II. London.  And do you really call this a “great triumph?” Undoubtedly Mr Pattison was returned; but is it a matter of congratulation that this notorious political nonentity, who openly, we understand, entertains and will support Chartist opinions, is returned instead of such a man as Mr Baring?  What was the majority of Mr Pattison?  One hundred and sixty-five, out of twelve thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine who actually voted.  And how was even that majority secured?  By the notorious absence from London—­as is always the case at that period of the year (21st October 1843)—­of vast numbers of the stanchest Conservative electors.  There is no doubt whatever, that had the election happened one fortnight later than it did, Mr Baring would have been returned by a large majority, in spite of the desperate exertions of the Anti-corn-law League and Mr Rothschild and the Jews.  As it was, Mr Baring polled more (6367) than had ever been polled by a Conservative candidate for London before; and had an immense majority over his competitor, among the superior classes of the constituency.[30] At another election, we can confidently predict that Mr Baring will be returned, and by a large majority, unless, indeed, the Charter should be the law of the land; in which case Mr Pattison will probably enjoy another ovation.

    [30] Among the Livery, the numbers were—­Baring, 3196;
    Pattison, 2367;—­majority for Baring, 889!

    Among the Templars—­Baring, 258; Pattison, 78!!—­majority
    for Baring, 180!

III. Kendal.  Is this, too, a victory?  “Another such, and you are undone.”  Why?  Till Mr Bentinck presented himself before that enlightened little constituency, no Conservative dared even to offer himself; ’twas a snug little stronghold of the Anti-corn-law League interest, and yet the gallant Conservative gave battle against the whole force of the League; and after a mortal struggle of some fourteen days, was defeated by a far smaller majority than either friends or enemies had expected, and has pledged himself to fight the battle again.  Here, then, the League and their stanch friends have sustained an unexpected and serious shock.

IV. Salisbury.—­We have not the least desire to magnify this into a mighty victory for the Conservative party; but the interference of the Anti-corn-law League certainly made the struggle a very critical and important one.  We expected to succeed, but not by a large majority; for ever since 1832, the representation had (till within the last year) been divided between a Conservative and a Liberal.  However, the Anti-corn-law League, flushed with their “triumphs” at London and Kendal, flung all their forces ostentatiously into the borough, and exhibited a disgusting and alarming specimen of the sort of interference which it seems we are to expect in all future elections, in all counties and boroughs.  It was, however, in vain; the ambitious young gentleman who had the benefit of their services, and who is a law-student in London, but the son of the great Earl of Radnor, lost his election by a large majority, and the discomfited League retired ridiculously to Manchester.  When we heard of their meditated descent upon Salisbury, we fancied we saw Cobden and his companions waddling back, geese-like, and exclaimed—­