of sale or transfer, like any other property. In 1766, Lord Hertford prevailed upon Lord Chatham's ministry to transfer to him the borough of Orford, which belonged to the Crown.1 And Sudbury, infamous for its corruption until its ultimate. disfranchisement,2 publicly advertised itself for sale.

If a seat occupied by any member happened to be required by the government, for some other candidate, he was bought out, at a price agreed upon between them. Thus in 1764, we find Lord Chesterfield advising his son upon the best means of securing 1000l. for the surrender of his seat, which had cost him 20007. at the beginning of the Parliament.1

General election of 1768.

The cor

The general election of 1768 was at least as corrupt as that of 1761, and the sale of seats more open and undisguised. Some of the cases were so flagrant as to shock even the moral sentiments of that time. poration of Oxford, being heavily embarrassed, offered again to return their members, Sir Thomas Stapylton and Mr. Lee, on payment of their bond debts, amounting to 5670l. These gentlemen refused the offer, saying that as they did not intend to sell the corporation, they could not afford to buy them; and brought the matter before the House of Commons. The mayor and ten of the aldermen were committed to Newgate; but after a short imprisonment, were discharged with a reprinand from the Speaker. Not discouraged, however, by their imprisonment, they completed, in Newgate, a bargain which they had already commenced; and sold the representation of their city to the Duke of Marlborough and the Earl of Abingdon. Meanwhile the town clerk carried off the books of the corporation which contained evidence of the bargain; and the business was laughed at and forgotten." For the borough of Poole, there were three candidates.

Walpole's Mem. ii. 361.

27 & 8 Vict. c. 53.

8 Walpole's Mem. i. 42.

4 Oct. 19th, 1764, Letters of Lord Chesterfield to his son, iv. 218.

5 Parl. Hist. xvi. 397; Walpole's Mem. iii. 153.

Mauger, the successful candidate, promised the corporation 1000l., to be applied to public purposes, if he should be elected; Gulston made them a present of 750l., as a mark of gratitude for the election of his father on a former occasion; and Calcraft appears to have vainly tempted them with the more liberal offer of 1500l. The election was declared void.1

The representation of the borough of Ludgershall was sold for 9000l. by its owner, the celebrated George Selwyn; and the general price of boroughs was said to be raised at that time, from 2500l. to 4000l. or 5000l., by the competition of the East and West Indians.2 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.3 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." 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.5 In 1771, the systematic bribery which had long prevailed at New Shoreham was exposed by an election committee the first appointed 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

New Shoreham case, 1771.

1 Feb. 10th, 1769; Com. Journ. xxxii. 199.

2 Letters of Lord Chesterfield to his son, Dec. 19th, 1767; April 12th 1768, iv. 269, 274.

3 Walpole's Mem. iii. 157.

4 Lord Chesterfield to his son, April 12th, 1768, iv. 274.

5 Walpole's Mem. iii. 198, n. by Sir D. Le Marchant.

6 Cavendish Deb i. 191.

dividing 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. Bu the returning officer, having been himself a member of th society, and knowing all the electors who belonged to it, ha... 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

Hindon and

In 1775, bribery was proved to have prevailed so widely and shamelessly at Hindon, that an election committee recommended the disfranchisement of the Shaftesbury borough; 2 and at Shaftesbury the same abuse was no less notorious.

cases.

case, 1782.

In 1782, the universal corruption of the electors of Crick lade was exposed before an election committee. Cricklade 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 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."

VOL. I.

1 Com. Journ. xxxiii. 69, 102, 179; 11 Geo. III. c. 55.

2 Com. Journ. xxxv. 118.

8 lbid. 311.

4 Parl. Hist. xxii. 1027, 1167, 1388.

5 22 Geo. III. c. 31.

18

Bribery en

the King.

There can be little doubt that the king himself was cognizant of the bribery which, at this period, was courged by systematically used to secure 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."

Attempts to

When the disgraceful traffic in boroughs was exposed in the House of Commons, before the general elecrestrain cor- tion of 1768, Alderman Beckford brought in a ruption. 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 favorable to this bill, as a protection against "great lords, Nabobs, commissaries, and West Indians ;"2 but the extreme stringency of the oath proposed, which, it was urged, would result in 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,

but 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 proposed bills to prevent bribery and expenses at elections; but on both occasions was unsuccessful. The same evil practices continued, — unchecked by legislation, connived at by statesmen, and tolerated by public opinion.

The system of purchasing seats in the House of ComSale of seats: mons, however indefensible in principle, was at its uses. least preferable to the general 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

1 King's Letters to Lord North; Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 137, 138. 2 Walpole's Mem. iii. 153, 157, 159.

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 favor of the Prince of Wales,1 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 enroll 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 disqualify him for the discharge of any public duties.” 2

The extent to which the sale of seats prevailed, and its influence over the composition of the House of Commons, may also be exemplified from the Diary of Sir Samuel Romilly, in 1807: "Tierney, who manages this business for the friends of the late administration, assures me that he can hear of no seats to be disposed of. After a Parliament which had lived little more than four months, one would naturally suppose that those seats which are regularly sold by the proprietors of them, would be very cheap: they are, however, in fact, sold now at a higher price than was ever given for them before. Tierney tells me that he has offered 10,000l. for the two seats of Westbury, the property of the late Lord Abingdon, and which are to be made the most of

1 Romilly's Life, ii. 114-120.

2 Diary; Life, ii. 122.