The Sun.
London, England, 1852-07-12 00:00:00

enum erased. These eight gains to the Opposition—
increasing the sum total from 27 to 35—are one at
Bridport, one at Bristol, one at Lancaster, one at
Montgomery, two at Newport, one at Stockport, and
one at Worcester. Against these thirty-five gains
to the Opposition must be placed twenty-nine gains
to the Government. Our list on Saturday evening
inadvertently gave one at Windsor—although the
returns from that constituency are virtually identical
with the returns made to the last Parliament
Saturday's catalogue of the Ministerial gains should
then have been reduced by one from Windsor—making
the sum total twenty instead of twenty-one. That
aggregate of twenty ought yet farther to be reduced
to fifteen—by one for Chatham, one for Hastings,
one for Horsham, one for Lymington, and one for
Preston—those five new Members being, not Derby-
ites, but Liberal Conservatives, and therefore associated
more with the Opposition than with the Government.
To these fifteen, subsequent returns have added four-
teen other gains to the Government—one from Ar-
magh, one from Brecon, one from Bury St. Edmunds,
one from Cockermoutb, one from Dover, one from
Dublin, one from Great Grimsby, one from Har-
wich, one from Maldon, one from Penryn, two from
Rochester, one from Sandwich, and one from
Tynemouth. The Derbyites would like, of
course, to number yet another, 93 as to
• complete the thirty, and might be induced themselves
to claim, to this end, an additional gain at;Haverford-
west—but there, unfortunately for them, as at the
five other places already specified, the new
Member is not a Ministerialist, but a
Liberal Conservative. In order to render our fore-
going estimate of these comparative gains
as clear as possible, we give the following and losses
list of the
Ministerial gains—specifying each addition to our
previous catalogue by an asterisk :
Armagh* . • 1
•••
Barnstaple ••• 1
•. • 00 • • •
Brecon* ... ••• 1
••• •••
Bury St. Edmunds* •
1
••• "'
• •
Cambridge • • 2
• •
••
1
Canterbury ••••• • •
Cockermouth* ••• • • 1
• • 1
Colchester • • • • • • •

Devonport.
Dover* ..
Dublin 4

Great Grimsby* • •
Greenwich ... ...

liar wich* ... • ••
Liverpool ... ...
Ludlow ... .. • •
Macclesfield .. ..
Maldon* ... •• .
Poole .. . . • • •
Penryn* ... • • .
Taunton ... • .• ~,
Rochester*
• • ...
Sandwich* ... ....

- • A
••• 2

•• _
.. 1
• •
••• 1
•••
. • 1

... 1

Tynemouth*

Warwick

. 29

Total

Subjoined is a correct list (each
• • ••• -
addition upon
our last being marked, as in the foregoing, by an
asterisk) of the gains to the Opposition :
Abingdon
• • •••
Aylesbury •••
Berwick ...
Beverley
Bewdley
Blackburn
Bolton
Bridport*
Bristol*
Cardiff
Carlisle
Cirencester
Dorchester
Gloucester
Guildford
Halifax
Hertford
Kidderminster
Lancaster*
Leeds ...
Maidstone
Montgomery
Newark ...
Newport*
Norwich.. ,
Reading ...
Scarborough .
Stoke-on-Trent .
Stafford ..
Stockford*
Totnes

•• •••

Wilton
Worcester*

Total .. • • ... 35
Ministerial gains .. • • ... 29

Majority for the Opposition ... 6
So that, summing up briefly the results of the fore-
going calculations, we find that the comparison of
gains to either party leaves an advantage of sir to
the Opposition ; while, out of the 358 new Members
returned, there must be numbered a sweeping ma-
jority of 249 antagonists of the Government.

It is not very intelligible, and the defective-
ness we are about to allude to is assuredly
productive of very considerable inconvenience, why
a great work, one of the most really and extensively

beneficial reforms of the age, a measure from the

adoption of which Great Britain has derived the
almost free enjoyment of communication at home,
should be suffered to remain unfinished, and why the
vast benefits flowing from our inland postal arrange-
ments should not be participated in by Englishmen
residing on the continent of Europe. We cannot
bring ourselves to reject the reasonable supposition
that foreign powers would obstinately harden

themselves against the conviction of the advan-
tages likely to accrue from an assimilation of
the postal duties to our own, were the subject
seriously submitted to their consideration. From the
present anomalous condition ut the postage payments
between England and various parts of the Continent,
we cannot avoid drawing the conclusion that a very
great amount of indifference has prevailed in our
head-quarters on the matter, and that no absolute at-
tempt, or at least none worth the name, has been
made to promote the development of an object so de-
sirable as the repeal of the present onerous and ine-
quitable tax on intercommunication between corre-
spondents, whether on business or pleasure. We do
not advance a charge such as this without being pos-
sessed of sufficient grounds of complaint, and we are
satisfied that a perusal of the following simple facts
will satisfy our readers that fault must exist where we
have charged it. We shall select from many cities in
as regards postage regulations,
th which,
eshtircohngest anomaly, in the ow of \Vies-
pbraGermany,edseeul:t
because the English visitors and residents in
the capital of the Ducby of Nassau are more nume-
rous than in any other city of Southern Germany,
and are, therefore, most prominent sufferers from
the abuses complained of. Let us first take the case
of a letter, sent from England to Wiesbaden..
There are two routes, the one, via France, the other
Belgium, the post by the latter arriving a few
hours earlier than by the former, and by whichever
of these routes the letter is sent, it costs if prepaid
ls. 4d. But,
it is delivered from the Wiesbaden post-office for 21
suppoeing it be not prepaid, via France,
kreutzers, equivalent to 7d., and if not prepaid, via
Belgium, for 42 krutzers, or is. 2d. The grounds for
the maintenance of such an absurd scale as this

it is difficult to divine.
In
Nor can we see any greater
arrangements affecting a letter sent
from Wiesbaden to England. If prepaid via France
it is charged 20 kreutzers, or 6 2-3,1., hut if not pre-
paid the postage charged on it in England is Is. 3d.;
if prepaid via Bc igium it is charged 40 kreutzers, or
Is. 1 1-3 d ; if not prepaid the postage charged
ill Eipgland is likewise ls. 3d. It would
acro evident from this state of facts that the
remedy for the absurd abuse lies at home, as
in the case of a letter via France, the differ-
ence between is. 4d. and 7d. does not go into the
foreign exchequer, as the letter unprepaid in Eng-
land costs 7d. on delivery in ‘Viesbaden. Prepaid in
Wiesbaden it costs the same less a kreutzer. The
letter prepaid in England costs is. 4d.; unprepaid in
Wiesbaden it costs on delivery in England ls.3d. Such
an extraordinary system as this calls for investigation.
Although there exists some difference, yet it is not so