disqualifi The general scheme of official disfranchisement was Further now complete: but the jealousy of Parliament was cations. still shown by the disqualification of new officers appointed by Acts of Parliament. So constant has been this policy, that upwards of one hundred statutes, still in force, contain clauses of disqualification; and many similar statutes have been passed, which have since expired, or have been repealed.1 The result of this vigilant jealousy, has been a great reduction of the number of placemen sitting in the House of Commons. In the first Parliament of George I. there had been two hundred and seventyone members holding offices, pensions, and sinecures. In the first Parliament of George II. there were two hundred and fifty-seven; in the first Parliament of George IV. there were but eighty-nine, exclusive of officers in the army and navy.2 The number of placemen sitting in the House of Commons, has been further reduced by the abolition and consolidation of offices; and in 1833 there were only sixty members holding civil offices and pensions, exclusive of eighty-three holding naval and military commissions.3 The policy of disqualification has been maintained to the present time. The English judges had been excluded from the House of Commons, by the law of Parliament. In the interests of justice, as well as on grounds of constitutional policy, this exclusion was extended to their brethren of the Scottish bench, in the reign of George II.4, and to the judges of the courts in Ireland, in the reign of George IV.5 In 1840, the 1 Author's Pamphlet on the Consolidation of the Election Laws, 1850. 2 Report on Returns made by Members, 1822 (542); 1823 (569); Hansard, 3rd Ser., ii. 1118, n. 4 7 Geo. II. c. 16. Judicial officers disqualified. Policy of disqualifications. bribes to 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.2 These various disqualifications were deemed necessary for securing the independence of Parliament; and the policy is still recognised, when the dangers they were 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. Pecuniary But the independence of Parliament was formerly members. corrupted by grosser expedients than places and pensions. Vulgar bribes were given,- directly 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 1 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. 2 Judges' Exclusion Bill, June 1st, 1853; Hansard's Deb., 3rd Ser., cxxvii. 996. had been rudely shaken by the overthrow of Charles I., it was sought to support 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 favourable to constitutional liberty, revived and extended this scandal; and the circumstances of the times, unhappily favoured 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 ensure 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 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 2nd, 1695. Bribery under Lord Bute. Walpole, it was reduced to an organised system, by which a majority of the House of Commons was long retained in subjection to the minister.1 It is true, that after his fall, his enemies failed in proving their charges 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.2 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. 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 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. The office entrusted to him was familiarly known as "the management of the House of Commons." In October, 1762, Mr. Grenville had impressed upon Lord Bute the difficulties of carrying on the business of the House of Commons, "without being authorised 1 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. 2 Report of Committee of Inquiry, 1742; Parl. Hist., xii. 626, 788; Coxe's Mem. of Sir R. Walpole, i. 711. 3 Rockingham Mem., i. 127. to talk to the members of that House upon their several claims and pretensions." And these difficulties were effectually overcome. 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 2007. for their votes on the treaty. 25,000l., 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!2" 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. A 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 41,0007.4 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 58,000l. Lord Bute came into office on 1 Grenville Papers, i. 483. 2 Walp. Mem. Geo. III., i. 199. Lord Mahon's Hist., v. 15. |