The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-02-26 00:00:00

FRIDAY,

Petitions were presented;—for the abolition of Negro Slavery, from
_places in Montgomeryshire and Denbighshire, by .Lord Dinorben ;
from Paddington, and Battersea, by the Bishop of London; from
.Perth, by Lord Suffield ; from two different places in Nortampton-
shire, by the Earl of Oxford; for the better observance of the Sab-
bath, from-Inverness, by the Earl of Saltoun.
Mr. Bernal, and other members from the Commons, presented to
their lordships the report of the select Committee of the Commons,
which had been appointed to consider of the better observance of the
Lord's day, together with the evidence,adduced on the subject.

RBANCES (IRELAND) SUPPRESSION BILL.
Earl GREY moved the order of the day for the third reading►
of the above bill.

Lord TEYNHAM said he should strongly protest against this
bill, as a gross infringement of the constitutional Union of
England and Ireland. It was a measure which he deeply de-
plored, and he believed that ministers (as honest ministers, he
admitted, as ever this country saw,) in bringing forward such a
bill were acting under some unaccountable delusion or other.
The Earl of WESTNIORELAND said, that after the statement
made by the noble earl (Grey) on a former evening there could
be little doubt of the necessity of passing into a law the bill ad-
verted to by the noble lord who had just addressed the house.
He only regretted that the bill had not been left entirely to the
ministers to arrange, without any alteration whatever being
proposed by noble lords. He thought that his Majesty's mi-
nisters were deserving the thanks of the loyal people of Eng-
land and Ireland, for bringing forward this measure, nay, the
poor deluded people of Ireland ought to be most thankful for
this measure being carried into effect. Ou his own part, and
op the part of those colleagues with whom he had been for so
many years in the habit of acting during the reign of the late
king George 111., he returned his Majesty's ministers his most
hearty thanks.
The bid was then read a third time and passed.
CHANGE OF VENUE BILL.

Earl GREY rose to move the second reading of a bill intitled

" An Act to provide for the more impartial' Trial of Offences
-sin- certain places in Ireland." The noble earl said this bill
rested upon the same grounds as that which had just been pas-
se& viz. the disturbed state of Ireland. All such measures as
this must rest upon the necessity of the case. (Bear, hear.)
On that ground alone he rested his application for this measure.
ile must add, however, that he had never executed a more
painful duty than that.which was now imposed upon him by the
necessity arising. out of the state of Ireland. 'this bill was in-
tended to give power to change the venue to the neighbouring
county, or to Dublin. The history of Ireland unfortunately
furnishes them with many precedents for a bill like this. The
,11th and 12th of George the Third referred to all the acts upon
the subject? and it was singular that at that time precisely the
same species of offences were enumerated as the reasons for
those acts now prevailing, viz. attacking houses for arms,
the infliction of severe bodily punishnient upon those
who resisted the daring violations of the law, the threats
to .compel the relinquishment of leases, and above all,
he offences arising out of tithes. In the &h section of
the: act, the. intimidation of jurors was referred to as ren-
dering necessary the change of the venue. (Hear, hear.)
In that act; the venue could wily be changed to Dublin,
whereas, in the bill before the house, it might be changed if
iraciici,ble to the adjoining county. Another improvement in
this 101 l upon the former enactment was, that the venue could
only be changed by the Court of King's Bench at the instance
of the Attorney General, or of the person accused. (Hear, hear.)
With respect to the duration of the bill, it was limited to the
same period as that which had' just passed their lordship's
house. The noble earl concluded by moving that the bill be
read a secowl time.
The Earl of WICKLOW said there was but one point on which
he differed from the noble earl, namely, the duration of the bill
for one year. Ile thought it should be made permanent.
Lore. EL LEM:WWI:GiI observed, both sides seemed to wish
(hut this restrictive measure should be removed, as soon as the
necessity for its .existence should cease. (Hear, hear.) Ile
was Ezi;tiried that much of the crime in Ireland had grown out
..l the koling that lawlessness had been permitted for a long
time, and when at last it was punished, it was punished with
vindictive severity.
Earl GREY said, with respect to the duration of the bill, he
thought it necessary to give the subject some consideration.
'hie Dial) CHANcuttort agreed with his noble friend (Earl
Greq that it would not be advisable, without experience, to
make this bill permanent. He agreed with the noble earl
(Vs is low) ;n many of his sentiments, but this bill, along with
the measure, with respect to Ireland, set out upon the
assuglition that it was only the extraordinary state of Ireland
thaticouic have Tendered the bringing ri,trwai,d of the nif:asure