ELECTION STATISTICS.

• Our accounts are still partial and imperfect ; hut there is no cheek in in the Tory camp. HO d..roonv to th.• conflict, %hick a rCW l'AS :Igo they acre so eag..r to provoke. The Revising Barrister', have cooled the courage or I lose braggarts. We eliallenge them to name a single tort i. or county, WM relireNeiited by I. ii /Vtal Members. in a hieli they hate made an impression sufficient to justify the expectation of electing a Tory next spriug,"—SeserATon, Nor. 12.

THE Standard replied on Monday to our challenge, in a manner which is more satisfactory to us than, we suspect, it can be to his own confiding readers. Before, however, we proceed to notice the assertions by which the Standard endeavours to shore up Conser- vative courage for the approaching election-struggle, we must say a word on the singularly bold perversion of one short and suffi- ciently plain sentence, which he quotes from the Spectator, but which he must deem his readers too stupid to understand, or too indifferent to truth to construe in its obvious meaning.

We said that the Revising Barristers had cooled the Tory courage,—evidently meaning thereby, that the revision of the voters' lists had been unfavourable to the Tories, but not at all insinuating that the Barristers were partisans on one side or the other ; the fact being, that we have not detected political partiality in the decisions of any one of them, and never even heard it im- puted to them this year. Everybody knows that they are selected by the Judges, most of whom are Tories ; and we rather believe that it will be found, on inquiry, that the majority of the Barristers are also Tories.

"The Revising Barristers have cooled the courage of these braggarts." This line, neither more nor less, the Standard deems a sufficient goundwork for the following remarks— "We must congratulate the Revising Barristers upon the high compliment paid to their judicial conduct, in the boast that they have conducted them- selves as anti-Conservative judges—as ex parte dispensers of the law. The com- pliment may be, and we fear is, well merited in the majority of cases ; and most Englishmen are tralified to appreciate the honour it confers. There is a story told of a certain judge of Pistol*, in the distracted times of Italy, who was most justly strangled in the chair to which he had been elevated in factious triumph, as an acknowledgment of the partiality of his adjudications ; and strangled upon no other evidence than that of the chair upon which he sat. We mean no ill to the Revising Barristers—we have no wish to stifle those tuneful voices that so rarely interrupt the silence of Westminster Hall ; we merely mention the anecdote as illustrative of the nature of the compliment for which they are indebted to the Spectator. The pity is, that their honest efforts to pervert jus. lice, if they made any such, as the Spectator says they did, have proved alto- gether unavailing."

The Spectator said nothing of the kind. The imputation on the honesty of the Barristers is a pure fabrication of the Standard. But now to the main point.

In reply to our challenge to name one town or county where a Liberal will be replaced by a Tory, the Standard declares that "a general election would give one hundred exchanges, at the very least, in favour of Conservatives;" and then goes on to specify certain towns and counties where the Liberals are sure to be beaten.

‘, We have not far to go : the next general election will give us, at least, three Conservatives for the city of Loudon—most assuredly two for the county of Aliddlesex : and, if candidates be selected with any approach to discretion, two for Finsbury, two for Latnbeth, two for Marylehone. But, to leave our own immediate neighbourhood, does the Spectator pretend to doubt that Liver- pool will return two Conservatives, that Ipswich will return two Conservatives, that Newark will return two Conservatives, that Exeter and Bath will return none but Conservatives—and so of a score of other cities and boroughs?"

It is difficult to treat these random assertions seriously. Three Conservatives for the City of London ! How did the numbers stand at the last election, when the Government influence went with the Tories? They stood thus—

Wood 6418 Pattison 6050

Crawford .5961 Grote 5955

Lyall 4599

The majority of the Liberal candidate against whom the Tory strength was principally directed, as being their most formidable opponent—the majority of Mr. GROTE, over Mr. LYALL, was 1356. Now, when, where, and how was that majority lessened? The fact is, that as far as alterations have been made by the two last registrations, they have tended to increase the Reforming majority. Our authority for this statement is Mr. JOHN TRA- vitas, the Chairman of the Committee of the London Reform Club; who gives facts and figures in support of it. All who know Mr. TRAVERS rely upon his accuracy. So much for Lou- don: we tell the Standard, that if the Tory candidates are de-

feated by a smaller majority than 1500, they may think them- selves let off very easily.

But Mr. BVNG and Mr. HUME will assuredly be turned out of Middlesex. On this point we need only refer to what we said last week,—that no person experienced in elections will ven- ture to answer rositively for the opinions of a constituency of nearly 13,000 electors, of whom 6,000 have never yet voted at all. As regards the revision just over, there is a balance of apparent gain to the Tories, on the objections, of 60. Neither party as yet has published a list of the new claims. In the mean, while, be it remembered, that at every recent trial of strength in Middlesex, the Tories have boen defeated ; and that at the last. election, when they contested the county under very favourable circumstances for them, Mr. Hume had a majority of upwards of 400.

As regards Finsbury, Lambeth, and Mary lebone, we will also refer to the numbers polled at the last election ; always wishing it to be kept in mind, that the Liberals were taken by surprise, were opposed by the Government, and on many accounts were lukewai m.

In Finsbury, where the Reform strength was divided among three candidates, and that of the Tories concentrated on one, the numbers were- Dencombe 4497

Wakley 3:159 Spankie 2.132

1 lobbouse 1817 Majority for WAKLEY over SPANK1E, 1027; and had not Mr._ HOEHOUSE interfered, WAKLEY'S majority would have been doubled. Now we ask ler a shadow of proof that this very large • majority has been broken down. In Lambeth, it consists %vith our personal knowledge that great exertions were made by the Tories in favour of a most respectable candidate, Mr. FAREBROTHER ; but the result of the contest showed—

Tennyson D'Eyneout t 2009 Hawes 2006 Fatrebrother... 919

Majority for HAWES, 1087. In Marylebone, the Tories fared no better ; though there, Sir W1LLIANI HOR:VE received sonic Liberal votes, which he ought not to hale bad.

Whalley 2956

Bulwer 2781 Horne 186-2 Young 378

Majority for BULWER, 919. "Does the Spectator doubt that Liverpool will return two Con- seratives ?" Yes, indeed. We have no hesitation in saying, after renewed inquiries into the state of things at Liverpool, that Lord SANDON and his friends will be obliged to spend more money than they have ever yet done in order to retain one scat for Liverpool. Let the Standard remember, that the management of the immense Dock and Corporate property has passed out of Tory hands; and that at the last revision many of the freemen, who had disposed of their venal votes to SANDON, were struck off the register. Mr. Ewaer's majority over Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS was 206; and might have been increased, as every body knows, who knows any thing of the Liverpool constituency.

No doubt, there will be a severe struggle at Ipswich. The

Standard probably reckoned (" without its host ") on a rumour of the withdrawal of Mr. WASON—vain hope! Bribery apart, the Liberals have a decisive., majority ; and we question whether the Ipswich Tories have much relish for another inquiry before an Election Committee, or their leaders any particular fondness for another residence in Newgate, with tines, expenses, &c.; on which last point Mr. KELLY could communicate some valuable information.

At the last election, the numbers were—

Morrison 542 Wason 533 Broke 455 Holmes 435

Majority for WASON over BROKE, 78. Why should Newark return two Tories ? At the last election the Duke of NEWCASTLE was glad to return one ; and the last registration made no material alteration in the strength of par- ties : we believe there was no objection sustained on either side for the Borough, though the Liberals in the Newark district gained very considerably on the County lists. Bath ? No, that will never do. Mr. ROEBUCK'S majority was 346. That gentleman, we are happy to say, is neither dead nor dying, but is in renovated health and excellent spirits; and, as was proved at the Municipal election, his friends in Bath are as active and as able to return him as ever.

As for the "score of other cities and boroughs," we cannot of

course deal with them, as they are nameless—a species of cha- teaux en Espagne. But we can tell the Standard, that his friends ought to quake (as we believe they do) in Exeter, where, forsooth, Mr. Divert' is to give way—though what is to become of his majority of 147 is not mentioned ; and in Bristol, in Norwich, in Leicester, in Leeds—where the Reformers have an ascertained majority of 803; in Ludlow, in Shrewsbury, in Droitwicb, in Warrington, in Knaresborough, in Scarborough, in Halifax, in

Chatham, in Yarmouth, in Harwich, in Rochdale, in Frome, in Newcastle.

But the Tories are to carry all before them in the Counties. Hear the Standard— "As to the counties, a Whig County Member for England would be as hard to find within the four seas upon a general electioo, as a giraffe lately was, and a much rarer creature than a giraffe is now—for we believe there are half-a. dozen in Englaod, and halta dozen English Whig County Members there cer- tainly would not be at a general election. hall we hear of the West Riding, or North Devon, or East Coinwall? Be it so, 'trial is all,' as the proverb 511)1." As for the West Riding, Lord MotteErn'a majority, in April 1835, was 2807: awl the Tories only pretend to have gained 82 votes at the last registration. Moreover, we can fairly boast of the organization of the Liberals in the West Riding: it is admi- rable, as was proved at the election which ended in the discomfi- ture of Mr. WORTLEY by Lord NIORPETH.

. In North Devonshire, there are no sytnptoms of a decline of the Liberal strength. In addition to extensive p 'polarity, the preten- sions of Lord EBRINGTON and Mr. FELLOWES are backed by large landed property. In East Cornwall, Lord ELIOT may slip in; not because there has been any reaction in favour of Toryism, but because the Whigs have acted as indiscreetly as unstenerouslv towards Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTII. They refuse to support Sir WILLIAM on account of his advocacy of Peerage Reforrn. Sir WILLIAM, on the other hand, considers the Ballot essential ; and in his address to the electors, advised them to make support of the Ballot a condition of giving their votes to any candidate. He would therefore act consistently in recommending his tenantry, and the very numerous and influential body of electors who share his opinions and look upon him as their leader, to " plump" for Sir WILLIAM TRELAWNEY, and leave Sir HUSSEY VIVIAN, who is opposed to the Ballot, for the Whigs to get in, if they can. Should Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH hike this course, which he might do with perfect proprietv it is probable, nay almost certain, that a Tory would be elected 'for East Cornwall. So much we concede to the Standard ; and, moreover, we must admit, that in any other town or district where the Whigs act as unwisely as in East Cornwall, the Tories will have an excellent chance of dis- placing the Whigs. But all the Whigs are not blockheads. Although this paper has extended to a greater length than we intended, we are tempted to add a word or two on the prophetic assertion of the Standard, that at a general election there would not be " half-a-dozen English Whig County Members." There are now sixty at least—or ten times as many as it mentions—in England alone. The fact is, that although the Tories are perpe- tually boasting that they engross the County representation—they have a small majority only—say 18 at the utmost—of the English County Members. Let the Standard pick a hole, if it can, in the following list. We say that the Counties undermen- tioned return the number of Anti-Tory Representatives put against the name of each.

Bedfordshire 1 Leicestershire 1

Cambridgeshire i Lincolnshire 9 Cheshire 2 Middlesex 2 Cornwall (as yet) 4 Norfolk 0 Cumberland... I Northumberland 0

Derbyshire 2 Nottinghamshire t

Devonshire 2 Somersetshire 3 Dorsetshire I Staffordshire 2 Durham 4 Suffolk 1 Gloucestershire 2 Sorry 2 Hampshire 0 Sussex 4 H Wiltshire Herefordshire 2 3 Hertfordshire 1 Worcestershire 3

Huntingdonshire 1 Yorkshire 4

Kent 1 Isle of Wight I This list gives 60 Members, and does not include a single "Doubtful." Therefore, before the Standard next talks about a Whig County Member being " rarer than a giraffe," let it con- descend to examine the Division-lists of the last two sessions, or consult some Parliamentary pocket-book. The reckless inaccu- racy of its assertions with respect to matters of which it might have certain knowledge—and we began this paper by showing how it dealt with a matter of fact before its eyes—certainly does not warraut much reliance on its prophecies.