receiving more than twenty tickets.

He stated that he was

"certainly informed," that fifty members of Parliament had each subscribed for five hundred tickets, which would realize a profit of 1000l., and secure the minister fifty votes. His motion also was rejected.1

loan, 1781.

Again, in 1781, the very circumstances of Lord Bute's Lord North's flagitious loan, were repeated under Lord North. A loan of 12,000,000l. was then contracted, to defray the cost of the disastrous American war, of which lottery-tickets formed a part. Its terms were so favorable to the subscribers, that suddenly the scrip, or omnium, rose nearly 11 per cent.2 The minister was assailed with injurious reproaches, and his conduct was repeatedly denounced in Parliament as wilfully corrupt. These charges were not made by obscure men; but by the Marquess of Rockingham, Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, Mr. Byng, Sir G. Savile, and other eminent members of Opposition. It was computed by Mr. Fox, that a profit of 900,000l. would be derived from the loan; and by others, that half the loan was subscribed for by members of the House of Commons. Lord Rockingham said, "the loan was made merely for the purpose of corrupting the Parliament to support a wicked, impolitic, and ruinous war." Mr. Fox declared, again and again, that a large sum had been placed in the "hands of the minister to be granted as douceurs to members of that House, as a means of procuring and continuing a majority in the House of Commons, upon every occasion, and to give strength and support to a bad administration."

1 Walp. Mem. iv. 320; Chatham's Corresp. iv. 148, n.; Parl. Hist. xvii. 185.

2 Sir P. J. Clerke, on the 8th March, said it had risen from 9 to 11 in the Alley that day. Lord North said it had only risen to 9, and had fallen again to 7. Lord Rockingham estimated it at 10 per cent.

8 Debates in the Commons, 7th, 8th, 12th, and 14th March, and in the Lords, 21st March, 1781; Parl. History, xxi. 1334-1386; Rockingham Mem. ii. 437; Lord J. Russell's Life of Fox, i. 235-241. Wraxall's Mem. ii. 360-375. Among the subscribers to this loan were seven members for

The worst feature of this form of corruption, was its excessive and extravagant cost to the country. If members of Parliament were to be bribed at all, bank-notes, judiciously distributed, were far cheaper 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 burden 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.

ance of the

system by Mr.

In 1782, Lord North, in raising another loan, did not venture to repeat these scandals; but disappointed Lord North's his friends by a new system of close subscriptions. loan, 1782. This arrangement did not escape animadversion; but it was the germ of the modern form of contracts, by sealed ten. ders. Mr. Pitt had himself condemned the former Discontinusystem of jobbing-loans and lotteries; and when he commenced his series of loans for the French Pitt. revolutionary 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 insured to the public, the best terms which could be obtained under existing circumstances,

70,000%.; others for 50,000l.; and one for 100,000l.; but the greater number being holders of scrip only, did not appear in the list. Wraxall Mem. ü. 367.

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

it cut off a very improper source of showing favor to indi viduals, and increasing ministerial influence.” 1

One other form of Parliamentary corruption yet remains Contractors. 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 burdens 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 reading. In 1781 it was brought

8

1 Life of Pitt, iii. 533.

2 Parl. Hist. xx. 123-129.

8 Parl. Hist. xxi. 414.

forward a third time, but was then lost in the House of Commons.1

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.2 In committee, Mr. Fox introduced clauses which omitted the exception in favor 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.

Abuses con

Parliament.

In weighing the evidence of parliamentary corruption, which is accessible to us, allowance must be made for the hostility of many of the witnesses. demned by Charges were made against the government of the day, by its bitterest opponents; and may have been exaggerated by the hard coloring 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 evils sought to be corrected imaginary? The historian can desire no better evidence of contemporary evils, than the judgment of successive Parlia

1 Parl. Hist. xxi. 1390.

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

8 The Bill contained an exception in favor 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 exception was omitted, แ it being generally 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 obscure 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.

ments, pronounced again and again, and ratified by poster ity. The wisdom of the legislature averted the ruin of the constitution, which the philosophical Montesquieu had predicted, when he said, "I périra lorsque la puissance legisla tive sera plus corrompue que l'exécutrice.” 2

early in

reign of eo. III.

Such was the state of society in the first years of the te of soci- reign of George III. that the vices of the government received little correction from public opinion. A corrupt 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 brutalized 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.

were kept alive.

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

1 In painting the public vices of his age, Cowper did not omit to stigmatize, as it deserved, its political corruption.

"But when a country (one that I could name),

2 Livre xi. c. 6.

In prostitution sinks the sense of shame;

When infamous Venality, grown bold,

Writes on his bosom, to be let or sold.' "— Table Talk.

8 "Of all ingenious instruments of despotism," said Sydney Smith, "I most commend a popular assembly where the majority are paid and hired, and a few bold and able men, by their brave speeches, make the people be lieve they are free " - Mem. ii. 214.