date

16 Jan y. 1810 Parl y. Reform
16 Jan y. 1810

Parl y. Reform

3

3

Now this position is one which to my view of the matter appears to be inconsistent with true morality: and /viz. as/ to involve in it, and if only by implication, yet by an implication altogether necessary, a defence /an adoption/ of the system of corruption in any the worst applications that can be made of it.

The term influence I have already had occasion to speak of as susceptible of two very different applications, having the effect of dividing it into two species, in their conceptions as dissimilar to and in their effects as opposite to one another as any two species of acts /things/ that can be imagined: I mean influence of understanding on understanding, and influence of will on will.

If {it were} the influence exercised by /of/ understanding over understanding if it were that which it was the intention of the Right Honorable Orator /this passage /doctrine// to present to view as that which may and must and ought to have by[?] predominating, in that case it would as little be in my inclination as in my power to depart/ find any reason for departing/ from it.
Similar Items
  • Title: [22 Jan y. 1810 Parl y. Reform]
    Description: 22 Jan y. 1810

    Parl y. Reform

    Influence

    Ch. Mischief

    '.1.

    4

    4

    On any occasion in the course of this same period, suppose, for supposition sake, any other sinister interest to have obtained /commanded/ a majority, and that by the means of sinister influence, of the influence of will over will, it can only have been by means of the secret support, or through the inadvertence or the negligence on the part of /of/ the possessors that irresistible and all-commanding influence.

    By means indeed of authority, viz. intellectual authority - influence of that sort which is exercised by understanding over understanding may to an indefinite amount have fallen to the share of this or that individual, or to each one of an indefinite number of individuals: and if on any occasion by that sort of influence which is exercised by will on will wills thus endowed /armed/ with a sufficient mass intellectual authority can be influenced with effect, and efficient majority sufficient to exercise /exercising/ the power of the whole assembly may in this way be got together /up/ and commanded by sinister influence in /even in/ individual /private/ hands.

    But under so predominating an influence as that of the King how rarely, if ever, exemplified such particular sinister influence can have been, may be left to any one to determine.
  • Title: [21 Jan y. 1810 Parl y. Reform]
    Description: 21 Jan y. 1810

    Parl y. Reform

    Influence

    Ch.2.

    '.1.

    8

    8

    Objector. Good. So far so good /Agreed/ But if you admitt of influence, what do you get by limiting it to that sort of influence which is exercised {by understanding} over understanding? why not as well admitt of that sort which is exercised by will on will? By the influence exercised on it by understanding is not understanding continually liable to be misled and in consequence conduct misdirected in consequence? But if conduct be misdirected, what matters it whether it be by understanding or by will that is misdirected.

    Author. Doubtless the one you have been mentioning is a cause of misconduct as well as the other. But in my turn give me leave to put the question is it not better to have but one cause of misconduct than to have two?

    Now then in between the two causes of misconduct in the case in question the matter stands thus. {Misconduct so far as it has for its cause a deceptitious /an improper/ /a misleading/ influence exercised on understanding by understanding it is in this case impossible to prevent or diminish by any legal arrangements: misconduct so far as in this same case it has for its cause influence exercised by will over will it is not impossible to diminish at least by legal arrangements.}
  • Title: [16 Jan y 1810 Parl y. Reform]
    Description: 16 Jan y 1810

    Parl y. Reform

    '.1.

    2

    2

    Of the two positions that have presented themselves to my view in that light one is that "in the election of Members to serve in this House", the "Influence" which "the possessions of property .... have" is a legitimate influence": viz. such as a man has a "right" to exercise - such as a man " ought to have", and such as ought be "a predominating influence".

    Of the term rights, together with the /its/ attributive /adjunct/ legitimate here adjoined to it the intended import is seems to be put out of all doubt by the words ought to have. The object of them is to present {to view the more legal rights /sort of right /acts//, viz. the faculty of doing such acts as a man has a right to do has inasmuch as he can not be punished for the doing them /having done them/} to view the exercise of the sort of influence in question not merely in the character of an act which a man has a legal right to perform, inasmuch as he can not be punished for having performed it, but in the character of an act which in the event of his having performed he has not in so doing {infringed any moral obligation nor therefore incurred any just censure nor} done any thing which in consideration of its influence on the public welfare it were desirable that he should not have done /there is any sufficient reason for wishing that he had not done/.