The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-07-03
Results of Yesterdays Balloting.

| Tories, 30 Gladstonians, 13 Unionists and Par
nelltes.
The results indicate nothing clearly except
the close nature of the contest The UEionists
maintain lead, owing to the number returned
| without opposition. Returns from the bor-
oughs so far contested show balance of the
parties. Manchester returns three Glad
stonians and three Unionists Liverpool
four Unionists and two Gladstonians; Bristol,
three Unionists and one Gladstonian, and Leeds,
three Gladstonians and two Unionists. The
only Scotch contest was in Perth, which re-
| tured . Gladstonian by small majority, fore
shadowing the general tendency in Scotland.
Three London divisions-East Paddington, North
Paddington and the Strand-haye given immense
Unionist majorities, returning respec lively,
| Lord Randolph Churchill, L. L. Cohen and w.
| III. Smith.
| Mr.. Gladstone's denunciation of the Conserva-
tive candidate at Carlisle secured the return Of
the Gladstone candidate A feature of the elec
tions is the general smallness Of the majorities.
For example, Mr.. Armitage. Gladstonian, car
| ried West Salford by only 81 majority, and in
Central Leeds the majority of Mr.. Balfour,
Unionist. was Is. In the Scotland division of
Liverpool, T. p OConners majority was 1,46O.
Mr.. Chamberlain writes to a CORE spondent
that he hopes agricultural laborers will give their
votes to Unionists against the government pro-
posals, which. he says, would betray their inter-
ests and tax the country for ESQ, 900, 900 ster
ling to buy Irish lands.
Among the returns are the following:
Rochester Colonel Hallett, Conservative,
LOGO; Mr.. Belsey, Gladstonan, !, 1854.
ShreWsbury-J Watson. Conservative, 1 1926;
Mr.. Jones. Gladstonian. 1860
Liverpool dstrict-G. S. Baden
Powell, Conservative, 3,0S4; Mr.. Nevill, Glad
stonian, 2,l72. South Stafford. Mr.. Howartb,
| Conservative, 3,645; Mr.. Mather Gadstonian,
3,488. Liverpool, West Derby. Lord q g. J. Ham
ilton Conservative, 1904; Nr Hemphii, Glad
Bury ST. Edmunds-Lofd Francis Hervey,
Conservative, 1,l35; Mr.. Goodwin. Gladstonian,
800.
Lynn Regis-1Ir Bourke, Conservative, 2, ZOO
feature of today's polling is the great num-
Der OF abstentions. In nearly every the
votes ars greatly reduced in number The Lib
erals have won seats in East Leeds Southwest
Manchester, North Manchester and in the ex-
| change division of Liverpool. The Tories have
won seats in South Salford West Stafford, Here
ford, Hastings, Falmouth and South Bristoi-a
net Tory gain of two. The Unionist candidate
for Newcastle under-Lyme holds his seat not
withstanding frantic efforts to defeat him. The
Unionist candidate at Bristol is equally success
full
Jacob Bright. Gladstonian, brother of John
Bright is elected in Manchester Sir T. Bras
sey, Gladstonian, who left Hastings to contest
| Livehpool, is defeated.
At Stockport Jennings, Tory. received 4, 702;
| Gedde, Tory, 4,495; Leigh, Liberal 4, 1874, and
Dayey. Liberal. 3. 933.
In West Leeds, Herbert Gladstone received
| 5,226, and Williams 9 97O. 1t is feared that to-
day. pcaling will depress the Liberals
spnSEsmes, commenting on the elections, says:
Though no conclusion of numerical advantage
has been gained by either side it is evident that,
even with the transfer of the Irish vote, Mr..
Gladstone barely holds his own in the bor-
oughs.
The Daily News says the government has not
done badly. considering the disadvantages un-
der which it has been fighting.
The Standard saws: "The results are highly
encouraging to the Unionists. Either the Irish
element is much less important than the Par
nellires pretend, the defections among the
Liberals are more serious than Mr. Gladstones
friends would like to admit"
The Daily Telegram says: "It is too early to
presaee the result but far there is little or no
announcement for Mr. Gladstone's wild
project"
John Bright Denounced by Gladstone.
LONDON, July 2.-Mr. Gladstone has written
the following letter to Mr. John Bright:
EDINBURGH, July2.
'sMy Dear Mr.. Bright am sorry to be COM
PEELED to again address you In your speech at
Birmingham you charge me with having sue
cessfully concealed my thoughts last November
You ought to know that this is not fact, for.
In reply to others from whom this gross charge
was more to be expected than from you,
pointed out that on Nov. g. told my electors
! in Edinburgh that if the Irish elections went as
[ expected, the magnitude of the subject they
would bsing forward would throw all others in
the shade, and that it went down to the very
roots and foundations of our whole civil and po.
| litical constitution. Do you now adhere to your
accusation?
"Secondl You say that described CON
spiracy' now existing in Ireland marching
through rapine to break up the kingdom. This,
also, Is contrary to fact In 1881, there was in
my opinion, such conspiracy against the pay
ment of rent in the union counties, and I 80 de-
| scribed ir. In my opinion there is no such con-
spiracy now, nor anything in the least degree
resembling it. You put into my mouth words
which, coming from me, would be absolute
| falsehoods.
"Thirdly-You charge me with want Of frank
ness because have not pledged the government
to some definite line of action in regard to the
| land bill. charge of this kind, as between old
colleagues and friends, is. to say the least un-
usual. Evidently you have not read the bill or
my speech introducing it, and you have never
been concerned in the practical work of legisla-
| tion on difficult and complicated subjects. The
| foundation of your charge is that, on such
| subject, do not, in the midst of overwhelming
work, formulate at once a new course and
| method of action without consulting my col
| leagues. 1t might have occurred to you, who
| have been in the Cabinet. that such a course on
my part would have been indecent and disloyal,
and that should greatly prefer to bear all the
charges and suspicious which you are the man
| to fasten on me, for you state that you con-
vinced that it is my intention to thrust the land
bill through Parliament.
IF am q man capable of such intention,
wonder that you ever took Office with one SO
| ignorant of the spirit of the Constitution and
| arbitrary in character Though this appears to
be your opinion of me- do not think that opin-
ion is held by my countrymen. You quote not
word in support OF your charge, which
is absolutely untrue. Every candidate
will take his own view, but l certainly will not
forego my right to make some effort to amend
| the dangerous and mischevous land bills passed
last year. l have done what could to avoid a
controversy with you, and while you have driven