The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-07 00:00:00

FOREIG

Anstri.n, 5 per cent. --
13elgi - 5 per cent —
.3raxilizai 80w15... 69-i
Buenos Ayres6 per cent.
Chili,m, 6 per cent. 9O
Colombian, 6 per cent —
Ditto, 1824 —
Cuba Bonds, 8 per cent Boi
Danish, 3 per _ent —
Greek, 1825, 5 per cent —
Mexican, 5 per cent 303
Ditto, 6 per cent. 1t37
Peruvian,lB2s,6 per ct.

SHARES.
Eastern Counties (23 paid)
Ditto New (—paid)
Edinburgh and Glasgow (50 paid) ...
Ditto New Shares ( '5 paid) ........
Great Western, (65 paid)
Ditto New Shares (50 paid)
Ditto Fifths ( 4 paid)
London and Brighton (50 paid)
London and Blackwall ( paid) .. 5i
London and Birmingham (90)
Ditto Quarter Shares (25 paid) •• 50
London and South Western (411 6s 10dpd) 614
Manchester and Leeds (70 paid)
Ditto New Shares (30 paid) ..
Northern and Eastern (45 paid)
Ditto Scrip ( 5 paid) 9a
Paris and Rouen (20 paid)
South Eastern and Dover (50 paid).
Ditto Scrip (20 paid)

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
GLOBE.—At every opening session, and in every
Tamworth harangue, before he took office, the increase
in our exports furnished Sir Robert Peel with his
stock topic, in answer to all the complaints of com-
merce, and all the attacks on the Corn-laws. It was
useless to tell him that increased exports did not
necessarily prove an increased trade, but might equally
indicate a depressed home consumption, and a deprecia-
tion in the value of goods, the export of which was forced,
to relieve the home market of a pressing excess, and to
bring back the gold which large importations of corn,
at high prices, were draining from us. Sir R. Peel
turned a deaf ear to the fact that this increase of ex-
ports by no means proved that those exports could be
disposed of in foreign markets, but only that they
could not be disposed of here; and that an urgent ne-
cessity existed among our manufacturers to obtain
advances upon them at any sacrifice. Consignments to
foreign ports was the only apparently regular process,
though really ruinous one, by which such advances could
he obtained ; and forced sales, in foreign markets, were
the unavoidable consequence of such forced exports.
An American Correspondent a year or twc back
(quoted by Mr. James Wilson) observed, with re-
spect to these Peel-proofs of prosperity of the export
trade, " I would wish to give a hint to those British
manufacturers who continue to send over goods to this
country to be sold at forced sales at almost any price.
If the practice is continued, the loss will be enormous."
Such, however, was the stock topic wherewith Sir
Robert Peel soothed the misgivings which even
country gentlemen might sometimes be supposed to
feel respecting our commerce. Such were the syren
strains wherewith he lured them, and made them be-
lieve that our manufacturers did not know when
they were really well, and that he would let well
alone. Such were the grounds on which he disputed
the fact that the Corn-laws were destroying com-
merce ; and led the Georgic and Bucolic herd to the
inference that he would still protect them against
commerce. The Whigs declared that the time was
come when the Corn Trade and Sugar Trade
--the twin monopolies which formed the principal
pressure on commerce and consumption—should
lie thrown open, at duties only calculated to pro-
tect home-producers to the extent to which greater
actual burthens could be alleged as sustained by
them, and not to the extent of baffling all
regular trade in their produce. This, we repeat, was
the question between Sir Robert Peel and the late Go-
vernment. The question was regular trade, or no
regular trade in agricultural produce. The agricul-
tural interest rejected the idea that their produce
should be exposed to an open trade. It was not the
question between this or that figure of fixed duty ; it
was the question between fixed duty, as admitting
trade at all times in landed produce, and sliding scale,
as excluding trade at some time; i. e. as much as
possible.
STANDARD.—More than one important consi-
deration recals attention this day to Irish affairs. The
first consideration, and that with, which we most
readily engage, is suggested by the address of nine
Prelates of the Church, Presidents of the Church
Education Society, announcing the resolution of her
Majesty's Government to continue the application of
the education grant upon its present footing, and,
therefore calling upon the Protestant people of the
United Kingdom to aid by volunteer exertion the
Society that labours for the instruction of the Irish
peasantry in the religion of truth. We see in some
of the Irish journals much complaint against the
Government, founded upon the address in question,
complaint of which the Right Rev. Lords who have
issued it afford no example in their own conduct, and
which indeed they earnestly deprecate. The com-
plaint is unjust. The Irish plan of education, by
-whomsoever contrived, was a fatal mistake—more
certainly fatal because irrevocable. By that system
Parliament was pledged to a latitudinarian principle,
and, practically, rights were conferred that cannot
without injustice be revoked. There are now in the
schools nearly 300,000 children, whose education con-
sumes the whole grant. What can any Government
do with them ? It may be said, separate the chil-
dren according to creed, and apply the grant in pro-
portion to the numbers of the separated classes,
placing the Protestants under the care of the Church
Education Society, and, of course, leaving the
Roman Catholics to the Maynooth priests. Would
this be an improvement ? Would it be for the
future advantage of Ireland to leave the
education
of the risingr, race of Roman Catholics absolutely in
the hands of the Roman Catholic priesthood ? Or it
may be again proposed, that the present grant be
applied as heretofore, but that an additional grant
be made for exclusively Protestanted ucaftiotnh:
Experience, alas, teaches that the
effect
would be soon to devote the 50,000/. now allowed to
s
an exclusively Romanist education. The path is, we
see, beset with difficulties, like every path originally
chosen in error; but the principle of governing Ire-
land, as a country to be Protestant, once abandoned, as
it has been abandoned many years, the Administration
have probably preferred the best course—the course
most sure to profit the Protestant cause in the end—by
abstaining from taking a part, and leaving to the
volunteer exertion of the Protestant people of the
United Kingdom, indeed of the whole empire, for all
are deeply interested in it, the complete reformation
of Ireland. If the demand of the Church Education
Society were once well understood, and a hope of
its success fairly offered, a fragment of a grant of
50,000/. per annum would be an object of little con-
, sequence to the Right Rev. Lords whose address we

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
(Before a Common Jury.)
STANCOAME V. DEE.
This was an action brought by Mrs. Stancombe, a
publican, residing at Chelsea, to recover 181. 14s. 6d.,
the amount of a bill for beer furnished from June
1837, up to October, 1839, to Mrs. Dee, the defendant.
Sir John Bailey appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Martin for the defendant.
The delivery of the beer and the correctness of the
account was admitted, and several witnesses were
called for the purpose of proving that defendant had
made a promise to pay.
Mr. MARTIN, for the defence, contended that the
defendant was acting as housekeeper to her son, to
whom credit had been given, who alone was liable
for the payment, and it was only because the son was
not in a condition to pay, that this attempt had been
made to make the mother liable, and called the son,
who stated distinctly that the credit had been given
to him, and not to his mother.
On his cross-examination, he stated that he was a
elerk ; that he was not a clerk now, but had been
one ; that he resigned his situation three weeks since ;
that he lived in various places ; that he resided now
at Hoxton, but did not think he was called upon to
tell where. When asked why he did not pay plaintiff; as
he said he owed her the money, his reply was, why
did she not sue me ?
The Jury interrupted Sir John Bailey in his reply,
and, without waiting for the summing up, returned a
verdict for plaintiff for the full amount claimed,
namely 18/. 14s. 6d.

Sir James Graham ----------
the Privy Council
not (we understand) at-
tendat -Windsor on Saturday next,
in consequence of Lady Graham and the family of the
Right Hon. Secretary u f
haring lately had an attackrof the Home Department
scarlet fever, from the
are
effects
fast r eco of which,ing. however, Re are happy to say they
ver
Several of the Cabinet Ministers visited Sir R
Peel this morning in Whitehall-gardens.R.
Sir Robert Peel leaves town on Friday on avisit
to her Majesty at Windsor Castle. The Right II
Baronet is not expected to return to Whitehall-gar.°ll-
._
dens until Monday.