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

third ; a bad fourth. Pretiy Girl filly bolted, had threw her
jockey.

The Harrington Stakes of 40 sous, added to a Sweepstakes
of 5 soya each, for 2-yr-olds ; colts Bst 10Ib, fillies and
geldings Bst 71b ; penalties and allowances. About half
a mile.

Mr Hartley's Eugenie, Bst 121 b (Payne) w.o.

WEYMOUTH RAJES—THURSDAY.
The Weymouth Trial Stakes (Handicap) of 5 sovs each,
with 25 added ; winners extra. One mile.
Mr Brayley's Pelios, 3 yrs, 7st (Cannon) 1
Mr Soper's Mountain Doe, 4 yrs, 7st (Hibbert) 2
Mr Waller's Antonio, 3 yrs, sst 121 b (Holland) 3
Betting-5 to 4on Pelios, 2to 1 agst any other.
Won by a length; a head between second and third.
A Sweepstakes of 5 Boys each, with 50 added, for 2-yr-olds;
colts, Bst 101 b; fillies, Bst 61b ; penalties and allowances.
Half a mile.
Captain W. H. Cooper's Anti-macassar 9st (F. Adams) 1
Mr W. Day's Fille du Regiment, Bst 61b ..... (Bollen) 2
Betting-11 to 2on Anti-macassar, who won by a short
head.
The Portland Plate (Handicap) of 50 soya; winners extra.
Three-quarters of a mile.
Mr Brayley's Pelios, 3 yrs, 7st llb (Cannon) 1
Mr H. J. Smith's Fitz-Avon, aged, 7st 111 b.... (Grubb) 2
Mr Shrimpton's Diploma, 3 yrs, Est 21b (Elphick) 3
The following also ran :—Belle-of-the Vale, Fille du
Regiment, Milford, and Dr Swishtail.
Betting-3 to 1 agst Pelios, 7to 2 agst Belle of the Vale,
4 to 1 agat Fille du Regiment, 5 to 1 agat Fitz Avon.
Won by a length; a neck betymen second and third.
A Sweepstakes of 3 soya each, with 20 added; weight for
' age, with selling allowances. Three-quarters of a mile.
Mr George's Rosette, 2 yrs, (h. b.), Est 71b.... (C, Page) 1
Mr Brayley's Wee Aggie, 3 yrs, 7st 91b (Cannon) 2
Mr J. Faretra. 3 yrs, 7st 91b
Mr W. Day's Spasms colt, 2 yrs, Sat 121 b (Bollen) 0
Betting-- 5 to 4 eget Rosette, 7 to 4 agst Faretra, 2 to 1
agst Spasms colt.
Won by a neck; bad third. The Spasms colt bolted.
The winner was not sold.
The Melcombe Handicap of 10 sovs each, with 50 added.
Mr C. Notley's Clementi, 5 yrs, Bst 131 b (inc. slb extra)
(J. Mann) 1
Ma H. Melville's Conundrum, 6 yrs, Bst 101 b

(J. Holman) 2
Prince Soltykoff's Belle of the Vale, 3 yrs, Tat 61b _ _ _

(Hibberd) 3
Mr H. J. Smith's Fitz Avon, aged, Bst 161 b (F. Adams) 0
Betting-5 to 4 agst Clementi, 7to 4 agst Conundrum.
Won by a head, bad third.

THE PETITION OF RIGHT.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE SUN.

Sir,—As England's glory is her love and observance o.

law, truth, and justice, I would feel wanting in a most sacred
duty were I to preserve a criminal silence, after witnessing
the sinister occurrence on the 26th ultimo, of the House of
Commons having been misled by statements wholly at
variance with that "love and observance of law, truth, and
justice," which should have been characteristic of those
who represent the majesty of the law in that House, and
have entrusted to them duties of the most high and exalted
character.

The marvellously correct versions which the public
journals furnish—literally the ipsissima verba—of the law
advisers of the Crown, enable me to substantiate my asser-
tions so securely, as to defy the hostile criticisms from legal
quarters, which they are sure to encounter, and also to show
the vain attempt made by those high and influential Go-
vernment officials to draw the mind of the House of Com-
mons away from fixing itself with becoming intensity on
the invasion of the rights and liberties of her Majesty's
subjects.

The let Section of the Petitions of Right Act, 1860,
(23d and 24th Vic., c. 34) states as follows :
"That a petition of right may, if the suppliant think fit,
be intitnled in any one of the superior Courts of Common
Law or Equity at Westminster, in which the subject
matter of such petition, or any material part thereof, would
have been cognizable, if the same had been a 'natter in dis-
pute between subject and subject, and if intituled in a
court of common law, shall state in the margin the venue
for the trial of such petition."

The subject matter of the grievance set forth in my peti-
tion of right, which is duly intituled in the Court of Queen's
Bench, at Westminster, and has, " Middlesex " stated in
the margin for the trial of such petition, is a malicious pro-
secution by the servants of the Crown. The petition suffi-
ciently shows " the subject matter therein set forth would
have been cognizable in any one of the superior courts at
Westminster " if the same had been a matter in dispute
ar,a mnhi.et."_

Had not the servants of the Crown, but Mr. Robert
Johnston, (who wrote the all-important autograph official
letter of October 12th, 1831, which had the material post-
mark dates thereon, and the contents of which having come
to light cannot possibly be reconciled with the contents of his
affidavit, prepared and filed by the servants of the Crown,
to prevent my setting aside the adverse verdict,) been' the
party prosecuting, he would have been equally justified in
assuming a power to close her Majesty's Court of Queen's
Bench, at Westminster, against me, and in forbidding a
writ to be issued out of that court, for a malicious
prosecution at my suit against him, in order
to be screened from the consequences of his misdeeds;
as Sir George Grey is now justified in his assumption of
power to prevent the law takiag its eourse, and in advising
the Queen not to grant her fiat, in order to be screened—
himself end the other high officials—the real defendants in
the case—from the consequences of their misdeeds ; for the
fiat to the petition of right ie nothing more than the com-
mencement of a suit by the issuing of that process, in the
same manner as a suit against a subject by the issuing of a

writ.
By Sir George Grey's advice to her Majesty to withhold
her fiat—the indispensable requisite for obtaining justice—
the Queen is made to adjudicate upon important questions
of law and fact between the Crown and the subject, and to
perform the very highest of all judicial functions; because
her Majesty is thus deciding the suit against the
subject, without any possibility of its being brought
under review of a Court of Error or Appeal—an
adjudication adverse to the subject, final against
his rights and made in private in favour of the Crown, upon
the se fret advice and statements of Irish high officials,
which statements, on having come to light, and being placed
in the hande of the hon. and learned member for the King's
County, he, in the most decided manner, pledged himself to
the House of Commons, "WERE TOTALLY FALSE."
All I contend for is, that this final and irreversible deci-
sion ought not to be pronounced against me without my
being given the opportunity of pleading my cause. Appa-
rently, while such abuses are extant, we have not yet
obliterated the tyranny of the Star Chamber.
The assumption of power to thus substitute ministerial
authority in lieu of the judicial tribunals of the country,
whieh are appointed by law is therefore a grave constitutional
question of the highest possible import, both as regards the
subject and the Crown; in fact none can ba higher, and it
is not of a political or party character, The Queers, by her
coronation oath, swears that she will govern her people ae-
Majesty, in violation of the express
y whether he be a
right or justice to
acsenercydr ac-
di
nag
rey. tool
of State
wos,, t ana ntoed
pnoe err is tzl,lonet
hr
erdrewanuyi
st
eho,
or
rhdi
ateydl a, a
constitutionalny
Justice to any one of
her subjects ; or to release and discharge her Majesty from
rwi go
rhdt s tdhve i
ss
tea
thuetre
;
to deny right and
her sworn obligation to accord sure and righteous justice
to all—lrish as well as English subjects_
before her Judges
at Westminster, in whichever of the courts of justice it now
may please the subject to select.
No more momentous question for the liberties of Eng-
3and has come before the House of Commons since the
famous constitutional statute of 1628, when Charles the
First refused to adopt the ancient form of the Royal Assent,
"Soft r(roit fait comme it est desire:,
For nearly a century
overcome the rights of the
mined people of that day
saw the consequences, which necessarily would have
subject;t the Stu a rht su st t rtohveef
free
oe
eb raenadk ud
ePteerr o
resulted from relinquishing so constitutional a right, as
Stuart
trial
dynasty,jury: "
nThe s
d in
the rife ended
the expulsion of the
full establishment of Petition of
Right, which is the birthright of the subject. (See Chitty
OD the Royal Prerogative, 341. Allen on the Royal Pre-
rogative, 93. Manning's Exchequer Practice, 84. Fos
ter's Life of Sir George Eliot, 2d Vol.)
Petition of Right is the foundation upon which the great-
ness of England has been built. It existed before the
Norman Conquest, and in spite of that conquest has tin
con-
tinued to the present day. The operations of this right
have smoothed the task of our monarchy and rendered
our Queen the happiest and most beloved, as well as the
in
the world. The true definition
it is the suit of the subject, whose
mostof
petition
of r
iSovereigng right
is
that
right is denied him, and who bath not any adequate remedy
open to him for vindicating the came ; and it is addressed
to the Queen herself, that the fountain of all justice may
supply the deficiency. A necessity therefore exists for pre-
serving in its strictest integrity to her Majesty's Irish, as
well as to her English subjects, this ancient and sacred
institution, which is the best and firmest pillar of support
under our constitutional Monarchy.
In order to sustain Sir George Grey's uncoustituth nal
advice to the Queen, "not to let right be done," and the
assumption of power to substitute Illinisterial authority in
lieu of the judicial tribune: e of the country, those influential
and high law officials, who are themselves directors of
Government in cases of emergency, hav;° had recourse to a
mode of procedure, which is so great a pet7"iCc cud
mockery of " law, truth, and justice," that it needs t;: iv
to L'e mentioned to meet with reprobation.
Having already shown in a former published letter
that the statements of her Majesty's Attorney. General

far Traland_ tha T2ioht Ann Mr - at_ r.