The Sun.
London, England, 1864-09-02 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBEk 2, 1864

JUU RN I U RE, CARPETS, BEDDING, and
FLOORCLOTH, CARRIAGE-FREE to any house in
the kingdom, regardless of amount or distance. First-class
goods at second-class prices. Terms peculiarly liberal to
Clergymen and Gentlemen. An immense stock to select
from, displayed in Showrcoms occupying an acre of ground.
Every article warranted.
CLEiIGYMEN and GENTLEMEN ABOUT TO FUR-
NISH are respectfully informed that Messrs. Cobbett and
. are publishing an entirely New Edition of their un-
equalled HOUSE FURNISHING GUIDE, illustrated by4lo
udm -able engravings of every description of Furniture and
Leasteads, with prices attached. A copy sent gratis and
post-free on application. This costly work also contains
complete estimates for furnishing on the following revised
tale

A Six-roomed Parsonage £74 3 0
An Eight-roomed ditto
A Ten-roomed ditto ........
A Twelve-roomed ditto

together with a Price List of purified Bedding, and a mass
of valuable informationto all requiring househ)ld furniture,
carpets, or bedding. References kindly permitted to Clergy-
men and gentlemen in or near Great Malvern, Southampton,
Chichester, Bury, Ely, Preston, Grimsby, Ryde, Plymouth,
Wells, Oxford. Brighton, Gainsborough, Margate. Kidder-
minster, Wellington, Croydon. Cambridge, Staines, Dorking,
St. Albans. Woroester, Ipswich, Peterborough, St. David's,
Wrexham, and above 500 other places in at parts of Great
Brita.L.

COBBETT and CO.. General House Furnishers. Deptford.
bridge, London, B.E.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE,

ST 0 CKTON RACES—THURSDAY.
Renewal of the Stockton Four-year-old Claret Stakes of 15
cove each, 10 ft, and 5 if declared on the first Tuesday in
January, 1863, with 100 added; colts, Bst 101 b; fillies,
Bst 71b; penalties and allowances. Two miles. 44 subs;
6 pay 5 sous each.
Mr Bowes's Old Orange Girl, Bst 71b (J. Doyle) 1
Lord Westmoreland's Erin-go-Bragh, Bst 101 b
(J. Goater) 2
Mr T. Hughes's Lord in Waiting, Bst 101 b (Snowden) 3
Mr J. Osborne's Fanfaron, Bst 101 b ..(J. Osborne) 0
Betting--5 to 4on Old Orange Girl, sto 2 agat Erin-go-
Bragh, 10 to 1 eget Fsnfaron.

Won by a length, three lengths between second and

third.

The Garbutt Nursery Pedestrian Handicap of 100 save,
for two-yr-olds ; winners extra, T.Y.C.
Mr J. Osborne's Brown Bread, 7st 91b ~.. (Carroll) 1
Mr Jackson's Catalogue, Est 81b (Sharp) 2
Mr Ringrose's Lady Sykes, 7st 1olb
The following also ran :—Tilt, Naples, Frangipani colt,
Pink, Moll Flagon, Chesterfield, Anonynia, Rondoletia,
and Whip.

Betting-5 to 2 agst Naples, 3to 1 agst Catalogue, sto
1 agst Anonyma, 100 to 8 aget Brown Bread,
Won by a length, three lengths between second and

third.

The Corporation Plate (Handicap) of 30 soya, for all ages
winners extra. Five furlongs.
Mr W. G. Bennett's Voluptas, 4 yrs, Bst 2lb

- . - (H. Grimshaw) 1
Mr Wales's Garotter, 3 yrs, 7st 61b .. (H. Covey) 2
Mr W. Gardiner's Huntsman's Daughter, 4 yrs, 6st 71b
(Day) 3
The following also ran :—Heeper, Miss Dora, and Risk.
Betting-5 to 4 agst Voluptas, 2to 1 agst Garotter, 3to
1 agst Reaper.
Won by a length; two lengths between second and
third.

First Year of the Eighth Zetland Biennial Stakes of 10
sus each, h ft, with 20 added, for two-yr-olds ; second
to gave his stake : colts, Bst 101 b; fillies, Bst 61b. One
mile and a half. 43 subs.
Mr John Osborne's Wild Agnes, Bst 31b (J. Osborne) 1
Mr F. Watt's 01coar, 9st 31b
Mr A. de Montgomery's Lalla Rookh, Bst 3lb

. (H. Grimshaw) 3
The following also ran :—Daniel O'Rourke, Sweet Mar-
gery, War-whoop, Wings of the Wind, and Nothing
More.

Betting-2 to lon Wild Agnes, sto 1 agst Olmar, 6to
1 agst Wings of the Wind, 100 to 8 agst any other.
Won by a length and a half; two lengths between se-
cond and third.

The Stockton (Stewards') Cup (Handicap), for all ages, a
piece of plate value 200 soya, by subscription of 10 soya
each, with 60 added ; winners extra. One mile. 19
subs.

Lord Zetland'a Bandarilla, 3 yrs, 5t 91b ...... (Carroll) 1
Mr Wale's Molly Carew, 3 yrs, 6st 101 b .... (H. Covey) 2
Mr Bowes's Old Orange Girl, 4 yrs, Bst 41b (ino. 91b ex.)
....

(Snowden) 3

Flirtation and Honest John also ran.
Betting—. 2 to 1 agst Bandarilla, 5 to 2 agst Molly Carew,
5 to 1 agst Old Orange Girl, 100 to 15 agst Flirtation.
Won by ten lengths ; a bad third,
The GRAND STAND SELLING STARES of 3 soya each, with
25 added, for all ages; selling and other allowances;
winners extra- Half mile.
Mr Masterman's Woodbine, 3 yrs (#;O) yst izrn

_
(Noble) 1
Mr W. G. Bennett's Chelmsford, 2 yrs (£33) Git 13Ib
(Loates) 2
Mr Yeward's Tabitha Bramble, 2 yrs (x3c,) 6st 71b

(Lawrence) 3
The following also ran :—The Dawdler, Lyra, Full
Speed, and Miss Dora.

Betting-5 to 4 agst Chelmsford, 4to 1 agst The Dawd•
ler, 5 to 1 agst Lyra, 100 to 8 agst any other.
Won by a length—two lengths between the second and
third.

The Middlesborough Handicap of 100 soya, added to a
Sweepstakes of 10 sovs each, 5 ft, and three if declared ;
winners extra; second to receive 10 soya. One mile and
a half, 25 subs.

Mr J. Barber's The Clown, 3 yrs, 7st 81b ..(Grimsbaw) 1
Mr Chilton's Little Duchess, 3 yrs, 6st 131 b (Carroll) 2
Mr Stewart's Alice, 4 yrs, 7st 10lb (Covey) 3
The following also ran :—Stirrup Cup, Changeable, and
Madame Patti.

Betting.-2 to lon The Clown, 4to 1 agst Alice.
Won by two lengths—three lengths between the second
third.

ERRATUM.--In transmitting the return of the race for
the Great Northern Leger on Wednesday a mistake oc-
curred in the betting, Instead of 7 to 4 agst Claremont, it
should have been 7 to 4 cn him,

o n Public Petitions, page 566, 1836) —hut by the personal
evidence of the Queen, who, on February 20th, 1839,
and on several subsequent occasions, has been graciously
pleased to receive me and tc permit my presenting to her
Majesty my petition, complaining of her servants commit-
ting so great an outrage on my character, feelings, and
liberty, which ought to be the object and especial care
of the Crown—l will now proceed to give a few instances
of the Attorney-General fur England's statements. In the
commencement of that eloquent personage's address to the
House of Commons, on the 26th ult., he alleged as follows :
—" It so happened that the last of those so called petitions
of right was presented by Mr O'Malley Irwin in the time
of his immediate predecessor (Sir William Atherton), who
added another to the numerous Attorney-Generals, who had
all felt it to be absolutely inconsistent with their duty to
endorse the fiat en a petition of right of that description."
This statement is utterly incorrect and unfounded. It is
also a libel on the great constitutional learning and integrity
of the late lamented Attorney-General, Sir W, Atherton, and
on the other " numerous Attorney-Generals" referred to,
especially Sir Fitzroy Kelly—the foremost member of
the English bar—who held the high office of Attorney-
General for England, and on the 21st of July 1863,
stated in the House of Commons : " That the Secretary of
Statehadno right whatever,whether Mr O'Malley Irwin was
right or wrong, to interfere in a matter relating to the
petition of right to the Crown, that it was a constitutional
right, which the subject by virtue of the act (23d and 24th
Vic„ c. 34) was entitled to ask; and that no person and no
authority, whether he be a Secretary of State or otherwise,
had any right whatever to advise her Majesty not to issue
her fiat,directing that the petitioner be:heard before her Ma-
jesty's judges of the Court of Queen's Bench in the matter
of his petition of right."
Sir William Atherton's letter, dated 26th October, 1861,
addressed to my solicitor, Mr Pullen, proves that Sir
George Grey, Secretary of State for the Home Department,
kept Sir Witham Atherton, the then first law-adviser of the
Crown, ignorant of the particulars of my petition of right
case, and did not refer to him for adjudication officially,
and in the usual official manner, my petition, which
Mr Pullen had duly left at the Home-office on the 17th
September, 1861, for that purpose. On this occasion, Sir
George Grey, by letter, dated September 30, 1861 (without
having consulted Sir William Atherton, the Attorney-
General, as to endorsing the fiat on my petition of right of
17th September, 1861,) took upon himself to inform me
through Mr Waddington, the Under-Secretary of State,
" that the matter to which the petition relates does not form
the ground of a petition of right, and, therefore, it cannot
be endorsed in the usual manner."
These facts cannot be controverted. They manifestly
appear by comparing the respective dates of the petition of
right, 17th Sept., 1861, and of Sir G. Grey's letter, 30th
Sept., 1861, with the subsequent date of Sir W. Atherton's
letter, 26th Oct., 1861, which was addressed to my solicitor,
Chas. A. Pullen, Esq., 22, Chancery-lane, expressly stat-
ing, " that he (Sir W, Atherton) was ignorant of the
particulars of the case." Moreover, a special endorsement,
to which I refer Sir R. Palmer, appears to have been
made at the Home Office, as to the petition of right of 24th
April, 1861, "that it was not to be referred to SirW. Ather-
ton, the Attorney-General." This endorsement, together
with the word "nil," is written on my official letter of the
15th July,lB6l,which, together with a "memorandum" and
"statement of facts," I addressed to theHomeOffice, in order
that that petition of right might officially, and in the usual
official manner, be referred for the adjudication of the then
Attorney-General, Sir William Atherton. My solicitor
also addressed a letter, dated the 21st of May, 1862, to Sir
G. Grey, referring him especially to the above letter of
15th July, 1861; but all to no effect—Sir W. Atherton
being studiously kept ignorant of this case. (See page 8,
Sessional Paper," 342, 1863 )
Sir R. Palmer's nest allegation to the House of Com-
mons, in relation to Attorney-General, Sir W. Follett,
whose legal acumen and constitutional learning could only
be equalled by his " love and observance of law, truth, and
justice," is as inconsistent with the fact, as the learned
gentleman's statements in reference to Sir Fitzroy Kelly
and Sir William Atherton. It is as follows :-
OMr Irwin himself said that in July, 1844, he
transmitted through Sir William Follett; then Attor-
ney-General, his petition of right to the Secretary of
State," " but Sir W. Follett was of opinion that it was no
petition of right at all." Facts are stubtorn things. Sir
R. Palmer can readily satisfy himself how utterly fallacious
this statement is by referring to the Home-office, where he
can see, on record there, Sir W. Follett's autograph letter,
dated July, 1844, which he felt it his duty to address, as
her Majesty's Attorney-General, " officially and in the
usual official form,"to the then Home Secretars, accom-
panying Lily p..y.00 1.141,115

that petition submitted for her Majesty's Royal endorse-
ment, " Let right be done," in order that the matter in
dispute between the Crown and myself might be decided
by the competent jurisdiction.

Sir R. Palmer also continued to assure the House of
Commons, that a petition of right had been presented by
me, when Lord Chelmsford was Attorney-General, and
that it was laid before him, then Sir F. Thesiger, " to
ascertain whether he would advise the usual endorsement
to De put upon it, and the fact that that was not done
showed that Lord Chelmsford, like all other attorney-
generals, was of opinion that this was no petition of right
at all." This statement is purely a myth—based on no
other foundation than the very vivacious imagination of
Sir Roundell Palmer. The simple fact is, that no petition
of right at all was presented on my behalf when Lord
Chelmsford was attorney general, and no such petition was
laid before his Lordship.

It is to be regretted that Sir. R. Palmer, like Attorney.
General Heath in Charles I.'s time, should so far forget
himself, and the high and exalted duties'which devolved on
him, as her Majesty's Attorney-General, thus by statements
so wholly fallacious, as well as by flippant expressions,
to attempt the repeal of the most important statute which
has passed since the Great Charter, for remedying the griev-
ances and better securing the rights and liberties of her
Majesty's subjects. I charge the Attorney-General, Sir
R. Palmer, with it. I brand it on his forehead—exsurge
carnifex!

The flippant expressions, to which i allude, are Sir R.
Palmer's insinuations, in his reply to Sir F. Kelly's state-
ment to the House of Commons on Friday, the 22d ult.,
when referring to the all-important autograph official letter,
dated 12th Oct., 1834 (which was addressed by Mr Robert
Johnston, the late assistant barrister for the county of
Mayo, to the then Chief Secretary for Ireland), Sir Roun-
dell actually ventured to insinuate " that it was impossible
to say it was not also a forgery." The high character, posi-
tion, and station of the right hon. Earl Russell place his
lordship's evidence on this head beyond all doubt and suspi-
cion, as proof that the flippant insinuations of her Majesty's
AttorneyGeneral,Sirß. Palmer,are as fallacious as his state-
ments. Earl Russell has sworn, filed, and recorded hie
affidavit in the Queen's Bench in June, 1839, alleging as
follows :—" That the said papers and documents required
by the said subpoena (viz., a letter dated Oct. 12th, 1834, ad-
dressed by Mr Robert Johnston, the late assistant barrister
for the county of Mayo, to the then Chief Secretary for Ire-
land, and other documents), were in his custody as Secre-
tary of State."
Sir G. Grey was duly served with a subpcena duces team,
as her Majesty's Secretary of State, to produce this letter of
Oct. 12th, 1834, and certain other documents, but that right
hon. gentleman thought proper to treat with contempt her
Majesty's writ, and not to comply therewith. Fortunately
for him Sir John Coleridge had not been the presiding
judge on that occasion. _ _ _

Ihe note, which is annexed to sessional paper, 447, 1864
(being the return to the House of Commons, containing
the important official copies, which Sir Fitzroy Kelly suc-
ceeded in necessitating the Home-office to furnish), states
" that the letter of Oct. 12th was abstracted from the Crown
Solicitor's papers during the trial of Mr O'Malley Irwin, in
1835," and "has never been recovered." Earl Russell's
affidavit also proves how fallacious are the statements in this
note, furnished by the Home.office to the House of Come
mobs, as regards the ambiguity of not specifying which of
the trials (both having occurred in 1835), and as regards
the allegation " that the letter of Oct. 12th had never been
recovered."

Nothing can justify Sir George Grey's allegations in
the house, so prejudicial to me in reference to the
documents which Mr Spencer Walpole felt it to be
his duty to place in my hands—actuated by the
same "love of law, truth, and justice" so pre-eminently
distinguishing and characteristic of that right hon. gentle-
man, and of the late eminent Lord Chief Justice Penne-
father and Baron Greene, who, as her Majesty's benchers,
have written so kindly and in so favourable a view on my
behalf, I beg leave, for my own justification, to quote in
extenso the letter which Mr Walpole wrote on the occasion
of his having left sealed up, with instructions to give to
me, the documents which Sir G. Grey stated " must have
been abstracted from the office of the Secretary of State,"
adding "no doubt they came to the hou member for the
King's County through Mr O'Malley Irwin." It is as
follows

January 27, 1860.
Beat Mr O'Malley Irwin,—l have brought up some
papers, and left them sealed up in Graiton-street, with in-
structions to give them to you.—Boar Sir, yours ever very
faithfully, S. 11, WALPOLE.
G. O'Malley Irwin, Esq.

The fundamental securities of the rights and liber-
ties of her Majesty's subjects all over the globe are
now being undermined by the unconstitutional conduct
of her Majesty's high officials, actuated by statements
" wholly fallacious," and by secret evidence in the private
chan:_ber Qf the Home-office, " totally false," and I am on
trial before the wt ole Onpire. I hope, however, nest session
of Parliament to chronicle that I have passed creditably

- 4." A that all thA RAnatoria—