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. 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.

Bribery un

Bute.

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 der Lord 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.2 The office intrusted 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 authorized to talk to the members of that House upon their several claims and pretensions." And these difficulties were effectually overcome.

He says, "A shop was pub

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. licly 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.,

1 Report of Committee of Inquiry, 1742; Parl. Hist. xii. 626, 788; Coxe's Mem. of Sir R. Walpole, i. 711.

2 Rockingham Mem. i. 127. 8 Grenville Papers, i. 483.

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!"1 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 41,000.3

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 the 29th May, 1762; and in this year, ending 25th October, it rose at once to 82,1687. In the next year, Lord Bute having retired in April, - it fell to 61,000l. In 1764, it was reduced to 36,8371.; and in 1765, to 29,3747.4

The Grenville Ministry distributed bribes or gratuities with less profusion than Lord Bute, yet with sc little restraint, that a donation to a member of Parliament appears to have been regarded as a customary compliment. It might be offered without offence

Under the
Grenville
Ministry.

1 Walp. Mem. Geo. III. i. 199.

2 Lord Mahon's Hist. v. 15.

8 Grenville Papers, iii. 144.

4 There is an obscurity in these accounts; but it seems as if the secret service money had been derived from different sources, the amount paid from one source, between 1761 and 1769, being 156,000l., and from the other 394,507. The details of the latter sum only are given.

if declined, an apology was felt to be due to the minister In the Grenville Papers we find a characteristic letter from Lord Say and Sele, which exemplifies the relations of the minister with his Parliamentary supporters.

"London, Nov. 26th, 1763.

"Honored Sir, I am very much obliged to you for that freedom of converse you this morning indulged me in, which I prize more than the lucrative advantage I then received. To show the sincerity of my words (pardon, Sir, the perhaps over niceness of my disposition), I return inclosed the bill for 3001. you favored me with, as good manners would not permit my refusal of it, when tendered by you.

"P. S.-As a free horse wants no spur, so I stand in need of no inducement or douceur, to lend my small assistance to the king, or his friends in the present administration." 1

Mr. Grenville, however, complained, and apparently with justice, "that the secret-service money was by a great deal less than under any other minister." 2 Throughout the administration of Lord chase of votes in Parliament, by direct iary bribes, was still a common practice. The

North, the purpecun- Under Lord

North.

king's complicity, always suspected, is now beyond a doubt. Writing to Lord North on the 1st March, 1781, His Majesty said: "Mr. Robinson sent me the list of the speakers last night, and of the very good majority. I have this morning sent him 6000l., to be placed to the same purpose as the sum transmitted on the 21st August." No other conclusion can be drawn from this letter, than that the king was in the habit of transmitting money, to secure majorities for the minister, who was then fighting his battles in the House of Commons.

1 Grenville Papers, iii. 145.

2 Ibid. 144.

"8

8 King's Letters to Lord North; Lord Brougham's Works, ni. 157. Mr. Robinson, as Secretary to the Treasury, had the management of the House of Commons, and was the depository of the Livre rouge, supposed to con tain the names of members retained by ministers. Wraxall Mem. ii. 225

The system of bribery did not long survive the ministry of Lord North.' It may not have wholly died Subsequent decline of the out; and has probably been since resorted to, on system. rare and exceptional occasions. But the powerful and popular administration of Mr. Pitt did not need such support. The Crown had triumphed over parties, - its influence was supreme, and Mr. Pitt himself, however pro

fuse in the distribution of honors to his adherents, was of too lofty a character, to encourage the baseness of his meaner followers.

Shares in

teries.

Lord Bute's loan, 1763.

Another instrument of corruption was found, at the beginning of this reign, in the raising of money for loans and lot- the public service, by loans and lotteries. This form of bribery, though less direct, was more capable of proof. A bribe could be given in secret; the value of scrip was notorious. In March, 1763, Lord Bute contracted a loan of three millions and a half, for the public service; and having distributed shares among his friends, the scrip immediately rose to a premium of 11 per cent. in the market! So enormous a miscalculation of the terms upon which a loan could be negotiated, is scarcely to be reconciled with honesty of purpose; and, according to the practice of that time, the minister was entirely free from control in the distribution of the shares. Here the country sustained a loss of 385,000l.; and the minister was openly charged with having enriched his political adherents, at the public expense. The bank-bills of Mr. Fox had been found so persuasive, that corruption was applied on a still

1 Mr. Hallam says that the practice of direct bribery of Members of Parliament is generally supposed to have ceased about the termination of the American War." Const. Hist. iii. 256.

Mr. William Smith, one of the oldest members of the House of Commons, related the following anecdote of his own time:- A gentleman, being at Sir Benjamin Hammett's Bank, heard a Member, one of Lord North's friends, ask to have a 500l. bill "broken," which was done; and upon the applicant leaving the bank, Sir B. Hammett saw a cover lying on the floor, which he picked up and put into his friend's hand, without comment. It was addressed to the member "with Lord North's compliments."

larger scale, in order to secure the power of the minister. The participation of many members, in the profits of this iniquitous loan, could not be concealed; and little pains were taken to deny it.1

1767.

The success of this expedient was not likely to be soon forgotten. Stock-jobbing became the fashion; and Duke of Grafmany members of Parliament were notoriously tou's loan, concerned in it. Horace Walpole, the chief chronicler of these scandals, states that, in 1767, sixty members were implicated in such transactions, and even the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. Another contemporary, Sir George Colebrooke, gives an account quite as circumstantial, of the monstrous corruption of the time. He says, "The Duke of Grafton gave a dinner to several of the principal men in the city, to settle the loan. Mr. Townshend came in his nightgown, and after dinner, when the terms were settled, and every one present wished to introduce some friend on the list of subscribers, he pretended to cast up the sums already subscribed, said the loan was full, huddled up his papers, got into a chair, and returned home, reserving to himself, by this manœuvre, a large share in the loan." 8

A few years later, similar practices were exposed in another form. Lotteries were then a favorite source Lotteries. of revenue; and it appeared from the lists of subscribers in 1769 and 1770, that shares had been allotted to several members of Parliament. On the 23d of April, 1771, Mr. Seymour moved for the list of persons who had subscribed to the lotteries of that year, alleging that it appeared from the lists of 1769, that twenty thousand tickets had been disposed of to members of Parliament, which sold at a premium of nearly 27. each. His motion was refused. On the 25th April, Mr. Cornwall moved to prohibit any member from 1 Parl. Hist. xv. 1305; Adolphus, i. 111; History of the late Minority, 107; "The North Briton," No. 42; Lord Mahon's Hist. v. 20. 2 Walpole's Mem. Geo. III. ii. 428.

3 Cited in Walpole's Mem. iii. 100, n.

4 Parl. Hist. xvii. 174.