THE STANDARD'S REGISTRATION RETURNS.

LAST week, the Standard warned its Conservative friends, that every day the Whigs remained in office, they strengthened their party by the distribution of patronage among their allies and re- tainers—that the personnel of the Government in its various de- partments was constantly becoming more Whiggish ; and the Tory journalist considered this an urgent reason for not postpon- ing too long the blow which is to put an end to the MELBOURNE Ministry. Following up this suggestion and advice, the Standard, on Monday, paraded a long statement of figures, which pretended to be an account of the results of the late registration—not com- plete, but nearly so.

" We have no doubt," said the Standard, "that this statement will be carped at by the Ministerial journals. They will, probably, by diligent search, find out a few more returns in favour of their own party. We can easily believe that this is possible, as we also believe that we might add to the list of Conservative successes, if we could search the files of every Conservative journal in England. But this bits not been in our power ; and we must therefore be content with offering to our readers as full and as accurate an account as we have beers able to prepare, and that by a very laborious search through a large proportion of the provincial journals."

In Huntingdonshire, the objections sustained were equal on both sides; but that county is nevertheless claimed by the Standard.

It thus appears, that in this as-accurate-as-possible list, there are no returns from the following counties— The table, with some explanatory notes, occupies upwards of two columns of the Standard, and has certainly a formidable ap- pearance to the Liberals; for it allows gain to them only in one county and six boroughs, while it would seem that the Tories have been triumphant throughout nearly the whole country. But all is not gold that glitters; and let nobody, be he Whig. Tory, or Radi- cal, place any sort of reliance on this list of Registration results, al- beit "as full and as accurate an account " as the Standard has been able to prepare by "a laborious search through a large proportion of the provincial journals." We have taken the pains to examine it carefully ; and assuredly, if it had been any thing approaching to a fair or full or accurate statement of the gains and losses of either party at the late registration, we should have allowed it to pass as such ; we should not have been offended paucis maculis, nor expected completeness and accuracy in matters relating to election statistics. But we do not hesitate to say that the Standard's table is not what it pretends to be; that it furnishes only a few imperfect memoranda of the claims and objections sus- tained in a few counties and towns in England—leaving the great mass untouched ; and that they who rely upon it as proof of a Conservative reaction will certainly be misled.

To make good this charge, we beg attention to the following facts.

The table deals not with Scotch or Welsh constituencies, but is confined to England.

Of the forty English Counties, only sixteen are mentioned; and we have no statement of the claims—the objections only being given—in thirteen of them ; namely, Shropshire, Kent,

Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Huntingdonshire, Warwickshire, Norfolk, Dui ham, Suffolk, Devonshire, Gloucestershire, Isle of Wight. Northumberland, Moreover, the results even of the objections are not given in the entire counties, but only in divisions of Yorkshire, Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Devonshire, Durham. Suffolk, Shropshire, Kent, Derbyshire, Lancashire,

But we have no reliance on the correctness of the returns which are given ; for it happens, that in the important instance of Mid- dlesex, the Standard itself furnishes us the means of proving how deceptions its statements are. The table gives the total of Conservative objections and claims sustained in Middlesex at 866; the Radical at 518; Conservative gain, 318. Turning to another part of the same Standard, we find an abstract of the report of the Tory Middlesex Club, which has this remark— "At the end of the registration of 1835, the Conservative majority on the ascertained votes was 1454; at the present time that majority amounted to 2161."

If the majority of 1454, gained last year, be added to the gains of this, according to the Standard's table, namely 318, the exist- ing majority would be 1772: but we are assured that it is 2161— whence comes the discrepancy?

The Tory Club Report proceeds to make sad havoc with the majority of ascertained votes-

" Still there remained a considerable body of registered voters whose political sentiments were not yet ascertained. In December 1835, a calculation which supposed a very large proportion of them to be of Radical opinions, still left the Conservatives in a majority of 536. A similar calculation made at the present moment would leave the Conservatives a majority of 1179, even supposing all the unknown voters to poll, and in a very great proportion on the Radical side."

It is usual with persons engaged in elections to count as oppo- nents those who are not ascertained friends ; but the Tory Club first reckons a portion of the unascertained votes as their own, and then their majority is reduced to 536 on the registration of 1835. How, by proceeding on the same principle, they get up their exist- ing majority to 1179, does not appear, if the Standard's return is correct. For the majority

In 1835, was 536 1836, 318 854 Now, it would seem, that by the principle adopted in 1835, of allowing a great proportion of the unknown votes to the Radicals, this number would have been reduced, not raised.

So much for the accuracy of the Middlesex returns. May *SI not say, ex uno disce ornnes?* We pass to the table of Towns. There are 187 Cities and Boroughs in Enuland which elect Members of Parliament; and " of these the Standard supplies returns from only forty-seven; leaving one hundred and forty unnoticed. The fractional list of the Standard comprises the following—

Colchester,

These places return only 89 Members, out of the 324 elected for Cities and Boroughs in England; and of these it is admitted, that in the six first on the list, returning eleven Members, the Reformers have added to their strength by the registration. But we are entitled to question the right of our opponents to reckon upon an advantage even in the forty-one places, returning 78 Members, which are paraded as exhibiting the success of Toryism. For instance, this is the statement for London—

Conservative objections sustained 299 Conservative claims 27

Radical objections sustained 41

Radical claims 62

But these figures give a very imperfect idea of the result of the last registration; for we find, by reference to the statement of the London Reform Club, signed by Mr. JOHN TRAVERS, that the Overseers added no fewer than 621 voters to the lists, of whom three-fourths were Reformers. Of this large and really important addition to the constituency, no notice whatever is taken in the Standard's return ; the whole number of added votes being only 89 according to that list. And this leads us to remark, that, generally, if not universally, the additions by Overseers are not reported by either party, though frequently much larger than those of both united. It is also well known to those engaged in the work of registration, that objec- tions arc often made to names also objected to by the Over- seers, as those of persons removed, dead, or otherwise notoriously disqualified. These names are struck off, and figure among the objections sustained. It is needless to say any more to throw discredit on calculations of comparative strength formed on the statement of claims and objections sustained by the opposing par- ties, independently of the acts of the Overseers. It is not, there- fore. from an examination merely of such returns that we demur to the right of the Tories to place the following towns in the list of those in which they have gained the advantage by the registra- tion, but because we have either received special and private in- formation from persons on the spot, well qualified to give an opinion, or because there are positive declarations from respectable journalists that the advantage rests with the Liberals. On these grounds, we deduct from the list of forty-one boroughs claimed by the Tories—

London, Lincoln, Leeds, Droitwich, Yarmouth, Leicester, Canterbury, Rochdale, Shrewsbury, Worcester,

Bridgenorth, Frome.

Wakefield,

Here we have a list of thirteen towns, in all of which our in- formation leads us to believe that the Liberals have increased their force: add these to the six given to the Reformers by the Standard, and we have 19 towns out of 47 in our favour, to 28 re- maining in which we are not prepared to assert that the Tories have not gained by the registration, though we deny that the figures of the Standard are evidence worth a rush that such is the case. But supposing that they did exhibit a true account of the profit and loss of each party, it will be found that, in the prin- cipal towns, the Tory gain is very insignificant, when the numbers of the whole constituency are considered. For instance, the Tory balance claimed • A correspondent of the Morning Chronicle has been at pains to prove the inaccuracy of many of the Standard'. returns. In some instances he produces "absolute written returns," which show majorities to the Reformers ; but they are, for the most part, not sufficiently specific, omitting the claims added or struck off by the Overseers. Besides, we cannot place much reliance on a writer who, in reply to the assertion that Leicester n Conservative, has nothing to say but "Verily, these Tories must be asses to count upon Leices. ter ;" and that "to mention North Durham, West Suffolk, Northumberland, as Tory gains, is too absord—the very children in thew coaaties know beam" In Ipswich, is 7 votes.

Derby 61 Cambridge 96 Tewkesbury 16 Finsbury. few of a constituency of 10,0001 99 Marylebone, (eenstituency 10,000) 260 York 8 Rochester 16 Coventry 86

Reading 10 Here we stop ; having 'merle destroyed the trustworthiness of the Standard's returns. tan the Time, and the other Conserva- tive papers that copied them, aft rd to give their readers these un- vat nished remarks?