Scott Creighton wrote:

> What you are essentially saying here is that, in the case of
> Wilberforce, the end justified the means.

No. I'm saying that, along with people like Wellington, Vyse and Trollope, all of whom made significant contributions to cultural and/or political life, Wilberforce parted with £8,000 in an effort to become an MP. People were so used to the system that they didn't even consider this bribery as such. They described them as 'the customary payments' - and some of the people who received these payments didn't even bother to vote.

> But it is the ‘means’
> that is the issue here – not the end result. Both Howard-Vyse
> and Wilberforce demonstrated their ability to blatantly and
> ruthlessly disregard the law of the land in order to obtain
> something they coveted. It is their absolute willingness to
> fight dirty and their ability to suspend their morality in
> order to achieve their goal that is the issue here, for that is
> the flawed character trait they both possessed and just because
> they may then have gone on to do some good, does not mean that
> this flawed character trait has been expunged from them.

You forgot to include Pitt, Wellington, and many other members of the establishment operating in the particular political and social context at that time. Not all of them, of course, were as concerned with matters of morality and religion as Vyse and Wilberforce.

Wilberforce, not particularly concerned about how he got into Parliament, led the fight for the abolition of slavery once he was there.

Vyse, not particularly concerned about how he got into Parliament, left after a couple of years, and later went on to discover ancient quarry marks in Khufu's pyramid.