election, which does not appear so far as evidence is accessible to have been marked by so much corruption as that of 1768. But the value of boroughs had certainly not declined in the market, as Gatton was sold for 75,000.1 fect suc For a time this measure undoubtedly introduced a Its impermarked improvement in the judicature of the House cess. of Commons. The disruption of the usual party combinations, at that period, was favourable to its success; and the exposure of former abuses discouraged their immediate renewal, in another form. But too soon it became evident, that corruption and party spirit had not been overcome.2 Crowds now attended the ballot, as they had previously come to the vote, not to secure justice, but to further political interests. The party which attended in the greatest force, was likely to have the numerical majority of names, drawn for the committee. From this list each side proceeded to strike thirteen of its political opponents; and the strongest thus secured a preponderance on the committee. Nor was this all. The ablest men, being most feared by their opponents, were almost invariably struck off,— a process familiarly known as "knocking the brains out of the committee;" and thus the committee became at once partial and incompetent. The members of the committee were sworn to do justice between the rival candidates; yet the circumstances under which they were notoriously chosen, their own party bias, and a lax conventional morality,-favoured by the obscurity and inconsistencies of the election law, and by the conflicting decisions of incapable tribunals,- led to this equivocal result:- that right was generally discovered Walpole's Mem., iv. 111 and n. Improved constitu tion of election committees. Distribu tion of pensions. to be on the side of that candidate, who professed the By these means, the majority of the House continued, Such being the vices and defects of the electoral places and system,-what were their results upon the House of Commons? Representatives holding their seats by a general system of corruption, could scarcely fail to be themselves corrupt. What they had bought, they were 1 These evils were ably exposed in the Report of the Committee on Controverted Elections (Mr. C. Buller), 1837-38, No. 44. 2 2 & 3 Vict. c. 38; Hansard's Deb., 3rd Ser., xlv. 379; ibid., 34 & 5 Vict. c. 58, and 11 & 12 | but too ready to sell. And how glittering the prizes offered as the price of their services! Peerages, baronetcies, and other titles of honour; patronage and court favour for the rich,-places, pensions, and bribes for the needy. All that the government had to bestow, they could command. The rapid increase of honours1 attests the liberality with which political services were rewarded; while contemporary memoirs and correspondence disclose the arts, by which many a peerage has been won. From the period of the Revolution, places and Restrained pensions have been regarded as the price of political ment. dependence; and it has since been the steady policy of Parliament to restrain the number of placemen, entitled to sit in the House of Commons. To William III. fell the task of first working out the difficult problem of a constitutional government; and amongst his expedients for controlling his Parliaments, was that of a multiplication of offices. The country party at once perceived the danger with which their newly-bought liberties were threatened from this cause, and endeavoured to avert it. In 1693, the Commons passed a bill to prohibit all members hereafter chosen from accepting any office under the Crown; but the Lords rejected it. In the following year it was renewed, and agreed to by both Houses; when the king refused his assent to it. Later in his reign, however, this principle of disqualification was commenced, the Commissioners of Revenue Boards being the first to whom it was applied.2 And at last, in 1700, it was enacted that after the accession of the House of Hanover, "no person who has an office or place of profit under the king, or receives a pension 1 See supra, p. 229. 269. (Stamps); 11 & 12 Will. III. c. 2 24 & 8 Will. & Mary, c. 21 (Excise). Acts of Secret Pensions. from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons." This too stringent provision, however, was repealed,-before it came into operation2,-early in the reign of Anne. It was, indeed, incompatible with the working of constitutional government; and if practically enforced, would have brought Parliament into hopeless conflict with the executive. By the Act of Settlement of that reign, other restrictions were introduced, far better adapted to correct the evils of corrupt influence. The holder of every new office created after the 25th of October, 1705, and every one enjoying a pension from the Crown, during pleasure, was incapacitated from sitting in Parliament; and members of the House of Commons accepting any old office from the Crown, were obliged to vacate their seats, though capable of re-election. It was the object of this latter provision to submit the acceptance of office by a representative, to the approval of his constituents; a principle which,—notwithstanding several attempts to modify it,-has since been resolutely maintained by the legislature. Restrictions were also imposed the multiplication of commissioners.4 upon At the commencement of the following reign, incapacity was extended to pensioners for terms of years 5; but as many pensions were then secretly granted, the law could not be put in force. In the reign of George II. several attempts were made to enforce it; but they all miscarried. Lord Halifax, in debating-one of these bills, said that secret pensions were the worst form of 1 12 & 13 Will. III. c. 2, s. 3. 3 4 Anne, c. 8. 46 Anne, c. 7. 6 No less than six bills were passed by the Commons, and rejected by the Lords; Parl. Hist., viii. 789; ibid., ix. 369; ibid., xi. 510; ibid., xii. 591. Bill of 1742. bribery: "A bribe is given for a particular job; a pension is a constant, continual bribe." Early in the reign of George III. Mr. Rose Fuller-who had been a stanch Whig, was bought off by a secret pension of 500l. which he enjoyed for many years. The cause of his apostasy was not discovered till after his death.2 Still the policy of restricting the number of offices The Place capable of being held by members of the House of Commons, was steadily pursued. In 1742 the Place Bill, which had been thrice rejected by the Commons, and twice by the Lords, at length received the Royal assent. It was stated in a Lords' protest, that two hundred appointments were then distributed amongst the members of the House of Commons.4 This Act added many offices to the list of disqualifications, but chiefly those of clerks and other subordinate officers of the public departments. the reign of By these measures the excessive multiplication of Places in offices had been restrained; but in the reign of Geo. III. George III. their number was still very considerable; and they were used,-almost without disguise,-as the means of obtaining parliamentary support. Horace Walpole has preserved a good example of the unblushing manner, in which bargains were made for the votes of members, in exchange for offices. Mr. Grenville wrote him a letter, proposing to appoint his nephew, Lord Orford, to the rangership of St. James's and Hyde Parks. He said, "If he does choose it, I doubt not of his and his friend Boone's hearty assistance, and believe I shall see you, too, much oftener in the House of Commons. This is offering you a bribe, but 'tis such a one as one honest good-natured man may, 1 Parl. Hist., xi. 522. 2 Almon's Corr., ii. 8; Rockingham Mem., i. 79, n. 3 15 Geo. II. c. 22. 4 Lords' Protest, 1741; Parl. Hist., xii. 2. |