The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-14 00:00:00

BRITISH

Bank Stock 172
3 per Cent. Red. 941
3 per Cent. Con. 95
3; per Cent. Red... 100;
New 3; per Cent... looi
New 5 per Cen'
Long Annuities to expire
Jan. 1860 ...... 121

Oct. 1859

Jan. 1860.

FOREIGD

Austrian, 5 per cent. —
Belgian, 5 per cent loli
3razilian Bonds 69i
Buenos Ayres 6 percent 23i
Chilian, 6 per cent. 73
Colombian, 6 per cent —
Ditto, 1824 2lB
Cuba Bonds, 6 per cent BO
Danish, 3 per sent.
Greek, 1825, 5 per cent.
Mexican, 5 per cent 3lB
Ditto, 6 per cent. 1837
Peruvian, 1825,6 per ct.

SHADES.
Edinburgh and Glasgow (50 paid) ... 48A
Great Western, (65 paid)

Ditto New Shires (50 paid) .
Ditto Fifths ( 4 paid) ......
London and Brighton (50 paid)
London and Blackwall ( paid)
London and Birmingham (90) . ..... .. 190
Ditto Quarter Shares (25 paid) 491
London and South Western (4116 s 10d pd) 62
Midland Counties Railway (100 paid)
Northern and Eastern (45 paid)
Ditto Scrip ( 5 paid)
North Midland Railway (100)
_ _ 62

_ . .
Paris and Rouen (20 paid) ......... ...... 26
South Eastern and Dover (50 paid)
Ditto Scrip (20 paid)

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS,
FROM THE EVENING, PAPERS OF THIS DAT.
GLOBE.—Attention has been drawn of late by
some of our Contemporaries to the subject of blas-
phemous and immoral publications, which, it seems,
are exposed for sale to a very great extent in the
metropolis, without any sufficient means being taken
to check so monstrous an evil. When the party now
in power were in opposition, they used td cry out
against the Government on account of its alleged
apathy to the propagation of Socialist principles,
though the result leas proved that the Whigs exercised
a sound discretion in leaving the sect to the insignifi-
cance from which it was temporarily raised by
the pious efforts of the Bishop of Exeter. The evil
of Socialism was one which carried within itself the
elements of self-destruction,; and to leave it to itself
was, therefore, the surest, and probably the shortest
way to get rid of it. Since the Bishop of Exeter
has left it alone, its publications have been discon-
tinued, its establishments have been broken up, and its
founder or chief has withdrawn from the scene of his
folly. It is, however, a very different matter with regard
to the blasphemous and immoral publications, which are
thrust with impunity beneath the observation of the
public. They are not only calculated to„,plunge the
vicious still lower in degradation, but to contami-
nate the weak-minded, and to offend those who are
incapable of feeling anything but disgust for the
outrage against religion and morals, which the
vendors or exhibitors of the publications alluded
to are daily allowed to perpetrate. It is cer-
tainly the duty of the authorities to stir them-
selves against a nuisance of so amazing a character,
and one which does not confine itself to the
haunts where those who have evil inclinations may
go in search of it, but which is openly forced into
the sight of the well-disposed portion of the commu-
nity. Our readers will probably have noticed a
police report, in which the son of one of the
Vice-Chancellors was charged with having given
way to a very natural impulse, in breaking the
windows of a shop in which two blasphemous
placards were shamelessly exhibited. The Magis-
trate inflicted no fine, but the gentleman paid
the amount of the damage, and was congra-
tulated on havin' done an act which would probably
lead to a prosecution of the individual whose windows
he had broken. This is all very well ; but is it right
that a foul and disgusting nuisance should be left
unpunished until a private individual, giving way to
a very creditable feeling of irritation, proceeds to a
lawless act, of which a breach of the peace might
have been the consequence, and by which he might
have become involved in a very serious dilemma ?
We do not think. that the respectable part of the
public should have no other protection against annoy-
ance from blasphemous publications, than to go about
breaking windows in order to attract the attention of
the persons whose duty it is to put an end to the
nuisance.
STANDARD.—We have unusual gratification in
directing the attention of our readers to the proceed-
ings yesterday at the police-office, Bow-street. It
has been observed with pain by all well-disposed in-
habitants of the metropolis, that the number of shops
opened for the sale of blasphemous and impure publi-
cations has greatly increased during the last five or
six years. As the character of the periodical press
through all its denominations has improved, the
improvement has been counteracted in its effect
by the increase of these. odious repositories of im-
piety and filth. One of the worst of the abomi-
nations, if not the very -worst, is situated in 'Holy-
well-street, Strand. Several attempts have been
made to eradicate this fames of moral pestilence, but
the supineness of policemen, the timidity of Magis-
trates, and, above all, ti le inefficiency of the libel law
so powerful to aid spec/ slating swindlers against honest
and solvent men, hat utterly powerless to resist
desperate paupers wt, .rring upon society, have caused
all these efforts to ' fail. Yesterday the abomination
was attacked in t/ me right way—attacked par voie
de fait. Mr. Lewis Knight Bruce, son of the Vice-
Chance llor (and the father of such a sonjis to be
envied), passing th] sough Holywell-street was shocked
ky the display several atrocious insults to the
Majesty of Heave n, in the window of the den of
blasphemy to whi c h we have referred. He instantly
commanded the si mopkeeper in attendance to remove
the abominable papers. That person refused, and
upon the refusal P dr. Bruce broke two panes of the
shop-window, an d succeeded in carrying off one
paper. In the attempt to secure a second
he failed. He th en surrendered to a policeman, and
was by him, at he instance of the vendor of bias-
- phemy, brought 1 xlfore Mr. Jardine, the Magistrate
at the time Ines. ;ding: at Bow-street. Mr. Jardine
having heard the Klase, and examined the paper seized
by Mr. Bruce,mo at justly complimentedthatg entl m
an
upon his conduct, 'declined to impose any fine urnehdhtn,
and impounded • I.:he money which he was o
exact for the broken glass, with a significant hint, thato
if the proprietor of the blasphemy shop should come
to demand it, h a would be prosecuted for the offence
of which he wc•uld thus furnish evidence against him-
self. Thus, a. mode is pointed out by which the
doJtestable trade of these corruptors of the minds of
the young and ignorant may be e promptly suppressed
at a trifling post. Several years ago, a gen-
tleman—for the honour of Israel let it be
told—he was a Jew—broke a window in
the shop of the then notorious Carlile, for the
purpose of causing to be removed a disgusting cari-
cature of tl.e Almighty.:For this, Mr. Levy, the gentle-
man in gtestion, was fined, though, as we remember, in
a small sum, and, like Mr. Bruce, required to pay for
the broken glass. Unfortunately, the imposition of
a fine .;.n the case stamped Mr. Levy's act with ille-
gality., and deterred others from imitating his
excel, ent example. Accordingly, the caricature of
the dmighty continued to be exhibited for many years
—as, long, indeed, as Carlile kept a (shop in Fleet-
stre et. Mr. Jardine's decision yesterday is a most
inait)ortant step in advance of the decision in Mr.
Ise vy's case. It virtually determines that blasphemy
is a sufficient provocation to justify the resenting it by
fe .rce, and leaves the blasphemer to seek his remedy
for the civil injury.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Guildhall Sittings at Nisi Prius before Lord DEN-
MAN and a London Common Jury.)
JENNINGS V. WEAVER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
defendant to recover damages for an alleged false im-
prisonment. The defendant p!eaded a justification.
Mr. Jervis, Mr. Humfrey, and Mr. Kerselma, ap-
peared for plaintiff, and Mr. Whately and Mr. Pea-
cock, for defendant.
The defendant was a carrier at Croydon, and the plain-
tiff was an errand-boy in his employ. On the 4th of March
the defendant had given plaintiff into custody for hav-
ing obtained the sum of 6d. under false pretences, and
plaintiff had been taken to the station-house and
locked up all night. The next morning he was
taken before a Magistrate ; on that occasion, a Mr.
Russell, an attorney, who had been at different times
employed by defendant, attended on behalf of plaintiff,
and said that the charge was so trifling that defendant
did not -wish to to press it, and the Magistrate per-
mitted it to be withdrawn. It appeared from plaintiff's
statement that he had summoned defendant for wages
before defendant had given him into custody.
For defendant it was
contended that plaintiff had
been employed by him to deliver a parcel to a Miss
Eades, the proper charge for which was I s., and that
plaintiff had charged Is. 6d. for it, keeping the 6d.
for himself, and for thus obtaining the 6d. the plaintiff
had been given into custody. Mr. Russell, the at-
torney, who had attended before the Magistrate, on
behalf of plaintiff, stated that he had previously seen
defendant, and had induced him to forego the prose-
cution, on the express un.derstanding that no action
should be brought for :imprisonment. The Jury
fouil for plaintiff—Damai ;es, is.
MITS/ORDINARY CASE OF CONSPIRACY.--TRE QUEEN

V. SPILLER, GORDON, JIOLT, AND MBYTES.
The defendants in this case, who were four. in
number, were named Spitler, Gordon, 'Lit, and