The Sun.
London, England, 1852-08-13 00:00:00

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

T 213 Dar —Morning 0 min. after 0 I Evening 17 mir, . after 12
To-Moanow—ltornin; 4i min. after 12 I Evening 9 min. after 1

word about the 5,237 polled for Lord ROBERT
GROSVENOR! But he insists, forsooth, that in thus
selecting the candidates, he is acting justly because
he proceeds upon a similar principle in all other
instances, however much opposed to the estimate be
would like to make for the Government. Very good.
Let us see how he demonstrates the reality of this
magnanimously impartial proceeding. He specifies,
in token of his fairness—the city of London. And
how does he estimate the votes polled in the metro-
politan election? Why-6,195 are mentioned as
polled for Mr. MASTERMAN and 5,537 as polled for
Lord Join/ RUSSELL ! Not a syllable about the
5,270 additional polled for Sir JAMES DUKE, and
the 4,748 polled for Baron LIONEL DE ROTHSCHILD !
Surely all this is wonderfully fair and magnanimous.
Again, our Contemporary—who, we doubt not,
could beat the calculating boy at a pinch—acknow-
ledges
very modestly that "it may be complained
that Finsbury, the Tower Hamlets, &c., occupy no
place in the calculation." Truly. But then he re-
plies by reminding us that no electors were polled in
those localities for candidates on the side of the Con-
servatives—adding that their omission is compensated
by the omission of so many divisions of counties
returning Ministerialist representatives. Surely,
a marvellously pert rejoinder. So that a
constituency of 4,804 electors, returning three
Conservative Members, such as Bedfordshire,
must be accepted as a counterbalance to a vast con-
stituency like that of the Tower Hamlets, numbering
upwards of 20,000:oossessurs of the franchise, and re-
turning two Liberal representatives. A wonderfully
generous mode of cooking an estimate in favour of
the wishes of the Administration.

But this constitutes by no means the whole of the
mystery of this astoundingly improbable calculation.
There is such a country as Scotland, we believe, and
there is also, we believe, such a country as Ireland.
Not a single vote from either place, however, enters
into the estimate of our Contemporary. Not one!
And why ? Simply because the mention of those
Scotch and Irish votes would have been distressingly
inconvenient. About the elections in the north, it is
candidly remarked indeed that the polls in Scotland
are not given, because, firstly, they were few in
number ; and, secondly, because " in most cases they
were contests between WhiTs and Radicals." Pre-
cisely. The numbers polled in Scotland were in
favour of the Opposition, and, therefore, by no means
a whisper about them ; for such, we repeat, on
the part of an organ of the Cabinet would have
been in the highest degree inconvenient. Not
a syllable about the numbers polled in favour of the
Liberals in Ayr, in Caithness, or in Edinburgh.
Such would be only inconvenient. Not a word about
Leith, or Paisley, or Wigton. It would merely be
inconvenient. Neither is there a word, a whisper, or
a syllable about the numbers polled in Ireland. Ex-
cept, indeed, a wretched little rag of an apology like
the following
As to the Irish polls, it would of
course be an absurdity to introduce them into a table
intended to show the mind and choice of a
people themselves and not of their drivers." Their
seriously
astheseexpected
drivers—which of them ? The Orangemen? Alas ! can
it
be
catn go down " with Joan
such shabby little shuf-
fling tricks
BULL ? Estimates like the foregoing cannot possibly
we avow, be swallowed by any dispassionate observe;
—although they are really so very nicely " cooked."
The truth is, the ultra-Conservatives—all things
considered—have made a tolerably respectable ap-
pearance at the polling booths throughout the United
Kingdom. Insomuch that the minority they are
in is not so large as might have been expected.
Not satisfied with this, however, they want
to prove that their minority is no mino-
rity at all—but a broad,2unmistakeable, and
superb majority. They adduce facts and figures to
prove this—and then, of course, comes the exposure.
It reminds one of the saying of the Italians How
does it run ?—" Stava bene, mai per stare megliore sto
Pi!" "I was pretty well off as matters were, but
by trying
to mike things better see what a pickle I
am in !" So with the Conservatives, but especially
with our Ministerialist Contemporary.

It is only by reference to verified and official sta-
tistics that foreigners, or indeed the great majority of
our own countrymen, can obtain an adequate and ac-
curate idea of the vast extent of British commerce
with foreign countries and our colonial dependencies.
Free trade has greatly augmented our foreign and
colonial business, and the Legislature are not likely,
we think, to make any retrogressive movement by
which our exports could be diminished. The re-
venue, increasing as the tariff has been lowered, would
very speedily show " a beggarly account of empty
boxes," if our imports were lessened and our exports
reduced. They depend upon each other too much to
have separate interests. The Protectionists [are
there any of the class remaining ?] are aware of the
force of this argument, and carefully shirk its dis-
cussion. Their sympathies are limited to the rent-
receiving and rent-paying classes, and do not embrace
the interests of the commercialists and manufac-
turers. That the farmer should no longer get an
artificial war price for his corn grieves them ex-
ceedingly—bat that the whole population of the
United Kingdom should have two quartern loaves
for the price of one, with every other article of food
reduced also, appears to be matter for Protectionist
grief rather than rejoicing. The great aim and pur-
pose of the high-price advocates is to have corn at
80 shillings a quarter, or double what it should be•
In truth, the Protectionists cannot get on without
high :rent?, or rather, will not attempt it. While
they keep up war-rents (fair enough when corn was
96 to 120 shillings a quarter), they will always want
war-prices. They alone, of all classes, have not at-
tempted to adapt themselves to the changed condition
of the time and the country. A large loaf is incom-
patible with large rents. The landocracy should,
long ago, have commenced setting their house in
order. When general taxes fell, and when untaxed
food was admitted into the country, the owners of
estates should have diminished their rents. But they
are greedy, and will not do this—they grumble and
get angry, and do everything but meet the case fairly
and wisely.
Protectionist grumbling, it is one comfort, cannot
make our commerce go back. Our export trade at
present amounts to more than 160,000,0001. sterling
every year. It is carried on principally through six
English, three Scotch, and three Irish seaports. In
the order of their foreign trade they range thus :
Liverpool, London, Hull, Southampton, Newcastle,
and Bristol; Glasgow, Leith, and Greenock; Cork,
Belfast, and Dublin. These twelve principal sea-
ports also carry on a valuable and extensive coasting
and internal traffic. There are other ports which,
with comparatively trifling foreign commerce, have
very extensive coasting and internal trade.
_ _

In the year ending December 31, 1850, the ton-
nage which entered and cleared out from all the
ports of the United Kingdom, in the foreign, colonial,
and coasting trades, was 44,125,624 tons. Of this,
the foreign trade employed 11,441,254 tons ; the
colonial, 3,236,551 tons; the coasting or domestic
trade of the United Kingdom, 29,447,819 tons, or
more than double what was employed in our com-
merce with foreign countries and our colonies.
The tonnage of all kinds employed in the outward
and inward trade of our principal ports, during 1850,
,
was thus distributed :—London, 7,494,815 tons, in-
cluding 12,633 vessels employed in supplying the
c 011
6apital with 3,637,878 tons of coal ; Liverpool,
, 870
tons, not including any of the river and canal
vessels, which supply the port with about 1,200,000
tons of
T coal and 600,000 tons of salt; Newcastle-
on-yne, 3,059,030 tons, chiefly engaged in the coal
trade; Sunderland, 2,099,772 tons, in the same trade;
Hartlepool, 1,192,376 tons, also in the coal trade ;
; Plymouth, 720,608 tons ;
Hull, 1,174,274 tons
Bristol, 962,504 tons ; Cardiff, 817,000 tons, chiefly
676,933 tons, in the coal's
d iron trades ; Glas-
gow,in the coal trade ; Gloucester 250,166 tons ; New-
port,
1,241,234 tons ; Leith, 327,993 tons Dublin,
1,293,822 tons ; Belfast, 1,089,096 tons ; Cork,
681,152 tons ; Waterford, Z. 359,562 tons ; Drogheda,
236,504 tons; Limerick, 294,240 tons; and London-
derry, 171,268 tons.

Liverpool precedes all our ports in the extent and
importance of its foreign and colonial trade. With
London and Hull it surpasses the other nine princi-
pal ports, but vastly exceeds London and Hull In
18.50, from the twelve principal poits, the value of
exports to foreign countries and the colonic3 Was
as follows ; Liverpool, 34,89198471. ; Loudon,
14:13/1527/,; Hull, 10,366,61 CL ; Glasgow,