The Sun.
London, England, 1844-10-31 00:00:00

lEttitton

THE FUNDS-(C

OSING PRICES).
FUNDS.
__

BRITISH
Bank Stock eic die. 203
3 per Cent. Red 9911
3 per Cent. Cons.
Su per Cent. Red
New 3U per Cent. lO2l/4
New 5 per Cent.
Long Annuities to expire
Jan. 12 1-16
Oct 11 13-16
Jan. 18450. .... -.......—

Ditto Bonds £1,003 92 pm.
Ditto under £l,OOO — pm.
,South Sea Stock

Ditto Old Annuities ...

Ditto New Annuities 94338
Ex. Bills, I,OOW. 67 pm.
Ditto 5001.
Ditto Small 67 pm.
Bank Stock for Acct 2O

Consols for Act..........
India Stock for Acct....

Indian Stuck 287
FOREIG

FUNDS.

Austrian, 5 par Cent .....
Belgian, 5 per Cent
Brazilian Bonds
Buenos Ayres, 6 per Cent
Cuba Bonds, 6 per Cent
lTian, fi per Cent ..
Colombian, 6 per Cent
Danish, 3 per Cent .....
Greek, 1,1_5, 5 per Cent
Mexican, 5 per Cent
Neapolitan Bonds,s per Ct—.
Prussian Bonds, 4 per Cent.
Pe. urian Bonds, 6 per Ct —
Portuguese Bonds,s per Ct

Russian, 5 per Cent...........
Ditto,Metallic_ 7.,

ipanish, 5 per Cent., 1840_, 23%
Ditto, 1841 ........ „..

Ditto 1842
, 00000000 " 00000 ••...•

Ditto, 1843.
Ditto, 1841
Ditto, 3 per Cent .........
Venezuela Bonds, '2 per Ct —
French, 5 per —1 -
Exchange ............... —f. —c.
French, 3 per .—t.
Dutch, 2% per Cent .. €2%
Ditto,:s per Cent

SHARES.

Birmingham and Gloucester (100 paid) lO5
Bristol and Exeter (10 paid)
Chester and Holyhead ( b paid) .., ..... .....„.
Direct Northern, 2% paid

Eastern Counties (25 paid)
Edinburgh and Glasgow, 50 paid
Elyand Bedford, 1 paid ....... ........... ... Pi
Great Western (75 paid'
Ditto Half Shares, 50 paid SS
London and Birmingham (Stock)
Ditto, Quarter Shares ( 2 paid)
London and Greenwich (Ht. Lei. 4d. paid) 14%
Diito, Preference or Privilege, XiB 17s 2d paid 22%
Manchester and Birmingham
Birmingham and Derby, £lOO paid 79
Newc.istlie and Darlingron Junction, 21 paid
Norwich and Brandon, 6 paid ll%
Ditto, New Shares ..... ....... ..
South Easte.rn and Dover (33 2s 4d paid) .....
Ditto New Shares, 4 paid
Central of France, 2 paid ..•..
Ditto Constituted 9%
Orleans, Tours, and Bourdeaux, 1 paid
Paris and Rouen. 20 paid

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
GLOBE —Game preserving is, no doubt, espe-
cially in the case of country gentlemen, a great allevia-
tion to the miseries which flow from idleness and in-
digestion. Even our gravest senators find the slaughter
of the battue a very agreeable recreation after the
fatigues of a Parliamentary campaign. We would
not needlessly curtail the amusements of the
rich, any more than we would deprive the
poor of those sports which tend to re-
lieve the monotony of continued labour. It
is well, however, to inquire, in all cases where
simply the amusements of life are concerned,-
whether they are, in any way, prejudicial either
to those who indulge in them, or to those who
are not permitted to partake of them. If an
amusement be found the subject of very stringent
legislation—an amusement to be exclusively enjoyed
by the wealthy—above all, if we find this amuse-
ment the source of a great amount of crime—it is
well, under such circumstances, to reflect whether
right feeling and sound policy—both which will inva-
riably aim at securing the good of the community—
do not indicate the abandonment of what is a mere
selfish gratification, seeing that gratification can only
be obtained by the infliction Of suffering, and the
prompting of crime in others. 'We do conscientiously
believe that never, in modern times, was a series of
enactments framed of a tendency more injurious to the
morals of the labouring classes in the agricultural dis-
tricts than are the existing game-laws. Well did the
late justly-venerated Dr. Arnold demand of our
National Church, why it shrunk from " exposing the
wickedness of the spirit which could maintain the
game laws ? " Ha well knew them to be some of the
bitter dregs of that system which, in days of yore, laid
waste whole villages to extend the "game preserves"
of some local tyrant, and made the pursuit of a wild ani-
mal by a peasant an offence to be expiated only by death.
Of bite years there has, happily, been a considerable
ameliora ion of the criminal code. There has been an
increasing feeling that the ends of justice may be
attained more certainly by lowering the amount of
punishment, as much as is consistent with the purposes
for which penalties are inflicted on offenders against
the laws. As regards the most venial offences, how-
ever, there has not hitherto been a proportionate
relaxation in the penalties. A child is detected in
picking up a few apples from under the trees of an
orchard, and is sent to prison for a month, there to
associate with hardened offenders, and to be trained for
the adroit commission of frauds and felonies. Scarcely
a day passes, but the reports of the police-courts and of
the quarter sessions supply instances of the dispro-
portien between the wrongful act and the amount 01
punishment inflicted for minor offences. It is, how-
ever, to the game-laws that we at present confine our
remarks. The ferocious statutes which disgraced our
land in days of comparative barbarism have, it is true,
been repealed. But much, far too much, of their exe-
crable spirit still remains. The trespasser on the
rights of game is still classed with the hardened
robber, and treated as if their crimes were
equally prejudicial to the welfare and stability of
society ! Can any human enactments ever persuade
the poor—nay, will they ever convince candid and
considerate men in any walk of life—that their cases
nee similar ? We earnestly hope the day is not far
distant when the example set by somepatriotic noble-
men and gentlemen will be pretty generally followed.
We shall then see landlords discharging their game-
keepers, and freely allowing their tenantry to
share in the amusement of destroying those wird
birds and animals which frequent the lands they
cultivate, and often consume a considerable por-
tion of the fruits of their husbandry. The Duke
of Bedford, it is stated, has given his tenantry
fife permission to treat rabbits as rats ; and to
shoot, or take them in any way, as marauders whose
ravages ere a fearful drawback from the farmer's
gains. If really desirous of improving the condi-
tion of the poor, Lord John Manners, and the other
leaders of the " Young England" party, should
assail the game-laws, as among the worst engines
of oppression, by which the poor are ground down
to the earth by the unthinking rich. So sanguine
are w e as to the feeling which now pervades the more
cnlightered portion of the community on this
subject, as to feel assured that, were a Bill in-
troduced in the next session of Parliament—providing
proper securities against trespass upon private lands,
and other necessary protection against the wilful inva-
sion of personal property, but at the same time greatly
modifying and am eliorating the game code, as it now
exists—it would have the support of a majority in
both Houses. Notwithstanding the force of deeply root-
ed prejudice with which it would have to contend, the
voice ofpublic opinion would be raised in its favour.
This would sustain its advocates in the conflict, and
obtain for them and tbeir measure a certain triumph.
The Government, through Sir James Graham, is
pledged to inquiry. If the inquiry be an honest and
searching investigation into the whole question, the
result, though attained by a long preliminary process,
will be convincing to all who are not pre-determined
to oppose the force of evidence. The humanity of
the ege 'sill not longer permit the game-laws to work
the extensive demoralization, and other forms of
misery, of which they are notoriously the source.
STAN DAll,l).—sk few days ago we announced
that her Majesty had been graciously pleased to
confer upon the Earl of Powis the order of the Garter,
vacant by the Duke of Grafton's death. One would
think that this simple affair of a favour, which the
Queen must confer upon some one, being conferred
upon a nobleman, it is by all admitted every way
worthy of it, might be suffered to pass without pro-
voking malignant commentary; but no, one of
the "Nothing if not critical " this morning makes
the matter the subject of a dissertation, in which it
ingeniously contrives to insult the Premier, the Duke
of Buckingham and Chandos, the Earl of Powis, and
Lord Ashley. The Premier, it says, prostitutes the
highest honours of the Crown, to corrupt the three
n b' em es named; the noblemen being bri4eecl bythtee
/vim ours to desert the causes of the parties who had corn-
mi t d themselves to their guidance and protestior.
This is the plain meaning of the dissertation to which
we refer, and to sit (I( wn to gravely answer such a
charge wet Id be to ( e cend almost to the level
of those who make it. What is the truth of the
case ? Out of office and in office the present
Frei-der has for many years had the zealous end
must valuable support of the three distinguished No-
blAnen associated with him in the calumny referred
to, and each of these Noblemen is, party claims
aside, confessed to be entitled to the highest ho-
nours the Sovereign can bestow; but each has,
upon one or other question, thought differently
from Sir Robert Peel, and opposed him, it is
n)t denied, with vigour and sincerity, upon
that question on which each differed from
him. The Prime Minister, supported by the Par-
liament, prevailed against each, but without any
compromise on the part of him who was defeated.
We may think the Prime Minister and his Parlia-
mentary majorities in the wrong—and in the case of
the Factory Bill we do think them decidedly wrong
—but they who think least favourably of the de-
cisions of Parliament upon the modifications of the
corn-laws and the tariff, the suppression of the
Welsh bishopric, and the Factory Bill, must surely
o .-e an ;obligation to the noblemen by whom these
decleiens were ingenuously, though unsuccessfully
opposed. How, then, does the case stand ? Sir
Robert Peel finds among his most zealous, most
valuable, and his most honoured general sup-
porters, three noblemen who prove the honesty
of their general supoport,. and, if possible, en-
hence himb as
hence its value, b
members of the independent
lionust not as mem-
bers of a faction, upon Ties
RobertN- lch they
differ. how are they to act ? Is 1;li
to withhold from these noblemen they: honours Peel
which they have a fair claim, and which, but s for
the isolated differences spoken of, he would be ex-
pected to offer to them; or are they, on the other
hand, to reject the proffered honours, because coming
from a Minister with whom they had each of them

once differed? Would not such conduct on the
part of a Minister, justly expose him to the charge
of treating his supporters as slaves? Would not
such conduct on the part of the three noble-
men prove a factious resolution to enslave the
Minister ? Such is not the relation subsisting be-
tween Sir Robert Peel and his supporters ; they
are cordially united in maintaining the same sound
principles of government, but at the same time they
are reciprocally independent. There is, we are
aware, some novelty in this state of political
relation ; but, though perhaps new, it is that which
best suits the candid genius of our people and
the free spirit of the British constitution. The
Duke of Buckingham and Chandos received
the Order of the Garter from Sir Robert Peel's
Government, as his father had received the same
order from Lord Liverpool's Government, and his
grandfather received it from the Government of Mr.
Pitt. We cannot go back to count all the garters
in the Noble Duke's illustrious lineage, but putting
one one side his Grace's royal ancestors, we do
not hesitate to say that from John Chandos down-
ward, not one of their race ever presented higher
personal claims to the favour of a Sovereign and to
the gratitude of a patriotic Minister than its present
representative. The Duke differed from the Premier
upon a particular question, and thus differing, he
felt it to be due to himself, to his colleagues
who out-numbered him, and to his Sovereign,
to resign the high office (the second or third,
we believe, in dignity) which he held in the
Cabinet; not resigning, however, in hostility or
anger, but upon the plain and just ground that he
would not be responsible for a measure or measures of
which he disapproved, or exhibit to the country the
fatal phenomenon of a Government divided upon any
great question. Having disencumbered himself of
office, the Duke gallantly fought the battle of his
own opinions, and was beaten. Was he, therefore, to
go into opposition, -and to enrol himself in a party
with which he had a hundred living differences,
in hostility to a Ministry with which he had
had one difference, but that dead and buried ? Yet,
without his Grace going into opposition, Sir Robert
Peel could scarcely withhold from him the Garter,
and he, without declaring a perpetual war, could
as little refuse it. The case of the Earl of Pow is
differs from the Duke of Buckingham in this
that the Noble Earl had no office to surrender ; but,
in other respects, it is nearly alike. The Premier
does not proscribe the Earl of Powis because
of a single difference; the Noble Earl does not
feel that, by such a difference, he is "fore-doomed
to wage perpetual war " against the Queen's
government. But we now come to the most
honoured and beloved nobleman in the United
Kingdom, and the public man in the wide extent
of that kingdom most worthy of honour and love.
This description would at once point out Lord
Ashley, even had we not mentioned him as involved
in the slander that has challenged these remarks.
Lord Ashley refused office, that he might be free to
assert the claims of the factory labourers. He did
assert those claims, with what ability and zeal the
country knows ; and the country also knows how
near he was to a complete victory. That he failed
of that victory was surely no fault of his, but coula
suspicion light upon the sincerity of such a man,
what is there to support it ? Lord Ashley has
received no Garter—no office—no favour of any
kind. He refused office, as we have said, and still
refuses office, though it would be as gratifying per-
sonally to the Sovereign as it would be to the
country to see his Lordship in the highest
station, and the bearer of the proudest ho-
nours. Is it not like the very wantonness
of spiteful impertinence to affect to sneer at such a
man as Lord Ashley ? We are rejoiced, however,
that the offence has been committed, because Lord
Ashley can easily bear such an attack, and the attack
upon that nobleman brings out in the boldest possible
relief the malice and the meanness of the writer with
whom we have to deal.

MINISTERIAL CIIANGES.—It is reported, in circles
likely to be correctly informed, that Lord Haddington
is about to retire as First Lord of the Admiralty, and
that Lord Ellenborough will take his place. The fre-
quent interruptions of health to which Lord Hadding-
ton is subject, and which have materially impaired his
official efficiency, renders his Lordship's retirement from
office by no means unlikely ; while the desire which the
Cabinet must feel to propitiate Lord Ellenborough before
the meeting of Parliament, by providing him with a
good post, in lieu of that from which his Lordship has
been recalled, gives an air of probability to the latter
portion of the rumour.—Evening paper.

'4ADVANCE OF WAGES AT OLDIIAM•-A few days
ago, the spinners in the employment of Mr. J. Holden,
Royton-lane mill, received, without solicitation, an ad-
vance of Bd. per 1,000 hanks.—Manchester Guardian.

. -
EQUICK WORK.—A young Lincoln gentleman, a
noted shot, left Boulogne-sur-Mer, one morning last
week, and in less than twenty-seven dours killed 51
brace of birds and travelled a distance of nearly 300
miles. So much for steam !—Lincolnshire Herald.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

Yesterday Inspector Barton, of the G division of
police, was charged by Lord Ranelagh with having
violently assaulting him, in the Strand, on Monday
afternoon. The case occupied much time, but may
be stated in a short compass.
Lord Ranelagh said that he was walking with Sir
Thomas Hare towards Charing. cross at about two
o'clock, shortly after the police had received instruc-
tions to clear the carriage-way for the return of her
Majesty from the Royal Exchange, when two con-
stables came up to him and ordered him and his
friend to get on the pavement, at the same time
pushing them in a rude manner. Ile remonstrated
with them, upon which the defendant walked up to
him from the other side of the road, and, without
making any inquiry relative to the dispute, pushed
him with great violence on to the kerbstone. He (Lord
Ranelagh) then endeavoured to strike the defendant,
who immediately seized him by the neckcloth, and
addressed him in so excited a manner as to convince
his. Lordship that he had no sort of control over either
his language or his conduct, and was tier:fore a very
unfit person to be a police officer.
His Lordship called Sir T. Hare, who gave some
corroborative evidence, and expressed an opinion that
the defendant used an unwarrantable degree of vio-
lence on the occasion.

Rupert Richbell, who did not see the commence-
ment of the altercation, heard the inspector demand-
ing his Lordship's card. Lord Ranelagh was then
walking from the middle of the road (which had been
cleared) towards the pavement, followed by the de-
fendant and several other policemen. His Lordship
complained of his not being able to pass along without
the interference of the police, and declared that, hav-
ing been insulted, he would force his way across in
spite of them. The defendant appeared to be having
hold of his Lordship's coat; he had a staff in the
other hand.

The defendant's solicitor commented briefly upon
the foregoing statements, and examined the follow-
ing witnesses, who were kept out of Court until called
upon.

•No. 65, G divi.ion, said he saw the complainant
and his friend walking in the road after it had been
cleared. Heard defendant call and tell them to go
out of the carriage-way ; he spoke in civil terms to
them. They made no reply, but attempted to force
their way past defendant, who stood before them and
resisted them, having previously repeated his former
request. Lord Ranelagh raised his arm, and struck
a violent blow at the inspector with his closed fist,
afterwards raising his umbrella with the other hand,
and exclaiming, " You vagabond, don't stop me," or
words to that effect. Defendant evaded the blow,
and, taking Lord Ranelagh by the arm, forced him
upon the pavement. His Lordship then demanded
the inspector's name and nurnher, of which he made
a memorandum. In reply to defendant's application
for his Lordship's card, he said, "Card be d—d," and
walked away.
Police-constables G 197, G 137, and G 106, and
Inspector Shackell, all denied most positively the as-
sertion of his Lordship that the defendant seized him
by the neckcloth, or used any unnecessary violence.
They stated that the blow which Lord Ranelagh
aimed at defendant was received by a by-stander,
whose mouth bled profusely in consequence. The
road had been effectually cleared, his Lordship and
Sir Thomas Hare being the only persons out of the
line on either side. All the witnesses said that the
Noble Lord was very refractory, and declared " that
he was always being annoyed by the police."
Mr. TWYFORD said, looking at the contrariety of
statements which had been made, it was difficult to
decide what were the facts of the case ; but, even
were it admitted that the assault complained of by his
Lordship actually took place, after what had occurred,
upon his own showing, he hardly knew that he could
blame the inspector (who had received strict orders to
keep the road clear) for his share in the transaction.
It appeared to him that the only respect in which the
defendant neglected his duty, was in not taking the
Noble Lord into custody; and therefore he thought
he must dismiss the case. _ _

Thomas Jones, who had been nearly four years
confidential clerk and collector to Mr. Bohn, book-
seller, of York-street, Covent-garden, was committed
on six charges of embezzlement, preferred by his late
master.