Great Britain, instead of being the
star by which all other States steered, had sunk into
a second rate power, and was obliged to submit to
the dictation of those to whom once she had dictated.
He was sorry to trouble the House again at such
length, but information was necessary, and notwith-
standing the Noble Earl's assertion that he was so
ready to give it, he had withheld it on several ma-
terial points. How could the Noble Earl defend
the expression he had used with reference to Prince
Leopold without further papers ? How could lie
explain the manner in which Austria and Prus,ia
had been deprived of all participation regarding
Greece, without further palms ? Ho hoped that