people as to legislatures, as they are sovereigns; hence, whether whig or tory rule prevails, we ought to have the right of instruction. The immortal _Sidney_, in his discourses on government, goes to the full extent of our present doctrines. “Many in all ages, and sometimes the whole body of the commons, have refused to give their opinion in some cases till they had consulted with those that sent them; the houses have been often adjourned to give them time to do it; and if this were done more frequently, or that the towns, cities and counties had on some occasions given _instructions_ to their deputies, matters would probably have _gone better_ in parliament than they have often done.” He seems satisfied with subsequent rejection as sufficient punishment for violation of duty, but does not hence infer that there are no duties. “Whensoever any of them has the misfortune not to satisfy the major part of _those that chose him_, he is sure to be rejected _with disgrace_ the next time he shall desire to be chosen. This is not only a sufficient punishment of such faults, as he who is one of five hundred may probably commit, but as much as the greatest and freest people of the world did ever inflict upon their commanders that brought the greatest losses upon them.” (Discourses on Government, section 38.) This rejection from office is the only punishment provided by our constitution in cases of impeachment of the highest officers. Quotations might be multiplied, but “this little taste shall suffice.” It must be remembered that these doctrines prevailed under a constitution which allowed of no resignation, and where fifty-six members (or about a ninth part of the English representation) were elected by only three hundred and sixty-four votes—where _one man_ sent a representative from _Sarum_, and one from _Newton_, and _two_ sent one from _Marlborough_—and the elective franchise was so unequally and unjustly distributed, that parliament never truly represented the wealth, population, or wishes of all England, or any section, or even a single election district, or any class of persons or property, unless the representatives of the single freeholders of Newton and Sarum constituted an exception! When our “_novel doctrine_, conjured up for party purposes,” has prevailed there _time out of mind_, who shall deny its propriety here? Lords have proxies, and may instruct them, though the absent principals may be gambling in Brussels, or revelling in Parisian debauchery, and neither hear or read the debates; shall that be denied to the majesty of the people which is yielded to the dignity of a half fledged lordling, sunk in vices which disgrace the human character?]