The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-13 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM TUE EVENING PAPERS OF SATURDAY.
GLOBE.—The " merits" of the Ipswich case were
perfectly plain : there was a clear legitimate case for
I inquiry—expressly referred by the Ipswich Com-
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 haul."
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 peculiarare 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 "steal
out of your company." Nottingham, which labours
under no regular charge at all, is "comprehended"
as " vagrom, ' and " will be, made to bring De-
formed forth, I warrant you." And Sir Robert
Peel tells us that these are " questions solely
of 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 (those 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 be
in a condition to legislate for their suppression ! 'We do
say such inconsistency, and such imbecility, were
never before palmed on the Rouse even by this plau-
sible leader. " You have acted," said Mr. Roebuck,
" on his judgment, and you_..arre DOW—, it seems, very
much ashamed of what you-hive 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 proclanation 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 grounds
which, as they appear to us, would not war-
rant the slightest interference with the paltriest
privilege of the meanest subject or the most noto-
riously corrupt voter in England—much less justify the
deprivation of the electors of Nottingham 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 ainant), may well
tremble for the consequences -of such a reckless and
illegal course of proceeding. A petition, we believe,
was presented against the return of Mr. Gregory
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-
hers. 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 ?