Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

system.

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 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 profuse 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.

-

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 conLord Bute's tracted a loan of three millions and a half, for loan, 1763. 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 door. 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 ton'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 21. 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.

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

4 Parl. Hist. xvii. 174.

[blocks in formation]

receiving more than twenty tickets. He stated that he was "certainly informed," that fifty members of Parliament had each subscribed for five hundred tickets, which would realize a profit of 1000l., and secure the minister fifty votes. His motion also was rejected.1

Again, in 1781, the very circumstances of Lord Bute's Lord North's flagitious loan, were repeated under Lord North. loan, 1781. A loan of 12,000,000l. was then contracted, to defray the cost of the disastrous American war, of which lottery-tickets formed a part. Its terms were so favorable to the subscribers, that suddenly the scrip, or omnium, rose nearly 11 per cent.2 The minister was assailed with injurious reproaches, and his conduct was repeatedly denounced in Parliament as wilfully corrupt. These charges were not made by obscure men; but by the Marquess of Rockingham, Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, Mr. Byng, Sir G. Savile, and other eminent members of Opposition. It was computed by Mr. Fox, that a profit of 900,000l. would be derived from the loan; and by others, that half the loan was subscribed for by members of the House of Commons. Lord Rockingham said, “the loan was made merely for the purpose of corrupting the Parliament to support a wicked, impolitic, and ruinous war." Mr. Fox declared, again and again, that a large sum had been placed in the "hands of the minister to be granted as douceurs to members of that House, as a means of procuring and continuing a majority in the House of Commons, upon every occasion, and to give strength and support to a bad administration." 8

[ocr errors]

1 Walp. Mem. iv. 320; Chatham's Corresp. iv. 148, n.; Parl. Hist. xvii.

185.

2 Sir P. J. Clerke, on the 8th March, said it had risen from 9 to 11 in the Alley that day. Lord North said it had only risen to 9, and had fallen again to 7. Lord Rockingham estimated it at 10 per cent.

8 Debates in the Commons, 7th, 8th, 12th, and 14th March, and in the Lords, 21st March, 1781; Parl. History, xxi. 133-1386; Rockingham Mem. ii. 437; Lord J. Russell's Life of Fox, i. 235–241. Wraxall's Mem. ii. 360-375. Among the subscribers to this loan were seven members for

[ocr errors]

The worst feature of this form of corruption, was its excessive and extravagant cost to the country. If members of Parliament were to be bribed at all, bank-notes, judiciously distributed, were far cheaper than improvident loans. Lord Bute had purchased a majority, on the preliminaries of peace, with thirty or forty thousand pounds. Lord North's experiment laid a burden upon the people of nearly a million. It was bad enough that the representatives of the people should be corrupted; and to pay so high a price for their corruption was a cruel aggravation of the wrong.

ance of the system by Mr. Pitt.

In 1782, Lord North, in raising another loan, did not venture to repeat these scandals; but disappointed Lord North's his friends by a new system of close subscriptions. loan, 1782. This arrangement did not escape animadversion; but it was the germ of the modern form of contracts, by sealed ten ders. Mr. Pitt had himself condemned the former Discontinusystem of jobbing-loans and lotteries; and when he commenced his series of loans for the French revolutionary war in 1793, he took effectual means to discontinue it. That the evil had not been exaggerated, may be inferred from the views of that sagacious statesman, as expounded by his biographer and friend Dr. Tomline. Mr. Pitt "having, while in opposition, objected to the practice of his predecessors in distributing beneficial shares of loans and lottery-tickets, under the market price, among their private friends, and the Parliamentary supporters of the Government, adopted a new plan of contracting for loans and lotteries by means of sealed proposals from different persons, which were opened in the presence of each other; and while this competition insured to the public, the best terms which could be obtained under existing circumstances,

70,000%.; others for 50,000l.; and one for 100,000l.; but the greater number being holders of scrip only, did not appear in the list. Wraxall Mem. ü. 367.

1 Par!. Hist. xxii. 1056; Wraxall's Mem. 320.

[ocr errors]

it cut off a very improper source of showing favor to indi viduals, and increasing ministerial influence."1

One other form of Parliamentary corruption yet remains Contractors. to be noticed. Lucrative contracts for the public service, necessarily increased by the American war, were found a convenient mode of enriching political supporters. A contract to supply rum or beef for the navy, was as great a prize for a member, as a share in a loan or lottery. This species of reward was particularly acceptable to the commercial members of the House. Nor were its attractions confined to the members who enjoyed the contracts. Constituents being allowed to participate in their profits, were zealous in supporting government candidates. Here was another source of influence, for which again the people paid too dearly. Heavy as their burdens were becoming, they were increased by the costly and improvident contracts, which this system of Parliamentary jobbing encouraged. The cost of bribery in this form, was even greater and more indefinite than that of loans and lotteries. In the latter case, there were some limits to the premium on scrip, which was public and patent to all the world; but who could estimate the profits of a contract loosely and ignorantly — not to say corruptly entered into, and executed without adequate securities for its proper fulfilment? These evils were notorious; and efforts were not wanting to correct them.

In 1779 Sir Philip Jennings Clerke obtained leave to bring in a bill to disqualify contractors from sitting in Parliament, except where they obtained contracts at a public bidding; but on the 11th of March, the commitment of the bill was negatived. Again, in February 1780, Sir Philip renewed his motion, and succeeded in passing his bill through the Commons, without opposition; but it was rejected by the Lords on the second reading. In 1781 it was brought

1 Life of Pitt, iii. 533.
2 Parl. Hist. xx. 123-129.
8 Parl. Hist. xxi. 414.

« AnteriorContinuar »