Bribery Act of 1762. Sale of boroughs. well fitted them for the service of the court. The king was struggling to disengage himself from the domination of party leaders; and here were the very men he needed,-without party ties or political prepossessions, -daily increasing in numbers and influence, - and easily attracted to his interests by the hope of those rewards which are most coveted by the wealthy. They soon ranged themselves among the king's friends; and thus the court policy,-which was otherwise subversive of freedom,--became associated with parliamentary corruption. The scandals of the election of 1761 led to the passing of an act in the following year, by which pecuniary penalties were first imposed for the offence of bribery.1 But the evil which it sought to correct, still continued without a check. Where the return of members was left to a small, but independent body of electors, their individual votes were secured by bribery; and where it rested with proprietors or corporations, the seat was purchased outright. The sale of boroughs, an abuse of some antiquity2, and often practised since the time of Charles II.,-became, at the commencement of this reign, a general and notorious system. The right of property in boroughs was acknowledged, and capable 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.3 And Sudbury, infamous for its corruption until its ultimate disfranchisement, publicly advertised itself for sale.5 1 2 Geo. III. c. 24. 2 In 1571, the borough of Westbury was fined by the House of Commons for receiving a bribe of 47.; and the mayor was ordered to refund the money.-Com. Journ., Walpole's Mem., ii. 361. 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 10001. for the surrender of his seat, which had cost him 2000l. at the beginning of the Parliament.' election of 1768. The general election of 1768 was at least as corrupt General 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. The corporation 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 reprimand 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. 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 1 Oct. 19th, 1764, Letters of Lord Chesterfield to his son, iv. 218. 2 Parl. Hist., xvi. 397; Walpole's Mem., iii. 153. New Shore ham case, 1771. 7501., 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 1500. 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 50001., by the competition of the East and West Indians.2 It was notorious at the time, that agents or "boroughbrokers" 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."4 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 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. 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. 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 and In 1775, bribery was proved to have prevailed so Hindon widely and shamelessly at Hindon, that an election Shaftes committee recommended the disfranchisement of the bury cases. borough2; and at Shaftesbury the same abuse was no less notorious.3 In 1782, the universal corruption of the electors of Cricklade Cricklade was exposed before an election committee. case, 1782. 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.4 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. 1 Com. Journ., xxxiii. 69, 102, 179; 11 Geo. III. c. 55. 2 Com. Journ., xxxv. 118. 3 Ibid., 311. 4 Parl. Hist., xxii. 1027, 1167, 1388. Bribery encouraged by the King. Attempts to restrain But the cause of the electors, even with such supporters, was too bad to be defended; and the bill was passed.1 12 There can be little doubt that the king himself was cognisant of the bribery which, at this period, was 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." When the disgraceful traffic in boroughs was excorruption. posed in the House of Commons, before the 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 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. 66 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. 1 22 Geo. III. c. 31. 2 King's Letters to Lord North; Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 137,138. 3 159. Walpole's Mem., iii. 153, 157, |