their seats, and paid dearly for them,-owed no allegiance to political patrons. Free from party connections, they sought admission into Parliament, not so much with a view to a political career, as to serve mere personal ends,—to forward commercial speculations, to extend their connections, and to gratify their social aspirations. But their independence and ambition well fitted them for the service of the court. The king was struggling to disengage himself from the domination of party leaders; and here were the very men he needed,―without party ties or political prepossessions, -daily increasing in numbers and influence,-and easily attracted to his interests by the hope of those rewards which are most coveted by the wealthy. They soon ranged themselves among the king's friends; and thus the court policy,-which was otherwise subversive of freedom,-became associated with parliamentary corruption. Act of The scandals of the election of 1761 led to the pass- Bribery ing of an act in the following year, by which pecuniary 1762. penalties were first imposed for the offence of bribery.1 But the evil which it sought to correct, still continued without a check. Where the return of members was left to a small, but independent body of electors, their individual votes were secured by bribery; and when it rested with proprietors or corporations, the seat was purchased outright. The sale of boroughs,-an abuse of some antiquity2, and often practised since the time of Charles II. became, at the commencement of this reign, a general and notorious system. The right of property in boroughs 1 2 Geo. III. c. 24. 2 In 1571, the borough of Westbury was fined by the House of Commons for receiving a bribe of 47.; and the mayor was ordered to Sale of bo roughs. General election of 1768. was acknowledged, and capable of sale or transfer, like any other property. In 1766, Lord Hertford prevailed upon Lord Chatham's ministry to transfer to him the borough of Orford, which belonged to the crown.1 And Sudbury, infamous for its corruption until its ultimate disfranchisement 2, publicly advertised itself for sale.3 If a seat occupied by any member happened to be required by the government, for some other candidate, he was bought out, at a price agreed upon between them. Thus in 1764, we find Lord Chesterfield advising his son upon the best means of securing 1000l. for the surrender of his seat, which had cost him 2000l. at the beginning of the Parliament.4 The general election of 1768 was at least as corrupt as that of 1761, and the sale of scats more open and undisguised. They were bought by the Treasury 5, by great nobles for their clients, by speculators, and by gentlemen for whom there was no other way into Parliament. Some of the cases were so flagrant as to shock even the moral sentiments of that time. The corporation of Oxford, being heavily embarrassed, offered again to return their members, Sir Thomas Stapylton and Mr. Lee, on payment of their bond debts, amounting to 56701. These gentlemen refused the offer, saying that as they did not intend to sell the corporation, they could not afford to buy them; and brought the matter before the House of Commons. The mayor and ten of the aldermen were committed to Newgate; but after a short imprisonment, were discharged with a reprimand from the Speaker. Not discouraged, how 1 Walpole's Mem., ii. 361. 3 Walpole's Mem., i. 42. 4 Oct. 19th, 1764. Letters of Lord Chesterfield to his son, iv. 218. 5 Ann. Reg. 1768, p. 78. ever, by their imprisonment, they completed, in Newgate, a bargain which they had already commenced; and sold the representation of their city, to the Duke of Marlborough and the Earl of Abingdon. Meanwhile the town clerk carried off the books of the corporation which contained evidence of the bargain; and the business was laughed at and forgotten.1 For the borough of Poole, there were three candidates. Mauger, the successful candidate, promised the corporation 1000l., to be applied to public purposes, if he should be elected; Gulston made them a present of 7501., as a mark of gratitude for the election of his father on a former occasion; and Calcraft appears to have vainly tempted them with the more liberal offer of 1500l. The election was declared void.2 The representation of the borough of Ludgershall was sold for 90007. by its owner, the celebrated George Selwyn; and the general price of boroughs was said to be raised at that time, from 2500l. to 40001. or 5000l., by the competition of the East and West Indians. It was notorious at the time, that agents or "boroughbrokers" were commissioned by some of the smaller boroughs to offer them to the highest bidder. Two of these, Reynolds and Hickey, were taken into custody, by order of the House; and some others were sent to Newgate. While some boroughs were thus sold in the gross, the electors were purchased elsewhere by the most lavish bribery. The contest for the borough of Northampton was stated to have cost the candidates Nay, Lord Spencer is said 66 at least 30,000l. a side."5 1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 397; Walpole's Mem., iii. 153. 2 Feb. 10th, 1769; Com. Journ., xxxii. 199. 3 Letters of Lord Chesterfield to his son, Dec. 19th, 1767; April 12th 1768, iv. 269, 274. 4 Walpole's Mem., iii. 157. 5 Lord Chesterfield to his son, April 12th, 1768, iv. 274. New Shoreham to have spent the incredible sum of 70,0001, in contesting this borough, and in the proceedings upon an election petition which ensued.1 In 1771, the systematic bribery which had long precase, 1771. vailed at New Shoreham was exposed by an election committee the first appointed under the Grenville Act.2 It appeared that a corrupt association, comprising the majority of the electors, and calling itself "The Christian Club," had, under the guise of charity, been in the habit of selling the borough to the highest bidder, and dividing the spoil amongst its members. They all fearlessly took the bribery oath, as the bargain had been made by a committee of their club, who abstained from voting; and the money was not distributed till after the election. But the returning officer, having been himself a member of the society, and knowing all the electors who belonged to it, had rejected their votes. This case was too gross to be lightly treated; and an act was passed to disfranchise the members of the club, eighty-one in number, and to admit to the franchise all the forty shilling freeholders of the Rape of Bramber. An address was also voted to prosecute the five members of the committee, for a corrupt conspiracy.3 Hindon and Shaftes In 1775, bribery was proved to have prevailed so widely and shamelessly at Hindon, that an election bury cases. committee recommended the disfranchisement of the borough'; and at Shaftesbury the same abuse was no less notorious.5 Cricklade case. In 1782, the universal corruption of the electors of Cricklade was exposed before an election committee. It appeared that out of two hundred and forty voters, 1 Walpole's Mem., iii. 198, n. by Sir D. Le Marchant. 2 Cavendish Deb., i. 191. 3 Com. Journ., xxxiii. 69, 102, 179; 11 Geo. III. c. 55. eighty-three had already been convicted of bribery; and that actions were pending against forty-three others.1 A bill was accordingly brought in, to extend the franchise to all the freeholders of the adjoining hundreds. Even this moderate measure encountered much opposition, especially in the Lords, where Lord Mansfield and Lord Chancellor Thurlow fought stoutly for the corrupt electors. Though the bill did not seek to disfranchise a single person, it was termed a bill of pains and penalties, and counsel were heard against it. But the cause of the electors, even with such supporters, was too bad to be defended; and the bill was passed.2 encouraged There can be little doubt that the king himself was Bribery cognisant of the bribery which, at this period, was syste-. by the matically used to secure Parliamentary support. Nay, King. more, he personally advised and recommended it. Writing to Lord North, 16th October, 1779, he said: “If the Duke of Northumberland requires some gold pills for the election, it would be wrong not to satisfy him."3 to restrain When the disgraceful traffic in boroughs was ex- Attempts posed in the House of Commons, before the general corruption, election of 1768, Alderman Beckford brought in a bill 1768-1786. requiring an oath to be taken by every member, that he had not been concerned in any bribery. According to Horace Walpole, the country gentlemen were favourable to this bill, as a protection against "great lords, Nabobs, commissaries, and West Indians:"4 but the extreme stringency of the oath, which was represented as an incitement to perjury,―a jealousy lest, under some of the provisions of the bill, the privileges of the House 1 Parl. Hist., xxii. 1027, 1167, 1388. 2 22 Geo. III. c. 31. 3 King's Letters to Lord North; Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 137, Walp. Mem., iii. 153, 157, 159. VOL. I. U |