The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-20 00:00:00

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

:%I‘ll GOOD WO OD RACES.
Iv hi NI) Ay Ntc; HT.-The race-course this afternoon
ekirnitilliantly attended, the Cup day here, as at Ascot,
koa,bg the superiority of attraction. Amongst a vast
134 k Or of fashiouables we obst.rved tl e Duke of Portland,
titlja e and Duchess of Aron, Duke of Richmond, Mar-
of Marchioness of Exeter, Alarrylis and Marchioness
terh Eat] and Countess of Errol, Earl of Ches.
Of A';'l,4, EarlJersey,' Earl Verulam, Earl Stradbroke, Earl
ilAnson, Lord John Fitzroy, Lord
Lord
Lord Adolphus Fitzclarence, Lord Vil-
011°N -64,!r‘h Av ,4,1.11(1 A. Lennox, Count Matuscewitz,
e1,44--neral ".Grosvenor, Earl rtlountcharles, Sir M. Wood,
1 Anson, Colonel Russell, Lord Sidney, Lady Chi-
?%l4l,:rl' Captain Deng, Mr. Greville, Colonel Udny, Mr.
f
Nbri Colonel Chichester, Lady S. Lennox, Earl o
Lady G. Paget, Hon. B. Craven, &c.

7to , BETTING ON THE COURSE.
6to agst Lord Jersey's Riddlessvorth (taken)
9 i agst Mr. Skipsey's The Saddler (taken)
4) to I agst Lord Cleveland's Marcus. .
11 to ! agst Mr. Houldsworth's Circassian
11 to- agst Lord Fitzwilliam's Creole
1:3 to ; agst Lord Cleveland's Chorister
lo to 1 agst Mr. Bower's Sir John
IG 1 agst Mr. Robinson's ,,,xlverpool
to I agst Lord ScSca rborough's Brother to Tarrare
22 , 1 agst Mr. Vansittart's Rubini
z-,;(21 agst Air. Sadler's Delight
% i`). I agst Mr. Ce,,ke's Incubus 110 to 1 agstlsl. Beardsworth's olwick ,t..ken,,
0 to 1 ( agst Joan of Arc (taken')
Th(wi agst Mr. Stoneheuer s
.Zans,
~,,. ,
e f
110 fell lame while at exercise this morn' .n.)
i,''f,lllth.“:l°,jog horses have broken down in tithe course
.a --*AetIO. '.
? 'Re. b :--t,rynaus, Zany, Crescent, and Falcon-
. 411)Al.
' A -.tie' 10.—Sweepstakes of 50 sovs. each. One
Lord ~ mile. Value 700 sovs.
1) e.rularo's b. c. Vestris
rtfi.. ekeot Richmoud's hr. c. Selictar
I. Luid ....Is's f. by Little John
The
, urford's Naiad
Plate Of 50 sovs., added to a swcepsta,s of
kr (.. 10 soy.. each. T. Y. C. heats.
Atr.
...reville's Adam Brock
1"), k'artmer's Guildford o 3
144 r, .-„„"f Richmond' names Wandering 80y.....• :3 2 lii _4',.l°s• Ilulkeley Sober Re,bin (h. b.) 4 4
I,,,mala)esty's Plate of 100 QS. Three miles.,
14 Lowthers Brother to Gayhurst k xeter's Antliony
NI of R
~ klimond's Plate of 100 sovs. One in ile.
4.otidep,x,
_Reichroond's Cuidad Roclii:;o
et 's Anthony
I 1 4bit,' -
~,.. tto Yesterday, the I9th instant, aged 31.
11tlL'I :' lIENay PFEzr„ late of Judd-street, Bruns
itti°tt'4Nl4:'• The deathambed of this estimable young mu.
fl,rl rtlnarltahle exple of the suprort and conso•
vVI from religion.

'MPERIALPARLIAMENT

(THIS DAY).

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took his seat at Twenty Minutes after Twelve
o'clock.
• Mr. JAMES presented a petition from the bankers; Merchants,
and other inhabitants of Carlisle, for x reVision.of the criminal
code, and for the abolition of the punishment of death, in cases
of house rot,he:y unatcompanied with personal Violence.
Mr. BLA MIRE, presetited petitions 'train tin? toWnship of
Brigham, and from Cockermoiith in Cumberland, for a revision
of the criminal cede.
Mr. HODGES presented ipetition from the inhabitants of
several parishes in the vicinity of Dover, against the use of mo-
lasses in distilleries.---Bead, and ordered to be referred to the
Committee.
Mr. BENETT presented a petition from Horsham, complaining
of the great influx of Irish labourers, and praying for the.eaa-
blishment of a system of Poor Laws in Ireland.
Mr. PENDARVES presented petitions from Truro and Fal-
mouth, against the punishment of death ; and frona.the latter
place for the abolition of the duty on marine insurances.—
Ordered to be printed.
Captain J. GORDON moved for a return. of the names of
.persons in the Commission of the Peace in the county of Wex.
ford, on the lit of the preseht Month.
Sir J. NEWPORT observed that a very short period had
elapsed since a list of all the Magistrates in Ireland was printed
for the use of the House, and he begged to know if the Hon.
Member had any particular reason in moving for a separate list
for Wexford. The Hon. Baronet adverted to the Hon. Mem-
ber's
" itinerant" legislation for Ireland.

Captain GORDON said that his reason was that at a late
meeting in the county of Wexford, some persons took part who
were in the commis,ion of the peace, and some who were not,
and he wished for a list of those who were, with a view of found-
ing some ulterior measures. As to his " itinerant" legislation, as.
the Hon. Baronet called it, it had Conduced as much to the Well-
being of Ireland as any exertions made by the Hon. Baronet, and
he thought it would accord better with the dignity of the House
if such observations were spared.
After a few words from Mr. WALKER;
Captain GORDON consented to withdraw his Bill.
LORD—LIEUTENANTS OF IRELAND BILL.

Mr. STANLEY moved, the third reading of the Lord-Lieute-
nants of Ireland Bill.

Sir .1. NEWPORT rose to support the Bill, as establishing a
-responsible authority between the people and the Government.
At present there were In some counties One Governor, in others
three or five, and in some as many as six or seven, all appointed
at different periods, and recommended by different people. The
Hon. Baronet gave the Bill his cordial support.
Mr. O'CONNELL rose to move that the Bill be read a third
time this day threemonths. He should not repeat what he had
before said upon this subject, though it was a very novel one to
the House. That an alteration in the present system in Ireland
was necessary no onecould deny, for the present system worked
badly. The complaints against Magistrates, particularly in the
north of Ireland, were exceedingly numerous, and created great
dissatisfaction ; and another great evil was the present mode of
communication with the Irish Government. But this Bill
would, instead of curing the evil, make it greater than
at present ; it would go towards neutralizing the effects of
the Reform Bill, and would make a powerful boroughmonger
in each county, for the Lord Lieutenants would be per-
sons of gi-eat influence in the several counties.—(Hear.)
The effect of the Bill would be to set up in every count), in Ire:
land a species of despot through whom alone all communica-
tions to Government could be made—the star by whose , light
every minor politician should have to steer his course, or
give up his expectations of arriving in the peaceful
haven of • Ministerial favour. Ireland was not in a state
for such powers to be entrusted to any, as those which
Lords-Lieutenants would be invested. Public opinion was
decidedly against the Bill, and its introduction would most
materially aggravate instead of_ allaying the 'spirit of party.
which was now the bane and curse of Ireland. Govern-
ment might no doubt by this means increase their patronage.
They wanted a Government in, Ireland to support these: who
supported them, and now there was a wealthy bishopric vacant,
why should it not be filled by the only Bishop in Ireland who
bad always been a Whig in politics, • always popular with all
classes, respected by all persuasions, and even loved by those who
differed from him, he meant the Bishop ef Killaloe.—(Hear.) He
(Mr. O'C.) did not wish to traduce the Magistracy of anypart of
Ireland, by his opposition to the Bill, but he wou'd, however re-
luctantly, take the sense of the House upon its third reading,
to record his sentiments on the kUbject. tie therefore begged
leave to move as an amendment, that the Bill be read that day
six months. -

Sir RICHARD MUSGRAVE seconded the amendment.
Colonel CONOLLY proteited against the vituperation in-
dulged in by the Hon. and Learned Member for Kerry, and
would support the Bill because it would, as he thought, • give
great satisfaction to the people.
Sir R. PEEL was not blind to the difficulties which the Bill
might create; but in the balance of evils, as the measure
was calculated in .no mean degree to remedy a state of
things which had for •the last twenty or thirty years very
much complained of, he would certainly support the Bill.—
The Lord Chancellor had no means of ascertaining the
characters of Magistrates, and the Bill held out an encourage-
ment to residency. The powers were indeed considerable; but
it was much better to give large powers to one responsible per-
son, than to have many persons who were irresponsible.
And if a good pgima facie case could be fairly established,
of abuse by admissions or exclusions from corrupt motives, that
House would exercise a confront over the Lord-Lieutenant in
the most remote county in Ireland. _

Lord ALTHORP said the measure had met very general sup-
port from the Irish Members.
Mr. RUTHVEN concurred in the propriety of passing the Bill.
Lord KILLEEN observed, that as it was intended to press the
question to a division, he begged to state that his opinions were
lavourable to the Bill, and he should, therefore, vote for its
passing.

Mr. LA MBERT supported the Bill, considering the arguments
urged against its passing to be utterly void of soundness.
After a few words from Mr. WALKER strangers were ordered
to withdraw, but
Mr. O'CONNELL stated he should not now press the question
to a division, as he considered he had sufficiently taken the sense
of the House upon the question in bringing it forward.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
REFORM BILL.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the tie-
' form of Parliament, (England) Bill, Mr. BERNAL in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN then read the alterations intended to be
made in clause eighteen, when
Mr. HUGHES rose ter the purpose of knowing why so great an
alteration had taken place in the present clause. He wished to
know,
the
tadnsd,t,
or
er maonrye
os
toh her p
outsseoi,ti s h,a dwbeereent
oi n tbiem astterdu
ctko
ou him,t that
thereby the necessity for the motion of which ha had given notice
would be avoided. Those words had not been struck out and
the object of the clause rendered simple, but the most mysterious
clause had been substituted in its stead. He trusted before the
House proceeded with the discussion of this clause, it would be
favoured with some statements from the Noble Lord (Althorp).
As to the construction Ministers put upon the clause as it at
present stood, it was a perfect mystery. ,
Lord ALTHORP stated, that the object of the clause was,
that freeholders should only be deprived of voting for counties
when they possessed the right of voting for towns. It was cor.-
sidered that it would produce a great public inconvenience, if
those towns to which representatives were given were to over-
power the county constituency, and by their votes, influence
and controul the county constituency.
Mr. H. HUGHES said that by the original clause a freeholder
in a town of less than 101. a year would have his right of voting
for the county continued to him, bbt if it was 101. and upwards he
lost his vote. A freeholder might possess property in a borou hg suffi-
cient to qualify him for a Member of Parliament for that borough,
yet he.would have a right to vote for the county in respect of
that properq. He also complained of the alteration respecting
leaseholders and copyholders, and of the obnoxious division of
counties. The present clause he considered to be made contrary
to good faith.
Mr. WARBURTON could not agree that there had been any
breach of good faith, because the clause was drawn up in accord.
ante with the assurance of the Noble Lord and his friends. The
admission of such a numerous class as the agricultural tenants at
will, would go to overpower the borough constituency. The
balance of power would be entirely destroyed for the agricul-
tural tenants, by voting for the county, would overbear the bo-
rough constituency. This he conceived to be a most impolitic
measure. •

Mr. F:LEWlSadyerted to the operation of the Bill in what he
called rural boroughs. He took, for example, Wemlock,
in which many large farmers resided; every one of whom, living
in li.aises of 101. value yearly, would be entitled to vote for the
borough. Suppose one of them posse sed a farm of 5001. a year ;
he acquired, as indeed he ought, a burgage tenure ; but the
claim was so drawn out as to take in all the land he occupied.
--(Hear, hear.) The value of the land was included in the
value of the house, so as to give him a right to vote fur the
borough, but would take away his right of voting for the county ;
this he (Mr. F. Lewis) considered to be an unjust measure.
He would propose that the quantity of land to be valued
in the rural boroughs should be limited to 500/. and
that whatever remained should belong to the freehold,
putting the occupier of it upon the same footing as any other
separate occupier. to the amount of 50/.
Lord -A LTHORP said, if he understood the Hon. Members
meaning it was, that if a man had property to the amount
of 10001. a-year;there was no reason why that man should have
only one vote, whereas only 501. was the qualification.
But the argument, if it meant anything, applied .with equal
force to householders also, and if it was to be considered
hard that the holder of property to the amount:of 10001.
should have only one vote, it was equally hard that the
occupierof a house ofa greater value tban 101. should berestricted
to one. He did not see how any distinction between the two cases
could well be maintained. No person should therefore vote for
a county in respect of any freehold, however occupied by him,
for which he might acquire a vote for a borough—nor in respect
of certain copyholds and leaseholds in the borough. If the
clause was rejected altogether, and if the voters of the large
towns were throw:, upon the counties, he should then consider
their interests decreased considerably.
The CHAIRMAN then put the original amendment, and also
that proposed by Mr. Hughes, for the insertion of the additional
words not exceeding five acres,' when
Mr. WYNN wished to know if a freeholder had a freehold in
a town he would be entitled to vote for the county. '
Lord ALTHORP said he certainly would if he were a free-
holder, but if a copy holder or leaseholder he would not. It was
not intended by the present clause to deprive him of any right
that he at present possessed
Mr. WYNN considered copyhold a species of freehold. He
felt considerable
feeling confident it would not actions to
ntheswe present clause, as amended,
r.
Sir G. CLERK could not conceive on what principle copy_
holders and leaseholders could* be considered entitled toth
franchise, while those who had just the same species ofproperty
in the country were deprived of that right altogether. He
thought it infinitely better to adhere to the original clause, than
make the alteration proposed.
Lord MILTON contended that the clause now under consi-
deration would exclude the boroughs from having any influence
in the counties, a principle evidently erroneous. The Bill
and the extent to which it had gone, had his hearty su port, but
the present, claim was highly objectionable. He would
Wilts, which by the division of
divided into north and south districts.
would
dtiobne in
north were seven boroughs, of which three weree,rhe nbesgegheed-
countieso taketheits
dule B, and the others allowed two, Members each. Taking
thesethe Hsoeuvesen botorocouguhsisdferromtheounebdoiwstrismct the
pohecorut
the county
y
would be left to exercise the borough franchise.