The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 14
The House of Commons — Under the old Regime
The House of Commons
Under the old Regime.
Election Expenses.
Liberal Expenses. | Conservative Expenses. | |
---|---|---|
East Cheshire | £2,404 | £8,205 |
West Essex | 2,542 | 5,080 |
South Essex | 1,525 | 15,531 |
Herefordshire | 3,177 | 6,018 |
West Kents | 5,415 | 10,646 |
Middlesex | 6,377 | 11,506 |
Moumouthshire | 3,268 | 8,960 |
South Northumberland | 3,334 | 6,750 |
West Somerset | 3,263 | 6,430 |
East Surrey | 6,990 | 12,437 |
Breconshire | 2,830 | 5,239 |
Carmarthenshire | 1,538 | 6,311 |
Carnarvonshire | £3,175 | £9,227 |
Montgomery shire | 6,650 | 13,453 |
Pembrokeshire | 928 | 2,998 |
Bath | 1,438 | 3,464 |
Chelsea | 3,715 | 5,631 |
Dudley | 1,711 | 4,561 |
Greenwich | 3,621 | 7,166 |
Hackney | 1,588 | 4,134 |
Marylebone | 2,445 | 5,395 |
Norwich | 1,554 | 6,493 |
Portsmouth | 2,053 | 5,052 |
Sheffield | 2,542 | 4,025 |
Westminster | 3,588 | 6,146 |
York | 4,398 | 6,111 |
Cardiff | 1,439 | 3,278 |
£85,508 | £210,253 |
And the following is a condensed
Summary of the Full Return.
Hence it appeared that at the close of the General Election the Liberals had a majority of 175—414 to 239. By the subsequent voiding of 12 seats, 7 of them held by Liberals, and 5 by Conservatives, the numbers were reduced to 407 against 234, and the majority to 173. According to the expenditure at contested elections specified in the Return, that of. the Liberals was £740,016, that of the Conservatives £936,586, i.e. £189,570 more, although their defeat was attributed to want of money. The total on both sides was thus £1,681,602, but this must have been very much below the mark, for, in the first place, it did not include the charges of Returning Officers at 65 uncontested elections, or any account at all respecting 25 contested elections, or, most important of all, what was spent in bribing, feasting, and drenching electors. If these items had been included, the cost of the Election Saturnalia of 1880 would probably have turned out to be nearer to £3,000,000 than £2,000,000 sterling.