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

THE S_UN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 16, 1845 k

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 remonstr nil against
the adoption of such a treaty. How 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 e ant of good
faith towards Spain, in not placing her produce cpon 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
account for the introduction of what he would term the coin-
nial clause into thet treaty, for, according to the Noble Lord's
argument, such a clause 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 upou 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 takes place which could be designated.
Mr. Bulwer, during the. present Government, had applied to
the Spanish Government to ha"e the ships of British mer-
chants placed upon tt-e footing of the most favoured nation,
but that claim had not been granted up to this hour ; and ho
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.
firmetion of the two c .untries, 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., cae. 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 ass-rted; 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, therf,
was to keep their own trade in the hands 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 from
the letter to the spirit of the law, where the letter was clear
and nnimpeached, as the Noble Lord had made, yet he con-
teaded 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 able 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 Noble
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 bad 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 tering, 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 n„ thing 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 doctripe 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 meet
favoured nations, then by the same interpretation the Prussians
and the Dines—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 to foreign 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 he 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. Bulwer, 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 differential duty on Spanish goods coming into
this country. The construction of the treaty for 200 years,
and the mode in which it had been observed and regarded,
showed that the Neble 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
bad 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 be that treaty herself possess.
Lord PALMERSTON—I did not say so.
Mr. GLADSTONE sai I he would pass to another branch
of the case, In another part of tl'e treaty of 1670, it we.
clear that they had it in their power to give t,,:e Spanish colo-
nies just as much or as little of the advantages of the treaty al
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
mentimed ; they could not. therefore, exclude a colony, and
an important one. If they included Cuba, they must likewise
include its sugar ; arid when they admitted that Cuba sugar
came under the treaty, they must likewise admit
the pow- of England to impose a duty upon it as
colonial psodrize. But this treaty of 1814 was conclusive
on the subject. By that treaty—he would not say by a con-
structioa 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, (hat 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 iso 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 while 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'could not ssegow it applied
to the Spanish West India possessions of the Spanish Crown.
fie 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. lie was sorry to have tres.
passed on the House at stich a length, but he thought the cir-
cumstances of the ease in some measure justified the intru-
sioa ; and he would conclude by saying, that the honour 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 LABOUCEIERE said the length at which the Right
Hon. Gentleman addressed the House was evidence of the

badness of his case. There was, he thought, nOneuessity
for
he employ of all theimilitwletiot- 4-1
null v ►g riga 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 eonbtruction the Government itself had at

a very recent period put upon these treaties.—( The
Right-Hon. Gentleman then read the letter of Mr. Ashton. )
He had neither the disposition nor the will to follow any point
in the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech': but there was one
thing which he roust refer to. The Right Hon. Gentleman
said that he dal not look at the strict letter of the treaties, but
that he looked at the aaalogy and at the spirit of the case.
(Hear, hear.) Why, that was exactly what he (Mr La
bouchere) wished the Government to do; and if they did so
properly, and 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.hart not studied the history of both countries
with the same diligence as the Right Hod. Gentleman, yet he
thought that sufficient would be shown in its pages to justify
them in sacrificing minor considerations for the good of Spain.
This Right Hun. 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 wasa something more
than a mere construction of technicalities, and the House, he

conceived, would he ill discharging its duties if it did not
give the matter its consideration. lie spoke now cf the pro-
priety of the policy which the Government was pursuing, and
he mint may he hail never listened to a speech with a more
painrul feeling than he did to Vat of the Rght Honourable
Gentleman. Spain was not urging .her engagements at sword
point, but by diplomatic arid friendly means, and she only
claimed to be put on the same foo'ing with other nations. And
why had they made this sacrifice ? The Right Honourable
Gentleman said they had had that discussion before. He
( Mr. Labrinchere) said they ought to have it again and again—
and ho would ask, for what had they made the sacrifice ? They
hail made the sacrifice for no obj,ct whatever, and the flimsy
pretences urged by the supporters of the Govern-
meat were so very nniangible that the most
tatinelt supporter of the Government was to be praised
foe_ Ills power of face, who preserved his gravity While he a& 1
vanced them. Let them not deceive themselves. In putting

this interpretation on the Spanish treaties, they had untied the
handsel 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 Si ain
so te retaliate, she would strke a heavy blow upon the export
trade of thin 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 chow that even the colonists
themselves (lid 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 particular, he should
only say that this country ought, in an imperative manner, to
call upon the Government to do justice to the c'aims 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
(Pa'merston) even the Government would perceive the fallacy
of their position, and place the honour of the country upon a
solid, lasting, and creditable foundation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, when the Right Hon.
Gentleman ro=e 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 bad flown cff 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 was, 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 as as• 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
Seanish 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 tie House this evening, endeavoured to go over the
statements of those Hon. Members who bad 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 I,er 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 inter with Spain. The in-
terpretation put on the treaty by Lord Aberdeen was the cor-
rect one, in his opinion, and the interpretation given by the
Spanish 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
an the opposite side, they would commit, in his opinion, a
breach of the treaty. Under these circumstances he would
oppose the motion.
Mr. BA RING 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
aut 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 foe ?
( Hear.) The en; ire speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the
Member for Newark, was an endeavour to set aside the
tree ies that did exist. If fhese 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 conferied 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 you do
trade, )ou 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 1:314 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. If his assertion wee doubted, he held in his hand a
statement.of Mr. Canning's in 1810, which entirely bore him
out. The cxcaption, 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 o
the S aniard to i , hei 'fill' benefit n

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 casa 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 Howe. 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 fist, that in the early part of our commercial negotia.
tons, 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 mast
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
:n 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 Hen. 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 Lori the Member
IT Tiverton ( Lord Palmerston) and the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Taunton (.Ir. Labouchere), had taunted
the Members on that side of the House that they bad not
offered any reply to the arguments they had advanced, he was
anxious, if the House would permit him, to offer a few words
in reply. (The Hon. Member was here stopped by loud cries
of " Hear, hear," " Divide, divide," and " Adjourn," " Mr.
Brotberton, Mr. Brotherton," in the midst of which, after
several essays to continue, he sat down )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here inter-
fered, and sail 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 be 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 6' 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.—(lmmense 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 Hon. 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 PALMERSTON 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 should consider it presumptuons to detain
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 urged 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-
drcs,ed 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
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 11th 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.
---.410..---.-
HOUS.E OF LORDS, July 15.
Their Lordships met shortly after Five o'clock.
The High Constables Bill passed through Committee, anal
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 table of the House, but, he did not intend to press it
through its stages in the present session.
PRIVILEGE.
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 hia 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 CA M PBELL 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 Com-
mitties of this House. For that offence you have been com-
mitted to custody. You have presented a petition in which 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 junior
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 said, on Tuesday next, he should move
an address to her Majesty, with respect to getting into the new
Houses of Parliament next session.
SPANISH TREATIES.

The Earl of CL Alt ENDON said that in asking their Lordships
o concur in the resolution which he had the honour to propose
t was necessary for him to assure their Lordships, and more
iarticularly the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that
se 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 Sotomay or, he had the good fortune to
concur. He thought that his Noble Friend was justified in
say;ng, 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 Nob e Lord (Lord Clarendon) then
read the treaty of 1610, 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 ju,e existing. We had consuls and viee-consuls at Cuba
and Porto Rico. We had experts 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 bad no right to trade with Spain upon the
same terms that they did with the United S -
441 AAttl9,l4, r)srithli deTar4F, an 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, bul,
indeed, there was no doubt, long before the States had sepa.
rated, the c ,mplete 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, agreeablrto the permission so granted, Jet
in the face of all this his Noble Frienadaldleagebsdlee rttFehdraitethnnadottrthehecinis-
procal obligation was incurred on the part of the British Crown.
He would ask, was it just —teas it right—was it fitting conduct
(fiowrnalcibouernatlriytythtnatahcatdinbetehnatiltnyvaanynsefro?remost in proclaiming its
referred to an order in council of 1829, and
Nos
did nithing more than sanction a trade between the colonies of
Spain and Great Britain. lie was doubtful, however, whether
such a construction could be put upon that order. He should
own that coon.
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 wee placed on
the same footing as the goods of this country. If they reduced
the duty on the wines and other produce .)f the countries on the
continent, he would ask if sued conduct was fair and honourable 2
They committed a great act of injustice towards Spain in re-
spect to the treaties into which they entered with
interests,
try. Spain, too, had been regardless of
Inher
wouldtreaty it
t e was
placedstated
n n that
tn n
footing Spain,
in
of ret
hgt
eaerl
mid
Bo tsroti t herisahv omop
rer
eor
di
ducts,
nation. Was the Noble Lord prepared to
chants that their produce las placed on a proper footing by
inions manifest to
the treaty of Utrecht? In their whole
that they had one law for the weak and another for the
po serful. Spain claimed the same right and the same Power
policy it would appear
as other nations. If he had not made his op
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 she daily increasing wants of our
their Lordships—(
people by opening fresh markets. ,Hear, boar)--and did not induce them to
God knew, to all these
objects there were obstacle% enough without adding to them

---
' 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 motion. 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 fin% 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. No
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
I 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 faveured nations. He was astonished
to hear that interpretation put upon the ancient treaties ; on
the other hand, "pain had always refused to acknowledge three
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 thcie own, in their
respective dominions. By the 25th elause 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, in 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
changed, and a constitutional Government could not be ex-
pected to carry out provisions of treaties formed in despotic
times. f 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 concluded,
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
81. was imposed upon French wines, and a duty of 12/. 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 there was a general equalisation of the tobacco duties.

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 giant 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 hall ben understood arid acted ul•on 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 n ould 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 all 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 ease 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 rogard to the tenour of the treaties, and his Noble Friend
was quite in error if he supposed that this had been
unadvisedly done, or 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 there 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 them to be of no avail. He would ask
any persou 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 nations. 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 S;•ain from
the subjects of other nations, Were not taken from British sub-
jects. He was glad, however, 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 oa this
subject.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared--
Contents
Non-contents
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 ware
agreed to :
Great Western Railway (Ireland) (Dublin to Nlallingar
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
ought not i or alsham School
is a e ill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed
with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their
Bill."

PARLIAMENT &RV DIVISIONS

--•.,Z,,-

Front the rotes and Proceectiags at the house of Commons.

TUESDAY, JULY 13.

TREATIES WITH SPAIN,

, -
Motion made, and Question put, " That an humble Address be
presented to her Majc,ty, stating that this House have taken into
their consideration the Papers which, by her Majesty's gracious
Cuimmand, have lately been laid before them, containing Copies of a
Correspoudense which has recently taken place between the Spanish
Minister at-her Majesty's Court and her Majesty's Secretary of State
for Foreign Allah's, on the subject of a claim made by the Spanish
Government, hi virtue of the Treaties subsisting between the Crowns
of Great Britain 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
House divided :

MINORITY-AYES, 87.
Aglionby, H. A. Ferguson, Sir R. A. O'Connell, M. J. '
Ainsworth, Peter Fitzroy, Lord C. Ogle, S. C.
Arundel, Earl of Fitz william, G. W. Oswald, James
Baine, W. Forster, Matthew Palmerstoit,:Lord
Baring, F. T. Gibson, T. M. ' Pattison, James
Barnard, E. G. Gill, Thomas Pechell, Captain
Berkeley, Craven (lore, Robert Plumrldge, Captain
Berkeley, Captain Grosvenor, Lord R. Ponsonby, C. F. A.
Bouverie, E. P. Hallyburton, Lord Protheroe, Edward
Bowes, John Hastie, Archibald Puisford, Robert
Bowring., Dr. Hawes, B. Ross, David R.
Bright, John Hay ter, W. G. Russell, Lord J.
Brotherton, J. Ileathcoat, John Sheridan, R. B.
Browne, W. Hindley, Charles Smith, J. A.
Clay, Sir W. Holland, Robert , Smith, Vernon
Colborne, W. R. Horsman. Edward SOmerville, Sir W.
Cowper, W. P. . Howick, Viscount Stuart, Lord J.
Craig, W. a Home, Joseph Strati, Edward
Dahneny, Lord Hutt, William Towneley, John
Denison, W. J. Labouchere, Henry Vane, Lord H.
Dennistotm, J. Lemon, Sir C. Villiers, Charles
Duff, James Leveson, Lord Walker, Richard
Duke, Sir J. Macaulay, T. B. Warburton, Henry
Duncan, Viscount Marjoribanks, S. Wawn, J. T.
Dundas, Admiral Marshall, William Williams, William
Dundas, Frederick Martin, John Wilehere, W.
Ebrington, Viscount Mitealfe, Henry Yorke, Henry R.
Ellice, Rt. Hon. E. Mitchell, T. A. TELLERS.
Evans, William Moffatt, George Hill, Lord 31.
Ewart, William Morris, David Tufuell, Henry

MAJORITY—NOES, 175.
Acland, Sir T. D. Farnham, E. B. Martin, C. W.
A'Court, Captain Feilden, W. Mastenuan, John
Acton, Colonel Fellowes, Edward Meynell, Captain
Alford, Viscount .Vilmer, Sir E. Morgan, 0.
Allix, J. P. Fitzroy Henry Mundy, E. M.
Autrobus, Edmund Flower, Sir James Neeld, Joseph
Arbuthnott, H. Forman, T. S. Nceld, John
Arkwright, George Fox, S. L. Newdegate, C. N.
Ashley, Lord Fremantle, Sir T. Nicholl, John
A.stell, William Fuller, A. E. Norreys, Lord
Baillie, Colonel Gaskell, J. M. Ossuiston, Lord
Baillle, H. J. Gladstone, W. E. Parke, 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 R.
Baring, W. B. Graham, Sir J. Peel, Jonathan
Barrington, Viscount Granby, Marquis Pennant, Colonel
Benbow, John Greenall, P. Pringle, Alexander
Bennett, Philip Greene, Thomas Rashieigh, W.
Beresford, Major Grogan, Edward Renton, G. W. J.
Bernard, Viscount - . Hale, R. B. Richards, Richard
Blackburne, J. I. Halford, Sir H. Itoßeston, Colonel
Boldero, H. G. Hamilton, C.J. B. Round, C. G.
liorthwick, Peter - Hamilton, J. H. Round, John
Bottleld, Beriah Hamilton, G. A. lions, Captain
Bowles, Admiral Hamilton, Lord C. Russell, Charles
Brantston, T. W. Hampden, Renn Ryder, G. D.
Brisco, M. Harcourt, G. G. Sandon, Viscount
Broadley, Henry Henley, J. W. Scott, Francis
Broadwood, H. Hervey, Lord A. Seymour, Sir H.
Bruce, Lord E. Hodgson, F. Sibthorp, Colonel
Buck, W. L. Hogg, J. W Smith, Abel
Buckley, Edmund Hope, Charles Smith, T. B. C.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Hope, G. W. Smollett, Alexander
Bunbury, Thomas Hotham, Lord - Sotheron, T. H.
Cardwell, Edward Houldsworth, T. Speoner, Richard
Chelsea, Viscount Hughes, W. B. Spry, Sir S. T.
Cholmondeley, H. Hussey, Ambrose Stewart, John
Ckute, W. L. W. Hussey, Thomas Stuart, Henry
Clayton R. R. Irton, Samuel Start, H. C.
Clerk, Sir G. James, Sir Wafter Sutton, H. M.
Clifton, J. T. Jermyn, Earl Tcnnent, J. E.
Cockburn, Sir G. Jocelyn, Viscount Thesiger, Sir F.
Codrlngton, Sir W. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. Thornhill, George
Cole, H. A. Jones, Captain Tollemache, F. J.
Collett, W.- R. Kemble, Henry Tollemache, John
—..— _

Compton, R. C. Lennox, Lord A. Trench, Sir F. W.
Corry, Henry Lincoln, Earl Trevor, G. It.
Cripps, W. ; Lockhart, William Waddington. M. S.
Darner, Colonel Loftus, Viscount Wellesley, LordC .
Dickinson, F. H. Lopes, Sir B. Wodehouse, Edmond
Douglas, Sir H. Lowther, Sir J. H. Wood, Colonel
Douglas, J. D. S. Lowther, Colonel Wood, Colonel T.
Duncombe, A. Lygon, General Yorke, E. T.
Duncombe, 0. Mackenzie, T.
Eastnor, Viscount Mackenzie, W. F. TELLERS.
Egerton, W. T. Maclean, Donald Young, John
.Sntwisle, William M`Neill, Duncan Baring, Henry
Escott, BickhaM Manners, Lord C. S.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDFORD RACES.-..YESTERDAY.
Her Majesty's Plate of 100 guineas for 3 yr.o!ds 7st 51b, 4 yrs
9st Ilb, 5 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 for the Gloucestershire Stakes.
Winesour, 5 yrs, Bst 61b—Una, aged, Bst—Best of Three,
4 yrs, 7st 121b—Susannah, 4 yrs, Est 101b—Busk 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 10ib—T'Auld Squire, 4 yrs, 7st 10lb—
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 tOD, 1845.
Nominations for the Chesterfield Cup :—Garry Owen, aged
—Captain Phmbes, 3 yrs—Miss Elio, 3 yrs—Clumsy, 3 yrs—
Knight of the Whistle, aged—Lady Wildair, 3 yrs—Vaudeville,
8 yrs—Quebec, 5 yrs—Wee Pet, 5 yrs—bc by Ray Middleton,
out of Miss Whip, 3 yrs—Needful, 4 yrs—Ajax, aged—Ninety-
one, 4 yrs—Semiseria, 5 yrs—Rowena, 4 yrs—Queen Mab,
6 yrs—Hersey, 3 yrs—Cobweb colt, 3 yrs—Lothario, 5 yrs—
Winesour, 5 yrs—Psalmsinger, 3 yrs—Remnant, aged—The
Cure, 4 yrs—Arcanus, 6 yrs—Ould Ireland, 3 yrs—The Altered
One, 6 yrs—Secundus, 4 yrs—Remo se, 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 Odes.- s,
3 yrs—Skeleton, 4 yrs—Richard Cricket, 3 yrs—Alamode,
4 yrs—Beaumont, 4 yrs—.Egis, 3 yrs—Moustache, 4 yrs—
Carillon, 3 yrs.

EPSOM, 1847.
The Derby closed with 193 subscribers and the Oaks with 152.

DONCASTER.
The Cleveland Stakes closed with 21 entries, 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, 7st 31b—Ever-
ton, 5 yrs, 7st 21b—Rowena, 4 yrs, 7st 21h—My Old Hack,
aged, 7st llb—Glossv, 5 yrs, 7st Ilb—Jamie Forest, aged,
7st—Quebec, 5 yrs, 7st—A-la-mode, 4 yrs, Est 121b—Volau•
vent, 4 yrs, Est 121b—Cataract, 5 yrs, Est 111b—Sir Ab-
stropus, 5 yrs, Est 91b—Poor Soldier, 5 yrs, Est 91b—Miss
Burns, 5 yrs, Est 81b—Dr. Husband, 4 yrs, 6,t 71b—North-
umberland, 4 yrs, Est 41b—Coheiress, 4 yrs, sst 101 b —Little
Hampton, 4 yrs, sst 101b—April Noddy, 4 yrs, sst 71b—I1a-
rian Ramsay, 3 yrs, sst 51b—Plaudit, 3 yrs, sst 51b—Pythia,
3 yrs. sst 51b—Lady Sarah, 4 rs, sst 51b—Cabin Boy, 3 yrs,
Sat 41b—Little John, 3 yrs, sst 41b—Cock Robin, 4 yrs, sst
41b—Psalmsinger, 3 yrs, sst 31b—Marrowmat, 3 yrs, sst 31b
—The Infant, 4 yrs, sst 31h—The Whistler, 4 yrs, sst 21b—
Dean Swift, 3 yrs, sst—Jenny Wren, 3 yrs, sst—Wynyards,
3 yrs, sst—Young England, 3 yrs, 4st 101b—Duke of Kent,
3 yrs, 4st 101b—Prescription, 3 yrs, 4at 71b—b fby Physician,
out of Kag,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'CLocic.
LIVERPOOL CUP.-5 to 2 apt Winesour ( t)-6 to 1 agst
Lothario (t)-6 to 1 agst Milton-8 to 1 agst Trueboy (t)-
15 to 2 agst Rowena (t)-20 to 1 agst Little Hampton ( t)-
3to 1 agst Dawson's lot (offers to take). Lightning .nd Iron-
master not expected to run.
LIVERPOOL ST. LEGER.-2 to 1 agst Pantasa (t)-2 to 1
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
gynn...... . .............. 30
Barker, b Hillver... l4 b ditto.
Guy, c Felix, b ditto .. 3 b Mynn 8
Sewell, b Mynn l6 c Swann, b Martin .. 18
Box, b ditto ... ........... ... 0 b Hillyer 3O
Bushby, b ditto 5 b Adams
C. G.Tay l or, Es he 1iar....-----3-i-------7`l .... '• ' I/
A -In, b Hillyer
Martingell, not out ........ 5 b ditto 3
Sir F. Bathurst, c Dorriu- b ditto

ton, b Mynn ..... ... l5 ,
Dan, b Hillyer... 0 not out 1
Byes. 14 ; wide (Mynn 4, Byes, 15 ; wide ( Adams 2,
Mauls, 1) 5 ... . 19 Mynn 2), 4 ; no balls
(Adams 2, Myna 2,
Martin 5)9