reign of George II.,1 and to the judges of the courts in Ireland, in the reign of George IV.2 In 1840, the same principle was applied to the Judge of the Admiralty Court. All the new judges in equity were disqualified by the Acts under which they were constituted. The solitary judge still enjoying the capacity of sitting in the House of Commons, is the Master of the Rolls. In 1853, a Bill was introduced to withdraw this exceptional privilege; but it was defeated by a masterly speech of Mr. Macaulay.*

Policy of dis

tions.

These various disqualifications were deemed necessary for securing the independence of Parliament; and the policy is still recognized, when the dangers they qualificawere designed to avert, are less to be apprehended. It is true that independence has been purchased at the cost of much intellectual eminence, which the House of Commons could ill afford to spare; but this sacrifice was due to constitutional freedom, and it has been wisely made.

But the independence of Parliament was formerly corrupted by grosser expedients than places and Pecuniary

members.

pensions. Vulgar bribes were given, directly bribes to and indirectly, for political support. Our Parliamentary history has been tainted with this disgrace, from the reign of Charles II. far into that of George III. That Charles, himself unscrupulous and corrupt, should have resorted to bribery, is natural enough. His was a debased reign, in which all forms of corruption flourished.

Members were then first exposed to the temptation of pecuniary bribes. In the reigns of the Tudors and the first. two Stuarts, prerogative had been too strong to need the aid of such persuasion; but after prerogative had been rudely shaken by the overthrow of Charles I., it was sought to sup

17 Geo. II. c. 16.

21 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 44.

8 Much to the personal regret of all who were acquainted with that eminent man, Dr. Lushington, who lost the seat in which he had so long distinguished himself.

4 Judges' Exclusion Bill, June 1st, 1853; Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., cxxvii. 996.

port the influence of the Crown, by the subtle arts of corruption. Votes which were no longer to be controlled by fear, were purchased with gold. James II., again, secure of a servile Parliament, and bent upon ruling once more by prerogative, disdained the meaner arts of bribery.1

The Revolution, however favorable to constitutional liberty, revived and extended this scandal; and the circumstances of the times unhappily favored its development. The prerogative of the Crown had been still further limited; the power and activity of Parliament being proportionately increased, while no means had yet been taken to insure its responsibility to the people. A majority of the House of Commons, - beyond the reach of public opinion,—not accountable to its constituencies, and debating and voting with closed doors, held the political destinies of England at its mercy. The Constitution had not yet provided worthier means of influence and restraint; and William III., though personally averse to the base practices of Charles II., was forced to permit their use. His reign, otherwise conducive to freedom and national greatness, was disgraceful to the character of the statesmen, and to the public virtue of that age.2

The practice of direct bribery notoriously continued in the three succeeding reigns; and if not proved by the records of Parliament, was attested by contemporary writers, and by the complaints openly made of its existence. Under the administration of Sir Robert Walpole, it was reduced to an organized system, by which a majority of the House of Commons was long retained in subjection to the minister. It is true, that after his fall, his enemies failed in proving their charges

1 Burnet's Own Time, i. 626.

2 Parl. Hist. v. 807, 840; Burnet's Own Time, ii. 144, 145. See Lord Macaulay's instructive sketch of the Rise and Progress of Parliamentary Corruption, Hist. iii. 541, 687; ibid. iv. 146, 305, 427, 478, 545, and 551; Com. Journ. xi. 331, May 2d, 1695.

8 Debates, Lords and Commons, 1741, on motions for the removal of Sir R. Walpole, Parl. Hist. xi. 1027-1303; Coxe's Mem. of Sir R. Walpole, i. 641, 719; Debates on appointment of Committee of Inquiry, Parl. Hist. xii. 448, et seq.

against him; but the entire strength of the court, the new ministry, and the House of Lords, was exerted to screen him. The witnesses refused to answer questions; and the Lords declined to pass a bill of indemnity, which would have removed the ground of their refusal.1 Nor must it be overlooked that, however notorious corruption may be, it is of all things the most difficult of proof.

This system was continued by his successors, throughout the reign of George II.; and is believed to have been brought to perfection, under the administration of Mr. Henry Pelham.

Bribery un

Bute.

In approaching the reign of George III., it were well if no traces could be found of the continued existence of this system; but unhappily the early part der Lord of this reign presents some of its worst examples. Lord Bute, being resolved to maintain his power by the corrupt arts of Sir Robert Walpole, secured, by the promise of a peerage, the aid of Walpole's experienced agent, Mr. Henry Fox, in carrying them out with success.2 The office intrusted to him was familiarly known as the House of Commons."

"the management of

In October, 1762, Mr. Grenville had impressed upon Lord Bute the difficulties of carrying on the business of the House of Commons, "without being authorized to talk to the members of that House upon their several claims and pretensions.' And these difficulties were effectually overcome.

"8

Horace Walpole relates a startling tale of the purchase of votes by Mr. Fox, in December, 1762, in support of Lord Bute's preliminaries of peace. He says, "A shop was publicly opened at the Pay Office, whither the members flocked, and received the wages of their venality in bank-bills, even to so low a sum as 2001. for their votes on the treaty. 25,000l.,

1 Report of Committee of Inquiry, 1742; Parl. Hist. xii. 626, 788; Coxe's Mem. of Sir R. Walpole, i. 711.

2 Rockingham Mem. i. 127. 8 Grenville Papers, i. 483.

as Martin, Secretary of the Treasury, afterwards owned, were issued in one morning; and in a single fortnight, a vast majority was purchased to approve the peace!" Lord Stanhope, who is inclined wholly to reject this circumstantial story, admits that Mr. Fox was the least scrupulous of Walpole's pupils, and that the majority was otherwise unaccountable. The account is probably exaggerated; but the character of Mr. Fox and his Parliamentary associates is not repugnant to its probability; nor does it stand alone. Α suspicious circumstance, in confirmation of Horace Walpole, has been brought to light. Among Mr. Grenville's papers has been preserved a statement of the secret-service money from 1761 to 1769; whence it appears that in the year ending 25th October, 1762, 10,000l. had been disbursed to Mr. Martin, Secretary to the Treasury; and in the following year, to which the story refers, no less than 41,0007.3

The general expenditure for secret service, during Lord Bute's period, also exhibits a remarkable excess, as compared with other years. In the year ending 25th October, 1761, the secret-service money had amounted to 58,0001. Lord Bute came into office on the 29th May, 1762; and in this year, ending 25th October, it rose at once to 82,1687. In the next year, Lord Bute having retired in April, — it fell to 61,000l. In 1764, it was reduced to 36,8377.; and in 1765, to 29,3747.4

Under the

The Grenville Ministry distributed bribes or gratuities with less profusion than Lord Bute, yet with so Grenville little restraint, that a donation to a member of Ministry. Parliament appears to have been regarded as a customary compliment. It might be offered without offence.

1 Walp. Mem. Geo. III. i. 199.

2 Lord Mahon's Hist. v. 15.

8 Grenville Papers, iii. 144.

4 There is an obscurity in these accounts; but it seems as if the secretservice money had been derived from different sources, the amount paid from one source, between 1761 and 1769, being 156,000l., and from the other 394,5071. The details of the latter sum only are given.

if declined, an apology was felt to be due to the minister. In the Grenville Papers we find a characteristic letter from Lord Say and Sele, which exemplifies the relations of the minister with his Parliamentary supporters.

"London, Nov. 26th, 1763.

"Honored Sir, I am very much obliged to you for that freedom of converse you this morning indulged me in, which I prize more than the lucrative advantage I then received. To show the sincerity of my words (pardon, Sir, the perhaps over niceness of my disposition), I return inclosed the bill for 300l. you favored me with, as good manners would not permit my refusal of it, when tendered by you.

"P. S.—As a free horse wants no spur, so I stand in need of no inducement or douceur, to lend my small assistance to the king, or his friends in the present administration." 1

North, the purpecun- Under Lord

The

North.

Mr. Grenville, however, complained, and apparently with justice, "that the secret-service money was by a great deal less than under any other minister." 2 Throughout the administration of Lord chase of votes in Parliament, by direct iary bribes, was still a common practice. king's complicity, - always suspected, is now beyond a doubt. Writing to Lord North on the 1st March, 1781, His Majesty said: "Mr. Robinson sent me the list of the speakers last night, and of the very good majority. I have this morning sent him 60007., to be placed to the same purpose as the sum transmitted on the 21st August.” 3 other conclusion can be drawn from this letter, than that the king was in the habit of transmitting money, to secure majorities for the minister, who was then fighting his battles in the House of Commons.

1 Grenville Papers, iii. 145.

2 Ibid. 144.

No

8 King's Letters to Lord North; Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 157. Mr. Robinson, as Secretary to the Treasury, had the management of the House of Commons, and was the depository of the Livre rouge, supposed to contain the names of members retained by ministers. - Wraxall Mem. ii. 225.