The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-11-03 00:00:00

THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION

Prior to giving any details of the doings yesterday, pro-
bably one or two reminiscences of previous contests may
be interesting, more especially as the subject is of course
the " talk" of the day ; and perhaps the first thing ne-
cessary will be to give the state of the poll in the wards
which were contested last year or the year before, as at

the last election opposition was only offered in six wards,
viz., St. Paul's, Pitt-street, Rodney-street, Lime-street,
West Derby. and North Toxteth. The following was
last year the state of the poll at the close in those wards,
and in 1844 in the remaining wards :

Wards. Majority
Scotland James Brancker (a) ..... 217
Isaac Holmes (c)....
Eyre Evans (a).. .
J. C. Thompson (c) 133 38
R. S. Henderson (c)
Thos. Bolton (a).
Rodney-street.. J. N. Wood (c)
R. E. Harvey (a)
Vincent Higgins (a)
Robert Rigby (c)
James Parker (c)
William Earle (a)
James Plumpton (c) .... 183
James Mellor (a).
North Toxtetb .. Thomas Lloyd (a)
John Sheppard (c)
South Toxteth .. R. L. Jones (c)
___ __

St. Paul's

St. Peter's

Lime-street

St. Anne's

West Derby

--- - - -
R. V. Yates (R)
* For Rodney-street Ward the voting at the last election wal
equal, and the Alderman and Assessors declared Mr. J. N
Wood duly elected.

Last year ten Conservatives and six Radicals were re-
turned to the Council, seven Conservatives and three
Radicals being unopposed ; a very gratifying state of
things certainly, though not so cheering as were the re-
sults of previous years. In 1844, thirteen Conservatives
were returned; in 1843, ' twelve ; in 1842, thirteen ; in
1841, again thirteen; and in 1840, twelve; and on each
of those occasions, except last year, the successful Radi-
cal members were returned by majorities miserably small,
as compared with the re.ajorities in those wards which
returned Conservatives. It is the more necessary to no-
tice the majorities in the successful Radical wards at the
last election, viz. 38, 72, and 64, as we have no doubt
that these unusually large numbers, combined with the
known confusion into which the Conservative ranks have
been thrown by recent events, have served to inspire our
opponents with fresh courage, and induced them to en-
gage in a contest in districts where otherwise they would
not have ventured to chew their faces. They did not,
however, with all their advantages, accomplish yesterday
more than we anticipated ; and to shew that their expec-
tations were raised to an extraordinary pitch, we need
only refer to the fact that this year, as far as they were
concern .cl, they only permitted (notwithstanding all their
silly boasts of " liberality") two wards to be unopposed,
whilst last year seven Conservatives, and in 1844 six
Conservatives, were returned without the slightest oppo-
sition. There must, therefore, iltave been some r
s I for this incr

'ease in their laborious exertions ; and it is the
more remarkable that this factious conduct has taken
place, when their sweet mouths have been incessantly
pouring out the honeyed words, " Oh, give up political
distinctions—let party strifes be buried—let not religious
differences be alluded to." But, gentlemen, has your
conduct been at all assimilated to your professions ?—or,
rather, has it not given the lie in the plainest manner to
every one of them ? " Thou that sayest another should
not steal, dost thou steal ?"
Last year, the following Conservative gentlemen were
returned without opposition :—Mr. F. Shand, for Ever-
ton ; Mr. Houghton, for Scotland ; Mr. Littledale, for
Exchange ; Mr. Stewart, for St. Peter's ; Mr. Reade, for
A.bercomby ; Mr. Roydea, for Great George; and Mr.
Lace, for South Toxteth. No opposition was offered to
Mr. Rathbone, for Vauxhall; to Mr. Hugh Ilornby, for
Castle-street; or to Mr. Earle, for St. Anne's. In 1844
Mr. Shaw was returned unopposed for Everton, Mr.
Middleton for Exchange, Mr. Aspinall for Pitt-street,
Mr. G. G. Horoby for' Great George, Mr. Procter for
Abercromby, and Mr. Leigh for West Derby. Now
with these " great facts " before us, we solicit a reply
from some one of our Radical contemporaries, to the fol-
lowing question :—" How does it happen that, with all
your professions of impartiality, and your tormentingly
reiterated desires that all political considerations should
be put aside, you have rushed this year into a contest in
every ward, except two, (which are left uncontested
merely because opposition is avowedly hopeless,) and
have endeavoured to eject, from their seats in the Coun-
cil, gentlemen whom you have yourselves confessed to be,
in every respect which is in yotfr opinion at all essential,
well qualified to discharge the duties which they have
been called upon by the electors to perform ?" Whatever
excuse you may offer for trying to retain your old mem-
bers, or for opposing one or two gentlemen whom you
may deem, however erroneously, strong political parti-
sans, we defy you to justify, on your own principles,
your conduct in such wards as Everton, Exchange, Rod-
ney-street, or Abercromby. It is well, however, that we
have not been deceived by your specious professions, as
the following report of yesterday's proceedings abundantly
testifies.
The
hour(
at tb

,e subjoined table exhibits the state of the poll each
(as far as we could procure it) in the contested wards
e election just closed. The names of the Reformers
italics :=

10111.112. 1 1

2. 3. 4. Con. Rad,
Maj. Maj