date

[…?] June 1811 6 Abdication
[…?] June 1811 6

Abdication

Corrupts […?] aims[?] at[?] an innovation

1

The /A/ curious circumstance is - that all this mischief - all this corruption all this idleness - is an innovation: a most rank /manifest/ and undeniable innovation. {Comparatively speaking it is but of yesterday.}

Not that with /upon/ me, I must confess, this passes for an argument /a distinct grievance - a consideration/ worth attending to. With me the mere novelty of any evil is not of itself any addition to the mischievousness of it. If so it be that our ancestors /forefathers/ were in this or that respect or upon the whole, absolutely or comparatively speaking ill governed, not with me is this any reason why we should not be well governed, as well governed, and to the end of time as much better and better governed, as it is in our power to be.

But so it is - and for such as to all matters of government and legislation is the state of general imbecillity and ignorance in which this system of misgovernment has succeeded in keeping the public mind - so it is, that the novelty of a remedy is received; but too extensively received as a sufficient argument for the continuance of a disease, and be it ever so good, a man dares scarce open his lips /mouth/ in favour of one /any set of/ arrangement, without coming[?] at the same time with proof, or something that is to pass for proof, that there was a time in which it actually had place, and that restoration not innovation, is the proper appellation /appellative/ for it.
Similar Items
  • Title: [29 July 1801 Eden Novel]
    Description: 29 July 1801

    Eden

    Novel

    6

    If words like these are to pass for argument, behold an answer to it – an answer

    to it in kind. What? is he raising a hue and cry then against novelty? There!

    is[?] a man for you – a libeller of establishments! – of all establishments in

    the lump, past present and to come! – For (as has been said, and not untruly

    said, by somebody) – “whatever is now establishment, once was innovation”.

    But – novelty or innovation – call it which he will – where is it to be found? In

    the proposed “experiment”, according to his description of it, there is not a

    grain of novelty. “Circulating masses of paper” – yes and “large” ones –

    “representing capital as well as interest” – exist now and have existed for ages

    – exist not here, only, but elsewhere. What are Exchequer Bills? – What are

    India Bonds? – What are Irish Debentures? What have been Navy Bills, Victualling

    Bills, Transport Bills, and Ordnance Debentures? – I will not here insist on any

    foreign interest-bearing papers such as Dutch Obligations, and Austrian

    Government paper: these with others about which my enquiries have not yet been

    so successful as I could have wished, exist not, it is true in a shape precisely

    the same as that which is here given as an /a supposed/ improvement upon every

    thing of the kind that has gone before it; (- if they did, it would be no

    improvement) but they do not the less exist, and so exist , as to constitute

    each of them “a large mass of paper” “circulating” with a degree of facility and

    rapidly governed necessarily by their bulk, and to use the learned Baronet’s own

    words, representing capital as well as interests.
  • Title: [19 June 1811 F {5[?]} Abdication]
    Description: 19 June 1811 F {5[?]}

    Abdication

    Disfranchisement

    1

    41

    15

    Be this /that/ as it may - and for argument sake even admitting that in /from/ any other mouth /lips/ a judgment /an opinion/ by which the supposed punishment in question should be pronounced neither unjust nor over severe might itself be taxed with injustice, on the part of /by/ the Honourable House punishment applied for this ground and in this shape to a corporate body could not consistently be marked with any such mark of disapprobation.

    By two several acts of the Honourable House acts in which in both instances the judgment of the Honourable House was confirmed by that of the remainder /other parts/ of the legislative body, this mode of treatment this mode of punishment, and on the score of delinquency in this very shape in a shape nearer than any other can be to their very shape was administered and approved. In two /several/ instances - and this not in any less auspicious times but in this very most auspicious innovation-looking reign was that same measure meted out meted[?] out not only with the assent but at the instance of this same Honourable House.

    In the instance of two different Boroughs, on the occasion of an Election of Members /deputies/ to serve in parliament on the part of certain of the Electors acts of bribery acts of bribe-taking were by legal proof established /ascertained to have been committed/ on the part of certain of the Electors. These Electors proved guilty, and what was due[?] consequence? Those individuals and those alone deprived /divested/ of the corporate franchise by one single act thus abused? No: not those alone: but along with those who had sunk under the temptation a number of others who had resisted it. by whom it had been resisted.
  • Title: [[131a-021] 1818 March 22 +]
    Description: [131a-021]

    1818 March 22 +

    Parl Reform Answer to Antiballotists

    2 o

    20

    20

    So much as to the alledged moral evils objected by the antiballotists to the secret mode.

    III Novelty As to the alledged novelty, I can not suppose that upon that circumstance, in the character of an objection, any great stress is laid. If novelty – or, to use the dyslogists word, innovation – is to be regarded as an objection – there is an end to the whole scheme: to the whole scheme of {radical} /parliamentary/ reform in whatever form it could be proposed. For, in the state of things in this respect whatsoever main features would be found to be antient, and as such not to come under the imputation of novelty, still in respect of the details, without novelty – without novelty in abundance – nothing would be to be done.

    But, so far as regards the secret mode of voting, in point of fact how stands the objection of novelty? In the whole of the plan as proposed in my book, this is really the feature, which, with reference to any time within the compass of several centuries, has in it the least of novelty.

    In the House of Commons, – in the service[?] of that share in the government of the subjects and inhabitants of the British Empire which is exercised by that House, on the Election of persons for certain functions, the Ballot has along been occasionally[?] in use. In this instance, what must be admitted is – that there has been a strong objection to it: so strong as to have been regarded as conclusive. But – this objection – what is it? – Not an objection to the secret mode, but an objection to the particular mode in question, on the ground that, though styled ballot, it is so practised as not to be in reality a secret mode: that, like so many other practises of Honourable House, it is a sham:– a known, an undeniable[?], a not only irreputed but confessed – in a word a compleatly exposed – imposture: one of the many impostures, with which, for the purpose of having men’s actions of right and wrong at his command, and, on every occasion, obsequious to his own sinister interest, the man of law has, to so large an extent, contrived to defile, and so effectually to corrupt, the practice of Honourable House.