New-York tribune., 1900-10-08
BRITISH ELECTION EXPENSES.

One interesting point of contrast between the
electoral campaigns which are simultaneously
being Waged in Great Britain and the United
States is that of election expenses. 1t might
be rash to attempt to say how much more or
less costly a general election is in one country
than in the other. Convincing data on that
subject are lacking. The expense of a general
election in Great Britain is exactly ascertain
able. In the United States it is not not to
within a million dollars. In this State it is
true, candidates are required to report the sums
expended by them. But of the sums spent in
their behalf by their friends or by 1.-The organ
izaton,' no account is taken. In other States
no attempt at any accounting is made. And
whether or not such reports required no
limit is placed upon the sums which may be
spent. In Great Britain, on the contrary, not
only are all candidates required to make re-
ports of their election expenses, but also those
expenses are rigidly limited by law Under
the Corrupt Practices act the expenses of a
Parliamentary candidate-apart from his per-
sonal expenses and the charges of the return
ing of1cer-must not in a borough exceed 81, $50
for the first 1000 electors and $3.50 more for
each additional 1000 and in a county they
must not be more than $9,250 for the first 1000
and $500 for each additional LOCO electors
The personal expenses of the candidate are,
of course, not limited, but for all above $500
he must make detailed accounting.
The result of the operations of this act has
been to correct many of the scandalous abuses
which formerly marked British elections Time
was when votes were freely purchased and
when a contested election would cost each
candidate from $4,000 to $4,000. Twenty-Five
years ago the elections bill of the United King
dom amounted to more than $5 for each vote
there were in 1895 6,33O,52O registered electors
Of whom 8867060 actually voted there were
1,1S1 candidates for the go seats, and the total
expense bill aggregated f773,333, or in round
numbers $3,S66,665. The average cost of each
vote therefore, was about 90 cents The cost
was highest in Scotland where it was 81 16 a
vote. and lowest in Ireland, where it was rs
cents, while in England and Wales it was 90
cents. The costs of individual contests of
course, varied greatly. Thus, among the ten
Cabinet Ministers who had to fight for their
seats Mr.. Chaplin had the largest bill to pay,
it being no less than $685. while Sir NJ W
Ridley had the smallest only $3.50 Mr. Balfour
paid S3,S15 Mr.. Chamberlain $2455 and Mr.
Goschen $3.50.
The cost of a general election varies greatly
according to the interest in the campaign and
the prospects of a close result. Thus the famous
Home Rule campaign Of 1885 was by far the
most expensive under the present law, for
the reason that almost every seat was Stub
bOrnIy contested. In 1892 the election was close
and exciting, and very expensive There were
1907 candidates, and the bill of costs was
81, 792. $50 In 1895 the Liberals were demoraI-
ized and apathetc, and the Unionists had a
'walkOver'; there were only 1191 candidates.
and the expenses were nearly S1OOOOOO less
than in 1892. The present campaign will prob
ably have closer result than that Of 1895 but
is no more vigorously waged and will prob
ably be no more expensive. As to the amount
of unreported and illegitimate expenditures we
can only indulge in vague specuIations. II is
Ee1saEts9 that bribery and purchase of voters