The Sun.
London, England, 1840-12-25 00:00:00

THE GOLDEN

CORONATION SUN,
Which can be sent by post free to all parts of
the Empire. Price SIXPENCE.
Sun Office, 112, Strand, London,
Nov. 28, 1840.

MRS. GORE'S NEW NOVEL.
Just ready, in 3 vols. post hvo.,
RE V IL L E,
Or, A SEASON IN PARIS.
MRS. GORE,
Author of "Mothers and Daughters," " The Peeress," &c.
Henry Colburn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough-street.
To b! had at all the Libraries.

THEATRE ROYAL, COVENT GARDEN.
UNDER the MANAGEMENT of MADAME VESTRI:.
TO-MORROW EVENING, DEC. 26.
Will be repeated, Beaumont and Fletcher's Cemedy of
THE SPANISH CURATE.
Don Henrique, Mr. Cooper; Don Juan, Mr. Anderson:
Leandro, Mr. Chas. Mathews ; Lopez (the Curate), Mr. W
Farms; Bartolus, Mr. Bartley ; thew), Mr. Keeley ; Ami-
rante, Madame Vestris ; Jacintha, Mrs. W. West.
After which,
The NEW GRAND CHRISTMAS PANTOMIME will Le
produced, entitled
THE CASTLE 01 OTRANTO; OR, HARLEQUIN

,
AND THE GIANT HELMET.
Harlequin, Mr. C. J. Smith ; Clown, Mr. T. Ridgway ;
Pantaloon, Mr. 111o*.11i ; Columbine, Mies Fairbrother.
Doors to be opened at half-past Six—the performances to
aotiereenee at Seven o'Clock.
Titkas and plume for the Box,: to be taken of Mr. Grogan.
at the Box-office, from Ten till Four, where Season Tickets
Drno had upon application.
ess Boxes, 7s. ; Second Price, 3s. Gel.; First and Second
Circles. 3s. ; Second Price, 23. Gd. ; Pit, 35.; Second Price.
3s. ; Gallery, ls.
Private Bons to be had so'ely of Mr. Andrews, bookseller
167, New Bond-street.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE TOMORROW.
Morning 3S minutes stlor 3 I Evening 53 minutes after R

The Publication of t e Evening Edition of Tux Sum coax

mereed gt 10 minutes after Three.

i''
,Itr- e> • f' -43 4): --t.,1
\,g: ,l'ii"..trtf '+'' ) 1
:ft.."-.::kgi • • , • s.:47;:;". • 'w",_:___ff,---- N., ..•

tion—that is, 27 per cent. A pretty effect this of the
passion for equalizing !
The whole of the stw ements in the Mercury
rest on this table of the town population now re-
presented, and of the whole population. But this
is an erroneous basis of the argument. For, first,
the whole of the town population is not now repre-
sented, as, for example, in such an agricultural
county as Kent, such places as Gravesend, Dart-
ford, and Sheerness, all towns having no connec-
tion with agriculture, have no representatives ; while
in Lancashire and Yorkshire, there are masses of
town population, such as Chidwall (Lancashire),
7,706 ; Croxton, 6, 278 ; Dean, 22,994; Eccles,
28,083 ; and Kirkham, 11,630 ; Batley (York-
shire), 11,335 ; Bingley, 9,256 ; Birstall, 24,103 ;
Calverley, 16,184 ; Dewsbury, 19,854 ; Guisley,
10,028, &c.; and, secondly, that population not
being included in the town population represented,
is used by the Mercury to swell the amount of the
agricultural population. The basis then of the ar-
guments in the Mercury is wholly rotten, and all the
statistical deductions from it are of no value what-
ever. It is so completely erroneous, that it is
wholly unnecessary, and indeed wholly futile, to
examine the superstructure. We might as well set
about investigating an ariametical deduction, which
should be based on the proposition that 3+s=-4.
Indeed we have not lately seen an elaborate argu-
ment, based on an assumption so palpably and
completely at vatiance with facts ; and we must
express our surprise that the ingenious editors of
the .Mercury could for one moment have been so
led astray by party or personal feelings, as to fancy
that the present representation of the towns is any
index to what that representation would be were
all the householders of the kingdom to be equally
represented, and the number of representatives
1 to be strictly and equally proportioned to the nutn•
ber of householders.

A fairer way, as it seems to us, of getting at an
approximate estimation of the probable effects of
household suffrage on town and county represen-
tation, or rather of the representation of the now
conflicting interests of land and manufactures, is to
take the number of families supposed to be em
ployed in manufactures, and supposed to be em-
ployed in agriculture. In Mr. PORTER'S work,
the whole number of families in Great Britain is
set down, according to the population returns of
1831, at 3,414,175 ; employed in agriculture,
961,134; employed in trade, manufactures, &c.
1,434,873 ; other families, 1,018,168. In Ire-
land, out of 1,385,000 families 884,339 are em-
ployed in agriculture, and 500,661 in other occupa-
tions. Thus we have employed in agriculture in
the whole empire 1,845,473, and in trade and
other occupations 2,953,707.
Since 1831 the town population has increased
much more than the rural population ; so that
these numbers do not in fact represent our case so
favourably as it actually exists. But these sums,
representing the population as it existed in 1831,
would give results totally opposed to those stated
in the ilfercury. At the same time we cannot assume
them to be correct, and proceed to reason on them,
for we have no means of knowing, on the one hand,
how many of the families engaged " in other occu-
pations," or even of those set down as engaged
" in trade and commeice," are connected with, or
dependent on agriculture ; nor on the other, how
many families employed in agriculture are mere
labourers, who have an interest decidedly in oppo-
sition to the landowners, and who, therefore, will
all, in the long run, and many of them immediately,
be opposed both to the aristocracy and the Corn-
laws. We should b? disposed to conclude that at
most one-third of the families engaged in other oc-
cupations, including the clergy and the different
professions, may be dependent on or connected with
the law ; and that the other two-thirds should be
added to the manufactures to get at the town popu-
i lation, having an interest different from that
of the aristocratic supporters of Corn-laws.
But we should be disposed to subtract
about three-fifths from the families now en-
gaged in agriculture as labourers, opposed to the
aristocratic supporters of Corn• law s, on which
data the families likely to support the aristocracy
with household suffrage, would be as 1•732,757,
and likely to oppose them as 3.076,418 ; or

were household suffrage granted, the votes against
the Corn-laws and against the aristocracy, would
be as 30 to 17, or very nearly double. We could,
like the Mercury, make many learned deductions
fro7ri these data, but we are conscious that no reli-
ance can be placed on any such data, and we
shall not therefore fatigue our readers by calcula-
tions as to the probable number of Liberal and
aristocratic Members w hick household suffrage
would give, nor attempt to conjecture how they
would vote on any given question.
In all such calculations the influence of property,
though vast, cannot be included. The editors of the
Mercury, however, jump from the fact that the
501. tenants-at-will now all vote with their landlords,
to the conclusion that the mere householders would
follow the same course. But the 501. tenants-at-
will are all men of some property—most generally
they are farmers ; they have therefore, or suppose
they have, an interest similar to that of the land-
lords ; they look to high pikes to pay high
rents, and they vote for the Corn-laws with their
landlord::. They have property to lose, and there-
fore dart d to be turned out of their farms.
Not so with the mere labourers. They could
only be turned out of a cottage, which
in general they have not from the landlords but from
the tenants ; and though the farmers may be willing
enough, from a false view of their interest, to vote
for the landlord, it does not follow that because their
numerous workmen take a different view, as they
I have a different interest, that they will gratify the
landlords, or be themselves so wicked as to turn out
of houses the labourers whose services are indispen-
sable to them. They might on such an occasion
get rid of a labourer already obnoxious to them, but
the farmers would never make a political difference
tine basis of turning out their well-behaved labour-
ers. That the labourers have, and will have, an
interest adverse to the Landlords, is certain, for this
is strictly speaking more a labourer and landlords'
question than a question between manufacturers and
landlords ; and we feel confident that having such an
interest they will vote for Anti-Corn-law candidates,
and whirever they are numerous enough will carry
such a candidate into Parliament.

If agricultural labourer; had the suffrage as
householders, a strong motive would immediately
arise in all their neighbours, and in all the commu-
nity, to qualify them to exercise it properly. Ap-
peals would be made to those who are now utterly
neglected by men of all parties. They would ac-
quire political knowledge, for they would feel them-
selves politically important. By household suf-
frage something would be added to their power, and
they would immediately acquire a sense of inde-
pendence. Now they are completely serfs, without
the least hold on their landlord, or the least power
to give or refuse anything which he regards as va-
luable. Had they the franchise, the landlords
would be obliged to pay some court to them ; they
would have a means of protecting themselves, and
they would be raised immediately in the scale of
political importance. Such considerations make
us conclude that it is quite impossible to give a
correct statistical form to the probable results of
household suffrage.

It must, however, be added, that those who ask
for the household suffrage also ask for the ballot