The representation of the borough of Ludgershall was sold for 9,000l. by its owner, the celebrated George Selwyn; and the general price of boroughs was said to be raised at that time, from 2,500l. to 4,000l, or 5,000l., by the competition of the East and West Indians.1 It was notorious at the time, that agents or borough-brokers' were commissioned by some of the smaller boroughs to offer them to the highest bidder. Two of these, Reynolds and Hickey, were taken into custody, by order of the House; and some others were sent to Newgate. While some boroughs were thus sold in the gross, the electors were purchased elsewhere by the most lavish bribery. The contest for the borough of Northampton was stated to have cost the candidates' at least 30,000l. a side."3 Nay, Lord Spencer is said to have spent the incredible sum of 70,000l. in contesting this borough, and in the proceedings upon an election petition which ensued.* In 1771, the systematic bribery which had long prevailed at New Shoreham was exposed New Shorcham by an election committee-the first ap- case, 1771. pointed under the Grenville Act. It appeared that a corrupt association, comprising the majority of the electors, and calling itself the Christian Club,' had, under the guise of charity, been in the habit of selling the borough to the highest bidder, and dividing 6 1 Letters of Lord Chesterfield to his Son, Dec. 19th, 1767; April 12th, 1768, iv. 269, 274. Walpole's Mem., iii. 157. Lord Chesterfield to his Son, April 12th, 1768, iv. 274. Walpole's Mem., iii. 198, n, by Sir D. Le Marchant. 5 Cavendish Deb., i. 191. the spoil amongst its members. They all fearlessly took the bribery oath, as the bargain had been made by a committee of their club, who abstained from voting; and the money was not distributed till after the election. But the returning officer, having been himself a member of the society. and knowing all the electors who belonged to it, had rejected their votes. This case was too gross to be lightly treated; and an act was passed to disfranchise the members of the club, eighty-one in number, and to admit to the franchise all the forty shilling freeholders of the Rape of Bramber. An address was also voted to prosecute the five members of the committee for a corrupt conspiracy.1 Shaftesbury In 1775, bribery was proved to have prevailed so Hindon and widely and shamelessly at Hindon, that an election committee recommended the disfranchisement of the borough;2 and at Shaftesbury the same abuse was no less notorious.3 cases. Cricklade case. In 1782, the universal corruption of the electors of Cricklade was exposed before an election committee. It appeared that out of two hundred and forty voters, eighty-three had already been convicted of bribery; and that actions were pending against forty-three others." A bill was accordingly brought in, to extend the franchise to all the freeholders of the adjoining hundreds. Even this moderate measure encountered much opposition, -especially in the Lords, where Lord Mansfield and Lord Chancellor Thurlow fought stoutly for the 1 Com. Journ., xxxiii. 69, 102, 179; 11 Geo. III. c. 55. Pari. Hist.. xxii. 1027, 1167, 1388. Ibid., 311. corrupt electors. Though the bill did not seek to disfranchise a single person, it was termed a bill of pains and penalties, and counsel were heard against it. But the cause of the electors, even with such supporters, was too bad to be defended; and the bill was passed.' encouraged There can be little doubt that the king himself was cognisant of the bribery which, at this Bribery period, was systematically used to secure by the King. Parliamentary support. Nay, more, he personally advised and recommended it. Writing to Lord North, 16th October, 1779, he said: 'If the Duke of Northumberland requires some gold pills for the election, it would be wrong not to satisfy him.' 2 As these expenses were paid out of the king's civil list, his Majesty, however earnest in the cause, found them a heavy burthen upon his resources. Writing to Lord North on the 18th April, 1782, he said: 'As to the immense expense of the general election, it has quite surprised me: the sum is at least double of what was expended on any other general election since I came to the throne.' And Lord North, in excusing himself for this heavy outlay, entered into some curious details, illustrative of the part which the king and himself had taken in various elections. He said: 'If Lord North had thought that the expense attending elections and re-elections in the years 1779, 1780, and 1781, would have amounted to 72,000l., 122 Geo. III. c. 31. 2 King's Letters to Lord North; Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 137, 138. Corr. of Geo IIL with Lord North, ii. 423. www he certainly would not have advised his Majesty to have embarked in any such expense.' And he proceeded to explain the reasons which had induced him to spend 5,000l. at Bristol, 8,000l. at Westminster, 4,000l. in Surrey, 4,000l. in the city of London, and how the last general election had altogether cost the crown 50,000l., as well as certain pensions.1 Attempts to restrain 1768-1786. When the disgraceful traffic in boroughs was ex posed in the House of Commons, before the corruption, general election of 1768, Alderman Beckford brought in a bill requiring an oath to be taken by every member, that he had not been concerned in any bribery. According to Horace Walpole, the country gentlemen were favourable to this bill, as a protection against 'great lords, Nabobs, commissaries, and West Indians: but the extreme stringency of the oath, which was represented as an incitement to perjury,-a jealousy lest, under some of the provisions of the bill, the privileges of the House should be submitted to the courts of law,and above all, a disinclination to deal hardly with practices, which all had been concerned in, had profited by, or connived at, ultimately secured its rejection. Again, in 1782 and 1783, Lord Mahon vainly proposed bills to prevent bribery and expenses at elections. In 1786, he brought in a bill for the improvement of county elections, which was supported by Mr. Pitt, and passed by the Commons, but rejected by the Lords.3 The same evil practices con 1 Corr. of Geo. III. with Lord North, ii. 424. See also Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iii., App. p. xi.; Sir G. Lewis's Letters. 411. 2 Walp. Mem., iii. 153, 157, 159. Wraxall's Mem., iii. 136; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 294 Wyvill's Pol. Papers, iv. 542; Wilberforce's Life, i. 114. tinued, unchecked by legislation, connived at by statesmen, and tolerated by public opinion. seats; its The system of purchasing seats in the House of Commons, however indefensible in princi- Sale of ple, was at least preferable to the general uses. corruption of electors, and in some respects, to the more prevalent practice of nomination. To buy a seat in Parliament was often the only means, by which an independent member could gain admission to the House of Commons. If he accepted a seat from a patron, his independence was compromised: but if he acquired a seat by purchase, he was free to vote according to his own opinions and conscience. Thus, we find Sir Samuel Romilly, the most pure and virtuous of public men,-who had declined one seat from the favour of the Prince of Wales,' justifying the purchase of another, for the sake of his own independence, and the public interests. Writing in September, 1805, he says: As long as burgagetenure representatives are only of two descriptions, -they who buy their seats, and they who discharge the most sacred of trusts at the pleasure, and almost as the servants of another, surely there can be no doubt in which class a man would choose to enrol himself; and one who should carry his notions of purity so far, that, thinking he possessed the means of rendering service to his country, he would yet rather seclude himself altogether from Parliament, than get into it by such a violation of the theory of the constitution, must be under the dominion of a species of moral superstition which must wholly 6 Romilly's Life, ii. 114 120. |