The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-11 00:00:00

mittee be summoned to meet on that day, for the purpose of
selecting an artist for the execution of the statue ; and that
public notice be given that such is the object of the future
meeting."

Sir M. Sttz, having seconded the resolution, it was put from
the char, and carried unanimously.
On the motion of Mr. JEADAN, seconded by the Bishop of
I:Lawnarr, the following resolution was agreed to :—" '1 hat
the name of no artist should be proposed atthe nextmeeting,un-
less an intimation of the same should be sent to the Secretary
a week previous to the meeting►, and that a week previous to
the meeting the Secretary should state to the Committee the
names of the artists."

A vote of thanks was then unanimously carried to the Chair-
man, who returned thanks, and the meeting separated.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF Tins DAY.
GLOBE.—The " merits" of the Ipswich case were
perfectly plain : there was a clear legitimate case for
inquiry—expressly
.referred by ,the Ipswich Coin-
mittee to the House. The Committee in effect had
said, "If you are, fond of fishing inquiries, cast: in
your nets here, and you cannot fail' of a good hanl."
Not a bit of it. Nothing but the most peculiar rea-
sons could induce Sir Robert Peel to suspend the con-
stitutional rights of Ipswich ! The express Report of
the Ipswich Committee was, it seems, no peculiar rea-
son. Very peculiar are Sir Robert's reasons for suspend-
ing, or refusing, to suspend, writs. Ipswich must
not be suspended, where mal-practice was proved.
Nottingham is suspended, where mal-practice is
suspected without proof. Ipswich, which had been
remanded, as it were, for further examination, is
suffered, by the Ministerial Dogberry, to " stoll
out of your -Company." Nottingham, which labours
under no regUlar charge at all, is "comprehended"
as " vagrom, ' and " will be made 'to bring Le-
formed forth, I warrant you." And Sir Robert
Peel tells us that these are "questions solely
!6f a judicial nature," and that he acts on them
solely "with reference to the judicial merits of each
particular case !" But the truth is, the inquiry has
been stripped as much as possible of all judicial
character. It is not a judicial inquiry ;it has
no judicial object whatsoever. It is a fishing
inquiry for 'all the various modes of corruption
at certain " elections (tliose elections only being
excepted where the fishers would be sure of their.
prey). The sole motive for it is the innocent unac-
quaintance of the House with such practices ; their
utter want of knowledge of them, and the necessity of
knowing something. about them, before they can he
in a condition to legislate for their suppression ! We do
i say such inconsistency, and such imbecility, were
never before palmed on the House even by this plau-
sible leader. " You have acted," said Mr. Roebuck,
" on his judgment, and you are now, it seems, very
much ashamed of what you have done." We should
think so ; and we should think that even Mr. Roe-
buck's praises cannot quite reconcile the Premier
with himself; as . they certainly cannot reconcile his
conduct with reason or justice.
STANDARD.—Perhaps the most important in-
cident of last night's proceedings in. the House of
Commons was an explanation by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer that the late proclamation on the sub-
ject of the gold coin was merely a routine announce-
ment, literally copied from former proclamations,
• which every Government had been accustomed to
issue .from time to time. We. hope that this
explanation will allay the anxiety which a mis-
apprehension of the proclamation has occasioned,
and which, besides causing much inconvenience
to individuals, has very seriously embarrassed
the retail trade, at a time when any branch
of commerce can ill support difficulties. It ap-
pears from the course 'taken by the Bank, as well
as from all that we have been able to collect
by inquiry, that the average depreciation of the gold
coin in circulation—a depreciation inevitable from
more - than twenty years' wear--does not exceed a
small fraction of a farthing in the sovereign. Whe-
ther it might not be' better that the public . in its col-
lective character should bear this loss, than indivi-
duals, may be a question ; but that dealers act un-
wisely in turning away their customers in considera-
tion of a loss of, say three farthings in five pounds,
scarcely admits of doubt. The prudent course is
'manifestly 'to take the current money, and, if neces-
sary, compensate the loss by a trifling addition to the
price of commodities. We think it right to say so
much, because we have proof of very serious mis-
chief resulting from the late indisposition to take gold
•
coin in payment.
COURIER.—We have before expressed our asto-
nishment at the absence of any intelligible principle
in the proceedings. adopted by the House of Com-
mons with regard to the issuing of new writs, and its
decision last night tends in no way to diminish that
feeling. "It was stated"—"it was alleged"—" the
Honourable Member for Bath asserted"—such were
the grounds upon which the continued suspension of
the writ for the borough of Nottingham was sought to
be defended and justified last night oTouncls
Which, as they appear to us, would not war-
rant the slightest interference with the paltriest
privilege of the meanest subject or the most not°-
, riously corrupt voter in England—much less justify the
deprivation of the electors of Nottinghani of half their
right of representation. If punishment is to attend
upon, not merely hearsay evidence, but the belief of
some Honourable Member, in the truth of rumours
that may have reached him, if " it has been stated" be
the prelude to a sentence of condemnation, and "it
has been alleged" be the forerunner of a verdict of
guilty, those who know the credulity of Honourable
Members, especially as regards imputations upon their
opponents (facile credunt quod amant), may well
,tremble,for the consequences of such a reckless and
illegal course of proceeding. • A petition, we helieve,
was presented against the return of Mr. Grogory
for.the city of Dublin ; but was withdrawn previous
to the sitting of the Committee for the trial thereof
—the same may be said of other places too nume-
rous too mention—all these petitions contained charges
of corruption, personation, bribery, and all other pos-
sible and impossible offences against the sitting Mem-
bers. Well is not the fact of their withdrawal pregnant
with suspicion ? Does it not point at a compromise ?
Is it not as plain as that Mr. Roebuck is actuated by
the purest and most patriotic motives in his present
course of proceeding, that a bargain has been struck-
" we shall allow you the undisturbed possession of
your seats for one month,' or one session, but you
shall give them up to us'at the expiration of that time
—turn about is fair play." Now what can be clearer
or more conclusive than that such contracts have been
entered into in all those cases where petitions with al-
legations of bribery have been presented, but not pro-
secuted ?