The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-04-11 00:00:00

ELECTION EXPENSES.

The Mayor of Brighton has published an abstract of
the expenses incurred by Professor Fawcett and Mr.
James White (the late members) at the recent election
for the borough. The ordinary expenses were paid
jointly, but as Professor Fawcett did not employ any
paid agent or canvassers, his total is only £373 195.,
while 'Mr. White's is £514 Is. 7d. The proportion of
the returning officer's charges was £lOl is. 94d. each.
The joint account for printing and advertising
amounted to V2OOlBB. lid., the next largest item being
295 Lk fid. for clerks and messengers, the balance
being made up in the hire of rooms, erecting platforms,
bill posters' charges, stamps, canvassing books, and
sundries Professor Fawcett's separate account for
printing and advertising is £42 148. 2d., and Mr.
White's £5l Is. 9il. For so large a constituency the
totals for a contested election are very small.
The expenses of the candidates at Midhurst borough
election have also been published. Mr. Perceval, the
successful candidate, is charged £220 agency fees, and
vet his total expenses are returned as £399 lfie. Mr.
W. T. Mitford (unseated) paid £52 10s. for agency,
and his total expenses were £215 is. Each candidate
paid £37 10s. towards the returning officer's expenses.
The successful candidate paid more than half his
amount to agents.
The Returning Officer for the City of Oxford has
just received detailed statements of the expenses in-
curred at the General Election for this cite on the 3rd
of FeLcuary, who the former Minister of War and the
then Solicitor-General were opposed by Mr. A. W.
Hall, in the Conservative interest. The aggregate ex-
pense incurred by the three candidates we learn from
these figures was £4,536 68. 841. Lord Cardwell's ex-
penses are put down at £1,346 13s. 5d., and Sir
William Harcourt's at £1,233 is. 3d. In the case of
each candidate the Returning Officer's expenses were
2216 is.

The expenditure of the successful Conservative can-
didates at the late election for Lynn—Lord C. J.
Hamilton, M.P., and the Hon. Robert Bourke. M.P.
—was £462. The Liberal candidates—Mr. E. Wode-
house and Sir \V. Ffolkes—expended £4lO. The ex-
penditure for agents was the same on both sides—
viz. £2lO.
sides—
viz.,
total expenses of the recent Sheffield borough
election were £4,146, against £10,834 in 1868. Mr.
Roebuck's—which are the highest—are £1,119, Us. &I.
The expenses of the candidates at the Bolton election
were—Messrs. Hick and Gray (Conservatives), £1,004
13s. 3d. ; Messrs. J. K. Cross and Knowles
(Liberals), £939 19s. The Conservatives paid £383 Ss.
and the Liberals £376 104. for canvassers, refresh-
ments, and carriages. The Returning Officers' expenses
were 1:479 Els. &I.

The following are the expenses connected with the
election for the City of Edinburgh :--Mr. M'Laren's
expenses, £847 12s. 6d. ; Mr. Miller's, £3,255 4s. sd. ;
Mr. Cowan's, 13,331 135. fsl. ; Mr. Macdonald's,
£1,750 10s. Hid.
At Maidstone the expenses of the successful candi-
dates, Sir J. Lubbock and Sir S. IL IN'aterlow, were
£1,038 lOs 11d.. including £76 lls, returning officers'
expenses, while £406 was spent for printing, advertis-
ing, bill posting, and stationery. The expenses of the
unsuccessful candidates, Colonel Stanley and Major
ROSS, were £758 2s. Rd. ; returning officer, £76 lls. 2d.;
advertising, printing, ,kc.. CM.