The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-11-02 00:00:00

West Derby

Mr. L. Heyworth (R).. 96
Mr. J. Sheppard (C).. 138
Mr. J. Platt (R).. 144
North Toxteth.. Mr. R. Harbord (C).. 240
Mr. W. M. Duncan (R).. 233

South Toxteth

At the last election, therefore, as the preceding statement
exhibits, the conservatives, through the returning good sense
of the people, succeeded in returning eleven, and the radicals
not half the number of members to the council. At the
election of 1839, when one of the wards was not contested,
the total number of electors polled was 6490, and the total
conservative majority was 194 ; nine conservative councillors
and eight radical being returned, a vacancy having been oc-
casioned by death. In 1810, when each ward experienced a
contest, there were 6619 electors who recorded their votes,
and the conservatives had a total majority of 199. This year the
conservatives polled amount to 4304, and the radicals to 3748,
leaving a majority on the gross poll of 556 to the conservatives.
If our readers can carry these figures in their memories, they
will be able to see the decided reaction which has taken place
in favour of conservative principles, from a similar summary
of the voting in 1837 and 1838. In the former of these years
the conservatives only succeeded in carrying four out of' the
sixteen wards, whilst the radicals carried twelve. The gross
majority of the radicals was 116, and the total number of
electors polled was 6010. In the year 1838 only twelve of
the wards were contested, and the conservatives returned
six-and the radicals ten councillors, whilst the radical gross
majority on the polling was 225. In 1839, therefore, the
tide set in in favour of conservative policy, and has been ever
since steadily and rapidly flowing in the same direction. The
tables were then completely turned on the radicals, who, in-
stead of having as on every former occasion a considerable
majority on the gross poll, were left in a woful minority.
The rage of the radical faction ever since this memorable
defeat has known no bounds, and no means have been spared,
though of the basest description, to regain that ascendancy
in the management of our local affairs which has been so
completely and righteously wrested from their grasp. We
have already alluded to some of the malpractices of the party,
and shall not soil our pages by any further reference to them.

The weather in the. former part of the day was attended
with constant rain, but about noon the sky cleared, and the
subsequent part of the day was tolerably fine, which increased
considerably the animation and bustle. The squibs on the
walls were extremely few ; there was only one worthy of no-
tice, and that represented our old friend, William Rathbone,
passing a finger-post, pointing four ways, one to Pitt-street
ward, another to North Toxteth, the third to Great George's,
and the fourth to Green-bank, Mr. Rathbone's residence.
He is wending his way, wrapped in a cloak, and with a
wofel countenance, on the last-mentioned road, uttering as
he strides along the ominous words, " Well, I'm done again."
The polling throughout the day was carried on with consi-
derable spirit on the part of the conservatives, but the radi-
cals in all the wards appeared quite chopfallen, and the suc-
cess of their opponents seemed to render them dispirited
and careless.

It will be seen that last year the majorities in several wards
were exceedingly small, but at the present election they are
such as to render any threat of ulterior proceedings, which
will no doubt he indulged in by the radical press, perfectly
worthless. Last year the largest majority obtained in any
instance was 60, whilst in two of the wards this year that
number is more than doubled. The only instance of a result
different to last year, and against the conservatives, is Ex-
change Ward ; and, remembering that the majority last year
for the conservatives was 30, we cannot but think that there
has been this time a little want of generalship on our part,
or we should not have to mourn over this solitary defeat.
In Pitt-street, last November, Mr. Toulmin defeated Mr.
Rathbone by a majority of only one; this year Mr. Aspinall
obtains a majority of 42 over a much more popular man, Mr.
Hornby. Last year, Mr. Cooper, the conservative candi-
date, gained his election by a majority of two ; this year Mr.
James Lawrence defeats Mr. Rathbone (to effect whose
return the radicals would use all their exertions) by a majo-
rity of 25. We might run through nearly all the wards with
the same result, but we refer our readers to the two state-
ments, and ask thetn to compare them together.
The following, we believe, are correct returns of each
hour's polling in the respective wards :
CONSERVATIVES.
WARDS. Time.
No. 1, EVERTON., 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 Majority.
Thomas Shaw.... 105 178 222 250 279 302 330 127

2, SCOTLAND
Isaac Holmes.
3, VAUXHALL
4, ST. PAUL'S
Joshua Edwards.. 75 136 176 216 256 283 308

43 96 131 200 247 292 338 10
No contest.

59 130 173 198 223 253 301

5, EXCHANGE
John Ridgway
6, CASTLE-STREET
7, ST. PETER'S.
Ebenezer Rae....
8, Pirr.sTEEET.
James Aspinall
9, GREAT GEORGE
James Lawrence..
10, RonNEY-STILT.
Benry Lawrence..
11, ABERCROMBY.
Robtsn.Gladstone 85 1,3 248 280 347 365 388 131
12, LIME-STREET.
John Buck Lloyd. 80 134 195 243 206 353 424
13, ST. ANNE'S.
James Parker.... 75 112 136 168 202 239 276
14, WEST DERBY. No contest.
John Shaw Leigh Elected without opposition
15,, STH. TOXTETH.
S. Lee Trotman..
.
NTH. TOXTETLI
Alex. Smith, jun

No contest

78 121 163 191 212 238 312

53 115 179 221 258 285 317

68 99 145 232 263 265 345

48 128 175 222 261 313 346

50 86 111 125 149 184 241 44

'56 89 162 198 253 312 375 36

RADICALS.
Time,

WARDE.
No. 1, EVIIRTON. 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 Majority
Michael Ashcroft. 62 97 122 150 163 178 203
2, SCOTLAND.
George Quayle .
3, VAUXHALL.
William Preston
4, ST. PAUL'S.
Christ. Rawdon.. 42 94 122 166 204 242 264
5, EXCHANGE.
Henry Holmes ..
6, CASTLE-STREET
John Holmes ... .
7, ST. PETER'S.
John Woolright.. 57 117 156 185 209 239 286
8, PITT-STREET.
Hugh Hornby
9, GREAT GEORGE
Wm. Rathbone
10, BODNEY-STRT.
Charles Holland..
11, ABERCROMBY.
John Cooper ....
12, LIME-STREET.
Thomas Morecroft 79 124 189 234 281 325 416
13, ST. ANNE'S.
Thomas Chalmers 51 102 119 156 195 219 237
14, WEST DERBY. No radical proposed
15, STII. TOXTETH.
W. 11. Tayleur
16, NTH. TOXTETH.
William Lockerby 36 72 147 194 236 280 339
Presuming on the accuracy of the returns before us, we
derive the following

71 104 119 186 234 277 328

No contest

62 139 182 223 248 270 325 21

No contest.

53 91 139 184 220 246 275

29 92 193 210 247 252 320

38 94 139 185 219 252 271

53 103 144 182 227 249 257

31 CO 89 111 140 165 197

SUMMARY
Conservatives returned ..
Radicals

Total number of conservatives polled
Total number of radicals polled

Total number of electors polled
Total conservative majority

After the above was in type, we received the following
official return of the voting, which, as will be seen, differs
very slightly from our own, though we think it best to give
both :

Borough of Liverpool.
MUNICIPAL ELECTION, lsr NOVEMBER, 1811.
Final State of the Poll.
No. 1. EVERTON WARD.
330 1 Michael Ashcroft 20
No. 2.— SCOTLAND WARD.
313 George Quayle 3O
No. 3.—VATTXHALL WARD.

Tomas Shaw

Isaac Holmes,

No other Candidate voted forj William Preston

No. 4.—ST. PAUL'S WARD.
Joshua Edwards _ 308 I Christopher Rawdon

No. J.—EXCHANGE WAILD.
300 I Henry Holmes
_ ___

John Ridgway

.
No. 6.—CASTLB.STREET WARD
No other Candidate voted for. I John Holmes..

PETER'S WARD.
312 I John Woollwright

Ebenezer Rae

No. B.—PITT-STREET WARD.
James Aspinall 317 I,..Hugh Hornby