Evening star., 1900-10-27
COST OF ELECTIONS
Men Who Aspire to Parliament Find
It Expensive.
NOT Is BAD as II USED TO Be
Famous Contests on Which Vast
Fortunes Were Spent.
OTHER TIMELY SUBJECTS

Special Correspondence of The Evening Star
LONDON, October IL. 1900.
With the exception of the contest in Ork-
ney and Shetland, to be decided a week
hence. the curtain has been rung down on
the general election of 1900. 1t has been a
struggle that people will remember, for 1t
has come like the second election of Lin
coin during the final scenes of a war that is
to all intents and purposes civil war
No one doubted what the general result
would be, but despite the success of the
Salisbury regime, it cannot but be a dis
appointment to the government that the
majority Is not increased to at least the
figure they started the last parliament
with.
1t Is curious thing that while the United
states presidential elections have been get
ting more expensive, general elections in
England, which correspond to our quadren-
NAL appeal to electors, have been decreas-
ing In expense.
1t is popular gibe in England to alIu;le
to the corruption of American politics. but
the convenient British memory does not so
back of 1885, when the total expenses of
elections for new parliament were fixed
py law at maximum of S5,276, OBS. Before
that date, as l shall show, enormous Suns
were spent
Expensive Elections.
The last general election in 1895 cost s3,-
o66.665. On an average each election in
VolVed the outlay of $5,770. Thus, in round
hgures, each member of the house of COM
mons paid about $1,000 for his election
The actual expenses varied from the nil of
the gentlemen returned unopposed for the
universities of Oxford and Glasgow to
Sl0,o7o spent on his election by the success
1ul candidate for the Romford division of
Essex. On an average each vote polled in
1888 represented a cost of SO cents. On the
other hand, the price of votes ranged from
$o2.29 for each of those given to the inde-
pendent candidate for ST. Pancras a divis-
ion of London to the 5-cent vote of the
member for Fermanagh. Scottish elections
are more expensive than those in any other
part of the kingdom. Votes averaged 81 IA
each, while the English were rs cents and
Irish 95 cents apiece.
Before the passing of the corrupt prac-
tees act in 1851 the general election must
have cost at least $15,Oo0,ooo or s20,oO,oOO.
The most extravagant election in 1895 was
contested for less than S17,500
Large Sums Expended.
So recently as 1876 100000 was expended
in the struggle for one seat. In that year
Lord George Hamilton's successful cam
paign in Middlesex cost s65, 900, while his
opponent. Mr.. Herbert Gladstone unsuc-
cessfully expended half that amount In
the old days such an amount would not
have been remarkable. Two hundred and
nifty dollars was an average price to
cure the vote of "a free and independent
elector.' Boroughs had their fixed rates
for votes For instance, Sheridan entered
the house of commons by the simple method
OF paying the $25 per vote demanded by the
electors of Stafford. Wilberforce found
that he would in all respects satisfy the
burgesses of Hull by paying them $50 a
vote
The rate differed in various towns. The
electors of Leicester copvipped
of candidates fitness to represent them
until he valued their votes at $50 apiece.
The tariff price at Shaftesbury was 800
per vote. When an elector refused an offer
of $3.50 a year and $500 in cash for his
vote and interest, the only conclusion was
that the opposite party had offered more.
Beer ad lib and free food. with a small
money payment. usually sufficed for the
poorer voters.
To Obtain the Franchise.
At a Bristol election in 1912 every blue
who claimed his rights had an allowance of
fourteen pounds Of beef, three-quartern
loaves of wheaton bread tthen selling at SO
cents each) and 50 in money. Drink could
be had for the asking at any public house.
For the above consideration any number
of single men were ready to qualify
voters by marrying the widows of freemen.
The widows were quite willin' " at the
same price.
But the marriage entailed no serious
consequences. The couples were .--ired by
the candidates agent, and taken to church
to be married in patches of twenty. These
were purely marriages de CONVEYANCE, and
mutually dissolved by simple expedient.
After the man had voted he repaired with
his wife to the churchyard. Standing on
either side of a tomb, with the dead be-
tween them, they said, Death US do part"
and regained single blessedness! The can
didates would spend $4,000 or $4,000 on this
wooing Of electors alone.
Throwing Money Away.
With such items as yellow ribbons, SILL
900; for mobs, S12,SOO." it can be easily un-
derstood that expenses soon mounted up
into the hundreds of thousands. The de-
feated candidate would spend but little less
In 1906 the ministerial candidates for
Hampshire spent $125, $50 apiece to secure
their election. During the polling 5000 a
day would be distributed in cash and enter
tainment by the parties, and with the poll
ing covering forty days huge sums were
sQuandered. Thus one can understand the
bill for $4,000 presented by the proprietors
Of thirty inns and public houses in the
town of Haverfordwest to the defeated
candidate at the county election for Penn
brokeshire in 1881. In last desperate ef-
fort the defeated candidate at Maidstone In
1896 scattered $4,000 in the last seven
hours of polling In 1907 the contest at
York between Wilberforce and Lord Milton
cost over $150O,OOO. Wilberforce's expenses,
despite HluCH 6IdluilouS SSINlSc, amounted
to 1922, 600 in the fifteen days poll. His op-
ponent spent money like water
The Spendthrift Election.
AS much was spent over a single contest
in the old days as is over the whole general
election now. One of the most unique, and
certainly the most expensive. parliamentary
contests in history Is the 'spendthrift cleo
ton of Northampton in 176S. The candi-
dates were Sir George Osborne Sir George
Bridges Rodney and the Hon. Thomas