date

1819 May 21 Defence of Ballot
1819 May 21

Defence of Ballot

Tumult eulogized

16

2. No tumult, no zeal.

3. Tumult should be – not extinguished but countervaild.

Observations. Here we the course taken by the argument, in pursuance of the design and plan already indicated, namely the design of planting and cultivating in the minds of the lovers of peace and gentleness an antipathy to the cause of reform and to that democratic ascendancy to which the mouth-honour prescribed by policy has just been seen bestowed, by causing them to suppose that tumult universal and habitual tumult is not only /merely/ subservient but necessary to it.

Now then as far as extends, how stands the fact? In that country where not only democratic ascendancy clogged by Aristocracy under a Monarchy, not only /merely/ democratic ascendancy /has place/ but pure democracy has place /is enthroned/, tumult is almost /comparatively/ unknown. Why almost unknown? Is it that the temper of the people has more of gentleness than here? Is it that social affection is there in the greater proportion to self regarding affection, and that dissocial affection that springs out of it? Is it that taken in the whole the public mind is there in a higher culture than here? Alas! the body of evidence which of late has been poured[?] upon the table of the public with such instructive profusion has given the contrary result: that result which is[?] due reflection on the nature of man in general, and of the circumstances in which in that particular situation in question, might have anticipated.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1819 May 23 Defence of Ballot]
    Description: 1819 May 23

    Defence of Ballot

    Imaginary use of Ballot

    3

    His fancied democracy is an extreme one. With the idea attached to the word Democracy, especially when the adjunct extreme is added to it, it can not be but that in the sage and sapient minds to which this rhetoric of his is addressed, the idea of licentiousness, though in their measurement contiguous and at the same time opposite, should be associated. For keeping out licentiousness there are according to this theory a set of remedies which have this bad property in them that they are likely to endanger liberty by destroying all democratic spirit: i.e. all democratic tumult. He says /tells us/ not what they are: prudence would not suffer him: darkness and silence collusion insinuation are the guards of sapience. Perhaps what he would have us figure to ourselves are dungeoning bills and gassying[?] bills: things which for the moment and for the purpose of the argument we may be permitted to be afraid of /tremble at the thoughts of/ for the purpose of the moment and the argument, but which must not be too steadily exposed to an odium, as /since/ neither the Tories nor Whigs can do without them. Well: somebody, he for example of damping democratic spirit i.e. tumult so far as it required to be damped might be for proposing ballot: but /But/ then the same person or somebody else might come and object /make an objection/ to the employing of this same remedy saying that by being thus damped democratic spirit alias tumult would be destroyed, and if this sort of destruction the destruction of tumult – were effected, a likelyhood of endangering liberty would be the result. In this smoke and the lights shed on this part of the subject by the learned Reviewers sapience.
  • Title: [1819 May 29 Defence of | | Ballot]
    Description: 1819 May 29

    Defence of | | Ballot

    Tumult, use of the word

    2

    Use of the word tumult to the learned Reviewer. Not only on the part of Anti Reformists was the aversion to reform to be encreased, but if possible Reformists themselves were to be put out of concert with it. They were to be made to look upon it as not only not conducive but adverse to their wishes. Adverse to their wishes as excluding tumult: said tumult being not only conducive to said wishes, but necessary: and tumult being thus necessary to all reform – to all efficient reform – to all persons to whom tumult or ordinary reform was /is/ thus to be made odious And even among reformists who is there to whom tumult is not – to whom at any rate some of the things the idea of which is sure to be preserved by that name, is not odious?

    Thus far the Reviewer. On the other side what I say is – Ballot {without tumult or any other bad adjunct} is necessary to freedom of suffrage: it is therefore necessary to all efficient reform. There is no danger of its doing either too little or too much: there is no danger of its counteracting in any way any of the ends of reform, it wants no corrective whatever, in particular it stands /waits/ in no need of tumult in that quality or any other: tumult in so far as it means any thing means what is purely mischievous – it would not accompany election by ballot: if it did accompany election by ballot it would produce mischief by the whole of its effects: mischief altogether uncompensated; but the ballot has no tendency to produce it; under ballot it would not be produced; for among the sure effects of ballot would be the exclusion of it.
  • Title: [1819 Oct. 13 Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: 1819 Oct. 13

    Parl. Reform Bill

    Reasons Prel. Obs.

    §.2. Electors who

    4

    Of the four positions the proof of which is consigned to the above four N os /Essays/ beginning with the first from whence the three others follow as of course, the proof depends upon an radical or fundamental position, namely the necessary predominance of self-regarding over-social affection in every human breast. For the proof see another N o in the Appendix: N o | |, Title | | Self regarding affection universally and necessarily predominant.

    From the incompatibility of the other forms with good government results the necessity of the remedy proposed under the name Democratic ascendancy in the form of radicalism. This considered what might at first view /naturally/ be expected is that the proof of the disorder should precede all discussion relative to the eligibility of the remedy. But, the subject /topic/ of the undangerousness of radical reform being at once /ground/ so perfectly untouched and the opposite notion being the notion on which all the opposition made to it seems to have almost exclusively rested, the first place is the place which it has been thought might be given to this /that/ article with obvious and indisputable advantage. This position being established, next in order will come naturally come the string of other positions having for their subjects respectively the several other forms of government

    Last of all will come the paper having for its title Why not pure Democracy, rather than the British Constitution with Democratic ascendancy as established by radicalism.