than improvident loans. Lord Bute had purchased a majority, on the preliminaries of peace, with thirty or forty thousand pounds. Lord North's experiment laid a burthen upon the people, of nearly a million. It was bad enough that the representatives of the people should be corrupted; and to pay so high a price for their corruption was a cruel aggravation of the wrong.

North's

nuance of

In 1782, Lord North, in raising another loan, did Lord not venture to repeat these scandals; but disappointed loan, 1782. his friends by a new system of close subscriptions. This arrangement did not escape animadversion; but it was the germ of the modern form of contracts, by sealed. tenders.1 Mr. Pitt had himself condemned the former Discontisystem of jobbing loans and lotteries; and when he the system commenced his series of loans for the French revolu- by Mr. Pitt. tionary war in 1793, he took effectual means to discontinue it. That the evil had not been exaggerated, may be inferred from the views of that sagacious statesman, as expounded by his biographer and friend Dr. Tomline. Mr. Pitt "having, while in opposition, objected to the practice of his predecessors in distributing beneficial shares of loans and lottery tickets, under the market price, among their private friends, and the Parliamentary supporters of the Government, adopted a new plan of contracting for loans and lotteries by means of sealed proposals from different persons, which were opened in the presence of each other; and while this competition ensured to the public, the best terms. which could be obtained under existing circumstances, it cut off a very improper source of showing favour to individuals, and increasing ministerial influence."2

One other form of Parliamentary corruption yet Contrac

1 Parl. Hist., xxii. 1056; Wraxall's Mem., 320.

2 Life of Pitt, iii. 533.

tors.

remains to be noticed. Lucrative contracts for the public service, necessarily increased by the American war, were found a convenient mode of enriching political supporters. A contract to supply rum or beef for the navy, was as great a prize for a member, as a share in a loan or lottery. This species of reward was particularly acceptable to the commercial members of the House. Nor were its attractions confined to the members who enjoyed the contracts. Constituents being allowed to participate in their profits, were zealous in supporting government candidates. Here was another source of influence, for which again the people paid too dearly. Heavy as their burthens were becoming, they were increased by the costly and improvident contracts, which this system of Parliamentary jobbing encouraged. The cost of bribery in this form, was even greater and more indefinite than that of loans and lotteries. In the latter case, there were some limits to the premium on scrip, which was public and patent to all the world; but who could estimate the profits of a contract loosely and ignorantly, not to say corruptly—entered into, and executed without adequate securities for its proper fulfilment? These evils were notorious; and efforts were not wanting to correct them.

In 1779 Sir Philip Jennings Clerke obtained leave to bring in a bill to disqualify contractors from sitting in Parliament, except where they obtained contracts at a public bidding; but, on the 11th of March, the commitment of the bill was negatived.' Again, in February 1780, Sir Philip renewed his motion, and succeeded in passing his bill through the Commons, without opposition; but it was rejected by the Lords on the second

1 Parl. Hist., xx. 123-129.

reading.1 In 1781 it was brought forward a third time, but was then lost in the House of Commons.2

Meanwhile, Lord North's administration was falling; the Opposition were pledged to diminish the influence of the Crown, and to further the cause of economic reform; and in 1782, Sir Philip was able to bring in his bill, and carry the second reading.3 In committee, Mr. Fox introduced clauses, which omitted the exception in favour of contracts obtained at a public bidding, and extended it to existing as well as future contracts. Immediately afterwards, the Rockingham ministry coming into office, adopted a measure so consonant with their own policy; and, under such auspices, it was at length passed. It was another legislative condemnation of corrupt influences in Parliament.

4

ment.

In weighing the evidence of Parliamentary corrup- Abuses tion, which is accessible to us, allowance must be made condemned for the hostility of many of the witnesses. Charges were made against the government of the day, by its bitterest opponents; and may have been exaggerated by the hard colouring of party. But they were made by men of high character and political eminence; and so generally was their truth acknowledged, that every abuse complained of, was ultimately condemned by Parliament. Were all the measures for restraining corruption and undue influence groundless? Were the

1 Parl. Hist., xxi. 414. 2 Ibid., 1390.

3 Parl. Hist., xxii. 1214, 1335, 1356. Debates, 19th March; 15th and 17th April; 1st and 27th May, 1782.

The Bill contained an exception in favour of persons subscribing to a public loan. It was said, however, that the loan was a more dangerous engine of influence than contracts, and ultimately the ex

ception was omitted, " it being ge-
nerally understood that a separate
Bill should be brought in for that
purpose," which, however, was
never done. This matter, as stated
in the debates, is exceedingly ob-
scure and inconsistent, and scarcely
to be relied upon, though it was
frequently adverted to, in discussing
the question of Baron Rothschild's
disability in 1855.

State of society early

evils sought to be corrected imaginary? The historian can desire no better evidence of contemporary evils, than the judgment of successive Parliaments, pronounced again and again, and ratified by posterity.1 The wisdom of the legislature averted the ruin of the constitution, which the philosophical Montesquieu had predicted, when he said, "Il périra lorsque la puissance legislative sera plus corrompue que l'exécutrice." 2

Such was the state of society in the first years of the in the reign reign of George III. that the vices of the government of Geo. III. received little correction from public opinion. A cor

How

popular prin

rupt system of government represented but too faithfully, the prevalent corruption of society. Men of the highest rank openly rioted in drunkenness, gambling, and debauchery: the clergy were indifferent to religion: the middle classes were coarse, ignorant, and sensual; and the lower classes brutalised by neglect, poverty, and evil examples. The tastes and habits of the age were low its moral and intellectual standard was debased. All classes were wanting in refinement, and nearly all in education. Here were abounding materials for venal senators, greedy place-hunters, and corrupt electors.

Having viewed the imperfections of the representaciples were tive system, and the various forms of corruption by kept alive. which the constitution was formerly disfigured, we pause to inquire how popular principles, statesmanship, and public virtue were kept alive, amid such adverse

1 In painting the public vices of
his age, Cowper did not omit to
stigmatise, as it deserved, its poli-
tical corruption.

"But when a country (one that I
could name),
[shame;
In prostitution sinks the sense of

When infamous Venality, grown bold,

Writes on his bosom, to be let or sold.""

2 Livre xi. c. 6.

Table Talk.

influences? The country was great and glorious; and its history, though stained with many blots, -is such as Englishmen may justly contemplate with pride. The people, if enjoying less freedom than in later times, were yet the freest people in the world. Their laws, if inferior to modern jurisprudence, did not fall short of the enlightenment of the age, in which Parliament designed them. How are these contrasts to be ex

plained and reconciled? How were the people saved from misgovernment? What were the antidotes to the baneful abuses which prevailed? In the first place, parliamentary government attracted the ablest men to the service of the state. Whether they owed their seats to the patronage of a peer, or to the suffrages of their fellow-countrymen, they equally enlightened Parliament by their eloquence, and guided the national councils by their statesmanship. In the next place, the representation,-limited and anomalous as it was,--comprised some popular elements; and the House of Commons, in the worst times, still professed its responsibility to the people. Nor can it be denied that the small class, by whom a majority of the House of Commons was returned, were the most instructed and enlightened in the country; and as Englishmen, were generally true to principles of freedom.

Two other causes, which exercised a wholesome restraint upon Parliament and the governing class, are to be found in the divisions of party,-finely called by Sir Bulwer Lytton "the sinews of freedom,"-and the growing influence of the press. the ruling party may sometimes have been to repress

"Of all ingenious instruments of despotism," said Sydney Smith, "I most commend a popular assembly where the majority are paid

However prone

and hired, and a few bold and able men, by their brave speeches, make the people believe they are free."Mem., ii. 214.