The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1845-07-22 00:00:00

finprrial VarTiament.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—MONDAY.
The Irish Colleges Bill was read a first time.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR,

John Harlow, of 16, Leicester-square, was called in
and examined. He said he had brought an action for
false and malicious language used in giving evidence be-
fore a committee of this house. In consequence of that
language he had been pointed at as a gambler, and consi-
derably injured in his business. He was aware that a
complaint had been made that it was a breach of privi-
lege. He was not aware that it was a breach of privilege
at the time the action was commenced, and hoped that
their lordships would allow him the privilege of proceed-
ing with the action.

Peter Taite Harbin, of 12, Clement's-inn, attorney,
confirmed Harlow's statement.

itnessts having withdrawn,

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that John Harlow
had been guilty of a breach of the privilege of the house.
Lord BROUGHAM, in an able speech, contended that
both houses sought far greater power than they had a
right to. This was the first time their lordships had been
called upon to stop an action lawfully commenced in a
court of law, for injuries alleged to have been sustained
by one of the Queen's subjects.
The LORD CHANCELLOR having replied, John Harlow
was committed to the custody of the Black Rod, as was
also the attorney.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY

In reply to a question from Mr. HAWES,
Mr. HOPE said that despatches had arrived to the 25th
of March, from New Zealand, which corroborated the
statements in the daily papers as to an attack having
been made on the settlers, which was decidedly of an
insurrectionary character. The hon. gentlernal stated
the particulars of the occurrence, which led to a loss of
/3 killed and 23 wounded on the part of the English,
and a considerable, though unasc,...rtained, amount on the
part of the natives.

HOUSE OF LORDS-TUESDAY

Lord STANLEY said it was not his intention to proceed
with the Irish Tenants Compensation Bill this Session.
The Earl of CLARENDON then rose to move his re-
solution relative to the sugars of Cuba and Porto Rico ;
in doing which he assured the house that he was not
actuated by party motives, but solely by a wish to pre-
serve the national character unsullied. It was well known
that the Duke of Sotomayor had claimed that sugars of
the islands in question should be placed on the same
footing as those of Venezuela ; and that he had supported
this claim by a reference to various treaties, and amongst
others to that of Utrecht, which stipulated that the
subjects of Gieat Britain and Spain respectively should
be treated as the most favoured nations. Nothing, he
thought, could be more explicit than the terms of those
treaties, and which he was bound to say Spain herself had
most scrupulously observed ; yet the Earl of Aberdeen
asserted that they had no force, because it was agreed by
a treaty in 1679 that the subjects of neither country
should trade to their respective possessions in the West
Indies. Now, even admitting that this treaty was not
annulled by that of Utrecht in 1713, be was prepared to
show that though the letter of the treaties might be the
same, the altered circumstances of the two nations were
.estriction specified bad fallen into disuse,
more than a century past had never been
s takiir, a stand on the dead letter of a

as quibbling in its worst form, and would be
-couted in a private transaction. The noble earl
!d by moving his resolution, to the effect that the
of Spain and her colonies should be admitted on
s as that of the most favoured nations.

same t

The Earl of ABERDEEN was quite as strongly impressed
with the necessity of adhering scrupulously to the en-
gagement of treaties as the Earl of Clarendon could be,
but he could not help suspecting that very little would
have been heard of this Spanish claim, bad it not been for
the general policy of the government on the Sugar Ques-
tion. He was astonished to hear the statement that
Spain had always observed these ancient treaties, for in
the course of his experience he had met with nothing on
the part of that country but a denial of their v lidity. It
-- in the case of the family compact between France
,ain, and in many other instances, where Spain had
..ed the rights of British merchants founded on these
y treaties. It was in vain to refer to the letter of these
reaties, the question must be decided by the constant
practice of each nation ; and as Spain had repeatedly re-
bide by the obligations in issue, such also bad
nvariable practice of England. By the argu-
he Earl of Clarendon, Spain might claim the
is for her ships as would be granted to those of
apposing we made a treaty of reciprocity with
try; but of course she could never think of
Lch a demand, because she imposed heavy dis.
g duties on our shipping. This, he thought,
e against the claim lately made by the Spanish
Of late years various treaties of reciprocity
'e of being concluded with various
, and yet not a word had been said about this
claim till it had been found convenient to urgc.it
rd to sugar. The noble lord then remarked PE-
‘le distinction between persons and produce
'seen treated with such ineffable contempt, and
'he stipulations in the treaties named were

fused to a
been the i
ment of t

criminati

minister.
bad been

the ev,

specting tl
which had
showed th

sonal privileges, and had no reference to
goods, except as connected with persons possessing them.
The Earl of Clarendon replied, and his resolution was
negatived by a majority of 14.

really fo

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY.
I,IkIERSTON brought forward, in a long and
ech, attacking generally the whole policy of
:cept their concessions to Popery, a similar
t of Lor

LORD P

discursi
Ministe
motion •

Mr. GLADSTONE

Clarendon in the House of Lords.
iteredlinto a minute and critical re-

view of each or' the twelve different commercial iWailes
which the government of England has concluded with the
Government of Spain during the last 200 years, and of the
commercial practice which has grown up under them, for
the purpose of showing that it was unwarranted and almost
extravagant to state that the treaties on which Lord Pal-
merston had rested the claims of Spain, had now complete
existence. He did not mean that those treaties were
annulled altogether, but he showed that, whatever those
treaties might be, they were distinguished in many im-
portant particulars from the other treaties which stood on
the list of our engagements. Accompanying the treaty of
1783, which consolidated into one treaty all the previous
ones between the two countries, were the declarations of
the two negotiators who signed it ; and the declaration of
the British negotiator made distinction between personal
privileges and commercial regulations, for which the Bri-
tish Government now contended. What, then, became
of the " pettifogging village attorney's argument," on
which Lord Palmerston had rested so much weight? He
showed that Mc. Pitt's tariff had established a low rate of
duty for various kinds of merchandise imported from
France ; and asked Lord Palmerston to explain how, if
Spain had a right to all the privileges of the most favoured
nation, she had then submitted, without remonstrance, to
the imposition of a higher rate of duties upon the same
description of commodities. He contended that the vari-
ous treaties between Spain and England did not stipulate
for the imposition of the minimum duty on the produce
of Spain imported into this country, but only for the per-
sonal advantage and benefit of the subjects of Spain who
traded within our dominions. He entered into several
nice and intricate dissertations on the course of our
former negotiations with Spain, and proceeded to main-
tain that, from the plain meaning of words, the evidence
of facts, and the absurd consequences which would follow
it, the construction which Lord Palmerston had put upon
the treaties could not be the correct one. Having gone
- -

..-.wense mass of details, which he had accu-
mulated from every quarter, and which l•e could have
' to a still greater extent, had he not been afraid
rig too long on the kindness of the house, he
'let he he had submitted an amount of proof
impossible to resist, for the purpose of de-
_.e—first, that Spain was not in a condition to
...such a demand as that which she had recently made
upon us ; secondly, that the treaties did not contain the
stipulations which Lord Palmerston had attributed to
them ; and, lastly, that laws and facts spreading them-
selves over a long period of history gave a direct contra-
diction to that construction which the noble Lord had
endeavoured, very unwisely, to foist upon them. He
therefore, called upon the house to resist the motion.

increas

of trespass

monstratir

___..,....
Lord PalmerstOn's motion was resisted by a majority
of 175 to 87.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY

THE JEWISH DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.
Sir ROBERT PEEL moved the second reading of the
Jewish Disabilities Removal Bill. The right hon. baronet
adverted to the fact that, under the Present existing law,
Jews could fill the situations of county magistrates and of
deputy lieutenants and sheriffs of counties, although they
were not permitted to hold municipal offices, owing to a
clause in the Act for the Repeal of the Test and Corpo-
ration Acts. While that Act was under consideration, he
(Sir Robert Peel) proposed a form of declaration to be
taken by all individuals elected to corporate offices, by
which they were found not to use the influence of such
offices for the purpose of injuring in any way the Estab-
lished Church. In that form there was nothing which
could be fairly objected to by a Jew; but in the House of
Lords their lordships had seen fit to introduce the words
—" On the true faith of a Christian." The law, however,
when passed, was so ambiguous on the point as to when
the declaration should be made, that its operation was
anything but uniform. It was decided by the Court of
Queen's Bench in one case, that it was not obligatory
that the declaration should be made on or before entering
upon office ; and acting upon this decision in Birmingham,
Southampton, Portsmouth, and other places, Jews held
municipal offices without having previously taken the de-
claration, and were subsequently held harmless by the
Annual Indemnity Act. In London, however, the law
was construed more strictly, and the corporation required
the declaration to be made before entering upon office. In
this way it was that Mr. Solonions, who had filled the
office of sheriff with so.much credit to himself, had been
deprived of the power of filling that of alderman, to which
be bad been elected by his fellow•citizens. The right
hon. baronet then dwelt upon the high character main-
tained by the Jewish merchants in London—their social
standing—their liberality,in contributing to public charities
without distinction of creed—their wealth and influence;
and contended that all these considerations entitled them
to the liberality of the house, and to the abolition of the
existing anomalous state of the law respecting them.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said the Jews regarded themselves,
not as a sect, but as a nation, and as such they were the
standing miracle of the world. the bill was therefore
equivalent to one for the naturalisation of a nation.
There was nothing in it to exclude a German Jew, for in-
stance, from exercising a municipal office, without having
previously taken the oaths of allegiance. The bill was, m
fact, but the precursor of a much larger measure, the ulti-
mate effect of which would be to destroy the Christian