The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-16 00:00:00

Olte-ning _Suit

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1845.

The Lords met at Five o'clock.
Lord STANLEY, in answer to Lord MONTEAGLE, said
that it was the intention of the Government to introduce
several amendments into the Landlords and Tenants Bill,
but that they did not intend to press it forward this

session.
Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from Mr. HARLOW
and his attorney, Mr. HARBIN, who had been committed
for a breach of privilege on the previous evening, ex-
pressing their contrition and their willingness to discon-
tinue the action which had been brought against THOMAS
BAKER. The Noble and Learned Lord then moved that
they should be discharged on payment of the fees, which
was agreed to, and they were discharged accordingly.
The Lotteries Bill passed through Committee.
The Earl of CLARENDON then brought forward the
motion of which he had given notice, on the subject of
the existing commercial treaties with Spain, and con-
tended that, according to those treaties, it was clear
that Spanish colonial produce ought to be permitted to
be imported into this country on the same footing as the
produce of the most favoured nations. The Noble Earl
concluded by formally moving the resolution to that
effect, of which he had previously given notice.
The Earl of ABERDEEN, in reply, said that Spain
had never, until recently, placed this construction on
:he treaty, and instanced several cases in which Spain
had refused to admit British produce on the footing of
the most favoured countries, and in which, when Great
Britain had admitted the produce of Portugal and
France on more favourable terms than the produce of
Spain, the Spanish Government had not remonstrated.
The Earl of RODEN supported the motion.
The Earl of CLARENDON replied, and on a division
the motion was rejected by a majority of 14, the numbers
being—for the mo ion 14, against it 28.
The Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and
their Lordships adjournerl.
The Commons met at Twelve.
The Turnpike Acts 13.1 l passed through Committee.
The Loan Societies Bill was read a third time.
The Highway Rates Bill passed through Committee.
The Huns:" then went into Committee on the Lunatic
Asylum Bill.
Oa the clause nominating the Commissioners being put,
Mr. T. DuNcomuE moved the omission of the names
of the unpaid, or, as he called them, the amateur Com-
missioners.

The amendment was opposed by Lord ASHLEY and
Sir J. GRAHAM, and rejected by a majority of 39, the
numbers being—for the amendment 6, against it 45.
air. T. DUNcoMBE again divided the Committee
on the clause awarding 1,500/. a year as the salary of
the paid Commissioners. Ile moved that 1,0001. a year
should be the salary. On a division the numbers were—
for the amendment, 7 ; against it, 31 ; majority against
the amendment, 24.
The HON. GENTLEMAN took another division on the
clause itself, when there appeared—for the clause, 31 ;
against it, 10 ; majority in favour of the clause, 21.
Clauses up to 4 were agreed to, and the House re-

sumed.
At the five o'clock sitting,
Sir ROBERT PEEL fixed the consideration of the Scotch
Poor-law Bill for Thursday next, and Sir J. GRAHAM
said the vote for National Education in Ireland would
be taken on Friday.
In answer to Mr. LABOUCHERE, Sir R. PEEL stated
his belief that the report that the Brazilian Chambers
had passed a law prohibiting the importation of British
cottons, unless the differential duties on the importation
of Brazilian sugars into this country should be done
away with, was unfounded.
Lord PALMLRSTON then rose for the purpose of direct-
ing the attention of the House to the correspondence
which bad recently taken place between the Duke of
SOTOMAYOR and the Earl of ABERDEEN, on the subject of
the claim of Spain to have her colonial produce admitted
to this country, on the same footing as the produce of
the most favoured nation. The Noble Lord concluded
a very eloquent speech by moving that the House
should present an address to the Crown on the question
of the Spanish claim.
A lengthened discussion followed, in the course of
which the House was addressed by Mr. GLADSTONE,
Mr. LABOUCHERE, the ATTORNEY - GENERAL, Mr,
BARING, Sir G. CLERK, and Mr. BARELY,
And on a division, the motion was negatived by a
majority of 88.
After disposing of the other orders rf the day, the
House adjourned at half-past Two o'clock.

A privilege question again engages the attention of
Parliament, and comes before the House of Lords under
circumstances well calculated to exemplify the vast im-
portance of the considerations which are sure to be in-
volved in them. It seems to be the fate of this class of
cases, in nine instances out of ten, to be raised upon
circumstances which are of themselves trivial in the in•
verse ratio of the issues which immediately depend upon,
or may be immediately determined by, them. The mo-
mentous character of these results, whether contingent
ur direct, every one seems capable of estimating. It ap-
pears to be allowed, with scarcely a dissentient voice,
that Parliament, which originates, digests and declares,
promulgates and repeals, the laws, should hare certain
powers intrinsic, as it sere, and inherent in its own con-
stitution, to modify the application of those laws, wher-
ever their literal enforcement, under exigencies either
unforeseen, or of sufficiently corisidered, where such en •
fore( nient might compromise the independent action of
its legislative functions. It is easy to see at a glance to
how vast an extent any crippling or interruption
of these functions may endanger the public wel-
fare. But it will be difficult beforehand to
particularise in detail the points which would be thus
peril:ed. These, in the nature of things, must be inde-
terminate until the specific exigencies arise which deve-
lap and illustrate them. On the other hand, the rights
or property which the exercise of the inherent privileges
of which we speak, by Parliament, may affect or disturb,
are generally of the simplest and most universal charac-
ter. These are such as there is little or no difficulty,
irrespective of the considerations of privilege, in establish-
ing. Lord BROUGHAM made a ma-terly speech
in soma respects, but still it seems singular that
a man so astute, and a lawyer withal, should
be so forward to abandon and sacrifice the first, as if so to
dispose of them were the only means of maintaining the
latter. The Learned Lord argued on Monday night, in the
discussion on the case of Hannow v. BAKER, as if the sole
and inevitable result of the House of Lords, inhibiting
lIARLOW from further proceedings in an action brought
by him against BAKER for certain passages in BAKER'S
evidence before a Select Committee of their Lordships'
House, reflecting upon the character of BAKER, must
be to put BAKER as much out of the pale of civil and
legal rights and protection as if he were a Brahmin
of high caste about to be degraded into a
Pariah. Now, what was the case ? Examined
by the LORD CHANCELLOR, HARLOW admitted that he
had brought an action against THOMAS BAKER for false
and malicious language used by BAKER in speaking of
him, the said HARLOW, in giving evidence before the
Select Committee in the House of Lords on the laws
respecting gaming. HARLOW stated that he had suffered
much since that evidence was printed from being pointed
out as a gambler ; but that when he brought his action
against BAKER he did not know that he was thereby
committing a breach of the privileges of Parliament.
But it should seem that Mr. PETER HARDWIN, his pro-
fessional adviser and attorney, did. BAKER, of course,
appealed to the House by petition for its protection, and
we are at a loss to conceive how the House of Lords