“The total cost of electing the present Parliament was, it will thus be seen, £624,086, that of electing the last £1,026,645, showing a decrease of over £400,000. This enormous reduction was, however, partly due, of course, to the simple fact that there were many more uncontested elections in 1886 than in 1885. In 1885 there were 641 contests, in 1886 only 442. Now, uncontested elections do not cost nothing, but they cost very little. We shall not be far wrong, therefore, if, for the purpose of comparison, we ignore the cost in these cases, and

bring the figures of the two elections to a common measure on the basis of the number of contests. On this showing the cost of the 1886 election would-at the rate of the 1885 one-have been £707,920; it was £624,086 -leaving even so a reduction of over £80,000. The reduction will perhaps be brought out more clearly by the following comparative table:

It is a reduction, it will be seen, of about 10 per cent. all along the line. Absolutely and relatively to the number of contests alike the election of 1886 is the cheapest on record. 'Unionists' may fairly boast that although they carried the Union in 1800 by bribery and corruption, they 'maintained' it in 1886 on the cheap."

As was pointed out by the New York Evening Post, the most significant fact disclosed by the English elections of 1886 is "that the grand total of expenditure by candidates is only a little more than one-half of the grand total allowed by the law." The fact is, that competitive expenditure, as it exists in this country to-day, must continue because of the essential nature of all competi

tion of this kind to increase the outlay of all candidates whatever in a steady progression. Expenditure begets expenditure; and assuming that a candidate is permitted to spend as much as he pleases, his competitors will always be impelled to spend as much as he or suffer the consequences. It is in this way that certain districts get hopelessly debauched. Thus, when Mr. L. P. Morton first ran for Congress in New York City, his district was flooded with money; and when, subsequently, Mr. Roswell P. Flower and Mr. W. W. Astor, both millionaires, ran in the same district, the competitive expenditure was such as to produce almost complete demoralization. The history of the English law shows that where the permissible expenditure is limited the opposite effect is produced, and that candidates no longer being allowed to test their popularity by the length of their purses, find no motive or incentive to spend even the moderate sums allowed by law. In 1880, with about 3,000,000 voters in 419 constituencies, there was spent over £3,000,000 or $15,000,000; while in 1886, with an increased number of voters, there was expended but £624,086, or about $3,000,000. In 1880 ninety-five petitions alleging corrupt practices were presented, while only two were presented in 1885 and only one in 1886. To quote the New York Nation, referring to these facts, "Corruption in politics has been practically abolished." The most interesting

fact of all, however, is that already referred to, that the expenditure did not reach the permitted limit; commenting on which fact the London Daily News says, "The first thing which they (the figures) prove is the complete success of Sir Henry James's Act. The chief feature of that Act was that it laid down a maximum expenditure, to exceed which would be a corrupt practice voiding the seat. The experts said that the maximum was placed too low-the experience of the last election demonstrates that, as usual, the experts were wrong, and that on the contrary the maximum is too high. It would be possible to reduce by at least one-fourth the sums allowed by law without in any way starving the elections. There are very few cases in which the maximum was reached."

THE END.

Viewed from the Standpoint of Universal History. By JOHN FISKE. pp. 158. 12mo, Cloth, $1 00.

Mr. Fiske is one of the few Americans who is able to exercise a dispassionate judgment upon questions which have been the cause of quarrels between parties and sections. Mr. Fiske has a calm way of considering_our modern ideas from the standpoint of universal history.-N. Y. Journal of Commerce.

We know of no treatise concerning American history which is likely to exercise larger or better influence in leading Americans to read between the lines of our country's annals. ** * The little book is so direct and simple in the manner of its presentation of truth, so attractive in substance, that its circulation is likely to be wide. Its appeal is as directly to the farmer or mechanic as to the philosophic student of politics or history.-N. Y. Commercial Advertiser.

There is not a line in the entire work which is not laden with the richest fruits of a trained and powerful intellect.--Commercial Bulletin, Boston.

When Mr. Fiske comes to discuss American history by the comparative method, he enters a field of special and vital interest to all who have ever taken up this method of study. Our history, as the author says, when viewed in this broad and yet impartial way, acquires a new dignity. There is no need to say that Mr. Fiske's pages are worthy of the most careful study.-Brooklyn Union.

From this point of view the consideration of the political ideas of this country becomes something more than a mere study of history; it constitutes a page of philosophy, a social study of the most transcendant importance. Such is the spirit with which Prof. Fiske handles his subject. He shows how our institutions have grown and developed from the past, how they have a firm basis in nature, and how they must develop in the future. The lectures are important reading; they are also pleasant reading, for the literary style of Prof. Fiske is exceptionally pure, clear, and graceful.-Boston Gazette.

A volume of great interest, and illustrates very happily some of the fundamental ideas of American politics by setting forth their relations to the general history of mankind. * * * We heartily commend this little volume to such of our readers as desire to enlarge their ideas and views of the political principles underlying the foundations of our system of government.-Christian at Work, N. Y.

PUBLISHED BY HARPER & BROTHER, NEW YORK.

Sent by mail, postage prepaid, to any part of the United States or Canada, on receipt of the price.