you have the contests of ambitious citizens on one side, supported
by the Crown, to oppose to the efforts (let it be so) of private and
unsupported ambition on the other. Yet Rome was destroyed by the
frequency and charge of elections, and the monstrous expense of an
unremitted courtship to the people. I think, therefore, the
independent candidate and elector may each be destroyed by it, the
whole body of the community be an infinite sufferer, and a vicious
Ministry the only gainer. Gentlemen, I know, feel the weight of
this argument; they agree that this would be the consequence of more
frequent elections, if things were to continue as they are. But
they think the greatness and frequency of the evil would itself be a
remedy for it; that, sitting but for a short time, the member would
not find it worth while to make such vast expenses, while the fear
of their constituents will hold them the more effectually to their
duty.

To this I answer, that experience is full against them. This is no
new thing; we have had triennial parliaments; at no period of time
were seats more eagerly contested. The expenses of elections ran
higher, taking the state of all charges, than they do now. The
expense of entertainments was such, that an Act, equally severe and
ineffectual, was made against it; every monument of the time bears
witness of the expense, and most of the Acts against corruption in
elections were then made; all the writers talked of it and lamented
it. Will any one think that a corporation will be contented with a
bowl of punch, or a piece of beef the less, because elections are
every three, instead of every seven years? Will they change their
wine for ale, because they are to get more ale three years hence?
Do not think it. Will they make fewer demands for the advantages of
patronage in favours and offices, because their member is brought