date

[xxxvi. 145] 1822 July 19 Constitut
[xxxvi. 145]

1822 July 19

Constitut. Code Rationale

Supreme Operative

I. Monarch absolute

II. Monarch Limited

III. Aristocracy

IV Monarcho-Aristocracy

The simple truth of the matter is this. It is by force and intimidation that the conduct of the people at large is determined. It is by corruption /corruptive influence/ that the conduct of the majority in each of the two Houses of Parliament is determined: in the House of Commons in the first instance, and then in the House of Lords: the will of the Lords following of course that of the King and the Commons

But the matter of corruption - on whose will does the application of it depend? On that of the Minister. And the Minister - on whose will does his continuance /existence/ in that situation depend? On the Kings.

Let the King give to what man he will the disposal of the matter of corruptive influence, the will of that individual is sure to be confirmed /done/ by the majority in both Houses

Events may happen - events which for a time may make the King see his /a/ convenience in substituting to a Minister more agreable to him a Minister less agreable to him. But in this temporary exception there is nothing that detracts from the truth, to all practical purposes, of the general rule. In this there is nothing more than what is every now and then happening in the most absolute governments, that of Turkey not excepted.
Similar Items
  • Title: [[xxxvi. 149] 1822 July 19 Constitut]
    Description: [xxxvi. 149]

    1822 July 19

    Constitut Code Rationale

    Supreme Operative

    I

    II

    III

    IV Monarcho-Aristocracy

    By the will of the Minister, be he who he may so long as it is decided that he is to continue Minister have the wills of the majority in both Houses been at all times determined: and such will be the state of wills, so long as the Government remains in the form it wears at present. Why? because such is the state of interests - of interests and of the means of affording satisfaction to the correspondent desires
  • Title: [[xxxvi. 146] 1822 July 16 Constitut]
    Description: [xxxvi. 146]

    1822 July 16

    Constitut. Code Rationale

    Supreme Operative

    I Monarchy absolute

    II. Monarchy Limited

    III. Aristocracy.

    IV. Monarcho-Aristocracy

    But /Be this as it may/ the fact is - that whatsoever is done, it is with the Kings will that it is done: in each instance it may or may not have originated in the Kings will: but in whose will so ever it /what is proposed/ originated, if it be against the Kings will it is not done

    The question here is - what in this respect is the general and habitual course of the government: Of the few exceptions, that by careful inquiry might perhaps be found, the effect will rather be to prove the rule than to disprove it. No Monarchy so absolute, but that exceptions in this or that instance might be found in it

    Of the absoluteness of the Kings power, a conclusive proof is /was/ that which was brought /held up/ to view in a Commons House Debate in the Session of 1822 ? Motion by Mr Brougham: object of it, holding up to view what is called the influence of the Crown: that is to say the absoluteness of the King's power in respect of giving determination to the proceedings of the two sets of functionaries who in profession and form are sharers with him in the supreme operative. Proof this. The Prime Minister is the nominee and instrument When once a man has been decidedly located in the situation of Prime Minister, the Commons House a vast majority of it vote according to his will, after having but a few days before namely when he was not Minister but in opposition voted against it

    ? June 1822. Black Dwarf July 3 1822.
  • Title: [[xxxvi. 144] 1822 July 16 Constitut]
    Description: [xxxvi. 144]

    1822 July 16

    Constitut. Code Rationale

    Supreme Operative

    I Monarch absolute

    II Monarch Limited

    III Aristocracy

    IV Monarcho-Aristocracy

    1. Borough-mongers subject.

    2 Why spoken of as paramount.

    ?. In a limited say rather a mixt Monarchy, the Aristocracy are not in practice co-equal with but dependent on and instruments of the Monarchy.

    In England the Borough-mongers are under the King not the King under the Borough-mongers.

    The King (it has been said) is in a state of subjection to the Borough-mongers. The party by whom this notion is adopted is the party of the people: it is on every occasion assumed, and argued upon as a principle. In relation to it, two questions will here present themselves. 1. Is it correct?: 2. Correct or /If/ incorrect to what cause is the use made of it to be attributed /what is the cause of its currency?/

    Question 1. Is it correct /true/? Answer. It is not. /untrue./ That they /the two powers/ act not in constant union, thus far is true. But, on each occasion whatsoever be the course taken by the union, it is by the will of the King not by the will of any power that that course is determined: not by the will of any other power whatsoever be the situation of it, or by what name so ever denominated.

    By Borough-mongers are meant the aggregate of the several individuals by whom the seats in the Commons House are filled. The cause why this denomination is employed will be mentioned in its place.

    What is here assumed is - that the Lords House in its corporate capacity is in fact /practice/ in a state of subjection to the Commons House. Thus much is true, manifest and undisputed. ( Quere whether to state the proofs)

    What is also assumed is that in a very large proportion the occupiers of the seats in the Commons House are located by individuals who have seats in the Lords House. This also is manifest and undisputed.