, 1880-03-28
COST OF ELECTIONS IN ENGLAND.

CU6l UE ELECI1QN5, In EtN0AhaO'
One reads much in the English newspapers
about the corruption Of American politics;
buta statement recently made that the cleo
tion contest now raging In England will cost
over $4,000 600 indicates that England is not
vcryfree from bribery, andblackmail. and dis
honest means of influencing voters, and Amer
leans might retort on their oVercensorlous
critics by advising them to follow their own
moral counsels.
The amount of money spent in securing
election from 345 English and Welsh county
seats at the last election was S2,2oo,WO. anu
only seventy~eight seats were contested' the
candidates for the other seats having walk
over. In North Durham, four candidates
spent, or rather returned as spent,-for the
real expenses are double the amount acknoWl-
edged,-the snug sum Of S14l, ,NO. The
cost of contesting the English and Welsh
boroughs was a trifle more than that ct the
counties. The amount expended III Scot
land, where there are only sixty seats, was
5000, ,000, while In Ireland, where there are luz
seats, the expenditure was but 100000, Of
which the members Of thetwo English par
ties spent s:25, 600, and the tifty-nine Home
Rulers obtained their seats at the modest
price of S1.250 each.
But, as was before stated, the published ex-
penditures Of candidates on which the above
figures are based give but a faint idea OF
the cost of all election, for only the amount
Of the legitimate expenses is made public.
No mention is made of the enormous amount
spent in corrupting electors A few cases
,;<r1,% 1,c,, $..y nf
election at Bridgewater, small town in Eli
glant. some years ago cost the successful
candidate, who, by the way, was
afterwards unseated for corrupt prac-
tices, S150.000; and his election for
Dublin City in ls6s cost Guinness, the brewer,
100000. The unfortunate Mr.. Munster, who
shot himself at ST. Louis few years ago,
spent SIS, 600 in obtaining his election for the
borough Of Mallow, which contains only 2GS'
voters,
The modus operandi by which votes are Sc
cured is something like this: The candidate
or his agent goes into the voters saloon,--the
ru1nseller is no less open to conviction in
England than in Ancrica,-ealls for a
drink, hands out El0 note, and forgets to ask
for the change. In the country districts mat
ters nre managed differently. Tie candidate
employs the farmers son as agent, hires his
team to convey voters to the polls, or buys
his horses and cattle ut unexpectedly high
prices, If the clector fails to be convinced
under these circumstances his case Is hope
less.
The operation Of the Ballot act has, to some
degree, checked the expenditure Of money
in these ways, for the free and indie
pendent elector may take the generous
candidates money and vote as he pleases,
and no person will be the wiser, unless lie
should become slightly inebrlated through
his suddenly-acquired wealth aud "blab"
the transaction.
The Campaign Committees of the great
parties Of America can scarcely ever expect
to be able to expend half the amount spent
in England IN carrying OH the canvass Of
their respective parties. and yet the number
Of voters here is out Of all comparison
greater than the number in England. Are
we more virtuous than our cousins after all:
Has England to be our pupil, rather than our
teacher, as to morality in politics? Shall it
become the duty of the American press to
lecture her about her evil ways and her po-
lftical and moral turpitude?