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

THE S UN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 16, 1845. and most distinct manner under the attention of the House, it would be necessary shortly to recapitulate the circumstance which had led to this correspondence. It must be fresh in the remembrance of every body whom he then had the honour of addret.eing, that in the year 1841, her Majesty's late _ G , )v, , rnmesit thought it their duty to propose to Pdrlisincnt an alteration in the then existiog scale of sugar deities, believing that the change which they proposed to Par liament would tend to increase the revenue, and give addi- tional development to their commerce, and increase the sup ply of sugar, and reduce the price to the consumer, and add, c. tquentiv, to the comfort of the poorer classes of the corn tatnity. The party then in opposition deemed that proposal a fit!ing oceasiao to make trial of their strength. They raise:i a cry to the eoun , ry, and upon that cry they sought to tlr,ve the then Government from power. They stigmatised t'.e measure of the Government as calculated to give additional encouragement to the slave-trade and slavery. They suc ceeded in their opposition, and the Government of the day re signed their offices, and the present Government had not been in power long b fore they came to the same conclusion as that to abich the preceding Government had arrived, that it -would be to the interest of the country to increase the supply of sugar fir the consumption of the people. He (Lord Palmerston) was quite sAtistied if the Government had been free agents—if the}• had not been fettered by pledges. that they would have ymposad ineusures similar to those of the late Government. They were fettered by engagements. They, however, proposed a measure which might be regarded as a notable expedient. It was not a ,Taeasure like that of the late Government, calcu lated to largely increase the revenue, but it was a measure which would add slightly to the revenue, but not so much as to give alarm to the West India monopolists. The measure e at tip admit at a low duty foreign sugar the produce of free 1 theur, and continue at a high duty any sugar that was the pro duce of ,fare labour. They were told that this measure would fail, and that it would be impracticable. The Government was a l s o warned that there were treaties in existence with foreign powers, that we had treaties of commerce whereby the subjects of those powers were entitled to certain privileges in regard to goods and duties which were afforded to the most favoured nation. That warning, however, was treated very lightly. Thve was a treaty with the state of Venezuela, and that state claimed to be put on a footing with the most favoured nation, that they should be allowed to send sugars into this country on the same terms as Cuba, Java, and Mobile, and ether free-labour countries. This claim being admitted, next . . came the United States, who, having a treaty vrith this country, claimed the same advantage as Venezuela. Their claim was considered, and their sugars were at length admitted on the same terms as the sugar of Venezuela, Java, and the other countries that were entitled to the first privileges. Why, Sir, here were two great holes made in the system of the Govern- ment.—( Laugiter.) " Look ! in this place ran Cassius' dagger through: See what a rent the envious Casco. made." (Laughter.) At that time the " well-beloved Brutus" had nst yet dealt his deadly stab—(Laughter) ; but he was not slow in following the example.—( Hear, hear.) General Nervaea, the Spanish Minister, claimed the same for the Spanish colonies, through the Duke of Sotomayor, the Spanish Ambassador to this country, and a note was delivered by the latter to the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In a reply, in which the application contained in the note was argued, that Noble Lord refused to acknowledge the claim. He ( Lord Palmerston) was sure the Noble Lord never could have invented the aruments, yet he ( Lord Palmerston) could hardly conceive that they were the result of due delibe ration. He only regretted the too easy disposition of the Noble Lord, and considered that it might have prevented him giving that consideration to the question which its importance so much required. The letter which contained the answer was full of fallacies, not palpable fallacies, for those would be plain and easy, and seen at once, but fallacies that, nevertheless, a very little examination could detect and expose. Ile had carefully studied that letter, and would proceed to argue upon its construction. The argument in that letter was a curious illustration of what was called the legerdemain of logic—( Hear)—which was, as he understood it, where a party, in the course of an argument, skilfully slipped in some new word, or phrase, or expression, without the knowledge of his opponent, and then proceeded to erect a superstructure upon the whole, leading to a conclusion wholly different from that which would be otherwise arrived at, and from that which the premises warranted. The Noble Lerd then proceeded to canvass the treaties of 1667 and 1713, between this country and Spain, in which it was distinctly stated that the same privileges : rights, and liberties should be mutually enjoyed by the inhabitants of the :two eountries as by those of the most favoured nations. T imposition of treaties spoke distinctly of privileges as to the mposition of duties on merchandise, providing that each should enjoy the same advantages in this respect as the in habi'ants of the most favoured nation. They, them selves, had assented to the principle that the mode of manufacture was to be taken into consideration in the appli cation of imposts. English and Swedish iron was thus formerly taxed dissimilarly, until the anomaly had been exposed, and the taxation equalised on both. Was it not then monstrous to keep up the distinction between sugar manufactured by dif ferent colonies, and in different modes ? The first point, how ever, upon which the answer was founded, was an admission of the treaties of 1667 and 1713, and confirmed by the treaty of 18'4, but contending that the last precluded them from abiding by the original, or that of 1670, and that even that of 1670 was a bir to the claim of Sotomayor. Let them now consider what the demand of Spain was ; let them analyse it, critically, tf they would, but, at all events, equitably.—( Hear, kear. ) The demand was, that Spanish subjects, resident in Cuba, should be permitted! to bring their sugar to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, at the same duty-as was imposed on other colonial produce. The preamble of the treaty of 1670 merely provided that Bri tish subjects were not to sail to, or navigate in, or trade in the ports of Spain, nor Spanish subjects to sail to, or navigate in, or trade in the ports of Great Britain. But it did not imply that British colonists were not to sail to, or navigate in, or trade in Spaniels ports, nor was there one word in the treaty to imply that the colonists of Spanish islands were not to trade in the ports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and he did not know but that if Spain procured a cargo of sugar from her colony at Cuba, and unshipped it at Corunna, and thence reshippiag it, sent it to Great Britain, that produce would not be admitted on the duty imposed on friendly nations. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assured the Noble Lord that his assumption was untenable. Lord PALMERSTON would not argue that particular question, bet he contended that this principle of establishing a distinction between the treaties of 1670 and 1814, was vision ary and fallacious, sad that the affected reciprocity between friendly nations was no reciprocity at all, but the most palpable injustice to peculiar countries and the industrial labour of their colonies.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Those observations, he conceived, applied to, and answered the arguments, in reference to the treaty of 1670. Then came the arguments in defence of the treaty of 1713, the pre cise nature of which he felt some difficulty in applying him self to; and all who had heard them concurred with him in saying that nothing could be more absurd than such arguments, suited only to the position and advantage of a pettifogeing village attorney, and therefore it was not only a mere quibble to apply such arguments to such a case, but he would not hesitate to sty that such conduct was indefensible.—( Hear, hear.) Well, then, let him ask any man of plain sense and candour, whether the arguments he had mentioned were such as should be used in defence of the treaty of 1713. And if those arguments were not to be defended, then let him ask upon what grounds the Government defended the act of imposing a higher duty upon articles imported from their own colonies than upon these imported from foreign nations?—( Hear. ) This mode of dealing with those duties put him in mind of a friend of his who asked a man to vote for him at an election, which he pro mised to do ; yet he voted against him ; and on being asked the • reason why he broke his promise, said, very coolly, it was true he had promised to vete for him, but he did not say when.— ( Laughter and cheers.) Such was the position of the treaties he had been speaking of; they proposed to fix certain duties upon certain articles, but they did not say what articles. —( Hear, hear.) He had heard that it would be urged in de fense of this proceeding that the opinion of the Crown lawyers had been taken on the gut stion, and they had declared in favour of it. But he (Lord Palmerston) could not see what the law had to de with it, for he did consider it was not a question of law, but of honesty.—( Hear, hear.) This was not a question upon which they were to cavil upon mere words, or the legal meaning of words, but the matter was to be looked upon as one importing the simple meaning accorded to the language in which all documents containing areectent; between two nations were usually drawn up. Well, then, he ,as to stapo.e that those agreements and treaties meant nothing more than a species of documents applying to individuals, and not to measures as between England and Spin; and if so, let him ask, did the House or the Govern ment see full bearilg of suck a course ?=( Hear, hear.) Let the House remember the treaties that had been proposed to be entered in'o, under another Government, between France and Spain, in respect to the right of search treaty ; and if that treads stionl.l not be carried out by the present Government, beyond all doubt the world would look upon it as a breach of faith. Mr. GLADSTONE said that, although he did not now h o ld the position of a member of the present Government, vet he felt bound to say a few words in reply to the Noble Lord who had jest sat down, knowing, as he (Mr. Gladstone) did, that he lead a right to participate to a certain extent in the responsibility that attached to the present Government in reference to this question. He (Mr. Gladstone) would not follow the Noble Lord in much of that which he had addressed to the House, because he was surprised at the paucity of the facts he had to present to the House connected wit% the wide field which he had to travel.' He had favoured the House with a long disquisition on the Ashburton treaty and on other matters totally unconnected with the subject, and iegainst the sense of the House, and went out of his way for the purpose of making an attack on the Government. If the Noble Lord hat been content to have abstained from that party dis cussien, and to have confined his observations to the subject bef , rre the House, he would have done more wisely. He had averred that the Spanish Government had broken faith in their treaty against the interests of this country. That measure had, however, never been defined. It had been drawn up at a time when there were no less than twelve commercial treaties in existence whose protisiows had extended over a period of 200 eare He was ready to contend that the treaties on which the Ingle Lord had founded the case of the charge against Spain weeC still in full operation. He (Mr. Gladstone) would not undertake to define is what degree they had a binding effect ; ' hot he would undertake to show that whatever the circumstances of those treaties might have been, they were distingui hed in many important particulars, as regarded the universality of their operation, from the general treaties which were included in the code of nations. He believed that np to the year 1763 those treaties all stood as a complete act. In the year 1763 they were confirmed in the most absolute form by the treaty is ertenso of 1667. The treaty of the year 1783 obtained a new confirmation, in which it was stated that the former treaties were ta be taken as its b se, and to be religion ly observed. He found in that treaty of 1783 the de. btiration attacked to it. The declaration provided for both parties. With respect to the British interests it drew a clear distinction between all the different clauses of prevention in the former treaties. ('hose were divided into the classes of com mercial privileges and commercial regulations, and it was only with respect to the commercial privileges that the then Sovereign of Great Britain would consent to the alteration of lutes. Tho, Spanish declaration was evidently meant to fortify the state of things in which those old treaties were habitually used. He would point out that Spain, in the year 1783, wanted to be placed on the footing t of reciprocity—Spain had acted on the established .e prac tee—a practice of twenty. tvae years' duration. In thel76l, it would be found that Spahr, France, and Napl es hitel ar agreedeetto the tplace one and the other of either country, with respect pr act ice of Spain had interests t f e s or o twenty two waelintoyn the same footing. The France two years founded on the system of reciprocity arid Naples, and she was bound to have admitted w Ei7land on t!'w same footing. In 1782, an admirab!e treaty formed In that commercial treaty, a nationar clause a die:el, which provided that on the part of Eegiand, " ga was sneu'd have a claim in favour of their contract with Spain. A n l c e e I , io-, by a moat solemn act, ratified the power of that treaty.. A ga in, in the year 1809, an engagement was entered i:.t i lo'teeen the two powers to negotiate. In 1814 it would be found that the engagement to negotiate in 1809 was re newed, thus manifestly recognising the binding nature of the old original treaty. He would now refer to some other pro views which were susceptible of a double interpretation. In 1780 the French treaty had been referred to the Board of Tesde. be 'alr,,Boitt, for their opinion. The Hoard of Trade Ind Cieic at tart called to the q In question, whether, if a corn t'ri'id rea - . were formed with France , E n g land would be Tt subia.i's'to t e operation of the differential duties with Spain. ei nt report of the Board of Trade distinctly laid down that AitaiteW o c c u rred lie,: to impose those differential duties on 11. ....i thaat ow cUso. In WI time oven of Mr. Pitt a treaty 1..: Fr n was made between France and this country relative to some dif ferential duties to be imposed upon the produce of Quebec, but he was not aware that Spain ever claimed to be placed on the same footing, or remonstre ed against the adoption of such a treaty. Hew was the Noble Lord to explain this ? he was in office while these duties were in existence, indeed they were in existence at the present time, and yet the Noble Lord had ventured to c. arge the pre sent Government with being guilty of a v ant of good faith towards Spain, in not placing her produce upon the same footing as that of the United States. He now came to the treaty of 1814, and here let him ask how the Noble Lord could eccount for the introduction of what he would term the colo nial clause into that treaty, for, according to the Noble Lord's argument, such a chase must have been perfectly superfluous. The Noble Lord was in office in 1822, and he had a serious catalogue of his own misdeeds to answer for. In 1819 the formation of the reciprocity treaty was commenced, and during the four succeeding years they con tinued to put one nation after another upon the footing of the most favoured nation with regard to their ships and produce. But Spain did not get the benefit of that reciprocity treaty, and Spain continued to pay their differential duty as before, while other nations were in the enjoyment of duties reduced to a very low rate, but Spain had never complained from that day to this. Before, therefore, the Noble Lord ventured to declaim against the Government he ought to be prepared to explain away these circumstances. The Noble Lord had said that a constant struggle had long been going on between the Governments of the two countries upon the subject which he had brought under the consideration of the house, but he abso lutely denied that such was the case. It was true that some letters had passed between the two Governments on the subject, but nothing had taken place which could be designated. Mr. Bulwer, during the present Government, had applied to the Spanish Government to have the ships of British mer chants placed upon the footing of the most favoured nation, but that claim had not been granted up to this hour ; and he therefore could see no reason why the ships of Spain should be more favoured in this country than English ships were in Spain. He had shown, he thought, that the ancient treaties were not now in full force ; but even if they were in as full force now as they were in 1763, when they received the con. firmation of the two countries, still they did not stipulate for a minimum duty upon the produce, but they only placed the subjects of Spain, and all that belonged to them, upon the footing of the nation most favoured by this country. In the statute 12 Car. 11., cap. 4, it was proved that the principle of taxing different commodities, brought from differ ent countries, into different ports, by different persons, was not only recognised but asserted; and this was a matter which had altogether been overlooked by the Noble Lord opposite, although it imposed different duties on wines imported into the country. Spanish wine was subject to a much less duty and poundage ad valorem than French, and Rhenish was subject to less than either. And if they looked into the principle narrowly, it was both just and rational. The spirit of legislation, then, was to keep their own trade in the Bands of their subjects; and was it likely, then, that the King of Spain would fail to put a stipulation in any reciprocal treaty, that his subjects and the produce of his subjects, not his colonists, should be received in a friendly manner, and subject to a less binding impost than either other less favoured nations or colonists ? While, therefore, he deprecated such appeals keel the letter to the spirit of the law, where the letter was clear and unimpeached, as the Noble Lord bad made, yet he con tended here that both the spirit and the letter of the law were perfectly consistent and concordant. Again the treaty of Mr. Pitt, in 1787, and the treaties of the N Ible Lord ( Palmerston) himself, when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies, re cognised that very principle which he now sought to repudiate. The first was that which the Noble Lord had concluded with the Netherlands in 1837 ; but in that with the Sublime Porte, in 1838, the principle of the village attorney was even more distinctly and unequivocally propounded and maintained; and lest it should, in some two or three hundred years hence, be doubted whether the produce or the subjects were in tended to be treated as friendly, an express clause was appended to the former, and a stipulation affixed to the latter, both providing that British produce should be received by the foreign ports in a friendly and liberal spirit. In 1667 the principle of differential imposts, as analogous to the excise of the British and foreign produce, was clearly established; and subsequently, in 1667 and 1685, enactments were passed by the Legislature. not abrogating, as the .1\ oble Lord contended, but positively and 'solemnly ratifying it. The treaties with France respecting wine, and with Spain respect ing snuff and tobacco, more fully recognised, if they did not perfectly complete, the principle previously asserted and now despised. He had shown, by a stream of precedents, that Spain imposed a higher rate of duty on the produce of this country than on that of others that were considered the high est favoured nations. With respect to differential duties, he might state that in this country, at present, there were 71 ports in which a distinction was made between the ships of Spain and the ships of France and the United States. The Right Hon. Gentleman here instanced Belfast, as one of the ports to which he referred. Spanish produce and Spanish ships had been taxed from time to time by the British Legislature ac cording to circumstances, without any regard to stipulations. They talked of reciprocity and of a family compact. That family compact which had been referred to only pro vided that the ships of Naples, France, and Spain should be permitted to enter British ports on exactly the same terms, and at equal rates of taxation; but it did not provide that this taxation should be the minimum, as applied to the most favoured nations. It only provided that there should be an equality in the relative position of these countries towards this country, but nothing more.—(Hear, hear.) He had been amused by the Noble Lord saying they were now untying the hands of Spain ; but did the Noble Lord wish this country to enforce this treaty at the point of the sword ?—( Hear, hear.) Spain asked it of them, and yet she now imposed a doctrine she had been acting on for two hundred years, for she was imposing a duty on British ships, which she did not, and had not imposed upon the ships of France.—( Loud cries of" hear, hear.") The re sult of the treaty, if they were to take the interpretation of the Noble Lord, would involve an absurdity, for if all the ships of Spain were entitled to be placed on the footing of the most favoured nations, then by the same interpretation the Prussians and the Danes—the best navigators in the world—would be placed in a similar position in our ports ; an advantage that in return would not be conceded to the shipowners of this country. The principle they had hitherto acted on, was that proposed by the late Mr. Huskisson, namely, that they should only con cede advantages toforeign nations in proportion as those coun tries gave advantages to this country in return.—( Hear, hear.) But the Noble Lord did not extend his motion to include all descriptions of Spanish goods. He merely took one article, sugar, and on that he wished an assimilation to the import duties imposed on the produce of the most favoured countries—on the produce of Java, Manilla, and Cuba. Though he (Mr. Gladstone) had shown, by an unbroken chain of precedents, in opposition to the views advanced by the Noble Lord, he would admit so much to the Noble Lord that the object sought to be obtained by the clauses of the present treaty was similar to that which be contended for.—( Hear. ) The difference was, that the Noble Lord wished to accomplish the result by other means than he (Mr. Gladstone) could support or recommend. On two several occasions had this country asked Spain to come to an arrangement on the subject of duties. This was lately done by Mr. tlulwer, their minister at the court of Spain, who requested that British ships might be placed on a footing of equality with the ships of France. He thought the instructions of the Noble Lord to Mr. Ashton were most extraordinary instructions at a time when they were levying a ±ffcrentiai duty on Spanish goods coming into this country. The construction or the treaty for 200 years, and the mode in which it had been obsi.rved and regarded, showed that the Noble Lord's view of the case was erroneous. But he would allow the Noble Lord to put what construction he pleased upon the treaty of 1667. It could not be denied but in the treaty of 1667 the West Indian colonies of Spain were excluded, and they were not included in the subsequent treaty. As regarded the treaty of 1670, he thought the Noble Lord had put an entirely erroneous construction upon it. The Noble Lord said the nature of the treaty allowed the colonists of Spain to partake of advantages which the mother country did not by that treaty herself possess. Lord PALMERSTON—I did not say so. Mr. GLADSTONE sail he would pass to another branch of the case. In another part of the treaty of 1670, it was clear that they had it in their power to give the Spanish colo nies just as much or as little of the advantages of the treaty as they thought proper. He was very much surprised that the Noble Lord did not quote this passage to the House. The treaty expressly said that both countries could, of their own free will and discretion, measure the degrees, laws, and con ditions of the colonial trade. Colonial trade was expressly mentioned ; they could not, therefore, exclude a colony, and an important one. If they included Cuba, they must likewise include its sugar ; and when they admitted that Cuba sugar came under the treaty, they must likewise admit the power of England to impose a duty upon it as colonial produce. But the treaty of 1814 was conclusive on the subject. By that treaty—he would not say by a con struction of it, for there could be but one construction put upon it even by the craft and adroitness of a village attorney, or what was still more, the adroitness cf an ex-Foreign Secre tary—well, that treaty or convention of 1814 gave:the power of regulating the colonial import duty. But Spain did not at that moment possess the same colonial privileges which had been granted by England to many other foreign Powers. The obli gation of these treaties was no longer such as to justify one nation in making demands on the other, and though within two years we made such demands on Spain, yet Spain did not allow these demands, nor did England persist in them. He showed that the whole stream of history was adverse to the construc tion put upon the treaties by the Noble Lord, which construc tion was also opposed to facts ; but even if that construction could be put upon these treaties, he'ceuldnot see how it applied to the Spanish West India possessions of the Spanish Crown. He hoped, in conclusion, that he had been as good as his word, and that he had substantiated the position which he took up in the early part of, the evening. He was sorry to have tress passed on the House at such a length, but he thought the cir cumstances of the ease in some measure justified the intru sion ; and he would conclude by saying, that the honoar and interests of the country were quite as safe in the hands of her Majesty as they had been at any former period.—(Cheers. ) Mr. LABOUCIAERE said the length at which the Right Hon. Gentleman addressed the House was evidence of the badness of his case. There was, he thought, no necessity for the employ of all the ingenuity and nicety of argument which the Right Hon. Gentleman thought it right to use. The Right Hon gentleman said the sense of the treaty might be seen by any plain illiterate man. But his own argument went to prove the very reverse. He would read Mr. Ashten's letter on this subject, and Lord Aberdeen's reply, and leave it to the House to say what construction the Government itself had at a very recent period put upon these treaties.—(The Right d hi neither which h ieimust the nu. Right Hon. Gentleman then read the letter of Mr. Ashton. ) s A t i c sp ree o nf s et i lr t e i m o t n oa.n no ,s r the will to follow any point in the n e hi t a T s h p e ee rt ch ig ; ht leu H t ~trhherGeewataies Gentleman t said that he did not look at the strict letter of the treaties, but that he looked at the analogy and a t th e sp i r it o f the case.— ( Hear, hear.) Why, that was exactly what he (Mr La• bouchere) wished the Government to do; and if they did so properly, anti in a spirit of justice, they would put Spain on the same footing as the most favoured nation. True it was, that the whole system of politics had since that period changed, hut they still were bound to respect those treaties which had fixed the treatment of the subjects of the different nations , and though he had not st u die d th e history of both countries with the same diligence as the Right lion. Gentleman, yet he thought that sufficient would be shown in its pages to justify them in sacrificing minor considerations for the good of Spain. The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to have adopted the same fallacious reasoning as Lord Aberdeen, when he described the rights of Spain as specific rights not extending to her colonies. He was unwilling to detain the House at any length ; but there was one part of the subject to which, more than to any other, he must request the attent ion of the House. It was a something more than a niece construction of technicalities, and the House, he conceived, would be ill discharging its duties if it did not give the matter its consideration. lie 'spoke now of the pro priety of the policy which the Government was piirsuing, and he must .ay he had never listened to a speech with a more painful feeling than he did to t-at of the Rght Honourable Gentleman. Spain was not urging her ergagements at sword point, b u t b y di p l omat i c an d f r i en dl y means , a nd she cnly claimed t o b e put on the same why had they made they this had shacardifict with other nations. And e h a ? t d T i s h e e a s R a o g i h t b il e f o a n r o e u . r a c e G ( Mr. Labou i th ere ) sa i l they ought to have it again and again— and he would a s k, f or w h at had they made the sacrifice ? They had made the sacrifice for • no object whatever , and the flimsy pretences urged by the supporters of the Gov ment were so ern very untangible that the most staureh supporter of the Gov ernment was to be praised for his power of face, who preserved hi s grav i ty while he ad vanced them, Let them not deceive themselves. In putting this ir.terpretation on the Spanish treaties, they had untied the hands of Spain. What if that country should put on a duty adverse to the manufacturers of this country? What right had Great Britain to complain in such a case ? Were Spain so to retaliate, she would strke a heavy blow upon the export trade of this country ; and if the Brazils were to adopt a similar policy, in what degree would it not cripple the manu facturers of this country ? And under these circumstances, was it not the duty of the country to ask why they made this sacri fice ? They were told that they did so for an object dear to every British heart—for the purpose of discouraging slave y and the slave-trade. He (Mr. Lahouchere) would defy any man in that House to say that the policy pursued by the Go vernment had in the slightest degree tended to prevent one slave being introduced from Africa. They made a difference, it was true, between free and slave-grown sugar, by discou raging the latter in the market, but at the introduction of the very measure which legalised this difference was it not demon strated as plainly as any proposition in Euclid, that as free labour sugar was not sufficient to supply their markets, the de ficiency must be made up from slave-grown sugar. It was most mortifying to witness a British Ministry calling upon the merchants of this country to make these sacrifices. He re peated, it was mortifying to see a Ministry, which plumed itself on the protection it gave to commerce, stulti fying the energies of the country in this manner. He would read the House a quotation from the Jamaica Morning Journal to show that even the colonists themselves did not feel themselves bound by any debt of gratitude to the Right Hon. Baronet's Government. ( The Right Hon. Gentleman then read the quotation.) Without agreeing with his Noble Friend in every particu'ar, he should only say that this country ought, in an imperative manner, to call upon the Government to do justice to the claims of British merchants by acceding to the wishes of Spain. He could not but hope that after the case made out by the Noble Lord (Palmerston) even the Government would perceive the fallacy of their position, and place the honour of the country upon a solid, lastine, and creditable foundation. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, when the Right Hon. Gentleman rose immediately after the Hon. Member for Newark, he had expected to hear at least an attempt to refute the incomparable speech of that latter Member, and in that opinion he was sure the House universally coincided. But though his Right Honourable Friend near him (Mr. Gladstone) had used argument after argument to prove the position of the Government, and invited discussion on the interpretation of the treaties, as questioned by the Noble Lord who introduced the present debate, the Right Hon. Gentleman had flown off from that invitation, had shirked the great subject at issue, and, considering the great talent of that Right Hon. Member, the only reason he could allege for the course adopted by him W 8•, that the arguments of the Learned Member for Newark were unanswerable. The pre sent question was not one of policy and expediency, as it had been attempted to convert it by the Right Hon. Member, but of the construction of treaties. Good faith alone, as in cases of private agreements, could be taken as the principle for con structing such treaties which, with a view to assist other con ventional ratifications, had been constituted on broad and equitable bases. if they looked to the treaties of 1667 and 1713, in a narrow and limited view alone, they might possibly interpret them in the fallacious manner contended for by the opposite side of the House, but if they regarded them in con nexion with the spirit of the people and the state of commerce at the time, they would easily see the absurdity of such a posi tion, and the necessity of considering them in a broad and liberal view. At the period when the clause was in troduced into the treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, and also when the treaty of Munster was concluded between the Netherlands and Spain, the feeling of the people was emi nently prone to protect their fellow-subjects at home, and the produce they procured from foreign countries, even at the peril of their own colonists. It was perfectly clear, from the articles of this treaty, that the subjects of the two countries, and not the produce, were referred to. The same was also apparent from a treaty in 1714 between the Netherlands and Spain, and that this was' a case in reference to the treaty of Utrecht in 1713, on which the present question was founded, must be apparent, for it was expressly covenanted that the subjects of the Nether lands should not pay a higher rate than the Spanish merchants who were trading in their respective countries. This was also clear from the same treaty of Utrecht entered into with France in reference to tobacco. He would not advert to the subsequent treaties which had been referred to by the Noble Lord, of 1838 and 1837, for sufficient had been said to prove the meaning of the stipulation. He would now refer to the treaty of Portugal in 1820, in the third article of which it was expressly stated that the subjects of both countries should be under the same rights, liberties, and exemptions. No one could doubt that the treaty of Utrecht was based on precisely the same prin ciples. It was not considered sufficient to cover the produce of both countries, for there was an express provision regulating and providing for it by an additional article. In one part of the treaty there was a clause relating to the subject, and in another a clause relating to produce.- He would therefore ask, was not the distinction here clearly laid down ? They were charged with inconsistency in admitting the sugars of Vene zuela and the American States, and refusing admission to the Spanish sugars, but he denied there was any inconsistency. What was the clause in the article by which the Government were bound to admit the sugar of the American States, which was slave-grown, and deny the same privilege to Spain ? The Hon. Gentleman then read the article, and, comparing it with the article in the treaty of Utrecht, which he also read, con tended that there was no similarity whatever between the two cases. The House was bound to consider whether these treaties existed in their past integrity now or not; or if they did, whether they were now placed on the same footing or not. It appeared to him that the treaty of 1796 and that of 1814, were very different indeed in their meaning, and that they did not at all remain in the same force originally applied to them. He had, in the course of his address to the House this evening, endeavoured to go over the statements of those Hon. Members who had preceded him, and to answer the arguments adduced by them ; but with regard to the other points, he should say—at least in reference to the treaty of Utrecht—he should say he did not think the argu ment applied at all in the way in which it had been used by his Hon. Friend opposite.—( Hear, hear.) The treaty of 1813 incorporated the provisions of the treaty of 1667, and surely it did not apply to the colonial trade. If they looked at the articles of peace it was impossible that the parties contracting could have contemplated anything like colonial trade. Taking these articles together it appeared to him that this was the correct construction of the treaties—that the colonial trade was entirely struck out of these treaties. That seemed to be confirmed by the treaty of 1814, and he could not understand how, if that treaty referred to the most favoured nations, it could apply to the colonial trade. He found that in the 4th article of the treaty of 1814 the commerce of the American possessions might have been admitted to Great Britain as one of the most favoured 'nations. There was no reciprocity entered into with respect to Spain. Was it intelligible that in 1814 they would have a specific boon conferred by Spain without any equal advantage granted to her as the most fa voured nation. The treaty of 1814 confirmed the construction of the former treaties. In the year 1824, trade with the colo nies was opened by Spain, not to Great Britain alone, but to all nations indiscriminately, and there was no reference to any treaty whatever. Thus, according to the view taken by the other side, Great Britain would have a right to open the trade of her colonies to Spain. It appeared to him that the colonial trade formed no part of any treaty that was entered into. They admitted the Manilla sugars on the same duties as if they were the produce of the most favoured nations. It was the free gift of Great Britain, and depended on no treaty entered into with Spain. The in terpretation put en the treaty by Lord Aberdeen was the cor rect one, in his opinion, and the interpretation given by the anish Minister was an incorrect one. The argument that the colonial trade was included in the treaty was totally groundless. They were to regard treaties with other countries with good faith, and to regard the fair interpretation of those treaties. If they were to put the interpretation urged by those en the opposite side, they would commit, in his opinion, a breach of the treaty. Under these circumstances he would oppose the motion. Mr. BARING said that no party persuasion would induce him to give any particular opinion on this matter, nor did he think that any consideration of policy should induce them to put an interpretation on these treaties.—(Hear.) A similar policy might induce Spain to put the same interpretations on the treaties. Before another con truction was put on the matter, ought it not to be considered whether Spain was not now offering the very privileges that were contended for ? ( Hear.) The entire speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Newark, was an endeavour to set aside the treaties that did exist. If these treaties do not exist, then the arguments of Hon. Gentlemen opposite were valuele,s ; but, if, on the other hand, they did exist, their reasons were all-powerful. Nothing could be more dangerous than the lan guage of the Right Hon. Gentleman. It would do very well for the President of the Board of Trade, to argue whether these treaties existed or not, but the decision should be taken from the Earl of Aberdeen's letter, that those treaties did really exist—and that was the opinion of the nation. The Earl of Aberdeen admitted those treaties, first on a colonial ground, and secondly, on the difference between persons and produce.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Earl of Aberdeen stated that although the treaty of 1767 conferred general pri vileges on the subjects of Spain, it excluded them from trading from their colonies into British ports. The Right Hon. Gen. tleman had quoted clauses from the Treaty of 1770. It was perfectly consistent that the power first granted could be acted on by Spain. One of the clauses provided that if yoe do trade, you shall have the privilege of the most favoured na tion, which included certain restrictions, and therefore a pro hibition to trade with the West Indies was not inconsistent with the treaty. The regulating treaty gave England the power of superseding the restrictive privileges left in the hands of Spain. In 1814 a treaty was made, in which Spain admitted that England should be in the same position as the most favoured nation. It would be a difficulty for him to express himself on this sub ject. The Government itself had admitted that it would be impossible to carry out their own stipulations. Their own treaties contemplated the opening of the trade with the West Indies. It his assertion was doubted, he held in his hand a statement of Mr. Canning's in 1810, which entirely bore him out. The exception, as regarded the colonies, was done away with, by the understanding at the time avowed between the two countries. It was at that time in the power of the Spaniard to introduce sugar, the produce of his colonies, in British vessels through Spain, and claim the full benefit of the treaty. The argument was, that when the provision was made in 1804, the old treaties were not in force. He wished to follow the case as shortly as possible, and not to tire the House with details. He now came to the point of the subject, and one, too, which had been dealt with, he must admit, with great force and ability, by his Noble Friend who had brought the question before the House. He meant that part of the question which related to the subject of produce. He per fectly admitted that there was a distinction in the wording of the treaty, but at the same time he could not conceal from him self the fact, that its the early part of our commercial negotia tions, they attempted to do through persons what they now did through things. The object of the treaty, therefore, clearly was not merely to give a personal privilege, but it was for the purpose of providing that the commerce of the two nations should be dealt with in the same manner as that of the most favoured nation.—( Hear. ) Sir G. CLERK said the Hon. Gentleman opposite was the only one who had attempted to grapple with the arguments of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Newark (Mr. Gladstone). He had but a few words to say. Whether the Noble Lord was justified in the charges which he had made with respect to their conduct towards Spain.—( Cries of " Divide," and " Adjourn.") The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to show that the Government were perfectly justified in their policy, and referred to the various treaties which had been contracted between this and other countries with respect to the sugar and the slave trade. The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded, amidst great noise and confusion, by asserting that there ought to be no treaty entered into by this country, ex cept it was based on the principle of reciprocity. Mr. BARKLY said, that as the Noble Lord the Member the Members any reply o n t e that the sidear argum ents e the tit s they House had f .r Tiverton (L or d P a l merston ) an d t h e Ri g ht H on . Gentle man the Membe r f or T aunton (M r. L e b ouc h ere ), h a d t aun t e d th a a d t va t n h c e ed, y h ande wasnot offered anxious, if the House would permit him, to offer a few words : 0 ' t D he i r y t id e e n , ,, liv i i n de, t " he an re d id " st A o lou w rn hfe ' h, " a lt i t l e r r several essays to continue, he sat down ). h s e i a r r . ,' B ' in reply. ( The Hon. Memb er was h ere s t oppe d by l o ud cries H of ro " th i e l r e t a o r n , The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here inter fered, and said that as the question had alread been amply discussed, they should endeavour to finish it that night. Mr. BARKLY again rose, amidst loud and continued interruption, and cries of " Adjourn" and " Divide." His observations could only ba imperfectly heard in the gallery, from the noise and confusion that prevailed. He considered that he had a right to be heard, because a challenge had been held out by the Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, and reiterated by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton—(Cries of " Divide," " Go on," and great con fusion )—and it was stated by them that the sugar question had not been met by any one on that side of the House.— ( Great confusion, amid which the Hon. Member in vain en deavoured to make himself heard.) But this was beside the question.—( Immense cheering, and cries of "It is." The House was all impatience, which was further increased by the Hon. Member looking over a paper, which we may presume contained the heads of his speech. The Hon. Member con tinued, however, amid ironical cheers, and shouts of " Read it, read it.") The Government, in acting as they had done, had consulted the best interests of humanity.—( Here the noise was so overpowering that the lion. Member was fain, like the redoubtable Mrs. Partington, in her struggle with the Atlantic, to give in, and resume his seat amid deafening cheers from every part of the House ) Lord PALM F. RST ON said, after the general impatience evinced by the House, and the unanswered and unanswerable addresses of his Right Hen. Friends near him (Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Baring) he sho uld consider it p resum p tuous t o d e t ain the House by a lengthened reply. The Right Honourable Gentleman the late Vice-President of the Board of Trade had treated the question with his accustomed ability and ingenuity, but when a Government had a good case, it would not require one of its prominent defenders to ad dress the House for more than two hours together. If the ab surdities of the existing law of treaty were really so great as was erged by the Right Hon. the Attorney-General, he would answer that the conflicting anomalies of the law ought to be obviated and removed. The Hon. Member who had last ad dressed the House with such talent and such courage—(A laugh)—had pleaded the West Indian interests, but he (Lord Palmerston) advocated the interests of the empire, and instead of appealing to the private feeling of the colonial merchant, urged the right of the question on the sense and honour of the country.—( Cheers. ) The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the resolution Against it ... 175 Majority against the resolution -88 PRIVILEGE. Sir J. Y. BULLER said that at this late hour of the night and this late period of the session, he did not think it would be advisable to press the motion of which he had given notice, and which was to the effect that a Select Committee be ap pointed to investigate the allegations contained in the petition of David Phillips, presented to this House on the 1 Ith May. Mr. WARBURTON did conceive it due to the character of Mr. Parrot that the question should be brought forward at once. Sir R. PEEL said, that his Hon. Friend near him should either withdraw the motion, or persevere in it. After a few words from Sir J. YARDE BULLER, the motion was withdrawn. The other orders of the day were then read. Sir R. PEEL said, in answer to a question from Mr. J. A. Smith, that if the House went into a Committee of Supply, the Government would take the earliest possible period of taking a vote on the New Zealand question. Sir J. GRAHAM proposed that the Poor-law Amendment Bill be committed on Thursday evening next. The motion was agreed to. The other orders of the day having been disposed of, the House adjourned at Half-past Two o'Clock. mistrust, and the violation of good faith. He had already occupied the attention of the House at too great length in sup port of the ,Lotion. It must be matter of indifference not only to Cuba and Brazil, but even to our own colonies, whether the sugar of the former places were imported for home consump tion or for re-exportation. We had already lost the very im portant market of Brazil. We were, besides, setting an ex ample of the means by which a treaty may be evaded. We were thereby incurring a greater loss than that of our com merce—the loss of our honour and character for good faith in the observance of treaties. It was to remedy, as far as possible, that injury, that he would now move a resolution to the effect— That, in deference, not merely to commercial treaties, but to regulations, according to which, under those treaties, the trade between this country and Spain and Brazil had been for many years carried on, all the products of those nations should con tinue to be imported on as favourable a footing as the products of the most favoured country. The Earl of ABERDEEN, who was throughout his speech heard with the greatest difficulty, and in no one sentence dis tinctly, was understood to say that his Noble Friend had strongly impressed on their Lordships the necessity of maintaining the national honour by the faithful observance of treaties. Ne person could be more deeply sensible of that importance than he ( the Earl of Aberdeen) was. But he suspected that if it had not been for the policy of the Government last year in connexion with the sugar trade, the House would not have heard of those ancient Spanish treaties.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that if the claim had been put forward upon any other grounds, it would not have met with the same support. He thought that the policy of the Government in this case was just and wise, with a view to contribute to the suppression of the African slave-trade, and that the result was not to encourage that trade —( Hear, hear)—but it had the effect of bringing into this country a large quantity of free-grown sugar. Our colonial trade with Spain had, even under the treaties insisted on by his Noble Friend, been actually prohibited, although to some ex tent it was carried on in a contraband manner. But when the treaty was formed, twenty years ago, we became entitled to all the privileges of the most favoured nations. He was astonished to hear that interpretation put upon the ancient treaties ; on the other hand, ' , pain had always refused to acknowledge then in that light. Let their Lordships recollect the " Family Treaty" of the 10th of May, 1671, by which France, Spain, and the Two Sicilies mutually bound themselves to give to the subjects of each other equal privileges with their own, in their respective dominions. By the 25th clause of that compact it was stipulated that no other Power should be admitted to share in the same advantages. This was entirely at variance with the interpretation put upon their former treaties by his Noble Friend. Mr. Pitt's treaty of 1806 stipulated, is the 7th article, that the subjects of the two Powers should be placed upon the footing of the most favoured nations, except so far as was pre cluded by the treaty of 1671, in respect to France, and on the part of England in respect to the treaty with Portugal in 1703. So much for the observation by Spain of her ancient treaties with this country. But it always had been the practice to look at those treaties with regard to altered circumstances. The stipulations of treaties were frequently in themselves incon sistent and contradictory. Spain had always resisted the ap plications of this country, even where their provisions were most clear and satisfactory. For instance, by the treaty of 1667 English subjects were exempted from certain contribu tions, but of late years these were exacted, and the reply of the Spanish Government to our remonstrance was that times were chanced, and a constitutional Government could not be ex pected' to carry out provisions of treaties formed in despotic times. [The Noble Earl was so indistinct, that for several sentences it was impossible to collect his meaning whilst compar ing the various treaties. j When this country was about making a commercial treaty, two years ago, with Portugal, Spain made no demand to be placed on the same level. On the contrary, the Spanish Minister here manifested from day to day the greatest anxiety to know whether the treaty was concluled, confessing at the same time that if Portugal agreed to a com mercial treaty Spain must do the same. On several occasions the duties upon French and Portuguese wines had been reduced, when those upon Spanish wines were increased, yet Spain never, until now, set up the treaties as a ground of complaint.— ( Hear, hear.) In the first year of James the Second a duty of 8/. was imposed upon French wines, and a duty of 121. on Spanish. But for this preference of France there was no re monstrance on the ground of treaties.—( Hear, hear.) Again, with respect to the duties on tobacco. down to a very recent period the duty upon Spanish tobacco was 6s. per lb., whilst that upon Portuguese was only 4s. That was the case down to 1822. when therewas a general equalisation of the tobaccoduties. His Noble Friend had given a representation of the mode in which that condition had been exacted from Spain. After the great services they had given to Spain, they thought it not a very unreasonable return that they should stipulate for equal advantages with other countries. The truth of the matter was, that Spain had offered, on more than one occasion, to admit England to exclusive privileges in the colonial trade. This was invariably declined. All they stipulated for was, that they should be admitted on an equal footing with other countries. But this engagement was unilateral—there was no engagement on their side. They might say that it was illiberal, but it was the fact. He did not, considering their relationship with Spain, see anything unreasonable in the demand, even though they did not grant anything in return for that concession. The en gagement of 1814 admitted them on the same footing with other countries, and in 1824 the trade was nominally opened. It was perfectly true that that took place before the indepen dence of the colonies was recognised. This decree was issued, and when the Spanish Government thought it proper, as a matter of course, in consequence of that stipulation, they were admitted to whatever was granted to other countries. It did not appear to him that there was any obligation imposed upon this country, as for several years, till 1828, no return what ever was made to this country. His Noble Friend said that the Spanish Government did not remon strate because they were ignorant. He (Lord Aberdeen) was of opinion that no country was more ready to make large pretensions than Spain. As this was a contract, it must be strictly interpreted and examined. He (Lord Aberdeen) had told them how it had been understood and acted upon by both countries, and he would therefore say that there was nothing in the present relation of the two countries which could possibly justify Spain in claiming a right to that admission of produce which his Noble Friend supported. He would say a few words with respect to the last part of his Noble Friend's speech, in which he treated with ineffable contempt the distinction which had been drawn between the rights granted to the subjects of Spain and the produce introduced from Spanish colonies. Treaties with Spain and alt treaties of that day were framed in very different terms from that which at present existed. The Noble Lord then read the original treaty, in which the Spanish Go vernment only claimed the same privileges for its subjects as Frenchmen claimed. The modern treaty gave the largest.pos sible privileges to both the subjects and to commerce. If it were not the case it would lead to much confusion, and would lead to absurd consequences, for what was the claim of his Noble Friend founded on but on the last treaty—it must be in relation to the subjects of the King of Spain, who had, under that treaty, that right which they refused to British subjects ; because, if the Spanish subjects had that right under the treaty. it was quite clear that only Spanish subjects had it, and that * British subjects had not. That was reducing it to an absurdity, and provided that the rights, immunities, and privileges were connected with persons, and did not apply to produce. This facthad been considered by her Majesty's Government with a due regard to the tenour of the treaties, and his Noble Friend was quite in error if he supposed that this had been unadvisedly done, er that those treaties had been newly dis covered. As to the wisdom, or policy, or generosity, or libe rality of the proceedings, it was a matter which might be dis cussed at another time. In accordance with the general inter pretations of the treaties they had done nothing but what was just. That being the case he did not think that they were at all liable to the imputations that had been cast upon them by his Noble Friend, and he must, therefore, oppose his resolution. Lord RADNOR said that the Noble Lord had made use of quite different arguments from those which were contained in his answer to the Duke of Sotomayor. They may as well have no treaty at all, according to the statements of the Noble Lord just now, for he held then, to be of no avail. He would ask any person of common sense, who had read these extracts, whether they did not bear on the face of them that the Spaniards were entitled to the advantages of the most fa voured rations. He could not but concur in the resolution of his noble Friend. The Earl of CLARENDON briefly replied and said that, in consequence of those treaties, the property and horses which had in the course of the civil wars been taken in Spain from the subjects of other nations, were not taken from British sub jects. He was glad, h wever, his Noble Friend had abandoned the ground which he had hitherto taken, upon rejecting the application for the importation of Spanish productions, and had rested his rejection now solely on the frequent violations of those treaties on the part of the Spanish Government. He thought it unnecessary to take up their Lordships' time further, having already taken up so much of their attention on this subject. Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared— Content s Non-c0ntent5........... Majority against the resolution Several Bills, chiefly relating to railways, were then brought up from the Commons, which, with the amendments, were agreed to. The several Bills on the table were advanced a stage, and their Lordships adjourned. PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS. TUESDAY, JULY 15. The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were agreed to Great Western Railway (Ireland) (Dublin to Mullingar and Athlone). Cockermouth and Workington Railway. Cork and Bandon Railway. Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland). Richmond (Surrey) Railway. Standing Orders Committee,—Resolutions reported ; 1. " That, in the case of the South Eastern Railway (Widening and Extension of the London and Greenwich Railway) Bill, clause on consideration of report, the clause is of such a nature as, under the circumstances of the case, ought not to be adopted by the House." 2. " That, in the case of the North Walsham School Estate Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill." _ _ HOUSE OF LORDS, July 15. Their Lordships met shortly after Five o'clock. The High Constables Bill passed through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Thursday. The Constables Works (Ireland) Bill also went through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Thursday. LANDLORD AND TENANTS BILL. Lord MONTEAGLE wished to ask what were the inten tions of the Government in respect to the Landlord and Tenants (Ireland) Bill, new before a Select Committee of their Lord ships' House? Lord STANLEY replied that, in pursuance of a recom mendation which would be made by . the Select Committee, it was the intention of Government to introduce several amend ments into the Bill, and he hoped to lay the Bill so amended on the tab!e of the House, but he did not intend to press it through its stages in the present session. PRI VILEGE. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Mr. Harlow, a tobacconist, of Leicester-square, complaining that he was not aware in bringing the action against Mr. Baker, for words spoken before a Committee of their Lordships' House that he was committing a breach of privilege, and therefore he humbly expressed his extreme regret in having committed the breach, and humbly prayed that their Lordships would be pleased to pardon the offence and order his discharge. No greater con trition could be expressed by any person. He did not know what the privileges of the House were, and, being ignorant of them as•well as themselves, he fell into the offence of breaking the unknown law. He had taken the proper course by express• ing contrition, by discontinuing the action, and he had, there fore, to move that he be discharged , on payment of the fees. The LORD CHANCELLOR was not aware that his Noble and Learned Friend was acting as counsel for the person whose petition he had presented. He was in favour of granting the prayer of the petition. Lord CAMPBELL took the same view of the subject as the Noble and Learned Lord. It would be hard to make the peti tioner responsible for the sarcasms of his Noble and Learned Friend. The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the motion, and it having been carried, John Harlow was called to the bar. The Noble and Learned Lord then said—You have been guilty of a breach of the acknowledged privileges of this House in bringing an action against Thomas Baker, for words which were spoken by him in the course of giving evidence before one of the Corn mitties of this House. For that offence you have been com mitted to custody. You have presented a petition in what you have expressed contrition, and have given orders to discontinue the action. Their Lordships are disposed to deal leniently with you, and it is therefore ordered that you be discharged out of custody upon paying the fees. The prisoner was then discharged. Lord BROUGHAM said, a junior Law Lord and a jun:or Peer having, like a young recruit, reproved him for his sar casms. he would take care not to fall into the same error now. The Noble and Learned Lord then read a petition to the same effect from Peter Tate Harbin, and concluded by a similar motion, which was carried, and the prisoner was called in and discharged after a similar admonition. Lord CAMPBELL gave notice that, early in the ensuing session, he should bring in a Bill to facilitate the stopping of actions arising out of the privileges of the House. LOTTERIES BILL. _ On the motion of Lord STANLEY, this Bill passed through Committee. NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Lord BROUGHAM an address to her Majesty, with respect to getting into the new Houses of Parliament next session. SPANISH TREATIES. ' o D n ON whichsai d h that d i n t a il s e king hor, t o h u e r i r L to ords propose hips to assure th e i r L or d s hips, and more it to w T e oa h en E ue a re r ei l i: C ye L rf A oe rs ß o N mt particularly the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that he was not interested by any party motive. He thought that his Noble Friend himself would do him the justice to be lieve that no consideration whatever, and no expec tation of any political advantage, however well founded, would induce him to treat this question with a spirit of partiality. Whatever may be their political differences, they were equally concerned in advancing the inte rests and upholding the dignity, and maintaining the honour of their country. He need not remind their Lordships that by a treaty the honour of a country was deliberately pledged. They need not be reminded that treaties were the only means by which they could effect their great international objects. The Spanish Minister claimed that the sugars of Cuba and Porto Rico should be put on the same footing as the productions of the United States. In one portion of his Noble Friend's reply to the Duke of Sotomayor, he had the good fortune to concur. He thought that his Noble Friend was justifie lin saying, that the course which her Majesty's Government pur sued with reference to the United States, showed that there was no desire to limit the operation of their commercial en gagements, er to invade the treaty. He regretted, neverthe less, that the rejection of Spanish sugar should be founded upon arguments so weak. The Noble Lord (Lord Clarendon) then read the treaty of 1670, which stated that the produce of Spain should be treated in the same way as that of any other nation in favour with this country. No treaty being made since, it was perfectly plain, that treaty remained unchanged. During the whole of the last century we carried on this inter national trade, notwithstanding our own navigation laws were de jwe existing. We had consuls and vice-consule at Cuba and Porto Rico. We had exports from there of upwards of 9,000,000 of dollars, which was double the exports from the United States. From 400 to 500 British ships were now en gaged in this trade. For upwards of five years eleven thousand tons of British shipping had been occupied in it, and that amount had been subsequently increased. During the last twenty-two years it had been perfectly lawful for British and Spanish subjects in Spanish ships to transport the proceeds of that country. With respect to copper, we imposed no restric tion or differential duties, because we wanted it, although the procuring of it was attended with ten times more destruction to the slave than the obtaining of any other article of produce, and yet we refused to admit slave-grown sugar from that quarter. It was inadmissible for the purpose of trade, for the produce of Germany and France were purchased with it. It was, however, useless, as it had been stated, for the purposes of home consumption, The treaty was now reckoned upon in order to prevent her Majesty's subjects from taking the sugar. A portion of the treaty was 170 years old, to argue under which that the general products of the country were admissible while particular products were refused, was a species of reason ing that would not be listened to in any court of equity or honour. In 1814 this country entered into a treaty with Spain, by which it was stipulated that whenever this country conferred privileges upon any other foreign country, they were bound to do the same with respect to Spain, and yet the Noble Lord opposite, the Secretary for the Colonies, argued that they had no right to trade with Spain upon the same terms that they did with the United States. And although his Noble Friend spoke of the decree slightingly, as an ea post facto decree, and after the South American possessions had passed away from Spain, yet it appeared that it did not apply to Cuba and Porto Rico. These had not passed away, and a Spanish King had the power to withhold from them any inter course if he pleased ; but he did not do so. He granted them permission. His Noble Friend, however, would not hear of that. He would pass over what led to that recognition, but, indeed, there was no doubt, long before the States had sepa rated, the c enplete go-by had been given to the treaty of 1670. He would now come to the state of things that existed in 1820. The Noble Lord then read an extract from a memo randum of a negotiation entered into at that time by Mr. Can ning. Now, notwithstanding they had obtained permission, in 1810, to trade with the Spanish possessions —notwith standing they had embarked a large amount of capital in that trade, and notwithstanding they had appointed a consul to protect that trade, agreeably to the permission so granted, let in the face of all this his Noble Friend alleged that no reci procal obligation was incurred on the part of the British Crown. He would ask, was it just--was it right—was it fitting conduct fur a country that had been always foremost in proclaiming its own liberality to act in that manner? His Noble Friend then referred to an order in council of 1828, and asserted that this did nothing more than sanction a trade between the colonies of Spain and Great Britain. He was doubtful, however, whether such a construction could be put upon that order. He should have thought that the practice between the two countries would have prevented such conduct towards Spain, for by their acts they had brought incredible disgrace on this country. Wines were formerly admitted into Spain, and were placed on the same footing as the goods of this country. If they reduced the duty on the wines and other produce of the countries on the continent, he would ask if such conduct was fair and honourable They committed a great act of injustice towards Spain in re spect to the treaties into which they entered with that coon. try. Spain, too, had been regardless of her own interests. In the treaty it was stated that Spain, in regard to her pro ducts, would be placed on the footing of the most favoured nation. Was the Noble Lord prepared to tell British pmer chants that their produce was placed on a proper footing by the treaty of Utrecht? In their whole policy it would appear that they had one law for the weak and another for the powerful. Spain claimed the same right and the same power as other nations. If he had not made his opinions manifest to their Lordships—( Hear, hear) —and did not induce them to form the opinions which he entertained, he could only ascribe it to his own inability. We were endeavouring by treaties with other nations to satisfy the daily increasing wants of our people by opening fresh markets. God knew, to all these objects there were obbtaeles enough without adding to them Second resolution agreed to.—Report to lie on the table. COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BILLS APPOLNTED BY TIIE COMMITTEE OF SELECTION. RAILWAYS. Select Committee on Group ZZ. Mr. Thomas Mackenzie (Ross, &c.), discharged from attendance on the Committee. The Hon. C. Forester (Wenlock), selected, and added to the Committee. Manchester and Leeds Railway (No. 2) Bill,—to be con sidered in Committee on Thursday, July 17, at Twelve o'clock. NOTICES GIVEN AT THE PRIVATE BILL OFFICE. Manchester and Leeds Railway (No. 2),—Committee on Bill, Thursday, July 17, at twelve. Gravesend and Rochester Railway,—Third Reading, Thursday, July 17. Epping Railway (No. 2), —Report to be considered, Friday, July 18. Rye and Tenterden Railway,—Report, Thursday, July 17. South Devon Railway (Tavistock and other Branches), — Report to be considered. Thursday, July 17. Launceston and South Devon Railway,—Report to be con sidered, Thursday, July 17. CAUTION.—RoyaI patronage and general o!Anion has well rewarded the efforts made to introduce Llama Wool into this country, the sole manufacturing of the same, as shown in the Registered Paletot, being restricted to the exclusive use of Messrs. Nicoll, who are protected under the new Act. Its ad mirable, qualities are enhanced by its being well adapted to meet the sudden changes of the climate of this country as that essen tial article of dress, a coat—light in weight, dark in colour, and yet equally applicable over another in ba - 1 weather, as by itself in the fair or sunny days. The great success attending the sale of the Registered Paletot, has induced many persons to attempt to foist upon the public a bad imitation, which, if not in time corrected, would injure the Llama Wool as an article of commerce, its reputation now being steadily established. A caution to the public is perhaps unnecessary that only firms of the first respectability have been appointed coantry &goats. Bat anprinciplesl persons anlawfally attempting to impose are hereby warned that they are subject to a heavy penalty on teak offence, which, after this date, will be enforced according to the provisions of 0 and 7 Vie., cap. 65.—Signed July IA li, it and D. Nicoll, 116, Regent-street. London. PARLT A7!4TE.NT DIVI-sjoNs ---~.._. &wit the Vow and Pro,fe , lings of the House of Ontimo,r.v. TUESDAY, JULY 15. TREATIES WITH SPAIN, 'Motion male, and Question put, " That an humble AddrQss be presented to her Majesty, stating that this house have taken into their consideration the -Papers which, by her Majesty's gracious Cnmenand, have lately been laid before them, containing Copies of a Correspondence which lute recently taken place between the Spanish Minister at her Majesty's Court and her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on the subject of a claim made by the Spanish Government, in virtue of the Treaties subsisting b2tween the Crowns of Great liritain and Spain ; and praying her Majesty to direct that the subjects of the Queen of Spain should be permitted to import into the United Kingdom all the productions of the Territories or Posses sions of the Spanish Crown, paying thereupon no higher Duties of Customs than are paid by the subjects or citizens of the most favoured Nations, on the importation of like articles being the pro duction of the Territories or Possessions of such Nations." The llouse divided:— MINORITY-A YES, 87. Aglionby, H. A. Ferguson, Sir It. A. O'Connell, M. J. Ainsworth, Peter Fitzroy, Lord C. Ogle, S. C. Arundel, Earl of Fitzwilliam, G. W. Oswald, James !Wm., W. Forster, Matthew Palmerston,,Lord Baring, F. T. Gibson, T. M. I'attisoo, James Barnard, E. G. Gill, Thomas Pechell, Captain Berkeley, Craven Gore, Robert Plumridge, Captain Berkeley, Captain Grosvenor, Lord R. Ponsonhy, C. F. A. Bouverie, E. P. Hallyburton, Lord Protheroe, Edward Bones, John Hectic, Archibald Pittsford, Robert Bowring, Dr. Hawes, B. Ross, David R. Bright, John Hayter, W. G. Russell, Lord J. Brotherton, J. If cathcoat, John Sheridan, It. B. Browne, W. Hindley, Charles Smith, J. A. Clay, Sir W. Holland, Robert Smith, Vernon Colborne, W. B. Horsman. Edward Somerville, Sir W. Cowper, W. P. Howick, Viscount Stuart, Lord J. Craig, W. G. Hume, Joseph Strut t, Edward Dalmeny, Lord Hutt, William Towneley, John Denison, W. J. Labouchere, Henry Vane, Lord 11. Dennistoun, J. Lemon, Sir C. Villiers, Charles Dull', James Leveson, Lord Walker, Richard Duke, Sir J. Macaulay, T. B. Warburton, Henry Duncan, Viscount Marjoribanks, S. Wawn, J. y.._.. Dundas, Admiral .Marshall, William Williams, William Dundas, Frederick Martin, Joint Wilsimere, W. Ehrington, viscount Mitcalfe, Henry Yorke, Theory R. Ellice, Itt. Hon. E. Mitchell, T. A. TELLERS. Evans, William Moffatt, George Hill, Lord M. Ewart, William Morris, David Tufncll, Henry MAJORITY- NOES. 175. Noland, Sir T. D. Farnham, E. B. . Martin, C. W. A'Court, Captain Feilden, W. Mastennan, John Acton, Colonel Fellowes, Edward Meynell, Captain Alford, Viscount Filmer, Sir E. Morgan, 0. Allix, J. P. Fitzroy Henry Mundy, E. M. Antrobus, Edmund Flower, Sir James Neeld, Joseph Arbuthnott, H. Forman, T. S. Neeld, John Arkwright, George Fox, S. L. NewJegatc, C. N. Ashley, Lord Fremantle, Sir T. Nicholl, John Astell, William Fuller, A. E. Norrcys, Lord Baillic, Colonel Gaskell, J. M. Ossulstoti, Lord Baillie, 11. J. Gladstone, W. E. Packe, C. W. Baird, W. Gladstone, Captain Pakington, J. S. Baldwin, Barry Gordon, Captain Palmer, Robert Barkly, H. Gore, 'Montague Palmer, George Baring, Thomas Goulburn, Henry Peel, Sir It. Baring, W. It. Graham, Sir J. Peel, Jonathan Barrington, Viscount Granby, Marquis Pennant, Colonel Benbow, John Greenall, P. Pringle, Alexander Bennett, Philip Greene, Thomas Rashleigh, W. Beresford, Major Grogan, Edward Repton, G. W. J. Bernard, Viscount Hale, It. B. Richards, Richard Blackburne, J. I. Haltbrd, Sir 11. Rolleston, Colonel Boldero, li. G.. Hamilton, C. J. B. Round, C. G. Borthwick, Peter Hamilton, J. 11. Round, John Bottled, Beriah Hamilton, G. A. Itous, Captain Bowies, Admiral Hamilton, Lord C. Russell, Charles Branaston, T. W. Hampden, Rena Ryder, G. I). Brisco, M. Harcourt, G. G. Smidon, Viscount Broadley, Henry Henley, J. W. Scott, Francis Broadwood, 11. Hervey, Lord A. Seymour, Sir 11. Bruce, Lord E. Hodgson, F. Sibtliorp, Colonel Buck, W. L. Hogg, J. W Smith, Abel Buckley, Edmund Hope, Charles Smith, T. B. C. Buller, Sir J. Y. I lope, G. W. Smollett, Alexander Bunbury, Thomas llotham, Lord Sotheron, T. 11. Cardwell, Edward Houldovorth, T. Spooner, Richard Chelsea, Viscount Hughes, W. B. Spry, Sir S. T. Cholmondeley, 11. Hussey, Ambrose Stewart, John Chute, W. L. W. Hussey, Thomas Stuart, Henry Clayton, R. R. Irton, Samuel Sturt, 11. C. Clerk, Sir G. James, Sir Walter Sutton, H. M. Clifton, J. T. Jermyn, Earl Tomcat, J. E. Cockburn, Sir G. Jocelyn, Viscount Thesiger, Sir F. Codrington, Sir W. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. Thornhill, George Cole, 11. A. Jones, Captain Tollemache, F. J. Collett, W. It. Kemble, Ilenry Tollemache, John Compton, Y. C. Lennox, Lord A. Trench, Sir F. W. Curry, Henry Lincoln, Earl Trevor, G. R. Cripps, W. Lockhart, William Waddington, H. S. Darner, Colonel Loft • !s, Viscount Wellesley, LordC . Dickinson, F. H. Lopes, Sir R. Wodehouse, Edmond Douglas, Sir 11. Lowther, Sir J. 11. Wood, Colonel Douglas, J. D. S. Lowther, Colonel Wood, Colonel T. Buncombe, A. Lygon, General Yorke, E. T. Buncombe, 0. Mackenzie, T. Eastnor, Viscount Mackenzie, W. F. Egerton, W. T. Maclean, Donald Entwisle, William M'Neill, Duncan Escott, Bickhana Manners, Lord C. S. TELLEA4. Young, John Baring, Henry SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. GUILDFORD RACES.—YESTICILDAY. Her Majesty's Plate of 100 guineas for 3 yr-olds 7st 51b, 4 yrs 9st Ilb, 6 yrs 9st 111 b, 6 yrs and aged lOst 21b. Heats two miles. Mr. Werninek's Patchwork, 6 yrs Mr. King's Artful Dodger, 6 yrs Mr. May's My Mary Ann, 3 yrs Lord Grantley's Paradise, 4 yrs 4 4 Won easy. INTELLIGENCE EXTRA.—TEWKESBURY, 1845. Acceptances fur the Gloucestershire Stakes. Winesour, 5 yrs, Bst 61b—Una, aged, Bst—Best of Three, 4 yrs, 7st l2lb—Susannah, 4 yrs, Est 101b—Bask gelding, 4 yrs, 6st 41b—and Columbus, 3 yrs, 6st. NEWPORT (SALOP.) Acceptances for the Newport Stakes. Nix my Dolly, 6 yrs, Bst 21b—Aurungzebe, 5 yrs, Bst 21b— Delamere, 5 vrs, 7st 101b—T'Auld Squire, 4 yrs, 7st 101 b Molecatcher, 4 yrs, 7st 51b—Eveline, 4 yrs, 7st—ch g by Dick, 3 yrs, 6st—b f by Advance, out of Tippoo's dam, 3 yrs, 6st. NEWMARKET SECOND OCTOBER MEETING, 1845. WEDNESDAY. Lord Exeter's Celia agst Duke of Bedford's Espoir, Bst 71b each, first half of Ab. M., 200, 50 ft. FRIDAY. Col. Peel's c by Slane, out of Cobweb, agst Sir J. Hawley's Comrade, Bst 71b each, T. Y.C., 150, h ft GOODWt )OD, 1845. Nominations for the Chesterfield Cup :—Garry Owen, aged —Captain Phcebes, 3 yrs—Miss Elis, 3 yrs—Clumsy, 3 yrs— Knight of the Whistle, aged—Lady Wildair, 3 yrs—Vaudeville, 3 yrs—Quebec, 5 yrs—Wee Pet, 5 yrs—b c by Bay Middleton, out of Miss Whip, 3 yrs—Needful, 4 yrs—Ajax, aged—Ninety one, 4 yrs— Semiseria, 5 yrs—Rowena, 4 yrs—Queen Slab, 6 yrs—Hersey, 3 yrs—Cobweb colt, 3 yrs—Lothario, 5 yrs— Winesour, 5 yrs—Psalinsinger, 3 yrs—Remnant, aged—The Cure, 4 yrs—Arcanus, 6 yrs—Ould Ireland, 3 yrs—The Altered One, 6 yrs—Secundus, 4 yrs—Remorse, 3 yrs—My Old Hack, aged—Philip, 5 yrs—Lightning, 4 yrs—the Best of Three, 4 yrs—The Queen of the Gipsies, 5 yrs—Maid of Orleans, 3 yrs—Skeleton, 4 yrs—Richard Cricket, 3 yrs —Alamode, 4 yrs—Beaumont, 4 yrs—/Bois, 3 yrs—Moustache, 4 yrs— Carillon, 5 yrs. EPSOM, 1847. he Derby closed with 193 subscribers and the Oaks with 152, DONCASTER. The Cleveland StakesCic;edvitia2ientries, and the Great Yorkshire Handicap with 59. YORK AUGUST MEETING, 1845. Acceptances for the Great Ebor Handicap—Pompey, 5 yrs, Bst 131b—The Shadow, aged, Bst 81b— Trueboy, 5 yrs, Bst 81b —Lightning, 4 yrs, 7st 121b—Yardley, 5 yrs, Tat 31b—Ever ton, 5 yrs, 7at 21b—Rowena, 4 yrs, 7st 21b—My Old Hack, aged, 7st Ilb—Glossy, 5 yrs, 7st lib—Jamie Forest, aged, Tat—Quebec, 5 yrs, 7st—A-la-mode, 4 yrs, 6st 121b—Volau• vent, 4 yrs, 6st 121b—Cataract, 5 yrs, Est 111b—Sir Ab strupus, 5 yrs, 6st 91b—Poor Soldier, 5 yrs, Est 91b—Miss Burns, 5 yrs, Est Sib—Dr. Husband , 4 yrs , 6it 716—North umberland, 4 yrs, Est 4113—Coheiress, 4 yrs, sst 101b—Little Hampton, 4 yrs, sst 101b—April Noddy, 4 yrs, sst 71b—Ma rian Ramsay, 3 yrs, sst 51b—Plaudit, 3 yrs, 5,t 51b—Pythia, 3 yrs, sst 5 - Ib—Lady Sarah, 4 yrs, sst 51b—Cabin Boy, 3 yrs, bat 4113—Little John, 3 yrs, Sat 41b—Cock Robin, 4 yrs, sst 41b—Psalmsinger, 3 yrs, sst 31b—Marrowmat, 3 yrs, sst 31b —The Infant. 4 yrs, sst 31b—The Whistler, 4 yrs, sst 21b— Dean Swift, 3 yrs, sst —Jenny Wren, 3 yrs, sst—Wynrards, 3 yrs, s,t—Young England, 3 yrs, 4st 101b—Duke of kent, 3 yrs, 4st 101 b —Prescription, 3 yrs, 4st 71b—b fby Physician, out of F.ag , man's dam, 3 yrs, 4st 41b—Maria, 3 yrs, 4st 41b —Extravaganza, 3 yrs, 4st 41b. LATEST BETTING AT MANCHESTER. TUESDAY AFTERNOON, Two o'CLocx. LIVERPOOL Cur.-5 to 2 agst Winesour (0-6 to 1 agst Lothario (t)-6 to 1 agst Milton-8 to 1 agst Trueboy (t)- 15 to 2 aget Rowena (t)-20 to 1 agst Little Hampton ( t)- 3to 1 agst Dawson's lot (offers to take). Lightning rnd Iron master not expected to run. LtvEttroot. ST. LEGZA..-2 to 1 agst Pantasa (t)-2 to I agst Mentor (t)-4 to 1 agst Ould Ireland-4 to 1 agst The Baron. CRICKET. KENT V. ALL ENGLAND. Yesterday this match was resumed by Mr. Swann and Mr. Felix making their appearance at the wickets, there being, even at an early hour of the day, a very numerous attend ance of visitors. The score stood thus when " time" was called : ENGLAND. Lillywhite, c Hillyer, b b Hillyer 7 Mynn 3O Barker, b Hillyer l4 b ditto. Guy, c Felix, b ditto 3 b Mynn 8 Sewell, b Mynn .. 16 c Swann, b Martin lB Box, b ditto ... ........... ... 0 b Hillyer 3O Bushby, b ditto 5 b Adams 1 C. G.Taylor, Esq., c Harene, c Martin, b Hillyer ... 13 b Hillyer .. Dakin, b Hillyer Martingell, not out ........ 5 b ditto 3 Sir F. Bathurst, c Dorrin- b ditto 1 ton, b Mynn Dean, b Hilly•er... ...... Byes.l4 ; wide (Mynn 4, Byes, 15 ; wide ( Adams 2, Adams, 1) 5 (Adams 2, Mynn 2, Martin 5)9 114 142 KENT. Alartin,c Sewell, b Martin gell 2 C. J. Whittaker, Esq., c Box, b ditto C. Harenc, Esq., not out... 4 Hillyer, b Dean 1 Byes, 10; wide—Martin gall 1, Dean 1, 2 ; no ball—:Vlartingcll 1 . 51 W. - Wan, Esq., c Bathurst, b Dean A.Mynn, Esq., c b Martingell Adams. b Dean 3 Pilch, c Martingell, b ditto 14 E. Swann, Esq., c ditto, b ditto N. Felix, Esq., c Guy, b ditto... ... - Dorrinton, bditto The Kent were, therefore, to go in this morning for 174 to win, and the betting is in favour of their accomplishing that object. There are those, however, who entertain an opinion that the odds are against them. SINGULAR MATCH AT CRICKET.—ARMS VERSUS LEGS.—A match, which from its novel character attracted an immense number of spectators, was played last week in the cricket ground of the Railway Tavern , at Reading. The players on one side consisted of an eleven with only one arm each ; while on the other side each had but one leg—saving a wooden one. One of the umpires had lost both his arras, and the other had " not a leg to stand upon." A referee was also selected who had neither arms nor legs ! At the com mencement of the play the odds were in favour of the One arms ; n otwithstanding the Single- legs had many backers. During the first innings, inconsequence of the soft nature of the ground from the late rains, no less than three legs were broken, but these were soon " set " without the aid of a me dical man, a neighbouring carpenter skilfully performing the "operation." At the termination of the game the score stood thus:—The Single-legs, first innings, 25; second innings, 46—total, 71. The One-arms, first innings, 50; second innings, 60—total 110. The players dined between the innings at the Railway Tavern. GREENWICH REGATTA. Six free watermen or East Greenwich on Uonday contended for a very serviceable new skiff and good money prices, in five heats. The regatta was patronised, as the cards expressed it, pyiAdaltral atoptord, 'andtba nobnity ♦ind igeniry 61 OW vicinity ; and the afternoon hping exceedingly fine, the stearae. and rail took down a great number of perso ns to thi3 re' popular piano of public ri sort. ,r C E 011 4 1. i f are ap fir,d VE'Atl). tt WEI* 114,.en, Me day, RE —t at Lan, rittsT HEAT. llftrn, pink .............................. Thomas Elliott, dark blue .••• .•• Charles Fenwick, light blue ..................... SECOND HEAT. Ilenry Harvey, green William Leader, red ••• •••••.. Edward Gellett, yellow THIRD IIEAT. OsT 1, "1)--] ko 4 g l: U i, i 6 GXl e r 4 j 4.18- --t e t— Ps-4 EiP O l7T] 25 -. 1 13(75. " le ; 1. ( 5; ) -verth, 1311 1 ,6 1 an pp( ;11TON:' T o `ll - tro N - - lep 'ecttre 4 114 r, f ; ent 4r e , I ‘l % L( id 54 hint r nL pcsia 1 withouat ij „ t to cj :1 (4 ,'n1), ter ate the 1)/:)1,tiry, or 1' 111,1, Gellett Elliott rouani HEAT. Horn .. Gellett GRAND lIRAT. 1 William Horn, pink ..... ••• 9 Edward hea t } T yellow ........................... It was a smart heat. The winner took the lead, l u d pressed severely throughout by his opponent, who came ._ two boats' lengths astern. On Saturday last a match between the Eton eight int er te l, for the Westminster match, and a crew composed of g r e ip n t ion men belonging to the Cambridge and Oxford Sub` ending Room, took place on a beautiful reach of water e,'L„lact about a mile and a half from Datchet-bridge to •IN it :i a terl Fishery. The Eton boat was manned as follows :Ifourd, stroke ; Richards, Adlington, Luttrell, INPNiveo, %,ord Tremayne; Shaw Stewart, steerer. The crew of the ke ring) boat were—Mr. Henry Stapylton, stroke ; Mr. Pl OO OO Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Denman, Mr. Lambert, Mr. ,erer. Stapylton, Mr. Murdoch; Mr. Lawford, an Etonian, 55'nert' The start was admirable, the Etonians being on t h a trr shire side of the Thames. Both boats went away ab e d mendous pace, keeping well together until they reac" 'dot beatifnl villa of Mr. Fowler; at this point it becarnere.,ctbeir, that the strength of the Rooms' boat was too great l'ojol you:hful competitors, and they gradually gained 3 V i them, winning the match, after a most spirited c on boat's boat's length. The banks of the Thames were line spectators. 1•'" 'ft! " ca irk; ar! t at a l' 4,1 tIL I VPAt s ezhi fan , it DI ( ,( 11, e tt "A her a , to th of F. at ARUNDEL YACHT CLUB.—The first saio-o." c lop , of the season among the yachts of this highly respertabbell)/ for a silver cup and cover, came off on Monday, the distance felts from Greenwich to Greenhithe and back. At a little hefe r ; o ts' the following started :—The Foam, 7 tons, Mr. E. W. 1/ T 00 f the Dauntless, 7, Mr. T. Edwards—and Oi s e Don, 7, 1 ‘ 11 1,.. 0 - 0 0 . ner. The Dauntless took the lead, followed by the ',ft in Woolwich-reach the latter ran by her antagonist. but little work down, the wind being exceedingly fti oj psl o ' running ; and the Foam first rounded at half-past two , or ., less about three minutes later, and the Don a minute le Da 0 astern of her. In beatin g u p th e D on p asse d the D a l' gotsr a ' Erith, and in Woolwich-r ea ch went by th e Foam t ° ' . s , thus winning the prize by half a minute only. [W it [ADVERTISEMENT.]—BOTANIC WATER A- 11 A f i g°, GREASE.—When the hair is becoming thin, s e , a besT off, the only effect.ual remedy, besides s having t`V• c a is the use of the two above-named articles, eilt i f.,0 0 ternately—the botanic water to cleanse the N u !: se . , s scurf. and as a stimulant, and the bear's gr os ,i - o f , nourisher. If any further evidence was require serf virtues of bear's grease for renovating and Pr e 'a, so' the hair, Mr. Catlin's account of the quantity u se ps e i the length of hair obtf,ined by some of the Northo rican Indians, would be a sufficient aaswer. Sons, 119 and 120, Bishopsgate-street, who fir s 'a ieb ° duced the use of bear's grease in this country , l in , pile fat and kill the animals, recommend the publi c 0 0 chase none other but with their names and 9 printed on the pot, or the chances are their obtaislijil spurious article. All vegetable oils applied to th e ' are wersa than useless. o fld ! [ADVERTISEMENT].—THE EARL Ole ALDI 3 % 0 * ,7 AND HOLLOWAY'S PILLS.—An astounding cur e ;lair onraculous medicine after every other means 1 1 n,", ger, —see extract of his ' Lordship's letter, dated Villfler sins, Leghorn, February 21, 1815.—" To Profess.;llol loway.—Sir—l beg to acquaint you that your P l ' 0 0 011 1 effected a cure of a disorder in my liver and s t° ,„, which all the most eminent of the faculty at b° 4 :„psii all over the Continent had not been able to el e° •al , not even the waters of Carlsbad or Marienbad.', l 6ol l 4 ALDBOROITGII.”—These wonderful pills will e ll " Of disease of the liver or stomach. Sold (also floil e jti Ointment) at Professor Holloway's establislun ee ti t l Strand, and by all mefL,ine venders throl4ll°- civilised world. GI N MR. BURK F.'s HISTORY OF THE LANDED P e —Three parts of this truly national work have new I P: 0 , The next will complete the publication, and, in (1044 4 ;04 place before the student of history, of politics, and ° f a sir phical and antiquarian lore, a body of information s n „tstip t of interest unapproached by those of any similar an d b r as This History of the Landed Gentry extends to the thre e , i o elg i of the empire—England, Scotland, and Ireland ---an" jottim every family attached to the landed interest of the ° o p . : 6 4 that interest which forms at epee the buttress that s o ri n g great fabric of the titled ari s tocracy, and the snietP r o l whence the streams of that aristocracy must be surPf est li e e recruited ; consequently these records b ea r the sall'oarosto 11 and indispensable relationship to the " Peerage and e botto age" of the same wr i ter , as t h e two subjects do t i °e. .„pperol and, as the latt er w ill ever b e f oun d standing by ant' — eor h one another in ac t ua l lif e , so s h ou ld an d will the re' them do, in every well-chosen library. g 1 NT THE ENGLISH GENTLEWO M AN ; OR, '& c 0" . 61 , YOUNG LADIES ON THEIR ENTRA NCE INTO "',"!ii , 1, 1,1 We are requested to state that the above work , P r ' „ — s t, g 0 o ). bound, is published this day by Mr. Colburn, of Grew. N borough-street, and may lie had of all booksellers• has also just published the following interesting S e "Ose Tie —2. Memoirs of Lady Hesier Stanhope, co rnpiising o f 1 , 0 1 nions and Anecdotes of the most remarkable Pers°ll9.„s. Times, 3 vols., with Portrait & 31s. 61 bound . gait t Etc. , • Third Volume of the Nelson Letters and Dispatc he : e s, by Sir Harris Nicolas.-4. Memoirs of Sophia Doroto., 006 sort of George 1., including Her Dial y, 2 vol s • Sy bil' s al Portraits, 28s. bou n d.-5. A S econ d Edition of " The Two Nations," by B. D'lsraell Esq., M.P., 3 Q u eer, ``. 6. Volume Bof 11iss Strickland's Lives of tb e ine of England," comprising Henrietta Mari a , an d Cal A e cia ganza, Consorts of Charles 1. and 11. I l e --SP WILL OF THE LATH MRS. ROUND. -- 'i g , se I t tens of administrati on with th e w ill annexe d of gest Ito" stantia Round, of Danbury- park, Chelmsford, wife of ", 11 r , e e, A r ' Esq., M.P., have been granted to her husband, and hor o John Round, Frederic Peel Round, and Edmund fou"t, roe the executors named in the will, which was made in A u g t and is of some length, containing many recitals. Al lWi l; or 01 .A 0 it recites that h e r m o th er , the late Mrs. Caswell, by P e- i, pointment vested in her over a moiety et' 104,0001. stecotids:o her (Mrs. Round) 22,0001., an d th a t she was als o „ e l Oval one.fourth of the residue under her late father's w `Y e d 1 0 01 tt l together upwards of 50,0001., which sums were in ves. .t 0 't( , sc' 'lt names of trustees under her marriage settlement ; also „, by a deed executed by herself and husband in 1840, the s'" - des,f ./,.41 to receive the interest for life; and the principal an t a o' 1 I . j the survivor is to be divided amongst their four chih" r - jitild portioned by them in the deed, the eldest son taking ( 1 1. op osi t d the trust moneys as well as some freehold estates. The'2„ e s I are confirmed by her will. The husband is entitled to estate, over which she had no disposing power. lh Dp CONVICTION FOR GAMBLING.—At lll letS r Police-court yesterday a man named Shaw was conasisitteu g l a ell i 11 , L 1 1 O, for ten days for having a gambling-t a bl e on Turoha ii ;rlr Saturday, during the horticultural fee,, with whic h 15-12 r a servants waiting with carri ages were p l ay i ng , ft° k , 111 4 ., RUSSIAN BARBARITY.--According to i e tt i e fo , Ostrovo, in Poland, dated June 30, the Russian Gener il l„. f o', ' 9,,_ l tL'l!aij i t'a t e l assassinated, with his own hand, in open day, at Wa, l l ° „ r ite e 1 0 ) „%:, 3, happy hackney.coachman, who had committed the ;4 0 . a, slightly touching the sleeve of his uniform as he pasee'Lf o re our i vain the poor coachman threw himself on his knees i'v f ' l,l‘ ,Z, and begged for pardon, the General immolated him 1 0 .... 2 A lt i o ,,Ntia dignity, without the least pity.—Breslau Gaxette. t OS 'AN - VVq) l ; FOURTEENTH EDITION of the SILENT FRIEND d Frailty, with Coloured Engravings. s e a L" jest published, price 2s. 6d., free by post (In a sealed co ":„ - 4/of° ILI" ifkit,vt 511,14", N R lEN D ; Medical ,01 .t.i ) , q,'t he Infirmities of the Generative System in both ° T . e - s ter..tty . .,..,lce, 1 the toss 01 the reproductive powers, with meeni ;aiS e etWie / Ni''4)Nt Ihe baneful effects of solitary indulger ce, neglected sY . P:; ; Ie f sl A 7o r pi ti , eok , eins, Etc., are fully pointed out. Illustrated by EngravT: r elef o n by observations on Marriage, ith plain directions for tsv &PO' ..„ 4 ,; 1 111..,!tt ei , ;ertain disqualifications. liy it and L. FERRY and Cogs burgeons, L on d on . P u blished by the Authors, and M:4o, l '' their resi4erice, 19, ERNERS-STREET, OYFOttD Sold by Strange, 21, Paternoster-row ; Hannay an": CO' At ,XECtly 1:`,I1` lord-street ; Gordon, 14G, Leadenhall-street ; rtilla s " street, Soho ; and all rookse 0 y llar). kr44.,,ATs We regard the work before as, the Silent Frielia;, 0 10 embracing most clear and practical views of a series 0,,,f b um: o by hitherto little iteiderstotxl, and passed over by a ma;oritY v f o i: 000 Ti t 4 4, 1 t 14 I t dical profession, for what reason we are at a`losa to k/Ona however confess that a perusal of this work has left aue",; a t impression on our minds, that we not only recommend, oa f "! r ha srh wish every one w ho Is the victim of past folly, or sufferia 0 416 , 1 ":1)1 a cretion, to profit by the advice contained in its. pages."—Aedife',,p ), The CORDIAL BALM of SYRIACUM is exolusivel; t e ... ,e , " 'a the cure of nervous and sexual debility, irregularity, l'it.lo7 o !d 0 of appetite, indigestion, consumptive habits,and debilltie' m er 9" T o onh t excess, &C. In bottles, price 1 Is., or the quantity of A Av o ld 1 /4 0e ) t bottle for 335., by which lls. are saved. The five-Pet u ' aiiti ,9, be had as usnal. The CONCENTRATED DETERSIVE ESSENCE , ? G I; Th e e °~ nil litic remedy far searching out and purifying the blood a ose blotches en the head, face, and body, ulcerations, and tfl o f to T re s Hilo, "i aff-Ictions arising from Improper treatment or the e ffects rc..ruoving secondary symptoms, and all eruptions of thesibsMel its. and 335. per bottle. ? i( ) 11 1‘: ° PERRY'S PURIFYING SPECIFIC PILLS, price 25.. a r0 , 0040 4 and 11e. per box, are the most etTectual remedy for strict u to D P ot .cit not 'nation, irritation of the bladder, Poe., without hindranc e . _,41 Consultation fee, if by letter, Minute detail of case",ato: An 'aey alessrs. Perry are in daily attendance, for consultation,rtalTi }Vs th e , ridesce, 19, Beruers-street, Oxford.etreet, London, frem,i, 1 • I.V t ft 11 5 till S. On Sundays from to till 12. One personal visi t- 4 1 4 °11; es airy tonefect a errnanent cure. The pia , tifz( ~IQ~~ 15~ 1845, lil A'rso~ i tSti tt 1t 11 4' 411 4P Cr f, ri . Al ittrable) 0; 4 1 Int 416, 4t re: "4 or Yea, tht , 11. 42 1 )1 4 ,48 .g th eir t • '; B.TRTHIL On the Bth inst., at Prestonfield House, near r,-; 1 ,0 0 ; the lady of David L. Burn, Esq., of a daughter,..sti:; 1 101 , On the 10th inst.. at Avening, near Stroud, 0 Alexander Rooke, Esq., of a son. AO ° On the 12th inst., at Upper Homerton, M• r' Mr Street, of a daughter, which lived only a few hours'of On the 13th inst., at Woburn-square, the wil l ' 13 ,1 ' Gatlesden, Esq., of a daughter. , for cl4 A On the 13th inst., Mrs. William Lane , of 130. Russell-square, of a son. On the 14th inst., in Tavistock• square, the ladi - F.. Barclay , Esq., of Middle Temple, of a sod- 0 , MARRIED. ,t dft On the 9th inst., Mr. Henry Jordait, to Eve, elt l ' A 6tr,,pf/ tar of Lewis Jordan, Esq., of terners-street, On the 12th inst., at St. Pancras New Church , •L" - ?, !,• 4 0 , Cox, of High Holborn, law-stationer, to .I`-ritt-eeti daughter of William Matta, Esq., of Belgrave-st' hof road. • tbe' Oa the 12th inst., at St. Mary's, Islington, fat son, Esq., to Mrs. Casson. On the 12th inst . a at St. Mary's, Stoke Castle Gaut, of Nicholas-lane, Lombard-street, 5 " o f Cecilia Ann, elder daughter of G. S. Healcs, Newington. DIED. On the 9th inst., at Kelston Knoll, near 1 34th ' - 1 Tudor, Esq., aged 77. c , ter On the Bth inst., at Ramsgate, Sarah, reli ct of e 4 reb Esq , aed 64. On t g he llth inst., Mr. Thomas Harvey, late of the Eagle, Wandsworth. On the 12th inst., at Lower Tooting, Sarre)°, 3/r. E Ji haman, un., urgeon, of Merton. te , '` C On the 12th inst., at Ashurat-wood, East Grins r i 1 1$r ward Wardroper, Esq. On the 13th inst., at Ring-street, Cbegn i , - :re;x lr Maria, the eldest daughter of the late Rev. C. I " — t. t ).."" On the 13th inst., at Stamford-hill, Ern ee- be• Schwabe, youngest son of the late Rev. Dr. Sclls v i t e rtb , On the 12th iust., at Brunswick-terrace, oB°. d Elizabeth Morris, aged 84. I • MURPO ;10-4' • • - .Saws 0106'000 „:1:• Preciust Lll,, 1 - 114 Wet - mniny, Jul 16, 184ffe bit t liti .1 41 14.11; 1 4,Z it N r)r 4 ,: ; k, i f V ;e t4 Ort in t - t ~qt , IN, pi b o? , Pity: ck 4,1 rf ~-.