The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-25 00:00:00

TILE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY MORNING, JANUARY 25, 1847,

SPEECH OF M. GUIZOT ON THE
MONTPENSIER MARRIAGE, DELIVERED IN
THE CHAMBER OF PEERS, JAN. 20.
The MINISTER of FOREIGN ATFAIRS ascended the
tribune amidst marks of the greatest interest, and said:—
Gentlemen, I hare to claim your indulgence, for I am
somewhat hoarse, and have much to say. Ido not stand
here to defend our policy. It has been strongly
attacked, and as energetically defended, first by our
friends, and next by men whom I regret not to reckon
amongst our supporters, but whom I am happy not to
have to-day to enrol amongst our adversaries. I shall
not speak of the past so much as of the present, as the
idea which now occupies every mind, is the influence
exercised :by the Spanish marriages on our relations
with Great Britain. lam fully aware that my words
may have some influence on the present delicate situa-
tion, and I pray the Chamber to imagine what my
position really is, and to go freely with me both in my
frankness and my reserve. The Chamber has often
given us its support when accusations were heaped
on us of being wanting in firmness and dignity towards
England, and it will now do the same when the
charge against us is that we have been deficient in
good faith and prudence.—(Hear, hear.) In presence
of the Chambers, of France, of England, and of the
King, I am about to give a plain recital of the policy
followed by the French Cabinet, and when I have done
that you can all form your own judgment. From the
origin of the marriage question the policy of the King's
government has been of a double character—very de-
cided and very public. In neither case was the accusa-
tion well founded, and as we have on many an occasion
justified ourselves against the first, so I am now anxious
to reject the other in the face of France and of Europe.
The principle of that policy, with respect to Spain, is
well known—not to allow the crown of Spain to pass out
of the house of Bourbon. All our diplomatic antece-
dents, the balance of power in Europe, as well as the
dignity of the French crown, called on us to insist on
that point. That principle I have made the basis of our
policy, and I have always clearly explained our view at all
the courts of Europe. M. Pageot has been the interpreter
of our sentiments at Berlin and Vientta, and M. Casimir
Perier at St. Petersburg. Therefore there could not
possibly be any doubt or hesitation felt relative to our
views—(Here the Duke d'Aumale and the Prince de
Joinville entered the Chamber, and the Peers rose to
receive them.)—That principle I declared to the Cham-
bers from the very beginning. I announced it in 1841,
1842, and 1843—it was, in fact, the constant rule of my
language. Yet we were not ignorant what difficulties
this line of conduct involved ; it might be turned against
us, and used to arouse the national susceptibilities of
the Spanish nation ; but as we conceived that our policy
was good and national, we firmly maintained it. We
knew the dangers of that policy, but we knew that it was
national, and we did not hesitate therefore to proclaim
it with boldness. We have not hesitated to tie ourselves
down in advance, and that embarrasses us. But at the
same time that the policy of France was thus decided
and public, it was moderate and conciliating. We espe-
cially recognised the rights of the country ; we served
and aided Spanish interests even when not favourable to
us. I defended General Espartero from this place ; I
maintained with him friendly relations. We lived well
w,th the Progressists, and we were at V- e same time clear
and moderate. In fine, when a favourable occasion pre-
sented itself for bringing together the opposing parties—
for uniting, for instance, the Moderados with the Pro-
gressists—we alfordM them our counsel,, and exercised
influence amongst them of the most moderate character.
have we tailed either, as far as Spain is concerned, in
moderation towards Europe ? Every body knows that
the three Northern Courts supported a candidate to the
hand of the Queen, the Count de Montemolin. We did not
exclude him, although our conduct in that respect has
drawn upon us many reproaches in France. I wrote on
April 19, 1842, to the Count de Flahault that that idea was
a good one for bringing about a fusion of the two rights, and
for bringing Spain into communication with the rest of
Europe. I pointed out, however, the dangers of that
combination to Spain, by saying that it would be badly
received by the Progressists, and even by the Moderados.
I showed that parties in that country had even begun to
be agitated at the probability of that union. I added,
that the Queen Isabella was for ns the legitimate sove-
reign of Spain, and that we wished for no arrangement
that should not be agreeable to Spain herself. Lastly, I
terminated by saying that any prince of the house of
Bourbon, who should be agreeable to the Queen Isabella
would be agreeable to us. (M. Guizot here read the
despatch to the Count de Flahaut, and proceeded.) The
Chamber sees that in declaring ourselves in favour of
this combination we made prow of impartiality. At a
later period, on September 21st, 1843, I resumed in a
note, also addressed to the Count de Flahaut, the rules
of conduct adopted in common by France and England.
In this note it was said that no formal exclusion was pro-
nounced by either Cabinet, but that if the candidateship
of the Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg should be proposed,
that would be for France a signal to resuscitate that of
the Duke d'Aumale. Between the descendants of Philip
V. the French Government did not intend to take the
initiative; it accepted them all, abandoning to Spain—
that is the numerous and most enlightened part of her
population—the choice to be made between the several
candidates to the Queen's hand. These conditions being
laid down, the first candidate that presented himself was
the Comte de Trapani. This candidateship was not set
up by either France or England. We had no opposi-
tion to make to it. It had the consent of Queen Chris-
tina; it secured to Spain the recognition of Naples • and
it drew closer the ties between the three branches Of the
house of Bourbon reigning in Europe. As to England,
we always offered her our united operation in Spain. No
one is more convinced than myself that the struggle for
influence in Spain between England and France is
disastrous to her. There, as elsewhere, we may live in
good intelligence with our allies on the other side
the Channel. Never has England entered frankly
into the concert; her policy was one of reserve and
procrastination; she did not oppose us, but she did not
co-operate with us. By the fall of Espartero, the
English policy received a check in Spain; at the
same time a report was current that the Spanish Go-
vernment might demand for the Queen the hand of the
Duke d'Aumale. This circumstance aroused the atten-
tion of the English Government, who, in her turn, made
advances to us to solicit our co-operation. (The lion.
Minister here read a dispatch which contained these
ouertures from the English Government, dated July 21,
1843, as well as the reply made to it by the French
Cabinet.) The result was that the offer of the English
Government was accepted with pleasure. Those are the
very words of the answer. The nature of the arrange-
ment made was, that the two Governments agreed to
admit that the question of the marriage of the Queen
should be considered as one completely and exclusively
Spanish. We could not but approve of that combination,
we did, in fact, approve of it, that is to say, on the sole
condition that it should have the manifest support of the
young Queen of the Spanish nation, and that it should
be submitted to legal and constitutional forms. This
combination, however, met with very serious ob-
stacles in the midst of the struggles and pretensions
of political parties in Spain. Besides, there was
nothing urgent in the matter ; it might well
be postponed ; the Queen was still young, and in
consequence it was put off. The question remained in
this state until the summer of 1844, a period at which
we had occasion to give the English Goverment a fresh
proof of the good faith of our policy ; we declared
officially the renunciation of the Duke d'Aumale to the
band of the Queen. This, it will be allowed, was a
good card less in our game.—(Smiles.) At this time
the Spanish Cabinet made a first overture, tending to
the simultaneous marriages of the Count de Trapani
with the Queen and the Duke de Montpensier with the
Infanta. We did not listen to this overture, and our
motives were explained in a dispatch which I addressed
on the 26th November, 1844, to Count Bresson, our
Ambassador at Madrid. The news thereof, nevertheless,
got noised abroad, and caused some uneasiness to the
Cabinet of London. That was a little before the second '
visit of the Queen Victoria to the Chateau d'Eu. That
visit supplied us a natural occasion for entering into ex-
planations in this respect, in the same manner as I had
done to Count Bresson. We did not conceal the fact that
the marriage of the Duke of Montpensier with the In-
fanta of Spain would be perfectly agreeable to the
King of the French, but we positively declared
that we did not intend to profit by that project to
thwart the general policy adopted in concert by the two
Governments, and the marriage of the Duke of Mont-
pensier should take place not only after that of the
Queen, but not until her Majesty's marriage should
have given a successor to the throne of Spain. Lord
Aberdeen acknowledged the perfect frankness of our
declarations, and made no objection. The concert and
common action of the two Governments remained there-
fore intact. After the conferences of Eu, the question
pursued its course. The candidateship of the Count de
Trapani continued to occupy the attention of the Go-
vernment of Madrid; but, at the same time, other names
began to be pronounced, not through foreign, butSpanisle
influence. The name of the Prince Leopold of Saxe
Coburg appeared most frequently. and his appearance
naturally caused us disquietude. I communicated with
Lord Aberdeen, who assured me that we had nothing
to feat' from that quarter. I was, nevertheless, obliged
to give new instructions to Count Bresson, recom-
mending him to be careful, and to protest
against that combination if it should acquire any
probability. The Neapolitan combination lost ground
more and more; and the Cabinet of Narvaez was
then about being broken up. I will allow not this occa-
sion to pass, of renderine. to General Narvaez, who is no
longer in power, but who lives in retirement, the testi-
Inorty which the uprightness and the energy, of which he
ll!ixte proof in this question, justly merit. He k )wed
hmaself, I fear not to say, more capable of political firm-
ness tb.aisrursgv
the gove of the statesmen who have since tnt ,red
theasrat of Spain. It is at this period that is to
be placed
sadoirmatorandum of the 27th February,which
our Ambas
En don, tbs. Count de Saint-Aulaire,
placed before the liglish Cabinet; a memorandum
which, repeating the instructions which we had given to
Count Bresson, made :eown to the English Gove n-
rnent the conduct that
Itnertilitsta pursue, if the new
made
to us
heeonae serious,
combination proposed at
A new overture was then
of tits. queen.
Cabinet; it consisted in marrying the aDubeyde Montpen-
the Spanish
sier immediately before the marriaee
'as we had the
We rejected this second overture
first. It was in the month a May
that
that Count Bresson called my serious manlyattenio
the menacing exertions that were being made at Madridto
in favour of the Prince of Coburg; and I learned at
the same time that a cornmunicatioft of the same nature
had been addressed by the Spanish Government to that
of England. My surprise, I avow, was very great; and
I hastened to express it to Lord Aberdeen, who denied
that he had taken the least part in that unforeseen act.
What, then, had produced the Coburg combination? Its
origin must be sought in Spain herself. We had at two
different times rejected the propositions of her Govern-
raecti liltitrAilltita,the simultaneous marriages, the
stLer lo e and preliminary marriage of the
lint /This double refusal offended the
§IIW.B ""Thmenfinko therefore turned all at once to

~,~~.~~

1► ~~~ '

.~

1 S

the candidateship of the Prince of Coburg. There were
then, the Chamber sees, three courses of policy in pre-
sence. The policy of Spain, which desired either one of
the two combinations she had proposed, or the Coburg
combination; the policy of France, which refused both the
simultaneous marriages and the immediate marriage, and
which rejected the Coburg combination; and, finally,
the policy of England, which, without adopting conduct
equally clear and decided, adhered to the marriage of
the Due de Montpensier, provided that it was neither
immediate nor simultaneous. Such was the situation in
June, 1846. To have enabled a question so complicated
(rolls those different pretensions, above mentioned, to be
easily resolved, there was evidently required the concert,
the common action of France and England ; and it was
by that concert, that common action, that we might hope
for a prompt and favourable solution. I hesitate not to
say that under the Ministry of Lord Aberdeen I had
every confidence that this common action would be con-
tinued to the end without obstacle ; and here it is neces-
sary to expose to the Chamber the motives of that
confidence. It was not simply based on the noble and
honourable relations which existed between the two
Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for whatever friendship
may exist between two Ministers, it does not suffice
t
o direct the affairs of two great states ; it may facilitate
the solution thereof, but it does not decide them.
But this was what made my confidence ; you have
often heard speak of a struggle, of rivalry, of influences
between France and England. I am profoundly con-
vinced for my part that these struggles, these riralities,
ire neither good nor necessary for the two state ;
and I venture to say that in this respect the convic-
tion of Lord Aberdeen was perfectly identical with my
own. What consequently gave me confidence was the
sincere desire of peace which was then the ruling senti-
ment of the two Governments ; not a peace merely
connected with the material welfare of the people, but
which proposed a higher object, and one more dignified,
founded on the respect, the moral happiness, and the
repose of men ; that was the sentiment which inspired
the councils of the two Governments. Another senti-
ment also animated them ; it was the feeling of a great
mission of civilization and of progress to be effected in
common ; it was the desire to prevent, by common
action, revolutionary overthrows, by favouring every
where the march of progress and legal liberty. These
were the sentiments which then ruled from on high all
the struggles for influence between the two countries.—
(General marks of approbation.) These sentiments in-
spired the heart of Lord Aberdeen as well as our own;
he was as deeply convinced, as ourselves, that in it
consisted the true and good policy which equally suited
both nations ; consequently in all the questions which
were then pending, and even in the question of
the marriages, strong in the general idea common to
the two Governments, and smoothing down all interests
of a secondary order, we were persuaded that the solu-
tion was possible, easy, and natural, and we were right
in feeling that confidence in the exalted wisdom of the
English Government. But at the end of June a change
took place in the Ministry in England, and Lord Aber-
deen retired. From that moment the face of things
changed. The Chamber will do me the justice to be-
' lieve, that, finding myself in the presence of a new
Minister of Foreign Affairs, I took no notice of any
personal considerations ; I equally hastened t. remove
both from the question and from the minister all sus-
picion, all idea cf bad faith whatever. Ido not think
that I should be allowed to introduce such elements into
the controversy on great questions, for all discussion
would become impossible in presence of such accusations.
[ will always do the statesmen who direct the affairs of
their country the honour of believing that they act with
good faith in the management of the interests con-
fided to them ; they may, like myself, be deceived,
but I look on all accusations of the kind as base
and absurd. I can readily conceive that Lord Palmer-
ston might have ideas and intentions different from
those of his predecessor ; we have some reason to think
it, and that without it being necessary to go back to
1840. The new Minister of Foreign Affairs was sub-
mitted to re-election ; lie was to appear and deliver a
political speech before his electors ; we waited to hear
the language that he might make use of. He was com-
pletely silent on the subject of the marriages. Nothing
at first made known the steps which he proposed to
follow, and it soon became evident to us that he wished
to entrench himself in an impenetrable reserve. That
was his right. Nevertheless, on the 17th July, I wrote
to our Ambassador in London to propose to the Eng-
lish Cabinet a common action for the marriage of
Don Francisco de Assis. Two or three days after I
received communication of the dispatch of the 19th
July ; which has been laid before the Chamber. That
dispatch caused material changes in the state of affairs.
It had at first been sent to Madrid without having been
communicated to us. There was therefore a cessation
of the common action. England pursuedean isolated po-
licy, and concealed it from France. So much for the
form. We will now look at the ground-work. In this
dispatch, the Prince of Coburg was not only named
as a candidate, but placed at the head of the list. Count
de Trapani was altogether excluded. At the same time
too that the Prince of Coburg was named, it was added
that he could meet with no objection. In addition to
the part which speaks of the marriage, what is to be
found in the document ? A violent attack on the
Government of another country, of Spain, and an indi-
cation of the men to be placed at the head of affairs.
So that, aczord-ng to this dispatch, we found ourselves
in the face of a very notable change, both as to the
marriage, and to the conduct of affairs in Spain.
England wished to have the Progressist party advanced.
It was impossible to mistake this double change on
reading the dispatch. I should have been most culpable
had I not seen therein symptoms of a change of deser-
tion in the English Cabinet ; at the same time another
circumstance tended to irresistibly fix my conviction.
My proposition fur a common action by France and
England to put forward Don Francisco d'Assis remained
for five weeks without reply. Five weeks ! I was
not, however, tired out. I informed the Minister of
Great Britain that if any project, whether French or
Spanish, was entered into against us, the French Cabinet
I was decided to follow the course which it had already
made known. What the English Minister did not do, M.
Bresson, our ambassador, accomplished, and I take this
opportunity of saying, with a moderation and an ability,
in act and word, which do him the greatest credit.
Count Bresson always maintained himself within this
line, that, whichever of the sons of Don Francisco de
Paula should suit the Queen of Spain, would also suit
Franoe. He did more—keeping in mind the realisation
of the plans agreed to at Eu, he succeeded in getting
inserted on the 28th of August, in the marriage con-
tract, though not without very great objections from the
Spanish Ministry, a clause, declaring that " the mar-
riage of the Duke de Montpensier was to take place
simultaneously with that of the Queen, as much as that
was possible." But it became so evident that if on the
sth of September all was not terminated for the Spanish
marriages, everything would go back to a state of doubt
that the causes of disorders and insurrections would be'
revived, that it was no longer possible to hesitate.
Count Bresson wrote us every day. In fine, it was only
on Sept. 4, that by a telegraphic dispatch, and in
conformity to the orders of the King, that I authorised
Count Bresson to agree to the simultaneousness of the
marriages. I shall give no detail as to what followed
that solution. There only remains a few words for me
to say. Evidently, to 4every impartial observer, the
conduct of the French Cabinet comes out of this-
erposé as it ought to do. These are facts which I can
affirm to be true. What we said in the beginning we
hare done—we have performed all we wished to do.
We have violated no treaty—neither that of Utrecht
nor any other. We have broken no engagement—we
have failed in no procedd. We did all we could to bring
about a concert with Great Britain, a common action.
We have, therefore, acted in the fulness of cur duty,
and of the dignity of France, without ever separating
our action from prudence or good. faith.—(Loud marks
of approbation.) Now in what situation has this con-
duct placed us with Europe? With respect to Spain,
the facts are clear. The marriage was maturely and
freely discussed in the Cortes. Causes of disorder, of
insurrection, were not wanting in Spain; but all fell be-
fore the wish of the country, and the marriage was ac-
complished. Since the marriage the Cortes have been
subjected to re-election. The judgment of Spain has
sent to the benches of the Cortes an assembly animated
by the same spirit. We have, then, the right to say that
ererything passed with the free co-operation, with the
wish of the Spanish nation. As to Spain, you see, we
have only to felicitate ourselves on the events accom-
plished. But, with respect to the other powers ? I
declare that no objection, no observation has been
made either by the powers that have recognised the
Queen of Spain or by those who have not. No
power has adhered, nor, I will add, consented to
adhere, to the protest of England. The powers have
remained completely out of the pale of the English pro-
ceedings. Our situation with these powers, as with Spain,
remains the same; and when they were informed of the
project of marriage between the French prince and Spa-
nish princess, all replied in the same terms, and those
terms were such an are employed in similar cases, just
as if they referred to any other marriage. As to Eng-
land, she feels serious dissatisfaction. I hesitate not,
however, to say, that if we so act, that, upon the one
hand, we do not change our general policy, and if, on
the other, we show ourselves determined to maintain with
propriety what we have done, to abstain from all con-
cessions, all advances, be assured that the dissatisfaction
of England will die away.—(Cheers.) It will die away
before the importance of superior interests, which are
equally understood at London and Paris. England and
her Government have two grand guiding principles—these
are justice and necessity:—(Hear.) The English people
are honest, they respect right, andpause before irrevocable
events. Present yourselves always before them strong
in your right, strong in the fait accompli, and be certain
that good relations between the two countries will be re-
newed. (Loud approbation greeted the Hon: Minister
as lie descended from the tribune, and the sitting was
suspended for some minutes.)

CAUSE or Fa VER.—The other day a fever broke out
in a prison to the surprise of everybody. It turned out that
the cause was this : it Was an old prison, surrounded by a
moat; the noxious deposit of which had been disturbed by
'some works in progres?, and the fever broke out in the direc •
tion in which the wind was blowing from the moat on to the
prison. It appeared that the medical men had never seen the
typhus there before, though they had been many years at-
tendants on that prison. They
.4-
.
y er
x,prison. and (lid not know it.—M,'. Chadwick's Speech at
• t Dec. 8, 1846.
nations begin with living in pigsties. The kingAl i
A CONSOLATORY -r,
. J.-((All—"
Better as each
frome a"
odregthreapeSrieostf
first gets out of the
edam and
becomes more and more opulent.
oTf:oepncapelronsiod:iB;a witreltlen the noble ; then the pauper, ii
better circumstances ; and the luxury
ESTMINSTEIt.-BRIDGE. Since the opening of this
adopted Erre the foundations have
poverty of another. .I.'.
bridgeW the precautions
reksethae most make
sure,fully daunrsiwugeretdhtehpaatsr
week
aka assurance doubly
support
of massive
of the arches
mpialesseicivreiveeronss
intobe the , I
have received the additional
bolted with galvanised iron, resting on
bed of the river.

RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS.
BRISTOL, JANUARY 22.

STOCK Exmleavax.—The sales are—Bristol and Exeter, New, 12—
Great Western, Quarters, 1714—Ditto, New, 614 —.Midland, New, 6
—Shrewsbury and Birmingham (B), % p.—Shropshire Union, 3,4 dis.

LIVERPOOL, JANUARY 22

STOCK ExclIANGE.—The sales are—Birkenhead, Lancashire, and
Cheshire, % p. ex Int.—Birmingham and Oxford, 9 p.—Blackburn,
Clitheroe, &c., 1 dis.—Dundee and Perth, New, BIA p.—East Lan-
cashire, New, 2% p.—Ditto, New Scrip, DA p.—Glasgow aed
Dumfries, 11A p.—Huddersfield Canal and Railway, Extension, I p.
—Leeds and Dewsbury, 8 p.—Liverpool, Crosby, and Southport, 1%
p.—London and North-Western, 190—Ditto, New, Quarters,"ll% p.—
Ditto, Fifths, 16% p.—London:and York, p.—Malton and Dri Meld,
%p.—Manchester and Leeds, Halves, 10% p.—Dtto,Fifths, 5 p.— Ditto,
Extension, 1 p.—Manchester and Southampton, Bs. 9d. dis.—Matlock
and Midland, 4 p.—Midland, 401. Shares, 6 p.—North British,
Thirds (scrip), 2% p.—North Staffordshire, 2% p.—Royston and
Hitches, 18s. 9d. p.—Runcorn Gap, 314—Shrewsbury and Here-
ford, % dis.—Shrewsbury and Chester (late N. W. M.), New, 2% P.
Shrewsbury, Oswestry, and Cheshire, 1% dis.—Ditto, New, Is. 3d.
dis.—Shrewsbury and Birmingham, 15/. 7s. 9d. Shares (A), % p
Shropshire Union Railway and Canal, 3,4 dis.—South-Eastern and
Dover, New, No. 4, 1.4 p.—South Staffordshire (Trent Valley,
Midland, and Grand Junction), % p.—West Riding Union, IIA p.—
Whitehavon and Furness, 3% dis.—Great Southern and Western,
par—Newry and Warrenpoint, p.—Ulster, 13% p.
MANCHESTER, JANUARY 22.

SToca Excrwroz.—The sales are—Birkenhead, Lancashire, and
Cheshire, 1 p.—Birrningham and Oxford Junction, 9 p.—East Lan-
cashire, 21,4 p.—Ditto, New (scrip), 11A p.—Exeter and Exmouth,
1/2 die.—Great Northern (Direct Northern), Registered, IA dis.—
Iltaldersileld and Manchester Railway and Canal, c. p.—Ditto,
Thirds, 1 p.—Kendal and Windermere, 1% dis.—Leeds and Thirsk,
2% dis.—Manchester and Lea's, Fifths, 5% c. p.— Manchester,
Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, 92—North British, Extension, 13s. 3d.
p.—North Staffordshire, 27,1, p.—Northern Counties Union, 116 dis.—
Oldham Alliance, p.—Shropshire Union Railway and Canal, :54
dis.—South-Eastern and Dover, 37—Ditto, No. 4, 3-16 p.—West
Riding Union, 1 9-16 p.—York and Newcastle, Preference, 4% p.

HUNTING TERMS.

The tail of the deer is called the single ; of the fox, the
brush ; of the wolf and dog, the stern ; and of the hare and
rabbit, the stent.

The feet of the fox are called pads ; the face, the mask or
front ; but in the deer it is the snout or nose.
Of pointers, tetters, spaniels, greyhounds, and terriers, two
are called a brace, and three a leash; of hounds, beagles,
&c., two are called a couple, three, a bade, or a couple-and-
half; of spaniels and terriers, more than two brace of differ-
ent kinds are called a rough muster; several brace of
spaniels are called a pack. In some counties it is common
to say a couple of spaniels.
In true sporting phraseology it is a kennel of foxhounds, a
pack being thought more appropriate to harriers, but many
crack sportsmen are nevertheless heard to talk of a pack of
foxhounds, in common parlance.

When hounds, in drawing for their game, hit the scent
the reverse way, they are said to draw amiss. But when the
game is up, and the hounds scent it in the opposite direction.
they then run to the heel, or run to counter. When they
take a fresh scent, they hunt change; and when they are
seen traversing the same ground over and over, they hunt
foil. When they run without any cry, they run mute; and
if they chase other game than that for which they are en-
tered, or are otherwise disobedient to the huntsman, they are
said to run riot.
Hunted animals frequently take the water. A stag or
other deer doing so are said to take soil, an otter beats the
stream, all other animals are said to take water. When a fox
takes to ground, if it be to a regular fox earth, he is said to be
run to earth ; but when he descends into a slough or drain,
he has then run to ground. Drag up to a fox, walk up a
dear, or draw on the slot. Quest or trail the hare, find or un-
kennel a fox, unharbour a deer, start the hare from the form
or seat. The hare is pricked by the foot; the fox is balled or
padded. A fox and a hare run up and down a cover; a deer
beats the cover. A fox is said to be headed when he is turned
back, a deer is blanched, and a hare making a return doubles.
The hare squats, the fox lies down ; a fox is recovered, and a
deer is fresh found. The death of the stag is the breaking up,
or the take; that of the fox is to be worried; and whoo-
whoop is the death cry of both fox and hare.
Tally-ho back when the fox heads back ;if the hounds
come out it is hark back. A sharp burst is the first run when
very quick. If the scent is eo good that the hounds run al-
most mute it is called a burning scent, but the hounds throw
up or stop for want of scent, or because they have
overrun it, then it is a check. If, on the contrary, the
scent is so. good that they have no need to stoop for
it, they are said to run breast high. In drawing the
cover, the first hound which throws its tongue is said to
challenge. The fox, when killed as soon as found, or in cover,
is said to be chopped. Hounds thrown into cover are said to
be drawing it. The scent left by the fox on his return to his
kennel is called the drag; when rather fresher than a drag it
is a moving scent When the scent of the fox extends itself,
so that a majority of the hounds feel it, and crowd together
to pursue it, they are said to carry a good head ; when the
reverse of ',this is the case, and the dogs do not attempt to
rush to the head, they dwell on the scent; when it is so faint
as scarcely to be perceptible, they cannot feel the scent. The
fox is said to run his foil when he retraces the ground he has
been over. Hounds, when they have recovered a lost scent,
are said to have hit it off, and one signalising himself on this
occasion has made a good hit. When hounds are pressed on-
wards by too zealous riders, the huntsman's rate, " Hold
hard" is the check to the hurtful impetuosity; Hold them
on" is the reverse, and is a direction to the huntsman to
make to the head, and try to recover the sinking scent. If
the impetuosity of the riders shauld occasion the death of the
fox unfilirly, he is said to be headed to death. The good
hound that abides by the scent only and will not go a yard
beyond it, is called a line hunter. When hounds are slack
'nettled in their hunting they are said not to stoop to their
scent; but when in one line, they go at the top of their speed,
they are then said to be streaming away. Some dogs are
said to be tight in their tongues, i. e. they run mute, or
nearly so. The good hound, on the contrary, throws his
tongue freely; but a too noisy hound is called a babbler,
and should be drafted. A hound that has a habit of running
wide of the pack is called a skirter. Full cry is when the
joyous pack acknowledge the scent by throwing their
tongues freely. When hounds are running with the wind
behind them they are running down wind.
Bloodhounds and greyhounds, when tired, are said to be
overhaled ; pointers, setters, spaniels, terriers, &c., floored or
jaged.

LAW INTELLI(ENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 23.
STEVENS V. BEATING.

His Lordship delivered judgment in this case, which wa,
an appeal from the Vice-Chancellor of England. A motion
was made on behalf of the plaintiff for an injunction to res-
train the defendant from infringing a patent obtained by the
plaintiff, for the manufacture of cement, capable of receiving
a.high polish, and being used in the formation of imitation
marbles, and va• ions other building purposes. The plaintiff,
by his first specification, claimed the invention of producing
cement by the use of gypsum, either in its natural state or
in its manufactured state of plaster of Paris, or limestone, or
chalk, first reduced into powder, and then mixed with a so-
lution of any strong alkali, neutralised by means of an acid,
preferring for the purpose the um:if pearlash and sulphuric acid,
but claiming all such other alkalis and acids as would answer
thepurpoae ; and that water should be added to the mixture
tili it attained the consistence or state suitable for moulding
in cakes or bricks, or other forms, which were to be after-
wards dried and burnt in manner therein described. The
plaintiff subsequently, in June, 1840, obtained another patent,
and claimed, by his specification, the use of solid alkalis and
acids, or acids in a state of solid combination, with other
substances, or some solid compound containing both an acid
and an alkali, as alum or some mixture of two or
more of the said similar ingredients. The defendant obtained
a patent in February, 1846, for the manufacture of cement
lire that invented by the plaintiff, and made precisely in the
same way, but claiming by his specification the combina-
tion of gypsum and borax. In support of the motion it was
contended that the use of borax combined with gypsum, ac-
ccrding to the specification of the defendant's patent, was an
irfringement of the patent obtained by the plaintiff, wl:o
claimed the use, not only of all acids and alkalis, but also
any s ibstam ein which the two were combined. It was also
contended that the plaintiff's patent having existed for so
long a period, must be considered good; and that he was,
therefore, entitled to the injunction.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said it did not appear there had
bean any dispute respecting the plaintiff's patent, which had
been taken out so long ago as the year 1834. It was not to
be set aside, therefore, merely because some objection might
be raised to the validity of the language used in the specifi-
cation. He considered there had been clearly an infringe-
ment of this patent, and the plaintiff was entitled to an in-
junction ; but the plaintiff must be put upon terms to bring
an action to try the question as to the validity of the patent.
since
tt that 74, hist he patent
case
The Loan CitaNcELLon, in giving judgment upon the
appeal, said he was of opinion that there had been an
had in-
fringementremai
remained
e odf
unopposedt e p !aint left;
ever pn t,
haen year d h
was brought within the authorities cited, in which the Court
had upheld patents after they had been undisturbed for so
many years. Ha should, therefore, confirm the order made by
theVice-Chancellor. granting the injunction, and direct the
plaintiff to bring his action at law as soon as possible.