In 1779 George III wrote to John Robinson, Secretary of the Treasury: "Certainly the times are not so virtuous that persons will labour for the public without reward."
             Parliament of the 18th Century was as corrupt as any other governing body of men, be that body from ancient times to modern ones. Men (as in humankind) typically seek power and reward in order to better themselves. Men also tend to rationalize their actions. Groups of like-minded people will rationalize on a grander scale by reaffirming to each other the correctness of their actions. For example: if you were raised in a country that allows 18 year olds to drink alcohol, you might wonder at the rationale of another country that bans their 18 year olds from enjoying a glass of wine. If you came from the country that does not allow 18 year olds to drink, you might think that the country that does allow it is foolish for not protecting young people from themselves until they are 21.
             Does one's perspective make another country's laws wrong? If centuries of a system that works favors those in power, would those brought into the system generations later even think there might be something questionable with a system that worked so well for so long? What if conditions of serving the people preclude those without money as there is no direct pay to serve? And would anyone want decisions that require knowledge made by those without the knowledge necessary to make them? Education, at this time, was only for those who had the means to buy it. In order to serve and rule in 18th century England, you had to have money and power.
             Why do men even need laws and people in a position to rule over them? If there is one constant throughout the history of mankind, it is the fact that the men seek companionship. It may only be the companionship of one; more typically, however, this fundamental desire causes one to seek out others as well. Survival is one motivation &n...