387

at Derby. I suppose that you cannot leave your own place; if not, send some one in whom you can trust in your place. Let him go to Derby on receiving this, and find the County Tavern in the centre of the town, and send his card to Cox, Brothers, and Company, leadworks, as coming from Chester. That will be enough.-W. B., Monday." This letter was addressed to Mr. Frail, of Shrewsbury, a well-known electioneering agent; and an inquiry into the Derby election being held by a select committee of the House of Commons, they reported that an organised system of -bribery prevailed in the borough, and that the letter was written by the Right Hon. William Beresford, Secretary-at-War. They did not, how. ever, think there was sufficient evidence of his complicity in illegal transactions, but they considered the letter "exhibited a reckless indifference and regard to consequences which they cannot too highly censure."

"The Man in the Moon."-An election commission pursuing its inquiries into bribery at Wakefield, in 1859, came across several references to an individual called "the Man in the Moon," who appeared to have been actively concerned as an agent in electoral corruption. At length a witness said he had engaged the man in question. Mr. Serjeant Pigott: Who is he?-Witness: Well, I'd rather not disclose his name yet; but I can produce him if necessary. The secret has been so well kept that it would be a pity to disclose it before it is necessary.-Serjeant Pigott: Can you produce him to-day ?-Witness: Oh yes; he is hard by. I can bring him in at once.-Serjeant Pigott: We shall be delighted to see him.-Witness then left the court, and in a few minutes returned with the "Man in the Moon," who said his name was Whitehead, and he was an upholsterer at Bradford, but had been in the habit of taking part in electioneering affairs. Mr. Serjeant Pigott: I suppose you know you went by the name of "the Man in the Moon" while you were here ?Whitehead: : Well, I believe that was my designation.-Serjeant Pigott: And there is no doubt about your identity ?-Whitehead: Oh dear no; I'm the man, sure enough.

A Refuge for the Destitute.-In the debate on the second reading of the Reform Bill of Lord Derby's Government in 1859, Mr. Bright thus alluded to the small boroughs which it was proposed to retain under the bill: "Putting the case in the smallest number of words, you say that they send men into Parliament who cannot get in anywhere else. These boroughs form, in point of fact, a refuge for the politically destitute; and all that I have heard in their favour is, that the persons who find shelter in them are what would be called 'deserving objects. an election at Harwich the other day, and I remember a stater at the time. It was said that Mr. Bagshaw-not this House-had discharged a drunken gardener. There were traders who had carried out their principles further than the la tioned, and were imprisoned for smuggling. A respectable parson brought parish, who had not been out of his room for two years, was (by the aid of cordials, stimulants, and a sedan chair) to the poll; those four individuals influenced the result of the election Samples of the Sack.-Mr. Bright, in add

Birmingham in 1866, said: "Have you read the report of the proceedings at the commission for Yarmouth? Did you read that a late member for that borough is said to have spent 70,000l., to maintain his seat? Di you read that one gentleman, an inferior partner in a brewery, contributed 4000l. for the election of his partner, and that another gentleman, knowing nothing of that borough, went down there and supplied 6000l. to fight s contest spread only over a few days? Remember that when Yarmouth a any other borough is thus brought before the public, it is only a sample of a very considerable sack." Yarmouth was disfranchised by the Reform

Act of 1867.

"Legitimate” Election Expenses.-Mr. Lowe, in the debate on Reform in May, 1866, said: "We had a paper laid upon our table this morning, giving an account of the expenses of elections from 'S' downwards. I take the first few large boroughs, and I will read the expenses. The expense of the election for Stafford is 54007.; Stoke-upon-Trent, 62001.; Sunderland, 5000l.; and Westminster, 12,000l. These are the aggregate expenses of all the candidates. I take them as they come, without picking and choosing. I will now call attention to two or three counties. I will take the southern division of Derbyshire. The election cost 85007., and this is the cheapest I shall read. The northern division of Durham cost 14,6207., and the southern division 11,000l. South Esse cost 10,000l.; West Kent cost 12,000l.; South Lancashire, 17,000l.; South Shropshire, 12,000l.; North Staffordshire, 14,000l.; North Warwickshire, 10,000l.; South Warwickshire, 13,000l.; North Wiltshire, 13,0007.; South Wiltshire, 12,000l.; and the North Riding of Yorkshire, 27,000l.—aï legitimate expenses, but by no means the whole expense. Now, I ask the House how it is possible that the institutions of this country can endure, if this kind of thing is to go on and increase?"

Election Expenses in 1874.-It appeared by a return made to the House of Commons in August, 1874, after the general election, that the expenses incurred by the candidates throughout the United Kingdom amounted, omitting fractions of pounds, to 1,041,4361. Of this sum the expenses of the candidates for English counties were 383,8881.; for Welsh counties, 33,9007.; for cities and boroughs in England and Wales. 424,2041.; for Ireland (counties, cities, and boroughs), 80,1101.; and før. Scotland, 119,3361.

Contrasts in Returning Officers' Charges.-A Parliamentary return issued in 1879 showed that in the counties of England and Wales the returning officers' charges at the general election of 1874 were highes in the county of Middlesex, being 2273l. 58. 11d., and lowest in Bedford (where there was no contest), being 251. 19s. 4d. In eighteen other, counties the charges exceeded 1000l. The highest charge in the cities and boroughs of England and Wales was that for Lambeth, which amounte to 19801. 1s. 7d., and the lowest that for Harwich, which was only 68. bi In only one Scotch county were the charges more than 10007., namely. those for Perth, which amounted to 10561. 148. 1d. Glasgow headed the burghs with 24821. 148. 7d., Edinburgh coming next with 10217. 18. få In Ireland the counties for which the charges were highest were Galway

12007., and Down 1000l.; and in the boroughs, Dublin headed the list with 13061.

County Election Expenses in 1876, &c.-Official returns published in April, 1876, showed that at a recent contest in North Shropshire the expenses of the successful candidate, Mr. Stanley Leighton, amounted to 11,7277., and of the defeated candidate, Mr. Mainwaring, to 10,6881. -In a contest for North Norfolk in 1878, the expenses of Mr. E. Birkbeck, the successful Conservative candidate, were returned as 34961. Of this, 9451. was paid for agency, and 7421. for the conveyance of voters. The expenses of Sir T. F. Buxton, the unsuccessful Liberal candidate, amounted to 31907., of which 5721. was paid for agency, and 6381. for the conveyance of voters.

Cost of Elections in 1880.—The returns presented from the several counties and boroughs after the general election of 1880 showed the following among other high figures: In the county of Middlesex, the expenses on behalf of the successful candidates, Lord George Hamilton and Mr. Octavius Coope, were 11,506l. 8s. 2d.; and those of their unsuccessful competitor, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, amounted to 63771. 78. 74d., the largest item in this total being 9671. 138. 6d. for conveyance of voters. In West Kent, the expenses of Sir C. Mills and Viscount Lewisham were 10,6467. 13s. 10d.; of the unsuccessful candidate in the Liberal interest, Mr. Bompas, 45951. 13s. 4d.; and of Mr. J. May, a tenant-farmer candidate, 8197. 178. 6d. In South-west Lancashire, Sir R. Cross and Mr. J. Blackburne were returned at an expense of over 10,000l. In the West Riding of Yorkshire, eastern division, the expenses of the two successful Liberal members, Sir A. Fairbairn and Sir J. Ramsden, were 77031.; and those of their unsuccessful competitors, Mr. C. B. Denison and Lord Lascelles, were 73431. 17s. 9d. In the borough of Southwark, the expenses of Messrs. Cohen and Rogers were 80081. 68. 10d.; and those of Messrs. Cattley and Clarke, the defeated Conservative candidates, were 75621. 48. 8d. In the borough of Greenwich, Mr. Boord and Baron H. de Worms were debited with 71661. At Newcastle-on-Tyne, the expenses of Mr. Joseph Cowen were 22191., and those of Mr. Ashton Dilke, 20561.; these two gentlemen being the elected Liberal members. In the Flint Boroughs, the expenses of the successful Liberal candidate, Mr. J. Roberts, were 32441. 178. 6d. ; and those of his opponent, Captain Pennant, 34021. The cost of the Gravesend election, and the petition which followed and unseated the candidate returned, was estimated altogether at 20,000l. The unopposed return of Mr. Samuelson for Frome cost 3791. 3s. 5d., of which 891. 128. was for printing and advertising, 70l. 178. 3d. for hire of public halls and committee rooms, and 1671. 8s. 8d. for professional agency, messengers, clerks, postage, &c.

An Expensive Election in Oxfordshire.-An Oxfordshire election in 1754 was the cause of great party animosities. The sheriff returned all the four candidates, and they all petitioned, complaining of undue election and double return. After a very long debate, on the 18th of November and on many subsequent days, it was eventually decided that Lord Parker and Sir Edward Turner were the sitting members,

391

Moody and Sankey's hymn-books with something between the leaves. The law must be altered to make elections pure.-A solicitor of the town said a pure election was not possible in Norwich. The number of corruptible electors was between 3000 and 5000, and if either party agreed to leave them alone, that corrupt element would start a candidate of their own in order to get money.

66

The Ballot Act.-The Ballot Act was passed in 1872, to remain in force until the end of 1880. The first Parliamentary election under it occurred at Pontefract on the 15th of August, 1872, and was reported in characterised by remarkable the newspapers at the time to have been but tranquillity." At this election Mr. Childers was returned by a majority of eighty over Viscount Pollington, the numbers being 658 and 578; only about two-thirds of the number of registered electors were polled. The last of the open pollings under the old system took place in the city of Aberdeen, and the last hustings was erected in the borough of Wakefield.

Nomination Days.-The old nomination days were abolished by the Ballot Act of 1872. They did not, however, pass away without a strong effort being made for their retention. On the bringing up of the report of the committee, Mr. Sclater-Booth moved that the clause dispensing with the ancient practice in nominations (clause 1) should be struck out of the bill. Here ensued a discussion in which some peculiar facts were disclosed. Mr. Bernal Osborne said: "In my opinion, one of the most valuable clauses in the bill is that which proposes to abolish nominations. The honourable gentleman talked about the voices of the electors. As if the individual voice of an elector were ever heard at a nomination, and as if there were not a general agreement to roar, to hiss, and become debased with drink! The true-born Englishman is said to delight in that day. Now, who are the true-born Englishmen who take part in the proceedings at nominations? Why, the representatives of muscular Christianity-prize-fighters and people of that sort. I have spent as much money in retaining the services of those gentlemen as anybody in this House. (Much laughter.) One of my most efficient supporters in Nottingham was a gentleman who was always clothed as a clergyman of the Church of England, but who was really an ex-champion of England, This is a sample of your true-born Englishman on . . The honourable Bendigo by name. whose behalf we are to strike out the first clause. gentleman said in the simplicity of his heart that we might do away with open-air meetings, and hold the nomination in some hall or public room. Why, you would be worse off there than you would be in the open air. On the hustings it is possible to dodge the missiles, but what are you to do in a" town-hall, where, perhaps, the galleries are stormed vi et armis by

forces, and there is a general shindy? Immemorial custom know it is a custom which often breeds disorder and riot. It om to get rid of these immemorial customs, and thus make the ore quiet and orderly."-On the other hand most influential members of the House)

clause, a nomination would become so