The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-19 00:00:00

_-----5..,

dealers, Southwark-1 Tulloth arta P. Johnson, inrveyeall;
South Audley-street, Grosvenor-square—J. Leonard and M.
Moran, hosiers, Regent-street—J. Nichols and R. Davies,
calico manufacturers, Manchester—D. B. and J. W. Smith,
paper manufacturers, Alton, Staffordshire—W. anti:C. Hirst,
clothiers, Fulstone,Yorkshire— J. and L.Leigh, cotton spinner/3.
Bollington, Cheshire—G. Miller, A. Mitchell, J. Brown, and
B. Colley, calico dealers, 31anch,ster—W. W.- .. fug.. • • ~ C
'
Brodie, linen drapers, Berwick-upon-Tweed
.. :
W. Weller, graziers. Ebony, Kent—P. Vi. and .Z.
Bayly, ship brokers, London-street, Mark-lan-
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIOIsTS24: *--' -,
John Wiles, Hutchesontown, Glasgow, Ap • V/ said May e .
14, at one, at the Black Bull Inn, Glasgow.
James Pedie, writer to the signet, Edinburgh, A . Arra
May 14, at the Exchange Coffee-house, Edinburg. ' • •
James Scott, cow-feeder, Glasgow, April 25 and May 16, 4 •
the Black Bull Inn, Glasgow.
•
PRICE OF SUGAR.
The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, for the •
week ending, April 15, 1845, is 295. Sid. per cwt., exclaeivo
of the Duties of Customs paid or payable thereon on the ina-
portation thereof into Great Britain.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.

GLOBE.—Tho host of petitions presented to the House of
Commons against the Maynooth Endowment Bill fully
bear out the admission made by Mr. Gladstone,
that the majority of the nation is against the measure.
The people, with an unanimity and earnestness almost
wholly unexampled, have exercised their " constitutional
right," and petitioned and protested against an application
of a portion of the taxes, which they pay, to a purpose which
they believe to be inimical to the interests, as it is opposed
to the feelings, of the majority of the people of this country.
The unrestrained expression of their opinion is the con-
stitutional privilege and the inalienable duty of a free
people. To freely canvass, and, through their repro.
sentatives in and by their petitions to the Legislature,
to convey their opinions upon great national ques-
tions, is essential to the stability of the constitution,
as well as to the right administration of public affairs. Pub-
lic meetings, at which the discussion of their great interests
may be undertaken—the public voice raised loudly, yet
peacefully, to the Parliament and the Sovereign---so far from
being inimical to the representative system, or in the least de-
gree inconsistent with it, flows naturally from it, and gives it
life and vigour. Surely, it will not be pretended that the
people of England are only once in seven years to exercise
the right of interfering with the management of their
affairs, and that this inference is to be confined to one func-
tion—the choice of their representatives ? Were this the
case, only see with what powers those representatives are
invested, and consider both how impossible it would be to
find persons worthy of so onerous a trust, and how ridiculous
to elect them for more than a few months. Then, indeed,
the foolish sarcasm of Rosseau would have some meaning—
that " once in seven years the people of England are free; at
all other times, slaves." A people limited to the exercise of
this one function of election, would be very soon either
cajoled, or forced, out of the exercise of it. The elective
franchise—the whole system of representation—may safely
be pronounced at an end, from the moment that the people
confine themselves to the exercise of this one political function,
and are indifferent to, or neglectful of, the correlative duties
which pertain to it. But every argument which sustains the
right and enforces the duty of the people to watch with vigilance
the course of legislation and the acts of the Government, also
proves the danger of a disregard by the Government and the
Legislature to the voice of the people, when constitutionally
expressed. if the petitions of the people—when their num-
bers attest that they speak the voice of the majority—be
treated with indifference by the representative body, the
result will be a deeply-seated and dangerous convic-
tion that the public voice has no influence within the
walls of Parliament Such a conviction is fraught with the
elements of discontent, and is pregnant with danger to
the social institutions of the country. Though we by no
means maintain that the representatives of the people
are strictly the agents of their constituents, and bound, on
each particular question, to follow their specific instructions
—a doctrine wholly untenable, in our apprehension—yet he
would err just as far on the other side, and in a far more
dangerous kind, who should hold the representatives to be
quite independent of the people, except when before them at
the hustings. This would be to maintain that the govern-
ment of England is a mere oligarchy; and that the people,
exercising no voice in the administration of their affairs,
limit themselves in their political capacity to the bare per-
formance of an empty ceremony at a general election. A
Member's conduct would thus pass unnoticed, and be for-
gotten at each succeeding election, if the mass of
his constituents stood by, idle and listless, during
the whole duration of the Parliament. But if
this were not the consequence, and supposing the
people to retain their regard for public questions, and
to be resolved, as far as m them lays, to be consulted ;
and if we still suppose them only to interfere in the act of
election—then an evil of an opposite kind, and scarcely less
hurtful to the representative system, must infallibly arise.
The electors, unable to trust him whom they can neither
watch nor control, will take care to choose such a man as
may be tied down, regarding each vote he is to give, by pre-
vious stipulations. So niggardly and jealous a delega-
tion of this important trust would be detrimental
to the working of our representative system. 'let
the first evil is most to be deprecated : this would
merely impair the system, by fettering the free deliberations
of the representatives : that would destroy the elective
system itself. But if the public voice, expressed with the
unanimity it has been on the Maynooth Endowment Bill, be
treated with indifference by the Legislature and the Go-
vernment, does not that indifference to popular opinion,
when thus constitutionally expressed, imply either that the
public voice is powerless, and therefore to utter its senti-
ments on questions before Parliament, is futile; or that the
Members of the Legislature require to be bound aby distinct
pledges to their respective constituencies, to prevent-them
from treating the opinions of the constituencies *ith- con-
tempt ?