The Historical Vicissitudes of Corruption

  • Bruce Buchan
  • Lisa Hill
Chapter
Part of the Political Corruption and Governance book series (PCG)

Abstract

A variety of historical trends crystallising in the eighteenth century exerted pressure on the degenerative conception of corruption. Key among them was the emergence of the modern state, which was expanding rapidly and becoming more organised during this time. Additional pressures related to demographic changes such as population growth, urbanisation and increased specialisation, all of which undermined the virtue-focused approach. Further, the practical exigencies of security in large-scale societies, and the technological developments that met them, meant that corruption concerns associated with the loss of martial virtue no longer seemed relevant. Finally, the eighteenth century saw decisive changes in forms of rule, specifically the breaking down of the powers of the Crown and a shift in the understanding of where the main site of corrupt — or uncorrupt — activity lay. Corruption reformers were increasingly focused on the eradication of practices and institutions that would now qualify as public office corruption. It was not virtue that would solve the problems of modern, commercialising states and empires, but a solvent economy and codified rules about how a properly functioning modern state should operate.

Keywords

Eighteenth Century Modern State Civic Virtue Intellectual History Wealth Inequality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 3.
    M. Ogborn (2002) ‘Wherein Lay the Late Seventeenth-Century State? Charles Davenant Meets Streynsham Master’, Journal of Historical Sociology 15, 96–101, passim. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 5.
    P. Harling and P. Mandler (1993) ‘From “Fiscal-Military” State to Laissez-Faire State, 1760–1850’, The Journal of British Studies 32 (1), 47, 53–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 7.
    The term ‘patrimonialism’ is Weberian in origin and denotes the organisation of government ‘as a directed extension of the royal household’ (R. Bendix (1960) Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait (London: Doubleday and Co.), p. 119, n. 7).Google Scholar
  4. 8.
    For a luller discussion, see E.W. Cohen (1941) The Growth of the British Civil Service, 1780–1939 (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd).Google Scholar
  5. 9.
    P.J. Jupp (1990) ‘The Landed Elite and Political Authority in Britain, ca. 1760–1850’, Journal of British Studies 29, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 10.
    P. Langford (2002) ‘The Management of the Eighteenth-Century State: Perceptions and Implications’, Journal of Historical Sociology 15, 102–6, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 12.
    Parliament of Great Britain (1975–6) ‘Seventh Report of the Commissioners for Examining the Public Accounts, June 18, 1782’ in House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century, 145 vols, S. Lambert (ed.) (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources), 41:430.Google Scholar
  8. 15.
    T. Davies (1977) [1777] The Characters of George the Tirst, Queen Caroline, Sir Robert Walpole, Mr Pulteney, Lord Hardwicke, Mr Pox, and Mr Pitt, Reviewd: With Royal and Noble Anecdotes, a Sketch of Lord Chesterfield’s Character (London), p. 18.Google Scholar
  9. 16.
    This shift began in 1689, with the reign of William of Orange, which marked the beginning of the transition from the personal rule of the Stuarts to the more Parliament-centred rule of the Hanoverians. For lurther discussion, see A.S. Foord (1947) ‘The Waning of the “Influence of the Crown”’, English History Review 62, 484–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 22.
    W. Johnson (1994) ‘Benjamin Robins during 1739–1742: “Called to a Publick Employment… A Very Honourable Post”’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 48 (1), 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 23.
    P.N. Miller (1994) Defining the Common Good: Empire, Religion and Philosophy in Eighteenth-Century Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 28.
    Ferguson, Essay, p. 218; D. Forbes (1967) ‘Adam Ferguson and the Idea of Community’ in D. Young and G.E. Davie (eds) Edinburgh in the Age of Reason: A Commemoration (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), p. 45.Google Scholar
  13. 29.
    J.C. Willke (1962) The Historical Thought of Adam Ferguson (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International), p. 148. The theme of the standing army as an instrument of corruption is also present in the writings of Shaftesbury, another of Ferguson’s sources.Google Scholar
  14. 39.
    Ibid; B. Buchan (2013) ‘Pandours, Partisans, and Petite Guerre: Two Dimensions of Enlightenment Discourse on War’, Intellectual History Review 23 (3), 329–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 40.
    For a fuller discussion, see L. Hill (2007) ‘Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson and Karl Marx on the Division of Labour’, Journal of Classical Sociology 7(3), 339–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 41.
    Gibbon, Decline and Fall, Vol. IV.iii. pp. 8–9. See also J. Black (1995) ‘Empire and Enlightenment in Edward Gibbon’s Treatment of International Relations’, The International History Review 17 (3), 441–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 42.
    ‘Population growth in Scotland’s five main cities between 1755 and 1775 was three times the national average’ (J.D. Brewer (1989) ‘Conjectural History, Sociology and Social Change in Eighteenth-Century Scotland: Adam Ferguson and the Division of Labour’ in The Making of Scotland: Nation, Culture and Social Change, in D. McCrone, S. Kendrick, and P. Straw (eds) (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), p. 25).Google Scholar
  18. 43.
    These changes became fully realised by the nineteenth century (J. Mahon (1982) ‘Engels and the Question about Cities’, History of European Ideas 3 (1), 43–4). In all, there were over 5,000 individual Enclosure Acts involving 21 per cent of land in England alone.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 47.
    E.R. Dodds (1973) The Ancient Concept of Progress and Other Essays on Greek Literature and Belief (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 17.Google Scholar
  20. 49.
    A. Ferguson (1996) ‘Separation of Departments’ in Y. Amoh (intro., ed.) Collection of Essays (Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co.), p. 143.Google Scholar
  21. 50.
    Ferguson, Essay, pp. 63–4. See also Forbes, ‘Introduction’ to Essay, p. xxv. William Robertson also took the view that ‘there can be no Society, where there is no Subordination’ (cited in D. Francesconi (1999) ‘William Robertson on Historical Causation and Unintended Consequences’, Cromohs 4, 8).Google Scholar
  22. 51.
    See, for example, Hume, ‘Of Parties in General’, ‘Of Commerce’ and ‘Of Refinement in the Arts’, pp. 59, 255–6, 272–3; also J. Robertson (1997) ‘The Enlightenment Above National Context: Political Economy in Eighteenth-Century Scotland and Naples’, The Historical Journal 40 (3), 681–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 52.
    F. McLynn (2004) 2759, The Year Britain Became Master of the World (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press), p. 388.Google Scholar
  24. 53.
    C.A. Bayly (1989) Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World 1780–1830 (London/New York: Longman), pp. 136, 150–2;Google Scholar
  25. P.J. Marshall (2005) The Making and Unmaking of Empires: Britain, India, and America c. 1750–1783 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 160, 183.Google Scholar
  26. 55.
    I.S. Ross (1995) Life of Adam Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 252, 355–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 57.
    W.C. Dunn (1941) ‘Adam Smith and Edmund Burke: Complementary Contemporaries’, Southern Economic Journal 7 (3), 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 60.
    E.R. Kittrell (1965) ‘The Development of the Theory of Colonization in English Classical Political Thought’, Southern Economic Journal 31 (3), 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 70.
    ‘Debate of March 30, 1772’ in Parliamentary History, Vol. 17, cols 355, 358, cited in E. Rothschild (2004) ‘Global Commerce and the Question of Sovereignty in the Eighteenth-Century Provinces’, Modern Intellectual History 1 (1), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 72.
    ‘Debate of April 13, 1772’ in Parliament of Great Britain (1813) The Parliamentary History of England, from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803, Vol. 17 (London: T.C. Hansard), cols 456–7. Along similar lines, Edmund Burke declared that ‘the spirit of an extensive and intricate trading interest pervades the whole, always qualifying and often controlling, every general idea of constitution and government’ (E. Burke (1981) [1769] Observations on a Late State of the Nation in P. Langford (ed.) The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke, Vol. II (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 176, 194).Google Scholar
  31. 77.
    Ibid., IV.vii.c.c, p. 641. For a fuller discussion, see L. Hill (2006) ‘Adam Smith and the Theme of Corruption’, Review of Politics 68 (4), 636–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 80.
    Seaward, ‘Sleaze, Old Corruption and Parliamentary Reform’, 42–3; C.C. O’Brien (1992) The Great Melody: A Thematic Biography of Edmund Burke (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp. 115–16.Google Scholar
  33. 81.
    H.V. Bowen (2006) Business of Empire: The East India Company and Imperial Britain, 1756–1833 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 197;Google Scholar
  34. P.J. Marshall (1997) ‘Burke and India’ in I. Crowe (ed.) Edmund Burke: his Life and Legacy (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1997), pp. 39–47;Google Scholar
  35. G.H. Cannon (1957) ‘Sir William Jones and Edmund Burke’, Modern Philology 54 (3), 165–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 83.
    M. Neocleous (2004) ‘The Monstrous Multitude: Edmund Burke’s Political Teratology’, Contemporary Political Theory 3, 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 84.
    E. Burke (1965) [1785] ‘Burke to Phillip Francis, 10 December 1785’ in H. Furber (ed.) The Correspondence of Edmund Burke, Vol. V, July 1782-June 1789 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 243.Google Scholar
  38. 89.
    The History of the Trial of Warren Hastings, Part VI, pp. 49–70 (especially his conclusion on 28 May 1793 (the 116th day of the impeachment)); F.G. Whelan (1996) Edmund Burke and India: Political Morality and Empire (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press), pp. 230–60.Google Scholar
  39. 90.
    E. Burke (2000) ‘Speech in Reply, 28 May 1794’ in P.J. Marshall (ed.) Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke, Vol. VII, India: The Hastings Trial 1789–1794 (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 260–5; and The History of the Trial of Warren Hastings, Part I, pp. 4–5, 13.Google Scholar
  40. 91.
    E. Burke (1981) ‘Speech on the Opening of Impeachment, 15, 16, 18, 19 February 1788’ in The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke, Vol. VI, India: The Launching of the Hastings Impeachment, 1786–1788, ed. P.J. Marshall (Oxford: Clarendon Press), p. 346.Google Scholar
  41. 92.
    E. Burke (1981) ‘Speech on Rohilla War Charge, 1 June 1786’ in Writings and Speeches, Vol. VI, p. 109.Google Scholar
  42. 93.
    E. Burke (1981) ‘Fox’s India Bill, 1 December 1783’ in The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke, Vol. V, India: Madras and Bengal 1774–1785, p. 381. On Burke’s use of the Cicero-Verres controversy, see Burke (1965) ‘Burke to William Baker, 22 June 1784’ in The Correspondence, Vol. V, p. 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 94.
    S. Muthu (2003) Enlightenment against Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press), p. 7.Google Scholar
  44. 95.
    D. Stockton (1971) Cicero: A Political Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 45–8.Google Scholar
  45. See ZZ Cicero (1959) The Verrine Orations, Vol. 1, C.H.G. Greenwood (trans.) (Cambridge: William Heinemann Ltd), p. 79, I.4§13; p. 193 (26§67); also (I.24§63-§70).Google Scholar
  46. 97.
    Marshall, The Making and Unmaking of Empires, pp. 244–5; V. Pavarala (2004) ‘Cultures of Corruption and the Corruption of Culture: The East India Company and the Hastings Impeachment’ in ZZ Kreike and ZZ Jordan (eds) Corrupt Histories, pp. 300–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bruce Buchan and Lisa Hill 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce Buchan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lisa Hill
    • 3
  1. 1.ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and SecurityGriffith UniversityAustralia
  2. 2.School of HumanitiesGriffith UniversityAustralia
  3. 3.University of AdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations