and twice by the Lords, at length received the Royal assent.1 It was stated in a Lords' protest, that two hundred appointments were then distributed amongst the members of the House of Commons.2 This Act added many offices to the list of disqualifications, but chiefly those of clerks and other subordinate officers of the public departments. By these measures the excessive multiplication of offices had been restrained: but in the reign of George III. their number was still very considerable; and they were used,—almost without disguise,-as the means of obtaining parliamentary support. Horace Walpole has preserved a good example of the unblushing manner in which bargains were made for the votes of members, in exchange for offices. Mr. Grenville wrote him a letter, proposing to appoint his nephew, Lord Orford, to the rangership of St. James's and Hyde Parks. He said, "If he does choose it, I doubt not of his and his friend Boone's hearty assistance, and believe I shall see you, too, much oftener in the House of Commons. This is offering you a bribe, but 'tis such a one as one honest good-natured man may, without offence, offer to another." As Walpole did not receive this communication with much warmth, and declined any participation in the bargain, payments due to him on account of his patent offices in the Exchequer, were stopped at the Treasury, for several months.3 Places in Geo. III. the reign of Rocking ham's Act, The Whig statesmen of this period, who were striving Lord to reduce the influence of the crown, were keenly alive to the means of corruption which a multiplicity of places still afforded. "The great number of offices," said Lord 1 15 Geo. II. c. 22. 3 Nov. 21st, 1762; Walpole's Lords' Protest, 1741; Parl. Mem., i. 213-216. Hist., xii. 2. 1782. Offices in Further disqualifications. Rockingham, "of more or less emolument, which are now tenable by parties sitting in Parliament, really operate like prizes in a lottery. An interested man purchases a seat, upon the same principle as a person buys a lottery ticket. The value of the ticket depends upon the quantum of prizes in the wheel." It was to remove this evil, even more than for the sake of pecuniary saving, that Mr. Burke, in 1780, proposed to abolish thirty-nine offices held by members of the House of Commons, and eleven held by peers. And by Lord Rockingham's act for the regulation of the civil list expenditure in 1782, several offices connected with the government and royal household were suppressed, which had generally been held by members of Parliament; and secret pensions were discontinued.2 In 1793, the Parliament of Ireland adopted the principles of the English act of Anne, and disqualified the holders of all offices under the crown or Lord-lieutenant, created after that time. On the union with Ireland, all the disqualifications for the Irish Parliament were extended to the Parliament of the United Kingdom; and several new disqualifications were created, in reference to other Irish offices.3 The general scheme of official disfranchisement was now complete: but the jealousy of Parliament was 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.* The result of this vigilant jealousy, has been a 1 Rockingham Mem., ii. 339. 341 Geo. III. c. 52. Author's Pamphlet on the Consolidation of the Election Laws, 1850. 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.1 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, and eighty-three holding naval and military commissions.2 officers dis The policy of disqualification has been maintained Judicial to the present time. The English judges had been qualified. 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., and to the judges of the courts in Ireland, in the reign of George IV. In 1840, the same principle was applied to the Judge of the Admiralty Court.5 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." Policy of disqualifications. bribes to These various disqualifications were deemed necessary for securing the independence of Parliament; and their 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 was 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 systematically exposed to the temptation of pecuniary bribes. In the reigns of the Tudors and the first two Stuarts, prerogative had generally been too strong to need the aid of such persuasion 1; but after prerogative 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.2 1 According to Lord Bolingbroke, Richard II. obliged members, "sometimes by threats and terror, and sometimes by gifts, to consent to those things which were prejudicial to the realm."- Works, iii. 173. Mr. Hallam dates the bribery of members from James I.-Const. Hist., ii. 95. Such bribery, as a system, however, cannot be traced earlier than Charles II. 2 Burnet's Own Time, i. 626. 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.1 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 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.2 It is true that, after his fall, his enemies failed in proving their charges Barillon's Despatch, 30th April, 1685; Fox's Hist. of James II., App. lxix.; Bolingbroke's Works, iii. 280. 1 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. 2 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. 569, 641, 719; Debates on appointment of Committee of Inquiry, Parl. Hist., xii. 448. Cooke's Hist. of Party, ii. 134. |