17 NOVEMBER 1838, Page 10

TOPICS OF TIIE DAY.

WHICH PARTY TRIUMPHED AT;THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS?

ABOUT a fortnight since, the Morning Chronicle pledged himself entirely to upset a statement in Fraser's Magazine of the compa- rative gains of Whigs and Tories in the Pat h:imentary registra- tion, and threatened five mortal columns of refutation and com- mentary. Haud inexperti—having• a pretty strong recollection of the manner in which similar pledges had heretofore been re- deemed by our Liberal contemporary, we said—" The Dimling Street journalist talks boldly ; it remains to be seen what his per- formance will be." And sure enough, the performance was lame and impotent ; consisting, for the most part, of sweeping asser- tions unsupported by proof: and even in the few details given important errors were manifest. For instance, the omissisit of the results of the 1837 registration in Middlesex, and the assumption that Mr. BYNG'S majority was the measure of the Liberal strengtn—when Mr. HUME'S minority might have been taken with as touch propriety. The Tory statement may have been incor- rect, but the braggart of Downing Street failed to demolish it as he threatened. Had there been evidence, something more cou. elusive than round assertions would have been produced. There was ample room and verge enough in the Chronicle for as many facts as could be mustered ; and there was no reluctance, we may be sure, to put them forth. The slender array of proof must have arisen from inability to produce more. In the same fashion the Chronicle deals with the Municipal election returns. Referring to the list published in the last Spec- tator, he asserts that in five places where it was said the Tories "claim an advantage "—Hastings. Beverley, Winchester, New- port, and Bewdley—the "number of Councillors returned was precisely equal ;" and that "at Exeter (where the numbers were put down as equal) the Liberals had the majority." No proof is offered against the statements in local papers from which the list in the Spectator was made out; but all such authority is sneered at as " penny-a-line authority," whereas the Chronicle's account is from " actual returns front disinterested informants." "Disinterested"—how are we to know that? And where is the guarantee for accuracy ? The "authority of the Miming Chronicle," we are told, "is surely as good as the authority of any newspaper." Possibly, but not a whit better in a general way. And with respect to events happening in their own locality, we apprehend that the provincial journals are more trustworthy than the Chronicle's ipse dixit, when at variance with state- ments published on the spot by parties who must know the facts. We are not aware of any depot of disinterested and correct intelligence. There is indeed an office in Cleveland Square, where a clever and industrious gentleman—an excellent elec- tioneering agent—is employed in collecting, and preparing for publication, information of a kind which gratifies the party, who, we hope, reward him liberally for his zeal. But it will hardly be pretended that from such a quarter statements can come disin- terestedly free from bias.

In our table of returns, we designated the gains of' each party as successes claimed, not as proved or ascertained, on the one side and the other. And one reason for this caution was stated in a note to the list given last week—" that in different places there are different modes of estimating success and defeat." Thus, the Chronicle asserts that at Winchester parties were equal; but a Winchester correspondent of the Standard main- tains that the Tories gained a victory, because, although three Tortes and three W higs were elected,five Whigs went out of otlice and only one Tory. Again, at Beverley, put by the Chronicle in the same category as Winchester, we see by the Hull Packet that three Tories and three Conservative Whigs replaced six thorough Liberals. Stich facts as these enable us to form a judgment of the relative progress or decline of parties, and the state of public opinion, so far as the Municipal elections tell one way or the other. It may be that the majority of the Town-Councils are now Li- beral; and the triennial choice of Aldermen, which occurs this year, will enable the existing majority to prolong their preponder- ance. It is perhaps also true—though of that we have no proof— that more Liberal Councillors than Tory were chosen at the recent elections. But if' it is a fact—and we have scarcely any doubt on the point—that there are more Tory Councillors this year than the last, then does it not follow that the Tories are making progress in the municipalities? The Parliamentary elections of 1835 and 1837 indicated an augmentation of Tory strength, although more Liberals than Tories on the whole were elected, and the majority of the House of Commons still remained Liberal. Why not apply the same rule to the results of the Municipal elections, the cases being strictly analogous? Will the Chronicle deny that the Liberals lost ground at the last Parliamentary election ? If he cannot, then the only way of escape from the admissioh that they have also been worsted in the Municipal elections, is to prove that there are not more Tories now in the Town-Councils than last year. This we believe to be impossible. The application of the rule would cut down the Chronicle's list of successes to a meagre exhibition : for it would take Liverpool, Hull, Portsmouth, Bath, Durham, and other places, out of the Liberal catalogue. No wonder that the Ministerial journal protests against this mode of reckoning, and calls it raising a "false issue" to seek to ascertain " which party had made an Inroad on the strength of the other." The issue was not "false," but inconvenient for a

losing party, and annoying to a journal whose hard task is to persuade its readers, in defiance of facts, that the present Adati. nistration is popular, and that the Whigs are gaining ground in the country.