The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-09 00:00:00

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.
NEWMARKET CRAVEN ;VIEETING.
NEWMARKET, FRIDAY MORIUND.
In the following list of fixtures for the ensuing meeting we
have placed a * against the horses already here, or that will
arrive in the course of a day or two :---
MONDAY.—The Craven Stakes of 10 sovs. each, for 3 yrs old,
Est. ; 4 yrs, Bst 41b ; 5 yrs, Bst 131 b ; 6 and aged, 9st 51b. A. F.
Handicap of 25 Soya. each, 5 ft, if declared, &c., fora and
4 yrs old.
Handicap of 25 sovs. each, 10 ft, for 4 yrs old, &c. T. Y. C.
The Riddlesworth Stakes of 200 toys. each, h ft, for 3 yrs
old, &c. Ab. M.
*Mr. Bowes's Lady of Silverkeld Well ; Mr. Bowes's Lass of
Louton ; *Mr. Thornhill's Eusebia ; *Mr. Greville's Gunter ;
Lord Jersey's f by Bay Middleton, out of Trampoline, and 'e by
Buzzard, out of Cobweb; *Colonel Anson's The Pincher;
Lord Lichfield's Aliss Van Amburgh, and c by Bay Middleton,
out of Portrait's dam ; Lord Suffield's fby Camel, out of Al-
bania, and Juliana (no produce).
The Tavistock Stakes ef 100 sovs. each, for 3 Irsold, &c. D.M
*Duke of Bedford's c by the Tulip, out of Mona; *Lord Al-
bemarle's Robin; *Lord Stradbroke's c by Emilius, out of
Mamina, and *c by Jerry, out of Marpessa,
100 h ft. D.M' .-- *Lord Albemarle's Nuncio, Bst 71b, agst
Lord Kelburnes c, by Retainer, dam, by St. Patrick, Bst 41b.
TUESDAY.-The Tuesday's Riddlesworth Stakes of 200 sovs.
each, h ft, for 3 yrs old colts, Bst 71b, and fillies, Bst 41b, &c.

*Lord Exeter's • Reversion ; Mr. Watt's f, by Bay Mid-
dleton, out of Nieotris ; *Air. Greville's Gunter ;* Lord Jersey's
Trampoline filly ; Duke of Portland's f, by Bay Middleton, d by
Reveller; Colonel Peel's Chatham; Lord Suffield's f, by Camel,
out of Albania, and Juliana.
The Grillron Stakes of 50 sovs. each, for 3 yrs old fillies. D.M.
*Mr. Batson's f, by Jerry, out of Revelry; *Lord Albemarle's
Dorothy ; *Mr. Thornbill's Eusebia ,at d Equation ,• Duke of
Bedford's f, by Lancastrian, out of Plaything (allowed 31bs).
The Coffee-room Stakes of 110 sovs. each, for 3 yrs old, &c.
'R. M.
*Lord Albemarle's Robin ; *Mr. Batson's Acacia colt ; *Duke
• of Grafton ns c, by Jerry, out of Petulance ;*Lord Chesterfield's
three colt; *Lord Exeter's Revocation; Duke of Bedford's
ch c, by Hymen, out of Mysie.
Sweepstakes of 100 cove, each, for foals of 1839; colts, Bst 71b;
and fillies, Bst 41b. R. AI.
*Mr. Falconer's c by Bay Middleton, out of Observatory (al-
lowed 31bs) ; c by Glaucus, out of Minnow (allowed 31bs) ; and
f by Camel, out of Codicil ; *Duke of Grafton's Canadian,
Mr. Combe's Cr iterion,*LordOrford's Adelgund (allowed :Jibs),
Colonel Anson's Hollandaise, Lord Chesterfield's Beadsman,
and Lord G. Bentinck's Gaper. The last three are foals of 140.
Sweepstakes of 100 sovs. each, for three yrs old ; colts, Bst 71b ;
and fillies, Bst 21b. D.M.
Lord G. Bentinek's Tedworth, Mr. Thornhill's St. James,
*Mr. Houldsworth's Darling, *Lord Word's Wild Duck colt,
*Mr. Fulwar Craven's Don't-say-no, and Captain Williamson's
Namable.

Sweepstakes of 200 soya. each, h ft. D.M.
*Mr. Thornhill's Equation, Bst 101 b ; Lord Kelburne's Sis-
;er to Pathfinder, Bst tOlb ; Lord G. Bentiuck 'a Nina (dead),
Bst 71b.
The Oatlands, of 50 sovs. each, h ft, and only l 0 ft., if declared,
&c.
*Duke cf Rutland's The Genius, 5 yrs, Bst 71b ; Lord Exe-
ter's Cesarewitch, 4 yrs, Bst 41b ; Lord Kelburr.e's c by Muley
Moloch, d by Actaeon, 4 yrs, 7st 91b ; Colonel Peel's Lam-
not-aware, aged, Bst 71b, paid forfeit.
Subscription of 501; for three yrs old, 7st; four yrs, 7st 71b ;
five yrs, 9st; six yrs and aged, 9st 21b. T. Y.C.
The Column Stakes of 50 sovs. each, h ft, for three years old,
&c. R. M.
Mr. Cookes' Palinurus (allowed 31b), and *f Ballet (al-
lowed 51.1)); *Lord Orford's f Adelgund (a.lowed 31b),anil fby
Clearwell, out of Chapeau de Espagne's dam (allowed 31b);
Mr. Watts' f by Plenipotentiary, out of Mytrha (allowed
51b) ; Mr. Wagstaff's Monteagle (allowed 31b) ; *Lord Exe-
ter's Reversion and *Valance ; *Mr. Thornhill's Evasion and
*Eusebia; *Colonel Anson's The Puncher; *Mr. Bowes's
The Lady of Silverkeld Well • *Mr. Batson's Acacia colt (al-
lowed 31b) ; *Lord Stradbroke's: cby Emilius, out of Meinina
(allowed 31b); fby St. Patrick, out of Begum (allowed 31b),
and fby Bizarre, out of Adeline; Lord G. Bentinck's Fire-
brand and Flytrap (allowed 51b) ; *Colonel Peel's Chatham
(allowed 31b), and* A rchy ; *Lord Chesterfield's f by MuleyMo-
loch, out of Young Petuaria (allowed 31b); *AIL Houlds-
worth's Darling (allowed 51b); Sir. Nevill's c by Veloci-
pede, out of Atnadon (allowed 31h); *Duke of Port-
land's f by Bay :Middleton, out of Souvenir (al-
lowed 31b), *f by Bay Middleton, dam by Reveller
(al-
lowed .s!b), and *f by Dr. Syntax, out of Ruth, (allowed
31b, wrong entry); and Lord G. Bentinck's Nina (dead);
Vocalist, (dead); f out of Her Majesty (dead) ; Colonel Peel's
twin colts (dead), by Touchstone, our of Fille de Joie. •
Sweepstakes of 100 sovs. each, for fillies, Bst 71b. RM.
*Duke of Rutland's f by Bizarre, out of Flambeau's data ;
*Lord Chesterfield's Die-bar ; *Mr. Thornhill's Equation.
Sweepstakes of 100 soya. each ; co:ts, est7lb ; fillies, Bst 31b.
&e• T. Y. C.
Lord Lichfield's Miss Van Amburgh (allowed 31bs); *Mr.
Thornhill's Espartero ; Sir. Bowes' Lass of Louton, (allowed
31b) ; *Mr. Cooper's Edgeworth Bess (allowed 31b) ; Lord
G. Bentinek's Nina (dead).
Match-200, h ft. D.M.—*Duke of Bedford's John
o'Gaunt, Bst 71b, against *Lord Orford's Bridal, fist.
ItsnAY.—:Subscription Plate of 501.; for 3 yrs, Est 121 b ;
4 yrs, Bst 71b ; 5 yrs, 9st ; 6 yrs and aged, 9st 31b. D. M.
The whaler to be sold for 3001. •
Handicap of 20 sovs. each, for 4 years old, &c. A. F.
Sweepstakes of 100 sorts. each, for foals of 1839, &c. D.M.
Mr. Kirby's Royer (allowed 31b) ; *Mr. Sadler's Barrier and
Defier; Mr. Thornhill's St. James and •Espartero; *Lord

THE " TIMES " versus SIR R. PEEL.
It has been our misfortene several times to differ from Sir
Itobort Peel, on questions of precedent and privilege. We
be were not so great s

eter for such reatters--his con.
(Met with respect to them constitutes one of the chief blemishes
of his Parliamentary life. _ Nothing detracts more materially
from- the influence and moral position of a Minister than the
habit of appealing to the mere arbitrary traditions or esprit de
corps of the House of Commons, in opposition to reasonings
founded upon the principles of constitutional liberty and jus-
tice. Nor c n anything be a greater mistake than to suppose
that such a course of proceeding tends, in an enlightened age,
to maintain the dignity or respectability of the House of Com-
mons itself. " Sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas"
is not the tone in which those should addreseethe country, who
were elected to be the Representatives, and not. the masters,
of the people.
Parliamentary privilege is tolerable only so far as it is neces-
sary for the due performance of the legislative and deliberative
functions of the Houses of Parliament. When carried further,
it is a breach of trust, and a gross abuse of the opportunities
of an irresponsible position : instead of consolidating the system
of constitutional government, it tends directly to its disturbance
and corruption. It was on such grounds as these that vie felt
and spoke so strongly as we did, when a former Howe of
Cointeons assailed the liberties of the subject in the ease of
the Sheriffs of London. And on similsr groan's we may be
prepared to urge (if the new system of Election Committees
should justify our anticipations of its failure), that no pretence
of privilege ought to stand between the people and the pro-
tection of a settled law in the exercise of their electoral fran-
chise. Orr both these points we have unfortunately differed,
and probably may hereafter difler, from Sir Robert Peel,
• Parliamentary precedent, even in matters purely tndifferent,
can be of no value except as facilitating the due performance
of the functions of Parliament. Whoever can show that it
operates as an impediment rather than an assistance to public
business, makes out a sufficient case for departing from it.
There is no sanctity in the thing itself, apart from the reasons
on which it was founded. Much more, whet: it has been
established in derogation or restriction of any popular right,
must there be very strong reasons of expediency indeed to
make it justifiable in the first instance, and the moment those
reasons cease, the justification for maintaining it is gone.
We have been led to make these remarks by the debate
which took place in the House of Commons on Thursday on
Mr. Duecombe's motion 'tlor discontinuing the practice of
the House whit h precludes the presentation of petitions up in
the subject of anv tax or duty under its consideration." Our
first impression, when we saw this notice and the name of the
mover, was, that it was a factious proceeding, designed for the
sole purpose of embarrassing the Government ; and we may still
be permitted to doubt whether it would have been brought for-
ward by the Member for Finsbury, or supported by Mr. Mac-
aulay or Sir G. Grey, if the proposal for a tax presumed to be
unpopular had emanated from a Whig instead of a Conserve
live Ministry. But, from whatever motive, the motion was
made and argued, and we have risen from a perusal of the de-
bate with feelings of regret that it should have been resisted
on the part of Sir Robert Peel. We scarcely ever remember
a discussion in which the preponderance of reasoning was more
clearly or more strongly on the side of the minority. To ar-
guments which proved that this practice, so manifestly diffi-
cult to defend upon any ground of principle, was founded upon
the apprehension of an inconvenience which, under the present
rules of the House of Commons, could not possibly arise—
nay more, that, under existing circumstances, adherence to it
will have a tendency to produce that very inconvenience against
which it was meant to provide—Sir Robert Peel thought it
enough to answer, that the practice was 144 years old, and that
ke " should consider himself as departing from his duty," if he
did not oppose " a departure from the constitutional usage of
the House of Commons, established at the period of the Revo-
lution, and unifohnly adhered to since."
One thing seems to us pretty plain—the usage in question is
a most no:constitutional usage, urtless it can be shown to be ne-
cessary or highly expedient for the due performance of the
functions of the House. Sir G. Clerk admitted :as much,
when he acknowledged "that the doors of the House should
be thrown open as widely as
.possible to the petitions of the
people, and that no rule established for the .convenience ofthe
House, or of Members of the Rouse, ought to stand in the
way of that which was the undoubted right and one of the
most valuable privileges of the people." If there is any one
class of subjects on which, abstractly speaking, thepeople would
seem to have an a fortiori right to be heard, it is that of pro-
positions for the levying of new taxes. Taxation, as Mr.
Macaulay well observed, is a matter within the peculiar pro-
vince of the House of Commons—and why? Because the
House of Commons represents the people, and the theory of
the Constitution is, that the people should tax themselves. How
absurd, then, to give the House of Commons an exclusive con-
trol over taxation, because it represents the sentiments of the
people, and then to debar the people from access to the House
of Commons in the usual constitutional way, for the purpose of
expressing their sentiments upon this subject !
Prima facie, the case is so strong, that the usage seems
hardly justifiable under any circumstances. But under the old
practice, which suffered petitions to be presented, and speeches
to be made and debates taken upon them, at any or every
sitting of the House, the inconvenience of receiving petitions
against new taxes, would have been so great, that it was an
absolute matter of necessity to exclude them. In the words
of Mr. Fox, as quoted en Thursday by Sir G. Clerk, "if it
were allowed to any man in the country to present petitions
against any new tax by which he might be affected, it would be
perfectly impossible for the business of the country to go on."
Why ? Because, as Mr. Macaulay. said, every member of the
Opposition might have made a speech upon every petition,
and it could never have been known when general business
would commence. But now the case is totally altered. The
House now sits for two hours in the afternoon on purpose
to transact private business and receive petitions ; anti
no petition can be presented when the sitting is re-
sumed for general business. Every individual in the
nation might now petition separately upon every subject which
comes under discussion in Parliament without involving any
impediment whatever to the public business. Speeches cannot
now be made, or debates taken, upon arty petition, except by
special motion, of which previous notice must be given ; and it
wouli be easy (should that be thought expedient) to receive
petitions en the subject of taxation in the ordinary course,
without permitting theta to be afterwards made the subject
of motions. There could, therefore, be no inconvenience in re-
ceiving these petitions; but, on the contrary, there may be great
inconvenience in continuing to reject them. " See," said Mr.
Macaulay, a• what will be the consequence—the repre-
sentatives of those constituencies which are opposed to the
tax, prevented from presenting their petitions, will be induced
to introduce them into their speeches. 'I hey cannot, of course,
be interdicted from reading any petitiors in their speeches.
Many will do this; I, for one, will do it on the first opportu-
nity ; and thus petitions, denied reception in a legitimate, and
regular way, will be forced into notice in an irregular and ille-
gitimate way."
We are sure that Sir R. Peel, in the course which he has
taken in this matter, has no other object in view than to main-
tain a long-established Parliamentary usage. But to maintain/
a Parliamentary usage without a reason, is a kind of Conserve.
tism of Which we do not appreciate the value.