The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-08 00:00:00

)Empttiai Varliattunt.
HOUSE OF LORDS.

MONDAY, MARCH
4.
NEGRO SLAVERY.

Petitions, praying for the abolition of negro slavery, were
presented by Lord King from Scoresby and Wedmore ; the
Marquess of Lansdowne from Ware; Earl Grey from New-
castle-on-Tyne, Doncaster, Weffingten ana its vicinity; and
by the Earl of Roden from Enniskillen, from the Scotch pres-
bytery of Newcastle-on-Tyne, and from the Protestant dis-
senters of Mallow.

VIOLATION OF THE SABBATH.
Petitions, on this subject, were presented -by the Earl of
Roseberry from Linlithgow; the Bishop of Bangor from Bit-
lington , the Bishop of Loudon from Islington, Guildford, the
dissenting congregation of the Spicer-street chapel, St. Alban's,
and two parishes in the counties of Yorkshire and Berkshire;
Lord Cawdor from a parish in the county of Mayo; the Earl of
Denbigh from Ayrshire; Lord Wharnchffe from Sheffield; and
the Earl of Roden from the presbytery of Aberdeen, from two
parishes in the counties of Haddington and Cork, from the
clergymen of Chinuock, Somersetshire, and from the justices
of the peace of Kirkintillock.
BEER SHOPS.

The Bishop of Bristol presented a petition from the city.of
Bristol against these establishments; and the Bishop of Bath
and Wells another from Taunton on the subject of the increas-
ing demoralization of the poor.
Petitions were also presented by Lord Amherst from the
parish of St. George, Hanover-square, complaining of the
charge of the new police; by the Earl of Roseberry on the
subject of church patronage in Scotland; and by
.Lord Clon-
curry from a parish in Galway, praying that the Irish coercive
bill might not be passed; for the abolition of tithes, and for the
estlablishment of a provision for the destitute poor of Ireland,
TUESDAY.

the Earl of ABOYNE presented a petition from a congrega-
tion in Perth for the better observance of the Sabbath.
The Bishop of DURHAM presented a similar petition from
Sunderland, and from the superintendents of a -Sunday school
at Newcastle.
The Bishop of-BaisToL, in presenting a-petition from a place
in :Dorsetshire on the same subject, took occasion to observe,
that the petition which he had presented ou Monday last was
not only against the new beer-shops, but also for the better ob-
servance of the Sabbath. The subject of the new Beer Act had
been adverted to in that petition as -one of the predisposing
causes of the prevailing profanation of the Sabbath.
Lord KING presented a petition against the coercive mea-
sures for Ireland, signed by the inhabitants of ten parishes in
the county of Cork. The noble lord also presented a petition
which, he observed, was very respectfully-worded, but of which
the prayer was rather peculiar. The petitioner prayed their
lordships to appoint a committee to inquire into the distress of
the country, and professed himself ready to give information on
the subject.
Viscount LORTON presented a petition from (we understand)
a portion of the shopkeepers of the city of London, for the bet--
ter observance of the Sabbath.
The Earl of Uxuaincsipresented a similar petition from the
city of Worcester. ,
The Earl of HARRoWBY presented similar petitions from
Stanton and Sandon.
The Marquess of WESTMEATH moved for some returns con-
nected with the records of the Court of King's Bench, Dublin.
The LOUD CHANCELLOR opposed the motion on the ground
of the inconvenience which would result to the court from the
voluminous-mature Of the copies which would have to be made
from the records. The copying Moue, the noble and learned
iki
lord observe , would occupy rive or six months, during all which
time the bu loess of the court must of necessity be suspended,
as the copies ust be made in the presence of the Lord Chief
Justice. He advised the noble marquess to postpone his motion
until further inquiry should be made on the subject, in order
the better to ascertain its necessity.
The Marquess of WESTMEATH (we understood) acceded to this
proposition, but the whole of the conversation which passed be-
tween the noble marquess and the Lord Chancellor was so indis-
tinctly-heard in-the-gallery that we fear some inaccuracies-may
have crept into even the abode short description.
The Earl of RODEN said he had a petition to present in
which a noble lord opposite. (Viscount Clifden) was alluded to,
and which was deserving of the particular attention of the
house. It had not been' his intention to trouble the house with
any observations on the subject of the petition, nor should he
have done so had he not heard reports out f doors, which
went to charge their lordships with indecently hurrying through
the' house the coercive bill which was lately before them.
Having, he said, heard these reports, he conceived it to be a
duty incumbent on him to bring forward any circumstances
which would prove to their lordships and to the country how
false and malicious those charges were, by showing that the
government were bound to extend protection to the peaceable
portion of the Irish community, with as little delay as possible.
When he first heard these slanderous reports he felt indignant,
because he well knew what were their 'lordships' feelings in
passing the bill now under consideration in the other house of
parliament. He could not help thinking that persons who had
propagated those reports were persons who cared not for the
comfort or happiness of their fellow-creatures in Ireland,-were
totally ignorant of the real condition of that country, and who
had some sinister motive in keeping up agitation in that
country; nor would they be satisfied until they had effected a
complete separation of the legislative union, and a tolal des-
truction of the Protestant interest, religion, and population in
Ireland. Under these circumstances, therefore, he felt it his
duty to-read the contents of the -petition, --which, -though-not-
very long, was yet pithy enough. It was from a shopkeeper of
New Ross, iu the county of 'Wexford, named William Strong-
bow Everet, who had obtained a lease of some land from Duff
Clifden in 1826. On the 12th of May last, he received a
threatening notice, and in the course of the following June,
his house was attacked and his property destroyed. In one
part of the petition it was stated that the petitioner had a large
family of daughters, one of whom he sent to 'a school kept by
a lgrs. Proud, about a mile distant from New Ross. Soon
after notice was sent to the school, declaring that if the girl
were not immediately sent- away, the entire family of the
sch.oolmistress.would be murdered The petitioner, in conclu-
sion, stated that since the attack he had not been able to pro-
cure assistance of any labourers to repair his -losses, owing to
the system of intimidation which was in force, and he therefore
besought the house to take his case into consideration and
afford him protection. Such was the state of things (the noble
earl continued) which rendered the bill indispensably necessary
—a bill called coercive, because it coerced conspiracies such as
that alluded to in the petition, and protected peaceful industry.
He would always say that the ministry had acted most wisely
and judiciously in brin,,,eing forward that measure. He be-
lieveci, from- infonnationle had received from Ireland since it
bad passed through their lordships' house, that it had also met
with the approbation of almost ail classes there,. notwithstand-
ing its coercive character; and to no class had t given greater
satisfaction than to the farmers of Ireland, who, under the ex-
isting system of intimidation, led the most wretched life of any
persons on the face of the globe. Ile trusted the bill would
come back to their lordship? house in the shape in which they
had left it.

Lord CLIFDEN said he could corroborate all the statements
made by the petitioner, but the case detailed by Mr. Everet was
trivial in comparison with, many others that occurred in Ire-
land. He would instance one :—Seven or eight years ago he
had occasion to change three of his tenants, and put their suc-
cessors into slated houses. About three months ago the villains
who were turned out, aided by others, made an attack upon the
houses, and attempted to break in. Into the first they were ad-
mitted by a boy, and they immediately shot the tenant dead and
burnt the crop; into the second they were not able to effect an
entrance,-but they burnt the crop and cattle attached to it; the
third they attacked, and the tenant died in consequence of the
alarm and agitation into which he was thrown. 'What did he
(Lord Cliftleu) direct to be done, under these circumstances ?
He ordered the land, about 200 plantation acres, thus left
tenantless, to be laid waste' • and this he was determined to do
in every similar case, for he would rather submit to have his
whale estate laid waste than allow any of those wretches who
spread such ruin and desolation over their country to possess
it. If every landed proprietor in Ireland were to act in that
way, he thought the wicked system of terrorism would be-effec-
tually counteracted. They were all bound to resist that sys-
tem. He had received that day a letter' from a man in busi-
ness in Ireland, in which the dreadful consequences of the sys-
tem he had alluded to were pointed out. The writer said ttat
the farmers were in many parts of the country afraid to go to
bed at night, and that all around presented but one scene of
agitation and terror. The very tribute—the voluntary tribute,
forsooth—was even collected under the same influence. In
short; there was a standing' committee-of mischief in Dublin.
(Hear, hear.) He was convinced that -tbe people of Ireland
would gratefully thank.hii-Majesty's ministers for introducing
the - measure, and believed that those who basely declared.
4ainst it privately acknowledged its necessity.
The Marquess ofAVESYsinATir said that, in his opinion, dis-
tress was not the 'immediate cause of the disturbances in Ire-
land, but that they arose; in a 'great measure, from a spirit of
s beer wickedness. 'He 'agreed with the' noble lord who had
just sat down, that .there existed-in Dublin a standing com-
mittee of mischief.

The Earl of ROSEBEICY presented a petition from Edinburgh
(we believe) for the better observance of the Sabbath.
'l'he ➢Marquess of GuOLIJONDF.Luir presented a similar petition
from Pontypool.—Adjourned.

110 USE Or etaIVIITIONS.
MONDAY, MARCH 4.
The Speaker took the chair at a quarter•past twelve o'clock,
when 51r. Lyall presented himself at the table, and took the
oaths and his seat as oue.of the qepresentatives of -the city of
Loudon.