The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-18 00:00:00

The LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN presented a peti-
tion, signed by 900 of the citizens of Dublin, praying for
the abolition of capital punishments as being opposed to
the- spirit of Christianity; also petitions from spirit-
dealers in places in Tipperary and Queen's County
praying for a drawback of the duty on spirits in bond.
Lord RENDLESHAM presented a petition from
Suffolk complaining of agricultural distress.
Colonel LINDSAY presented a petition from Wigan
against the Factory A,a.
Sir M. CHOLMEMY presented :a petition from
a place in Lincolnshire praying the House to pass a
Bill for the better suppression of female prostitution;
also a petition from Louth in favour of the Marriage
Bill.
Mr. WYLD presented a petition from a body of Irish
colliers praying that the House would establish a Go-
vernment inspection of mines.
Mr. G. THOMPSON presented a petition praying
for the abolition of church rates.
Lord NAAS presented a petition from the manufac-
turers of spirits in the county of Mayo praying for
an alteration in the laws regarding bonded spirits in
Ireland.
The O'GORMAN MAHON presented a petition
from the town of Ennis to a similar effect.
Mr. MONSELL presented a petition from the Union
of Brough complaining of deficiency of church accommo-
dation for the Roman Catholics of that district.
Mr. B. OSBORNE presented a petition from Dr. Reid
stating that his plans for the ventilation of the New
House had been misrepresented, and a great national
work injured in consequence, and praying that he might
be allowed to state the facts of the case.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY presented a petition from the
tailors of London praying fur an inquiry into the griev-
ances of their trade.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from a person in
London against the Government Savings Bank Bill,
and praying that some competent authority might be
appointed to consider the subject of savings banks.
Mr. GROGAN presented a petition from Dublin
against the abolition of the office of Lord-Lieutenant.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the House at its rising
should adjourn until Thursday next. He proposed to
go into Committee of Supply on Thursday next, and to
take votes on the navy estimates; and he also proposed
to take other votes oa Friday.
Mr. HUME suggested that Monday would be a more
convenient day to go into Committee of Supply.
AFFAIRS OF GREECE.

RECALL OF THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR.
Mr. DISRAELI said, it having been officially an-
nounced that the Ambassador of the French Republic
bad been recalled from the Court of St. James's, and that
that recall had been occasioned by conduct on the
part of her Majesty's Government, supposed to be
derogatory to the honour of the French Republic, he
trusted her Majesty's Government would feel the expe-
diency of communicating to the House the causes of an
incident of such grave importance.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said all he could at present state
in reply to the lion. Gentleman was that the Minister
of Foreign Affairs for the French Republic informed
Lord Normanby, that, in consequence of what he con-
sidered misconduct on the part of the British Govern-
ment, he thought it necessary to recall the
French Ambassador. M. Drouyn de l'Huya had been
sent here, in order to settle the affairs of Greece,
and negotiations having terminated, or rather
failed, it was necessary that the Ambassador
who had been sent for that purpose should be recalled.
He could only add that he regretted that any ill-feeling
should exist on the part of the French Government, be-
cause there had been on the part of her Majesty's
Government every wish to I.sten to the representations
of the Government of France with respect to the affairs of
Greece, and he had hoped that the intervention of Baron
Gros, the French negotiator in Greece, would have
been successful, and they wore ready to afford every
facility to bring the affairs to a conclusion by
means of the good offices of France. Baron
Gros had, for what reason he could not imagine,
given up his mission on the 27th of April, and thus
put an abrupt termination to all negotiations on the
part of France. But had he waited in Greece until the
dispatches were received from this country, which ar-
rived almost immediately afterwards, no doubt the
matter might have been arranged, and any unpleasant
misunderstanding pre►ented.
Sir J. WALSH said it was a matter of no-
toriety that the document recalling the French Am-
bassador was read by tho Minister for Foreign
Affairs in the French Assembly, who stated he
had requested a copy of it to be sent to the
British Government, and he wished to know whether
that document bed been communicated to the Govern-
ment, and was i❑ their possession when Lord Palmerston
answered a question yesterday on the affairs of Greece?
Lord J. RUSSELL said no copy of that letter was re-
ceived by the Government.
Mr. ROEBUCK wished that there should be no mis-
understanding upon this ►erious subject.—(Hear, hoar.)
It might be presumed, from the explanation of the Noble
Lord, that some blame attached to the French Minister,
fur a breach of duty in not obeying the instructions con-
tained in the letter from his own Government. because,
in the letter which the Foreign Minister of France
read to the French National Assembly, there
was a statement that the contents of that letter
were to be communicated to the British Government
through the Foreign Secretary of the country.—(Hear,
hear.) Now what he wished to ask the Noble Lord was,
simply, was the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign
Department familiar with the contents of this letter
when he made his explanation yesterday ?—(Cheers.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said there were two modes
of making a diplowatic communication to the Foreign
Minister, either by reading the dispatch which an am-
bassador had received from his Government to the
Foreign Minister himself, or by leaving a copy of it for
him at his official residence.—(ol), oh.) The last mode
was usually alopted—(Ob, oh)—but in this instance
that practice had been departed from—(oh, oh) —end
no copy of the dispatch was left with his Noble Friend,
though it was made known to him.—(oh, oh.)
Sir J. WALSH must trouble the Noble Lord again.
Was be to understand that although a copy of the dis-
patch was not formally lodged with the Noble Lord the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, yet when the Noble Lord
made his explanation yesterday he was in full possession
of the contents of the dispatch.—(Cheers.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied—No• doubt the
French Ambassador read to my Noble Friend the dis-
patch which he received from his own Government in
France—(Chears)—but, at the same time, M. Drouyn de
I'fluys accompanied the reading of it with such obser-
vations and explanations which he thought proper to
make during a long interview which followed.—(Ob.)
Mr. C. ANSTEY—Perhaps the Noble Lord will
allow me to take this opportunity of putting another
question to him on this subject. In consequence of what
has taken place in this affair, may the Marquis of Nor-
manby be soon expected in this country ?—(Cheers.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to reply
that no orders had been sent out for the Noble Marquis's
return.—(Oh, oh.)
The subject then dropped.
BURDENS ON LAND.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to know if it was the
intention of Government to bring forward any measure
this session for a reductio❑ or equalisation of the bur-
dens that now press upon the cultivation of land in the
country.
Lord JOAN RUSSELL was understood to reply in
the negative.

ESTIMATES.
Mr. HUME would be glad to know if the Noble
Lord proposed to take the estimates on Thursday, be-
cause at present it was his (Dlr. Hume's) intention to
go out of town for a week.—(Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said it . was advisable that the
motion should be made for going into Supply
on Thursday, to afford Government and the
House an opportunity of entering into any explanation
that might be necessary on the important subject which
had just dropped.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI hoped the papers relatinc, to the
Greek transaction would be laid on the table before
Thursday.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not propose to enter into
any further explanation of the matter till the papers
were before the House.
Mr. COBDEN asked if the House was to understand
that the motion for Supply would be moved on Thursday,
for the purpose of discussing the question of Greece, or
did the Noble Lord really intend to proceed with the
estimates on that day?—(hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL proposed to go on with the
votes on Thursday.
Mr. E. DENISON asked what votes would be taken?
Lord J. RUSSELL said he proposed to take in regu-
lar order the naval estimates which were not concluded,
and then he should proceed with the miscellaneous esti-
mates.—(Hear, hear.)
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS AND THE

BISHOP OF
EXETEHOUSE. Sir BENJAMIN HALL said, it appearing by the
second report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioner:, P. 11,
that on the sth day of August, 1845, and the 2
th,,l
d,o);
of May, 1846, sums amounting to 3,000/.
were paid
altering and improving the house at Exeter," he begged
to ask Lord John Russell whether any further sum has
been advanced for a similar purpose;
if so, the date
when advanced, and the amount, and by
what authority such sums were advanced; whether any
account has been rendered to the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners of the manner in which those sums have been,
expended, and, if so, the date of such account, and when
it was rendered.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who was almost inaudible
in the gallery, was understood to say, that by orders of
Council, dated in August, 1845, and May, 1a46, a sum
amounting to 5001., and not 3,000/, had been-advanced.
for that purpose. That sum was advanced out of a sum
of money, the dividends of which the Bishop of Exeter
war entitled to draw.

INCOMES OF THE ARCHBISHOPS AND
itvhl
BISHOPS.
Sir B. HALL asked Lord John Russell, whether,
when the Ecclesiastical Commissioners last revisede e
incomes of the Archbishops and Bishops, they received
from them a detailed account of their incomes from lands,
fines, rents, and all other sources, for the purpose of show-
ing the gross income, and whether, in order to show the
net income, the Archbishops and Bishops gave in under
different heads the several items of expenditure; and, if
not, upon what data the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
fixed the sums that should be paid into the Episcopal
Fend from the richer sees, and the sums that should
be paid from that fund to the poorer sees; and whether
the Commissioners will make a ~return of the data upon
which such revision was founded. Whether the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners had, or have since, received full
and particular accounts of the property belonging to the
several sees, the mode in which such property is leased,