The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-03 00:00:00

MEWMARKET JULY MEETING.

Handicap Plato of £5O, for 3-yr-olds and upwards. B.M.
Mr. H. Jones's Eastern Princess, 3 yrs, 7st 121 b
(H. Bradley) 1
Mr. Robertson's Boabdil, 3 yrs, 7st 71b „.. (J. Brewty) 2
The following also ran :—Predictor, Alarm, Conundrum,
Sooloo, and Charles Fox.

Betting-7 to 4 age; Conundrum, 7to 2 agst Eastern
Princess, 7 to 1 each agst Charles Fox and Predictor.
Eastern Princess made nearly all the running, and won
by three lengths ; a bad third.

Plate of 50 ECM, for three-yr-olds, 7st 71b; four, Bst 101 b;
five, six, and aged, 9st. Suffolk Stakes Course.
Lord Stamford's Malta, by Gilsraltar, 3 yrs (A.. Edwards) 1
Mr. T. Parr's Kildonan, 3 yrs (Clement) 2
Mr. Godding's Pastime, 4 yrs (S. RJgers) 3
Brother to Spanish Fly, and La Vapeur also ran.
Betting-6 to 4 agst Kildonan, 9to 4 agst Malta, sto 2
agst Pastime.

Won by a length and a half ; a bad third.
The July Stakes, a subscription of 50 soya each, 30 ft, for
two-yr-olds ; colts, Bst 71b ; fillies, Sat slb ; the owner of
the second horse to receive back his stakes. New T.Y.C.
35 subs.

Mr. T. Parr's Tolurno, Bst 71b (G. Fordham) 1
Mr. Merry's Costa, Bst 71b (Custance) 2
Mr. F. Watt's Sir William Armstrong, Bst lib
(Grimshaw) 3
The following also ran :—br f by Voltigeur, Deceptive*
Fantasia, Otho, Dioncea, b c by Kingston, and Elector.
Betting-2 to 1 agst Tolurno, 4to 1 agst Elector, sto 1
agst Costa, 6 to 1 agst Sir William Armstrong.

Deceptive took a slight lead, closely attended by Tolurno,
Elector, Costa, and Sir William Armstrong to the Dip,
where Deceptive dropped into the rear, and the others came
on abreast. At the bottom of the hollow Costa and Tolurno
singled themselves out, the latter getting his head in front
in a few strides, and winning, after a good race, by half a
length; Sir William Armstrong was a moderate third; the
next lot, close up, consisting of Elector, Otho, and De
ceptive.

THIRD EDITION.

SUH OFFICE, Sevan o'clock.

EMPE RIAL PA RLIAMEN T.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(Tins DAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
UNIVERSITY ELECTION BILL.

The house went into committee on this Uill.

On clause 1,
Mr. AYRTON said the question arose whether it was
necessary or advisable so to alter the principle of voting in
this country as to give one person authority over another
person's vote in the election of a member of Parliament.
He considered the principle laid down in the bill a
novel and startling one. He thought no such
necessity existed, and that if the Universities
maintained their peculiar and special franchise they must
suffer inconvenience, and be must therefore move as an
amendment that the words "name or names of the person
authorised on the part of the voter" be struck out of the
clause.
Mr. DODSON denied that the bill provided for voting by
proxy. The essenceof a proxy was, that a person delivered
over his conscience to another ; in this case the person hand-
ing in the voting paper would be nothing more than the
deliverer of the vote at the poll.
Mr. HENLEY felt it as a difficulty that a candidate
might start at the last moment, and it would not be possible
for the voter at a distance to know the fact. To obviate
that he might leave his paper, blank or fill up
three or four papers to be delivered at the discretion of
the party to whom his vote was entrusted.
Sir G. LEWIS said the bill before the house ought to
be considered a very important one, because it intro •
duced a new mode of voting, and thereby establish-
ing it in the statut, book as a precedent, which
would be most likely used as such in applications for
its extension to counties, and possibly to boroughs. He
thought the committee ought to see clearly the great
importance of the subject then under discussion before
they decided the point. He thought the gentleman
who had charge of the bill had not met the objection
of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets. The bill esta-
blished a totally new principle, of which he could net
approve.

Mr. LOCKE thought, if the voting paper was sent
direct to the Vice-Chancellor of the Universities, the ob-
jection would be met. But he must say he objected to
voting by proxy, and also by voting papers.
Sir S. NOB.THCOTE said he should support the
amendment of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets as
he greatly objected to the system of voting by proxy.
Mr. HUNT observed that the plan on the bill
seated publicity being given to the votes. There
was also a provision which gave security against the
accumulation of voting papers in one hand. The with-
holding of a voting paper for any unlawful purpose was
made a misdemeanour, and provision might be introduced
preventing the voter from signing more than one voting
paper. If he changed his mind he might vote in person,
if his voting paper had not been previously used.
After a short discussion,
Mr. ROEBUCK said, if it was provided that one and
only one voting paper should be issued, and which only
could be revoked by the Personal appearance of the voter
at the poll, he did not see that any difficulty could exist.
It was exceedingly heard that a poor gentleman, the
minister of some distant rural parish, should be called upon
to undertake an expensive journey before he could record
his vote at the University. The travelling expenses might
be a very trifling question NS ith gentlemen of ample means,
but it was not the case with poor country parsons with very
large families and very limited stipends.
Mr. WALPO LE thought the bill, as it stood, was a very
good one, and therefor: he should vote against the amend-
ment proposed by the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Ayr-
ton).
Mr. LOWE supported the amendment.
The house divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment...
Against it
Majority —46
Mr. BUTT moved an amendment to the same clause, to
the effect that no voting paper should be signed until after
the election had commenced.

After a short discussion, the house divided—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority —s2
The amendment was accordingly rejected, and the clause
was agreed to.
The other clauses were agreed to, after some amendments,
and the bill was reported.
INDICTABLE OFFENCES (METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT) BILL. . .

Mr WALPOLE moved the second reading of this bill,
the object of which was clearly set forth in the two first
clauses. The first clause provided that no charge or indict-
able offence should be preferred against any person unless a
preliminary investigation had taken place before a justice of
the peace. Thus it would be impossible for a charge to be
preferred against any person behind his back. (Hear.)
The second clause set forth that when such a charge had
been so investigated in open court there would be no ne-
cessity of going before an inferior tribunal. He had anti-
cipated that no serious objection would be made to the pro-
gress of the measure, but he found such was not to be the
case, and the opposition to the bill was solely because it was
thought that it would lead to the entire abolition of the
grand jury system. He could assure hon. members such
was not the case. He had made a great many inquiries
relative to the subject, and the result was that that grand
jury system, as far as the metropolis was concerned,
was almost superfluous except in political cases, and
very often was undesirable. The right hon. gentleman
then proceeded to refer to the opinions of various eminent
legal authorities, and also to the different presentments that
ha been made N 4 ith in the last 10 years against the system,
and concluded by formally moving the second reading of
the bill.

Mr. AYRTON regretted that the measure had been
brought forward at that time, particularly as his hon.
and learned friend (Mr. M'Mahon) had moved that the bill
be read a second time that day three months. He thought
while such a bill was under discussion it was necessary the
law officers of the Crown should be present. (Hear, hear.)
He was inclined to think that the system of grand
juries required some alteration, and he had moved for
and obtained a committee to consider the whole question
of the administration of the law in the metropolis, which
had not yet made its report. He therefore wished the hon.
gentleman to withdraw the bill for the present session.
Sir G. LEWIS said he should give his vote for the
second reading of the bill, as it appeared to him one founded
upon sound principles, and one which the house has al: et.dy
well considered, and on a former occasion approved.
Mr. B. JOHNSTONE supported the bill.
. . _ _

Mr. HUNT moved, on the.part of the hon. member for
Wexford, that the bill be read a second time this day three
months.

iii..NEWDEGATE moved the adjournment of the
debate.

Mr. WALPOLE said he should not oppose the motion.
The adjournment of the debate was then agreed to.
CHURCH RATES.

Mr. CROSS said iti; Tva;onth; paper for that day,
and as there appeared some difficulty about getting a day
for its discussion, he hoped the Home Secretary would
assist him in fixing some Thursday morning for that pur-
pose.
Sir G. LEWIS said unless Government business pressed
it was not usual to have Monday or Thursday morning
sittings.
Mr. CROSS said, in order that a discussion might take
place, although it would be rather late, he would, in order
that his bill might be placed at the head of the orders, fix
its second reading for Wednesday, the 24th of July.