is language were as
ignorant and shallow as people generally are who extol the past at the
expense of the present. A man of sense would have perceived that, if the
English of the time of George the Second had really been more sordid and
dishonest than their forefathers, the deterioration would not have shown
itself in one place alone. The progress of judicial venality and
of official venality would have kept pace with the progress of
parliamentary venality. But nothing is more certain than that, while the
legislature was becoming more and more venal, the courts of law and the
public offices were becoming purer and purer. The representatives of
the people were undoubtedly more mercenary in the days of Hardwicke and
Pelham than in the days of the Tudors. But the Chancellors of the
Tudors took plate and jewels from suitors without scruple or shame; and
Hardwicke would have committed for contempt any suitor who had dared
to bring him a present. The Treasurers of the Tudors raised princely
fortunes by the sale of places, titles, and pardons; and Pelham would
have ordered his servants to turn out of his house any man who had
offered him money for a peerage or a commissionership of customs. It is
evident, therefore, that the prevalence of corruption in the Parliament
cannot be ascribed to a general depravation of morals. The taint was
local; we must look for some local cause; and such a cause will without
difficulty be found.

Under our ancient sovereigns the House of Commons rarely interfered with
the executive administration. The Speaker was charged not to let
the members meddle with matters of State. If any gentleman was very
troublesome he was cited before the Privy Council, interrogated,
reprimanded, and sent to meditate on his undutiful conduct in the
Tower. The Commons did their best to protect themselves by keeping their
deliberations secret, by excluding strangers, by making it a crime to
repeat out of doors what had passed within doors. But these precautions
were of small avail. In so large an assembly there were always
talebearers ready to carry the evil report of their brethren to the
palace. To oppose the Court was therefore a service of serious danger.
In those days of course, there was little or no buying of votes. For an
honest man was not to be bought; and it was much cheaper to intimidate
or to coerce a knave than to buy him.

For a very different reason there has been no direct buying of votes
within the m