The Sun.
London, England, 1853-09-05 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY.

The BOROUGH HANDICAP of 10 sovs. each, h ft, with
50 added by the members, G. W. 3. Repton and E.
Greaves, Esqs., for two-yr-olds. The second horse
to save his stake. A winner of a handicap, subse-
quent to the publication of the weights. of the value
of 1001., to carry slb extra. T.Y.C. 24 subs.

Jack Frost
Wave 7 2
c by Hero, dam by
Touchstone—Pet . 7 0
Vingt-un
fhe Keunyside Hero 7 0
burley 6 12
Caliban
Constancy . 6 12
Adelaide
f by Touchstone
Muscovite's dam 6 10
Remorse

st lb

st lb
. 8 7
. 8 3

Alas
Torn
Balinora,l
Cyrus
Marc Antony ....
St. Clare
Horatio
;Insane
-,Vorthless
The Field-Marshal 7
Lady Bird 7
Census 7
Blame
The AVON STAKES of 15 sovs each, 10 ft ; for two-yr-
olds, 7st ; three, 9st. Penalties and allowances.
T.Y.C. 4 subs.

8
7.
7

Yrs Yrs
Sylphine
Vaultress 3 Vingt•un
The WARWICK CUP, value 200 sovs, by subscription of
10 sovs each, with 100 added by the Race Commit-
tee ; the second hone to receive 30 sous out of the
stakes ; three-yr-olds, 7st ; four, Bst 71b ; five, 9st 11b ;
six and aged, 9.4 51b ; mares allowed 41b, and geld-
ings, 71b. Certain penalties and allowances. Three
miles.

Yrs

Yrs
Lady Evelyn
Balloon
b c by The Emperor Goldfinder
—Begum 3 Talfourd
Trifle
Galvanism
Sackbut
Stockwell 4 Ilex
The Black D0ct0r...... 5 Missive
Teddington 5 Lambton
Monarch
Mine
Massa Mungo 5 Goorkah
Exact
The COUNTY STAKES of 100 sovs., added to a handicap
of 20 sovs. each, 10 ft, and sif declared, &c. Certai❑
winners extra. The second horse to receive 30 sovs.
out of the stakes. One mile and a half. 49 subs, 26
of whom declared forfeit. The highest weight accept-
ing being Bst 31b, it has been raised to Bst 71b, and
the others in proportion.
Age st lb
Little Harry 4 8 2
Frantic
Ilex
Alonzo 6 7 11
Conmore
Le Juif 5 7 6
Evadne
Kohinoor
Calot
lanthe.
scarecrow
Candlewick

4
5

... 4

Age st lb
Gladiole 6 6 11
The Deformed 3 6 7
Nutpecker 3 6 4
Massa Mungo
Lord-Lieutenant 3 6 0
Charley
Peggy 3 5 13
Tavistock 3 5 13
Nestor
Chesterton
Rough Robin 3 4 13

The GREAT WARWICKSHIRE STAKES of 10 sovs. each,
with 50 added, for three-yr-old ; colts, Bst 71b ; and
fillies, Bst 21b. Certain winners extra. One mile and
three-quarters. 7 subs.
br c bro to Yardley, Filbert Whangee
by Sir Isaac Chilton Sylphine
Deerhound Orinoco
The WELTER CUP, value 100 sovs., the rest in specie, by
subscription of 15 sovs. each,' 10 ft, and 5 only if de-
declared, &c. Winners extra. Gentlemen riders.
Professionals allowed to ride in this race by carrying
61b extra. One mile and a half.
Age st lb
kgis a 11 4
Montague a 10 11
Bourton a 10 10
Gaylad a 10 6
Allegro 4 10 5
Thirkleby 5 10 3
The TOWN PLATE (handicap) of 50 sovs., added to a
handicap of 5 sovs. each, 2 ft ; for three-yr-olds and
upwards. One mile. A winner of 1001. after the de-
claration of the weights to carry 51b extra.

Age
Conmore 4
Doubt a
lanthe
Gladiole 6
Forester
Evadne
Calot
Butterfly 4
Economy
Octavia
\faster Slender .. 4
Nutpecker 3
The Reaper
The Countess of

Age st lb
The Hero a 10 2
Farmer's Boy
Milcote
Cleveland 4 9 10
Massa Mungo

Age st lb
Corybantes 3 6 12
Happy Joe 4 6 11
Tamerlane
Auchinleck
Peggy 3 6 9
Richard Primmer 4 6 9
Timothens 5 5 6
Maria Bell 3 6 4
Eliza
g by Dromedary
—Apricot
The Arrow 3 5 12
Chaffwax
Ada 3 5 10
Anglesea 3 5 9
Bloomer 3 5 9

Theba 5 7 0
Simplicity
Romauldus...
The SELLING STAKES of 5 sovs. each, with 25 added ;
for three-yr-olds and upwards. Optional selling
weights, &c. The winner to be sold by auction after
the race, and the surplus over the selling price to go
to the fund. One mile. To close on Monday after-
noon.
The SCURRY HANDICAP, for all ages, of 3 sovs. each,
with 20 added. Five furlongs. To close the evening
before running.

RACING FIXTURES FOR 1853.
The figures within parenthesis denote the number of
day's racing.
SEPTEMBER.

Doncaster (4)
..13
D0ver........ . ............ 15
Pontefract (2) ...........19
Bedford (2) ..............20
Leicester (2) 21
Lanark (2) 22
Manchester Autumn (2) 22
Canterbury (2) 92
Newmarket F. 0. (3) 27
Walsall (2) 28
Northallerton (2) 29
'OBER.

Cheadle (Staff.) (2)
Warwick (2) 6
Totnes & Bridgetown (2) 7
Weymouth
Morpeth (2)
Western Meeting 8
Rochester &Chatham (2) 8
Western Zoyland and

Bridgwater (1) l2
Folkestone, Hythe, and
Sandgate l3

OCT

Chester Autumn (2),,,,,, 4
Monmouth ............. 4
YorkshireUnionflunt(l) 6
Wrexham (2) ............ 6
Newmarket S. 0. (5)
.... 10

Warwick Autumn (2) lB
Caledonian Hunt and
Kelso 18
Richmond (2) l9
Newmarket (H.) (6) 24

NOVE
Worcester (2)
Epsom Autumn (2) 3
Cowbridge Hunt (2) 9
Liverpool Autumn (2).., 9

IMBER.
Shrewsbury (2) .... ...... 15
Newton Autumn (1) ....24
Aberystwith (3) Last week I

CRICKET.

ARRANGEMENTS-FOR THE WEEK.
THIS DAY.

At Nottingham—County of Nottingham v. County of
Sussex (return match.) The respective Elevens ale ex-
pected to be the same as fought the first match at Brigh-
ton last week.

At the Oval—Two Eleven at Surrey, Kent, and
Middlesex (benefit of Popjoy.)
At Northampton Arms Ground—Nine of the I3ling-
ton Albion Club with Two Players v. the next Eighteen
(benefit of Jordan.)
At Haverstock-hill—Nine of the Hampstead Club
with Goulding and Inwood v. Nine of Middlesex, with
Dakin and Royston (benefit of Inwood.)
At Shepherd's Bush—Regent's Park Club v, Crown
Tavern Club.
At Esher—Esher v. Eton.
At Tynernouth—Tynemouth v. Sunderland.
At Wickham—West Wickham v. Hollingbourne.
These are the announced Elevens for this match :
West Wickham.—A, Christy, Esq., R. Hankey, Esq.,
F. Miller, Esq., F. Noad, Esq., C. L. Norman, Esq ,
A. Warner, E4q., G. Yeates, Esq., Brockwell, Hook,
Lockyer, Mortlock.

Holaingbourne—J. Bridgland, Esq., W. Hammond,
Esq., A. Hoppe, Esq., J. Hoppe, Esq., M. Lancaster,
Esq., A Mynn, Esq., B. Roper, Esq., J. Roper, Esq.
J. Spencer, Esq., Hollands, and Wilisher.
To MORROW.

At Haverstock-iiill—The above match concluded.
At Nottingham--The above match resumed.
At the Adelaide•road Gruund—•Regent's-park Club v
Blackheath Standard Club.
WEDNESDAY.

At Nottingham—The above match concluded.
At Windsor—Windsor v. Eaton-home-park Ciub.
THURSDAY.

At the Oval—County of Surrey v. County of Notting-
ham. The elevens on this occasion will be as follow. It
should be stated that this is a Surrey Club match, Mr.
Houghton paying the Nottingham eleven. Hitherto
this has been one of the best matches of the season :

County of Surrey—Hon. S. ionsenby, F. P. Miller,
Esq., Caffyn, Julius Caesar, Chester, Heath, Hinkley,
Loekyer, Martingell, Mortioek, and Sherman.
County of Nottingham—Blekley, Brown, Clark, A.
Clark, Grundy, Guy, G. Parr, S. Parr, B. Parr, R. C.
Tinley, and F. Tinley.
At the Adelaide•road Ground—Regent's-park Club v.
Shepherd's Bush.

FRIDAY.
At the Oval—The above match resumed.
At Eyton—Eyton v. Wenlock Club.
SATURDAY.
At the Oval—The above match concluded,

MR. MACAULAY ON "JUNIUS."

The following letter, written by Mr. Macaulay,
is just published, for the first time, in a new edi-
tion of Lord Mahon's "History of England :"
"Albany, Jan. 3, 1852.
" Sir, —I am obliged to you for the new number of
the Quarterly Review.' I cannot say that it has
shaken my opinion. I wonder, indeed, that so ingenious
a person as the reviewer should think that his objections
have made any impression on the vast mass of circum-
stantial evidence which proves Francis to have been
`Junius.' That evidence, I think, differs not only in
degree, but in kind, from any evidence which can be ad-
duced for any other claimant.
" It seems to me, too, that one-half of the arguments
of the reviewer is answered by the other half. First, we
are told that Francis did not write the letters, because it
would have been singularly infamous in him to write them.
Then we are told that he did not write them, because
he did not own them. Surely this reasoning does not
hang well together. Is it strange that a very proud
man should not confess what would disgrace him ? I
have always believed that Francis kept silence, because
he was well known to have received great benefits from
persons whom he had, as Junius' or as Veteran',
abused with great malignity.
It is odd that the reviewer should infer, from the
mistake about Draper's half-pay, that Junius' could
not have been in the War-office. I talked that matter
over more than ten years ago, when I was Secretaty-at-
War, with two of the ablest and best-informed gentle-
men in the department, and we all three came to a con-
clusion the very opposite of that at which the reviewer
ha's arrived. Francis was chief clerk in the English
War-office. Everybody who drew half-pay through
that office made the declaration which Junius'
mentions. But Draper's half-pay was on the Irish esta-
blishment, and of him the declarations was not
required. Now, to me and those whom I consulted, it
seemed the most natural thing in the world that Francis
relying on his official knowledge, and not considering
that there might be a difference between the practice at
Dublin and the practice at Westminster, should put that
unlucky question which gave Draper so great an advan-
tage. I have repeatedly pointed out this circumstance
to men who are excellent judges of evidence, and I never
found one who did not agree with me.
"It is not necessary for me to say anything about the
new theory which the reviewer has constructed. Lord
Lyttelton's claims are better than those of Burke or Barre
and quite.as *good as those of Lord George Sackville, or
Singiespeech Hamilton. But the case against Francis,
or, if you please, in favour of Francis, rests on grounds
of a very different kind, and on coincidences such as
would be sufficient to convict a murderer.
" There is, however, one strong objection to the theory
of the reviewer which strikes me at the first glance.
`Junius,' whoever he was, wrote a long letter to George
Grenville, which was preserved at Stowe many years.
and of which I have seen a copy in Lord Mahon's pos-
session. The letter contains no decisive indications of
the writer's situation ; but, on the whole, it seems to oe
written by a man not very high in rank or fortune.
The tone, though not by any means abject, is that of
an inferior. The author declares himself to be the writer
of a squib, then famous, called ' The Grand Council.'
He says that Grenville must soon he Prime Minister.
Till then I wish to remain concealed even from
you ; then I will make myself known, and explain
what I wish you to do for me. I quote from me-
mory ; but this is the substance. The original I have
not seen ; but I am told that it is the handwriting of
`Junius's ' letters.

" Now, this circumstance seems to me decisive against
Lord Lyttelton. He was George Grenville's cousin.
The connexion between the Stowe family and the Hagly
family had, during two generations, been extremely close.
Is it probable that George Grenville would not have
known Lyttelton's hand? Is it possible that a letter
written by Lyttelton should have lain at Stowe 80 years
and that none of the cousinhood should have been struck
by the writing ?
"But, in truth, the strongest arguments against the
reviewer's theory are the arguments which, in my opi-
nion, prove that Francis was the author of the letters.
" I have the honour to be, Sir,
" Your faithful servant,
" T. B. MACAULAY."