Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-06-13
Cost Of English Elections.

OOoo Va Imp AACAA 31AOOuAVAce
For my part, I don't see how poor
man ever gets into Parliament, so vast
are the expenses assessed on, the several
candidates at general election. The
members are without any sort of recon-
pense whatever, and yet it often costs
the successful candidate as much as $780,
600 to $50, 900 to be elected. At the late
Liverpool election it cost both candi-
dates not less than $500 each in the
single item of postage incurred by them
in their appeal for his vote to each of
60, 900 electors. They also had heavy
travelling expenses to pay, and now the
successful candidate, after being in for
only about month, has to do it all over
again A general election is godsend
for the railroads as well as for the post
Office. 'sOut voters for counties may
have their travelling expenses paid, that
is to say, any person having a vote for a
county but happening to be at the time
OF contested election at distance from
this qualification, may legally be
brought to vote and sent back again at
the candidates expense. This may be
done even though the elector may be in
America or Australia, and in closely-con-
tested elections large sums are spent in
this way.
The earliest instance of the payment
OF election travelling expenses in En-
gland is recorded as having occurred at
the general election in 1879. Macauley,
the historian, says the contest continued
for weeks, and over the whole country
it was fierce and obstinate beyond ex-
ample. Vast sums were expended and
new tactics were resorted to. 1t was
noted as most extraordinary fact that
"horses were hired at great charge for
the conveyance of voters" WILDER
force, In his Memoirs" furnishes us
with more definite information on this
question CT election expenses. It cost
the sanity Wilberforce between $40, 900
| and $50, 900 to be elected for Hull when
young man, of which the sum of
$15, 900 was for travelling expenses alone.
This same distinguished Wilberforce
came out victor in what has always been
quoted as the most costly election that
has ever taken place in the United
Kingdom. This was his famous strug-
gle in 1907 for the representation of
Yorkshire There were three candi-
dates, and it is said that that election,
altogether, could not have cost less than
$2,300,000. The expenses incurred by
Wllberforce's two opponents of
whom, Lord Hardwood, declared he was
ready to spend his whole Barbados
property to secure the seat-in bringing
up supporters from all parts of the king
| dom. as well as from abroad. were esti-
mated at 100000 apiece. The polling
continued fifteen days, and, notwith-
standing the wealth opposing him, VIII
berforce headed the poll from the be-
ginningto the end of the struggle. Fort
unately for the winner, the enthusiasm
of his victorious supporters induced
them to raise public subscription and
reimburse him his extravagant expenses.
The cost of the famous Yorkshire con-
test that have just referred to dwarfs
all others In the matter of total expenses;
but I can mention some other very
large amounts. An election for the
Northern District of Durham cost the
successful candidate $4,000; one in
South Lancashire cost 1856, one in
South Shropshire cost 100000; one in
South Warwiokshire, $65, 900, and one in
the North Riding Of Yorkshire, $135,-
00G. This was within the last fifteen
years, and it was claimed that all the
sums were legitimately expended. Quite
a respectable amount Of money for a
man to pay for the honor of serving his
country at his own expense; but there
are In quite recent times instances of far
greater prodigality. Not very long since
there was an election at Norwich which
cost one enterprising and patriotic
Briton $3.50, 900 to secure; but SO glaring
were the acts of bribery, SO barefaced did
the honorable electors of the mother
country sell their franchises for golden
g11ineas, that the successful candidate
was refused his seat in Parliament, and
Norwich has been without representa-
ton ever since.