The Sun. — London, England, 1832-06-19 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. We arc afraid that much local injustice will be inadvertently,--we trust and b e lieve not in tentionally—perpetrated under the provisions of the Boundary Bill. The limit and extent of new and old boroughs have been reviewed and impartially selected, by gentlemen honourably and selected, and sent to investigate the expediency of altering the present arbitrary boundaries of parishes. Doubtless, in many places, the exten sion of an ancient town beyond the li m its o f the borough definition entitled new districts to the rights and franchises of the ancient sites of houses. We are advocates for a much wider plan of Reform for the subdivison of the country into electoral districts, and the suppression of that anomalous class system of representation which so strangely divides instead of amalagates the agricultural and trading interests of the country ; but the habits, prejudices, and exclu sive interests of the people would not have ad mitted such a radical change ; and, doubtless, the subdivision of counties and the enlargement of old borough boundaries have much ad vantage. At the same time, there are instances of arbitrary and destructive alterations of ancient lines of franchise demarcation in the Boun dary Bill which ought not to be passed into law. Our contemporary, The Sun, makes the following observations on the subject..:--- " The Boundary Bill for England stands for a third reading. The little attention which it has excited proves the unbounded confidence in the Government of those who have supported them, and the complete defeat of their opponents, who would otherwise have found in this measure materials for lengthened discussions. Upon the whole we regret that, considering its extreme importance, it has not been dealt with in a more business-like manner. There can be no doubt that in some particular cases erroneous arrange ments have been made. The case of Arundel 13 under correction in a Committee, and we see that the case of Stamford is to be discussed on the third reading. After the gallant and successful struggle made by the inhabitants, under every species of persecution, to regain their privilege, we should be sorry that a measure for improving the Representation should have the effect of restoring this borough to the condi tion of one of these nuisances which it has been the purpose of the Reform Bill to annihilate. We find that the application of the general rule (which has not, however, been universally acted upon) of adding to old boroughs adjacent dis tricts of towns, has led the Commissioners in this instance to add a street on the other side of the river, from the small parish of St. Martin, in Northamptonshire, containing 1,200 inhabi tants, to Stamford, in Lincolnshire, containing 6,000. The ostensible ground is to give repre :-_;entation to that parish ; but as it chiefly belongs to Lord Exeter, and the weight it will give him, must overwhelm the independent majority in Stamford, it will have the effect simply of depriving that borough of representation, without, in fact, bestowing any real boon on the parish of St. Martin, as the inhabitants can have no will of their own. We hope the . Government will see that a fair exception may, under these cir cumstances, be made, and trust that the Reform Bilis will not be chargeable with the creation of a rotten borough." We hear that Arundel will be made a close borough of the Duke of Norfolk, and Stamford a rotten borough of the Marquess of Exeter, by the Boundary Bill. Now, whether these public-spirited towns are to be de livered over, bound hand and foot, to Whig or Tory Noblemen, is equally bad, whether the ef fect of mistake or design. On the subject of Stamford we have received many letters of loud complaint. The Bill proposed to take in a parish (St. Martin's) in another county, 19.20ths of which intended addition is the landed pro perty of the Marquis of Exeter, and is the only building land in the town or neighbourhood of Stamford. The addition will provide the Noble Borougbmonger of this town with sixty-eight tenants to eutvote the existing majority of the reformers. We do think that the sufferings and gallant exertions of the inhabitants of this oppressed town ought to receive protection, espe cially in a measure under the guise of a Reform Bill. It may be replied that St. Martin's is a suburb and part of the town of Stamford ;—ad miffing the fact, is such a practical injustice, as its addition under these circumstances, to be tole rated ? If so, the Ballot will succeed the Boundary Bill, and that at a very early day. The severe sacrifices made by these Lincolnshire bur gesses, and the personal efforts of Mr. Tenny son, entitle the loud complaints of the Stamford burgesses to the consideration of the Reform Members of the House of Commons--Morn- Lug Chronicle. The advocates for a continuance of the Bank Monopoly are not always consistent. One of the most distinguished is unquestionably Mr. M'Culloch—who, in a pamphlet, entitled,— " Historical Sketch of the Bank of England, with an Examination of the Question as to the exclusive PrNileges of that Establishment," en deavoured to show that the privileges at pre sent enjoyed by the Bank ought, with certain modifications, to be continued It has generally been taken for granted, that the monopoly of the Bank of England, by limiting the number of partners in Banking Establishments, has been the chief cause of the periodical failures of the Country Banks, and the ruinous panics to which these failures have led. In Mr. M'Culloch's Commercial Dictionary—a work without its equal in the literature of this or any other coun try, for the extent and variety of the information it contains on all subjects connected with com merce—a work which nothing but the all-en grossing interest of the question of Reform pre vented us from noticing the moment of its ap pearance—we observe, in the able article on the subject of Banking, he discounte nances the idea of any benefit being likely to accrue from the establishment of Joint Stock Banks. " We believe (he says) that the be nefit expected to result from the formation of Joint Stock Banks will not nearly be so great as has been anticipated. Even were the organized in all large towns, which there is but little reason to expect—seeing that every individual taking a share in one of them is bound to the whole ex tent of his fortune for their engagements—the lesser towns and country districts would be left to deal with inferior hanks. But, supposing them to be universally established, so long as every one isalloweil to issue notes without any sort of Oleo( or control, a thousand devices may be fallen upon to insure a certain circulation to those that are most worthless. At best, this measure is but a feeble palliative of inveterate disorders. It is quite illusory to expect to make any real improvement upon the system of country banking in England, by the mere intro duction of a plan for allowing banking establish ments with large capitals to be set on foot. There have always been, and are at this mo meat, a great number of such establishments in Eng l a „d. What is really wanted, is the adoption of a system that will exclude the possibility of notes being discredited, by ' preventing all individuals or associations from issuing such as have not been previously gua ranteed." In that part of the same article which relates to the Scotch banks, Mr. M'Culloch, after noticing that the act of 1708, preventing more than six individuals from entering into a partnership for carrying on the business of bank ing, did not extend to Scotland, proceeds to observe, that with the exception of three, none of the Scotch banks are chartered associations, and that the partners of the others " are jointly and individually liable to the whole extent ofl their failure, for the debts of the firms. Some of them, such as the National Bank, the Com mercial Banking Company, the Dundee Com mercial Bank, the Perth Banking Company, &c. have very numerous bodies of partners. Their affairs are uniformly conducted by a Board of Directors, annually chosen by the shareholders. There have been comparatively few bankruptcies among 'he Scotch banks. In 1793 and 1825, when so many of the English commercial banks were swept off, there was not a single establish ' ment in Scotland that gave way. 'lbis superior stability seems to be ascribable partly to the formation of so many banks with numerous bodies of partners, which tends to prevent any company with only a few partners, unles they are known to possess consi derable fortunes, from getting paper into circu lation ; partly to the less risk attending the business of banking in Scotland, and partly to the facility afforded by the law of Scotland, of attaching a debtor's property whether it consist of land or movables, and making it available to the payment of his debts." Now as the Scotch Banks are not only not prevented from issuing notes without a guarantee, but arc even ex cepted from the operation of the Act suppress ing 1/. notes, and yet are sufficiently stable, why must English Banks be prevented from issuing notes without a guarantee ? Mr. M'Culloch says, that the superior stability of Scotch Banks seems to be ascribable partly to the formation of so many Banks with numerous bodies of part ners; and yet he says that the liability of indi viduals who have shares in joint-stock banks to the whole extent of their fortunes, which does not prevent their formation in Scotland, will prevent their formation in England ; and that it is illusory to expect in England any improvement from what he admits to have been the cause of improvement in Scotland. Then he tells us, that even supposing joint-stock banks organized in all large .towns, the lesser towns and country dis tricts would be left to deal with inferior Banks. Why ? Do not the lesser towns and country districts in Scotland enjoy, as well as the great towns, the benefit of Banks to which large bodies of partners give stability ? We are not entitled to assume in England an aptitude on the part of the people in country districts and small towns to distinguish between solvent and bad banks any more than in Scotland ; and of course joint. stock banks in England will have the same motive for extending branches into the smaller towns and country districts that the Scotch joint-stock banks now have. The only point of difference in which we can see any force is the facility with which the property of debtors, whether in land or movables, can be attached in Scotland. But when we are speculating upon possibilities, we of course count en necessary improvements of the law. There is a general register in Scotland ; there may be a general re gister also for England—land as well as mova bles may be attached for debt in Scotland ; land as well as movables may be attached for debt in England. No man ought to be allowed to with draw any of his property from his creditors. Were the law so far altered, and it ought to be altered so far, the removal of the monopoly would in England be attended with the beneficial effects which have been experienced from the absence of monopoly in Scotland. The manner in whieh banking has in Scotland contributed to the morality of the lower classes would hardly be credited in England. Mr. M'Culloch observes, " The want of the power readily to invest small sums productively, and at the same time with per fect security, tends to weaken the motives to save and accumulate. Nothing has contributed more to diffuse a spirit of economy, and a de sire to save amongst all classes of the population of Scotland, than the readiness with which de posits of small sums are received by Banks of undoubted solidity in that part of the country, and the allowance of interest upon them. The advantage is in some degree, indeed, secured in England by the institutions of Savings' Banks. These, however, are but a very inadequate sub stitute. They are not open to all classes of de positors; and of those to whom they are open, no one can deposit more than 301. a year, and 1501. in all." The deposits in Scotch Banks were estimated in 1831 at 24 millions sterling ; and it appears, from the report of the Committee of the House of Commons in 1826, that more than one-half of the deposits are in sums of from 101. to 200/. An experienced banker gave the following curious evidence on the subject : " Question: What class of the community is it that makes the smallest deposits ?—Answer : They are generally the labouring classes in towns like Glasgow ; in country places like Perth and Aberdeen it is from servants and fishermen, and that class of the community who save small sums from their earnings till they come to be a bank de posit. There is now a facility for their placing money ill the Provident Banks, which receive money till the deposit amounts to 101. When it comes to 101., it is equal to the minimum of a bank deposit. The system of banking in Scotland is an extension of the provident bank system. Half yearly, or yearly, these depositors come to the bank, and add the savings of their labour, with the interest that has accrued from the deposits from the previous half year or year, tb the principal ; and in this way it goes on, without being at all reduced, accumulating (at compound interest) till the depositor is able either to buy or build a house, when it comes to be over one, or two, or three hundred pounds, or till he is able to commence business as a Master in the line in which he has hitherto been servant. A great part of the depositors of tiie Bank are of that description ; and a treat part of the most thriving (21 our farmers and manufacturers have arisen from such beginnings." We are not now ap 11roaching the momentous question of the power possessed by the Bank over property, but the se condary one of the mischief caused by the mo nopoly in preventing banking from being as beneficial to the community in England as in Scotland. All restrictions that tend to nar r'ow the competition for the public favour are mischievous, and we have seen that the restric- Con on banking in Engla n d h as been on e grea t use of the establishment of banks in country aces undeserving of credit. The opening of t e trade in banking will in time correct the evil. ' he presumption is always in favour of freedo m I 1 of trade : and it will require much stronger ar guments than have yet been assigned to satisfy the public that the monopoly ought to be con t inued.—Morning Chronicle. There was some warm work last night, before going into a Committee on the Irish Reform Bill. Mr. O'Connell moved that it be an in struction to the Committee that the qualification should be 51. instead of 101. Mr. Stanley would seem, during the interval between the dis cussion of last night and that which preceded it, to have been brooding over the invectives di rected against him by Mr. O'Connell, and the result was a very effective retaliation. Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Stanley gave piace to ano ther pair of combatants, Mr. Flume and Sir It. Peel. Mr. flume entered somewhat bluntly on that very delicate question, resistance. Every one has heard the famous epigram of Sir John Harrington— " Treason loth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare cal it Treason," A great deal has been written about the sacred right of resistance, but it is a right which every man exercises with the halter about his neck. All that can be said is, that they who govern must greatly misconduct themselves when the governed are driven to avail themselves of a right of so peculiar a character as the right of resist ance. Mr. Hume said— " The Learned Member fcr Kerry had nothing to do but abuse the Government and agitate, and use physical force as far as it was possible.—(Hear, and laughter.) The period bad come when, all legal means having been tried, it required the people to unite, and by physical power to overawe improper resistance.—(ob, and laugh ter.) Was it not to the apprehension of physical force the Right Hon. Baronet had yielded his opinions on the Ca tholic question? Was it not by agitation that question was carried ?—(Hear, hear.) No great rights were ever yet obtained, except by the country manifesting its discon tent, and showing its force."—(Hear, hear.) It was not certainly very polite in Mr. Hume to say that Sir Robert Peel yielded his opinions on the Catholic Question to the apprehension of physical force, or even that no great rights were obtained except by the country manifesting :its discontent and showing its force. But after all, what were the motives that induced Sir Robert Peel to do violence to his conscience by con ceding the Catholic claims ?—and what induced the House of Lords to pass the Reform Bill ? The force of reason, no doubt. The nation dis played a most imposing moral force—and the moral and physical man are, like the shadow and the substance, close upon each other. The manifestation of minds renders the agency of bodies unnecessary ; but the manifestation of minds derives its consequence from the know ledge that the minds can draw the bodies after them. And if Sir Robert Peel and his party had not been tolerably assured that there was not only a majority of minds against them, but that, if necessary, that majority could have set a corre sponding quantity of matter in motion, the mea sures alluded to never would have been conceded. War has been called theultinza ratio Regum, and, disguise it as we will, physical force determines in the long run every question. It is the business of a wise and prudent Government to ascertain the prevailing feelings and opinions of a nation, and then it has physical force on its side. The right of resistance is a right of which men avail themselves at their peril. When a minority at tempt to avail themselves of the right, they atone for the attempt on the scaffold ; when a majority make the attempt, the result is a glorious revo lution. But a wise Government, by well-timed evolutions, may always prevent revolutions. Sir Robert Peel thought this a favourable opportu nity for a tirade against dangerous doctrines, anti for charging Mr. Hume with such applications of them as that of the brutal attack yesterday on the Duke of Wellington. " The Hon. Mem ber," said Sir Robert, " had had the audacity to talk of controlling the deliberations of Par - lia. ment by physical force.—(Cheers.) If such doctrines were to be maintained, there must be an end of all Government, and for one, he Sir R. Peel, would say, that he had never yielded to physical force, and that to the last he would resist its application.—(Cheers.)" This is mere verbiage. Sir Robert has yielded to physical force, and must yield again. The law is the expression, direct or by implication, of the ma jority of the community, and every time the Right Hon. Baronet yields to the law, he yields to physical force. The minority, in submitting to the majority, yield to physical force. Sir Robert is not so stupid as to wait till the law acts materially on him—he submits with a good grace, because he knows that he can be made to submit. " When he conceded the Roman Catholic Bill (he added), he had not yielded to physical force ; and when the Hon. Gentleman went on to assert that the present Ministers had done the same with regard to the Reform Bill, he (Sir R. Peel) was astonished that the Hon. Mem ber could pronounce such a libel upon his friends and sup porters out of doors, who all gloried in what they called a bloodless revolution, effected only by the force of reason and justice.—(Hear, hear.) To subject the House on all occasions to the threat of physical force was nothing more nor less than the vilest and most degrading tyranny; and it would be better at once to constitute a mob-committee to sit (he would not say to deliberate), from day to day, and to issue its mandates to be executed by the Ministers of the (lay. For one, he never would consent to sit in this House, and listen patiently to doctrines destructive not only of good government, but of every species of subor dination, He advised those who talked of physical force, to look to other countries, in order that they might sec its triumphs, and the wonders it had accomplished for personal freedom and the liberty of the Press. The phy sical force the Hon. Member for Middlesex wished to be called into action was similar to that which this day, the 18th of June, the anniversary of the glories of Waterloo, had insulted the Duke of Wellington, the achiever of those glories, and the deliverer of Europe.—(Much cheering. )" Sir Robert knows right well that Mr. Hume never could mean that the House ought to yield to a mere mob, because the physical force of the country is not identical with the mob. Had the Reform Bill been only advocated by mobs, the Anti-Reformers would have been in little danger. But the array of the whole popula tion in the various localities, and the organization in Political Unions were not mob. When the whole male population of age in Birmingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Leeds, &c., carried the Ministers on their shoulders back to power, that was the physical force of the country ; and they who would have been sufficiently fool-hardy to oppose it, would have felt that force. Sir Robert Peel talks like a pedant. Mr. Hume ought to have varied the terms of his charge against Sir Robert. He ought to have charged him with wielding improperly the powers of Government, by opposing too long the will of the majority of the nation, and thereby weaken ing the confidence of the people in Government, and impressing them with the conviction that measures demanded by the majority must be extorted instead of being conceded. There can be no doubt that every Government ought to yield to physical force ; for this is merely saying that it is not the tyranny of t he few over the many, but it is a bad Gover nm ent which renders physicaltpree ne cessary.— warm set-to t i l , T ie t r i e em wasdemonstration afterw a rd s of be tweenanother Mr. O'Connell and Mr. C. ng Chro n i c l e . B u t . enough for the present - - We had really hoped and conceived that the affair of country banking was settled upon a system, or at least upon a practice, that need not now be disturbed, yet a meeting (held yesterday) of persons connected with country banks, of which an account is given below, advertises the public that these gentry either threaten or expect some mischief. Their chief object is said to be the removal of the opprobrium cast upon them by Lord Liverpool's declaration in 1826 —that the panic had been occasioned in a great mea sure by the improvident manner in which the issues of country bank paper were regulated. It is rather late to undertake the removal of the opprobrium now, when the author of it has been dead many years. Had not they better der ute some of their body to wait upon his Lord ship, and assure him he was wrong ? As to the nation at large, they care not whether it sere well or ill founded ; though we think the evidence for the latter, being an interested party, is rather liable to suspicion. Lord Althorp's proposition, which is not new, that country bankers should be required to make de posits in proportion to their several issues, is just and proper ; and if any changes be made, we shall expect that this be one of them. Re specting a return to small-note currency, we should as much think of a return to rotten borough currency. It will be seen how im mense are the issues of the Bank. Twenty nine millions ! It is contended by some, that the deposits from the private customers of the Bank are not to be calculated as issues, or as money in circulation. Why not ? we ask. It may be drawn out of the Bank, and placed in circula tion, in an instant, and that at the will of those who made the deposits, not at the will of the Bank. The only way to extinguish such de posits, and put them out of circulation, would be, if the owner were really to draw them out, and then present them again for payment in gold. Being so received and commuted at the Bank, they would have taken their last flight, and would positively be out of circulation. " The interest excited among the country bankers by the sitting of the Parliamentary Committee on the affairs of banking, may be gathered from the fact, that the meeting which took place on Saturday at Radley's Hotel, in Bridge. street, was attended by more than 100 of them. The discussions lasted between four and five hours. The chief object of these gentlemen appears to be that of removing the opprobrium thrown on them by Lord Liverpool's de claration in 1826—that the previous panic had been brought about, in great measure, by the improvident man ner in which the issues of country bank paper were regu lated. They seem also to be opposed to a proposition which is understood to have been under the consideration of Lord Althorp—that all country bankers issuing their own notes shall be required to deposit a corresponding amount of security, as a protection to the public who cir culate those notes—which they deem likely to prove in convenient in practice, and by no means calculated to an swer the end in view. To a great proportion, however, of the body of country bankers the obligation to mike such deposit is, we understand, regarded with indifference, though they nearly all agree as to its probable inefficiency. The more respectable among them are, it is said, by no means desirous of returning to a small note currency, out of which, as experience has proved, the greatest danger to themselves has always arisen in the event of any run taking place. They ail urge very strongly their claim to have their situation explained, and their pretension ex amined, before the Parliamentary Committee; and they selected on Saturday, from the whole body, eight indivi duals whom they would consider as the best and roost in telligent representatives of their general interests. These gentlemen have been formed into a committee for the country bankers, and the chairman has had an interview with Lord Althorp, to press for the whole of them being admitted as evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons. There is said to exist an objection on the part of Lord Althorp to so great an extension as this would lead to of the evidence, as four country bankers have already been examined. These, however, are ob jected to by the committee of bankers, as not the men whom they would consider the heat calculated to explain their views, and also because they have not been specially instruct ed in the reforms which they would wish to see introduced into the system of country banking. They press conse quently, on Ministers for an examination of at least four members of their own body. The committee of country bankers is composed of the following gentlemen :—Mr. Bickford, of Aylesbury ; Mr. Hobhouse, of Bath ; Mr. R. Spooner, and Mr. F. Lloyd, of Birmingham; Mr. D. J. Parker, of Canterbury; Mr. J, Backhouse, of Darling ton ; Mr. Morgan, of Ross; and Mr. Tweedie, of Truro. It has been stated in the city, on respectable authority, that in the account furnished by the Bank of England to the Parliamentary Committee, its circulation in Bank notes and liabilities are returned at 29,000,000/., and its available assets at 7,000,000/.,—by the latter being im plied gold and silver coin and bullion, and commercial bills only. There of course remains a sufficient value in the loans to Government, the dead.weight annuity, mort gages, and Exchequer bids, to cover, end much more than cover, all claims on the Bank ; but these in a time of dif ficulty would not, it is conceived, be found convertible securities.—( Times.) Yesterday was the anniversary of the battle of iNVnadteerrnloolou history,—next in 1815 ; the greatest event of n to the Reform Bill of 1832. It was, indeed, purchased at a grievous expense of life, and at no inconsiderable cost of money, and was followed by a succession of crimes against public liberty, on the part of the continental Powers, which they would not have been able to perpetrate, had that great victory never been achieved. But if the battle of Wa terloo had been lost, would the consequences of defeat have been more favourable to the cause of freedom, to the interests of peace, and of human happiness, than those which followed, if they were not produced by that ever-memorable vic tory. Suppose Napoleon to have beaten the British army,—what would have been the re sult ? Buonaparte had proceeded invariably upon the maxim, and almost on his death-bed had clung to it, that the French people were unfit for free institutions. Ills position and his in stinct rendered him alike incapable of a pacific policy. The ignis fatuus of conquest would to the last have seduced him, and that of" militaryglory" would have been employed by him to dazzle the childish spirit of France. Had any conti nental Government dared to make trial of a representative constitution for its subjects, is it likely that Buonaparte, triumphant and des potic, would have countenanced or tolerated such an example ? Had England endeavoured to reduce her fleet, her army, or her war taxes, is it credible that she could have done so with impunity, whilst Buonaparte was crouching only to and enfeebled ? spring upon his ancient is o ene my,nr firm o naked, relaxed, v iction, that the overthrow of the ,n British conviction, army on that occasion must have been the signal for a spread and prolongation of hos tilities, to be ended only by the total extine ti i r n of France as an independent state, or by the resubjugation of Belgium, Holland, Hanover, and the n orth of Italy, under Napol eon . I n eithercase, the mere continuance of a war in Europe for two or three further campaigns, would have utterly ruined the resources, and paralysed the vital powers of this country, re duced as were both, even after an immediate peace, to a condition of all but hopeless and irrecoverable impotence. Without, then, dip ping into party questions, we will venture to reassert what has often and many years ago been insisted on in this journal, that the battle of Waterloo was no less than the salvation of E ng l an d, France, and Europe. The battle of Waterloo was gained by British troops, but by no troops that ever fought would such a battle have been won, under circumstances so adverse, and against military ability so transcendent as Napoleon's, had any but the Duke of Welling ton himself directed the prowess of the men, and sustained their overwrought and sinking names, during that almost preternatural conflict To the extraordinary combination of skill, deci sion, and immovable fortitude, put forth or, that clay by the British General, the country, and every man existing on its soil, stands indebted, and will in his posterity to all future ages be so, for the difference between an entire destruction of the small force of Englishmen engaged at Waterloo, and their signal and immortal triumph. To the Duke of Wellington we are indebted for the 17 years of peace which, with few and partial interruptions, hardly, indeed, deserving to be enumerated, this nation has enjoyed from June, 1815, to June, 1832. To him, as the commander of our armies, is it owing that we have no longer cause to dread disturbance from the insatiable thirst of aggression, upon whatever bears the name of British intererest or honour, by which he, whose power fell at Waterloo, was impelled throughout his whole political, nay, to the end of his physical existence. That is a good to which the great bulk of our countrymen cannot be insensible, and for which few, we trust, can be ungrateful. Some, indeed, there are, so void of all generous and manly feeling, of all moral taste, and decency of nature, as to celebrate the feast of Waterloo, by base and brutal outrages upon the person of' its hero ! Is there on human record a fact more disgraceful than this ? Would the most stupid savage have overlooked the reverence due to the actor of so mighty an achivement ? and made choice of such an an niversary for the perpetration of so vile an insult as the conqueror of Napoleon suffered yesterday at the hands of a banditti of miserable ruffii ans ?—yesterday, the precise expiration of the 17th year from the clay on which " Waterloo" obtained the most glorious name in history ! No political obstinacy or error could provoke reason able men to such infamous ingratitude—no sophistry can palliate it. The Duke of Wel lingto may forgive the deed, but no other honest Englishman will.—Times. It is with great regret we state that the Duke of Wellington was insulted yesterday—the an niversary of the battle of Waterloo—bv a crowd of ill-conducted persons, who pursued him from the Mint, which he visited in the course of the morning, to Stone-buildings, in Holborn, where he called at the chambers of Mr. Manic, the Solicitor of the Treasury. From Stone buildings his Grace was again pursued almost to his own door. He rode at a slow pace, taking. very little notice of the groans, hisses, and exe crations with which he was assailed. On reach ing Parliament-street a large body of police formed a line across the street, so as to inter cept the mob, with the exception of a small number who succeeded in making their way sr t ies, i is chambers stated f t b li r a that r t h Charles mob into the Park, where they renewed their dis e g b\m\ r ui a rise c ltta e cii f o ' ne u krg l e, e si‘lla o lsl i ri t : d livA„ u itli c iilc t : . itul le ta : n w lis e ta h k e e li a e , v d e d , ed in g t r l e le at s ly am to e their exasperation. But it is not worth while to inquire into the motives of such men ;—they were evidently riotous individuals, incapable of judging or feeling correctly, or they would not, on the anniversary of his military fame, and in the hour of national triumph, when his power as a politician was extinguished —they would not at such a time, and under such circumstances, have insulted an il lustrious warrior, who had served his country in one character, and had for ever lost the power of' injuring it in another. The generosity for which the English nation is distinguished (and we, of course, include the humbler classes when we speak of the nation) would have dictated a very different conduct from that which was pursued in this instance. But we must not confound the nation with a set of ruffians who disgrace it. The fellows who hooted the Duke of Welling ton may be called Reformers—nay, they may call themselves Reformers ; but they are the worst enemies of a good cause who commit ex cesses in its name, and give a handle to its ene mies to attack it through its professed advocates. The spirit and principle of Reform are violated by all persecutions for opinion, however erroneous. At all events the streets should be free to every one. It is not for party to point out who shall have the privilege of walking or riding abroad ; for freedom is our birthright, aHd it is impossible to establish freedom on the foundation of caprice. —Morning Herald. We call the attention of our readers to an account in another part of our paper respecting the insults offered to the Duke of Wellington yesterday. As it has been furnished to us by a gentleman who accompanied the Duke from Lincoln's-inn to Apsley House, we can rely on its superior accuracy to those hasty and incorrect statements which appeared in our Evening Contemporaries of yesterday. In those the ex tent of the attack was grossly overstated, we doubt not, because the conductors of all Radical Journals are desirous of exaggerating every de monstration of popular feeling against that illus trious hero. But weak indeed must be their cause if it is necessary to resort to utter false hoods to calumniate him ; and poor must be their opinion of the reasonable part of the British public if they think that they can exult at any such transaction. It is somewhat remarkable that the anniversary of Waterloo should have been the day on which this occurred, but possibly it was more congenial to the wishes of those wretches who were assembled, who natu rally regret the overthrow of the " child and champion of Jacohinism," and must, therefore, cordially detest the author of his destruction. But it is satisfactory to remark that even among these there were none to venture to add personal assault to the groans with which they assailed him. At Lincoln's-inn there was but one feel ing among the whole of the gentlemen of the legal profession. The cheers with which the Duke was received, and the eagerness displayed to surround and protect him, must have been equally gratifying to him. As he approached the west end his admirers, always superior, even in numbers, to those who assailed him, were of course largely reinforced ; and it ended more as a triumphal procession in honour of the hero of the day, than, as it began under the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor, as a base and cowardly at tack on a single individual. Those who hissed and groaned were, without exception, the very basest of the rabble. Among those who cheered were, we are delighted to say, many who, from of the lower their appearance, were evidently w ere classes; affording us a proof, if any wanted, of the smallness of that class of persons by whom alone the Duke of Wellington is disliked. Let him be disliked by those whose des ire is confusio n , and object plunder. They may support the pre sent Government who give them the,opportunity they seek, but the Duke of Wellington must be proud of their displeasure. They may be alli es o f Mr. Hume, whose almos t treasonable language last night met with such severe and just rebuke from Sir Robert Peel, but it is only men like him who openly applaud their sentiments. We doubt whether Lord Grey has yet been desired by the Times to return his thanks to such an Issembly. We cannot conclude our remarks .vithout observing that not one single policeman came near the Duke WI he had left the city. The moment he came within the jurisdiction of the new police several immediately assembled tound him. Was this neglect in the city known to the Lord Mayor ? But of those who showed disrespect th ere were few, if any, who were above the loweA class of the popu lace ; whereas, cheers arid other marks of respect were shown by pt rsons of all classes, artisans as well as others, along the whole line of what might be fairly termed the pro cession. Indeed at least four-fifths of the persons in the houses and shops before which the Duke passed from Lincoln's-inn evinced their feelings of admiration and esteem in the most unequivocal manner. Whatever regret may he pretended by the Radical Journals and their patrons, the " Reformers," on the occasion of this most disgraceful attack upon the Duke of kVellington, they cannot disguise the fact that ihe wretches who assaultel him were merely practically following up midi emulating after their own fashion the base attacks made upon the il lustrious hero by certain Members of the House of Commons, and by their colleagues of the Press. One fellow, we h , 3ar, attempted to throw the Duke off his horse ; lie, of course, had been studying the gentle hint of the Times, newspaper a few d a y s :ince, that the Duke of Wellington might possibly be torn to pieces by the mob, as De Witt was. Truly these Refor mers deserve well of their country.—Morn.Post. It will be seen from a report in another part of this day's paper, that a certain number of the merchants in the city held a meeting yester day, for the purpose of recording their opposi tion to the reduction of duties recently pro posed by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. The meeting appears to have been altogether a very (lull, as well as very incom prehensible, one. ;Some of the gentlemen pre sent at it declared themselves to be aggrieved by the proposed alterations, and specified a few articles, on the consumption of which a re duction ofduty could produce 110 change; but their charges, in all other respects, against Mr. Poulett Thomson, were of the most vague and general character which can possibly be imagined. The whole of their complaints, in fact, appear to centre in pure opposition to any change, whe ther of reduction or increase, simply because it is change, and may produce to them momentary inconvenience ; while they overlook the act that the public will be advantaged by it, and that by allowing a drawback or. articles in hand, no ac tual loss can be sustained by any one. Mr. Poulett Thomson's proposed alterations in the duties levied on different articles of foreign pro duce, appear to us likely to be as beneficial in their results as they are sound in principle. The reduction on hemp is especially a great boon. — Morning Advertiser. LONDON MARKETS. PRICE OF BREAD. The highest price of Bread in the Metropolis is 10d. for the 41b. Loaf. There are others who sell from yid. to I}id. below that price. PRICE OF SEEDS.—June IS. New English Red Clover Seed (per Cwt.) 525. fine —s. 82s. Old Ditto Ditto. fine —s. —s. NTew Foreign Ditto. , Old Ditto —s. —s. fine —s. —s. New White Clover s2s. 82s. fine —s. Old Ditto DIV -8. —B. fine —l. --s. New Trefoil , —s. 12s. fine 50s. 325. 3:d Ditto .....-. —s. —s. fine -....6 ..-.4 • Rib Grass —s. 375. fine —s. 43. English Carraway Seed --. —e. —s. 60s. fine 651. Foreign Ditto - —s. —s. —s. fine —e. Coriander -. •-•-6. —s. fine 255. 30s. St. Foin . (per (Juarter)-----. —s. —6. fine --s. We. Rye Grass Pacey Ditto Linseed, for feeding Ditto, for crushing 36s. 40s. —s. fine —s. Canary Seed, New -... —s. 705. 72s fine —e. .'itto Old. - - ---.— - - tto . —s. —s. fine —5. White Mustard 5eed.......(per8u5he1)........ —s. 7s. Bs. fine —s. Brown Ditto —s. lOs. 17a. finc—s Turnip Seeds, Round, J. —s. --s. 8.. fine 12s. Green' and Red Ditto . . --s. —s. Bs. tine 12s. fares, Old —s. ss. fid. fine 6s. Ditto New.. —s. —s. fine —s. —s, lta.reSeed, English, fine (per Last) 22/. 27/......, Foreign 201. 241. Kent eitlcE6 OF HOPS.—June 18. SUEsex I)itto ................--, Frsrx Ditto F.ttettiam Ditto, Fine— Seconds 51 10i. 61. 151. to 8/. Os. Kent 13!y: :SIISAQX Ditto Essex Ditto.. 51 54. 61. Os. to 61. 12s. 51. IN. 61. 6.. to 71. Os. 91. Os. 121. N. to 01 Os. 01. Os. 61. Os to 91 Os. 51. Os. 61. Os. to 6/. IN. 41. 10s. 51. ss. to 51. 15% 01. Os 0/. Os. to 0/. Os. PRICE OF OIL. Rape Oil, brown Refined X 35 0 Linseed Oil -- Linseed Oil Cako at the Mill, per thousand Rape Cake, per ton Vc/1 ITECI - 1 A Pi% HAY M ARKET.—June 16. Hay ---50 s. Od. to 955. Od. 55:. Od. to 1303. Od. Od. to 385. Od. PRICE OF POTATOES., Fune 18, Kidneys _ 4/. Os. to 5/. Os. per ton. Scotch Reds Oxnobles and Shaws 0/. Os. to 0/. Os. ditto. 1.4• A HElt. l'er lb. d. to d. English Horse Hides.. 12 14 Spanish Ditto 14 16 Per dozen. Calf Skins,. 36 to 401 b. 15 20 Ditto ......... 50 to 701 b. 19 23 Ditto 70 to 801 b. 17 19 Small Seals. Greenland 181 19e Large 12 13 rttIGES Ot Per lb. d. to d. llutts, English 15 21 Ditto, Foreign 15 181 Dressing 12 14 Ditto i7 18 Ditto, light Crop Hides, 1ight.,,,.,, 12 131 Ditto 40 to 451 b. 131 14i Ditt0.,,,,. 141 151 RAW HIDES. Per Stone. s. d. to s. d. Per Stone. s. d. to N.& Best Heifers & Steers 2 4 2 B I Ordinary 1 6 Ivo Middlings 2 0 2 2 Market Calf 6 0 each. SHEEP SKINS. Short Wool 2i. 6d. to 4s. 6d. I Lambs Is. Cd. to 2.2 d. Os. Sd. to Os. Sd. PRICE OF TALLOW ['own Tallow ........—.... 445. NI. Yellow Russia .425. 6d. White—................ .. 435. Od. Soap Ditto 40s. Od. Melted 5tufY...—......... 345. Od. Ditto 1t0ugh.,...............,,,...225. (Id. , SOAP, &c. per 1121 b. Yellow Od. Mottled 68s. Od. White 7.25. Od. Graves 14s. Od„ Good Graves 56. Od. PRICE OF RAW FAT, per stone of 81b. Price of Tallow (as stated by the Tallow Me1ter5)„............25. sd. PRICE OF CANDLES. The price of Store Candles, in the retail p,is as follows : Candles. per doz. is. Od. to Bs. Od. I Moulds, per dozen—l+s. 6d. COAL MAR :ET. —J une 18. Per Ton. kdair's 17s. 6d. Benshain Main 17 0 Garesfield 10 0 flolywell l7 6 Newburn Pontop Windsor 16 0 ranfield Townley 17 0 Wylain ----....—.....—. 17 3 Walls End Bell & C 0.... 18 0 Walls End Callerton l6 6 Ditto Clarke and Co. 17 0 Walls End 19 0 Walls End Hotspur.-- 17 6 Ditto Killingworth 18 6 Walls End Newinarcn... 18 9 Walls End Riddell's...—. 19 9 Walls End Hetton 20 9 Ships arrived since Cowper...,,. 17 o Walls End 1arnbt0n....... 21s Od. Walls End Stewart's ... 21 0 Walls End Adelaide-- 18 6 Walls End Butter Knoll 18 6 Walls End 18 6 Walls End 10 9 17 0 Per Ton. an l7 3 Silkstone Wilson 17 0 Stone Coal Gough 24 , Selby 15 6 Seremerston Engine... 15 6 34 Greenwich Hospital 16 6 Tanficld Trader 16 6 Ia SNWI s : t el iliddFk( and Milne,C o 17 0 , THE CHOLERA IN lULLAMORE.--lt 1 .6 with extreme regret we announce that lettere have reached us from Tullamore, stating that the Cholera has broken out in that town with fearful violence. Up, to the hour of post, on Wednesday , evening, there were upwarde of sixty cases, with thi r t y n i ne deaths, and not one recovery. The shops were all c l ose d , and no persons seen in the streets, excepti ng t h ose employed in the melancholy task of burying the dead. Almost all the respectable in habitants had left, or were leaving the town.—Dablits T imes. IRH. ph O re n ys t , h i e j(l 6 . t . h ot ip a :st d . au a g t h l t i c a r s . ti ß ngs. T the lady of John Porter Hum- MARRIED. On the 18th inst. at the New Church, St. Marylebone, Mr Basil R ou t, of Oxford-sticet to Ann, second daughter of M r ' 1 hos. Hollingsworth, of Ge,:rge.street Portman-square. On the kith in s t. a t St. Pancras Church, by the Rev. James Moore, D. D. Mr. James Esdaile, of Manchester, to Elizabeth Sarah, only daughter of the late Win. Meecham, Esq. of Chapel street, Fitzroy.square. DIED. On the 15th inst. Mabel Anne, the wife of George Best, of 13retlands in the county of Surrey, Esq. On the Ifith inst. at Willesden, Isabella, youngest daughter of William Wright, Esq , of Glenville-street, Brunswick-square, aged 21. On the 17th inst. in Marlborough -buildings, Bath, Major-Ge neral Sir Win. Williams, K.C.B. PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY MURDO YOUNU, AT via SUN OFFICE, II; STRAND, LONDON, 10 10 5 5 I -}