131-132.xml

Title: [1819 June 11 Parl. Reform Bill Reasons]

Description: 1819 June 11

Parl. Reform Bill Reasons

Electors Who

Universality

Idiots – Brougham

2 June 1818

1

Admission of Idiots. In what M r Brougham said on this subject he knew better things than to suppose for a moment, that in the way of fair argument there was any thing that was worth a straw. But he knew the sort of man that he had to deal with, that when it was not by sinister interest it was by fallacy in some shape or other that they were led. He knew that at the mention of the word idiot in conjunction with the idea of a person thus designated giving a vote at a parliamentary Election the prudence /imagination/ of his auditors would point to them the idea of a House of Commons filled by idiots returned by bodies of Electors composed of Idiots. He saw perhaps in a vision the Archbishop of Canterbury or on the 10 th of June 1819 saw in another vision two Houses of Parliament /a House of Lords/ composed of those of Catholics: concluding and gave this as a reason for continuing to shut the door against the dozen or score of Lords /Members/ of that persuasion: the Catholic religion being either so true or so bewitching[?] that as soon as {all} those who possessed it go to their seats all the others Bishops and all would go over to that side.

In regard to idiots what I say is this

1. That under my plan they would not in fact vote any of them give a vote.

2. That they would not do any the least harm if they every one of them gives a vote. This M r Brougham brings to view and virtually acknowledges. But the question with him was not whether the arrangement had any thing bad in it but whether by giving a false conception of it, a laugh could not be raised against it.

3. I could go further and say that Elections are in great numbers carried at present by a description of persons such that if idiots were substituted to them, the change would prove decidedly beneficial to the universal interest. In this case are all those who by corruption[?] of intimidation are engaged against them an opinion to give their votes either in favour of a Tory against a Whig or a Peoplesman or in favour of a Tory or a Whig against a Peoplesman: for supposing the voter an idiot the sinister interest would have no hold on his vote, and Tories, Whigs and Peoplesmen would all have an equal chance for it.

131-134.xml

Title: [1819 June 11 Defence against Edinb]

Description: 1819 June 11

Defence against Edinb g Review

Who

1

If M r Brougham is to be believed /According to M r Brougham/ [1] the system of secret suffrage is either impracticable or pernicious or both, because for the reception of the voter Major Cartwrights scheme employs boxes and certain other implements With the same force had he been Counsel against open suffrage he would /might/ have argued that it is bad /a bad arrangement/, because the votes are taken down in books called Roll-books. It rests with them to shew what there is more absurd /greater absurdity there is/ in the use of boxes for this purpose, than in the use of books. As well might he have said Jury trial is an absurd thing: for the place that Juries sit in is a box called the Jury Box. My plan must at least be equally absurd: for I must have one ridiculous box in /out of/ which the candidate names must be taken, another ridiculous box into which they must be put, and a slip of card cut into two ridiculous pieces joined together again by two ridiculous pieces of thread: at which when he sees the description of them, he will find them so effectually adapted to the purpose, that if it happens to him to be of the same mind, though he will /may/ not be much disposed to laugh at them himself: yet in hopes of carrying the scheme of which they form part to be regarded as either impracticable or pernicious, it will be his endeavour to make other Honourable Gentlemen &c laugh.

Well now from all this pleasantry what is the serious inference? I will declare plainly and simply what my inference is and let the reader judge of it. My inference is that all the while M r Brougham was thus arguing against the ballot, endeavouring to make the hearers regard it as impracticable or pernicious or both, he was in his own mind convinced to the contrary: convinced that it was practically /is in its nature[?]/ useful and unobjectionable. For had it been in his power to have produced against any arguments bearing upon the subject – in a word any arguments better than these whether the interest of the public or the interest of his own reputation were considered, would he have hazarded such as these. To every purpose but that of affording a pretence to those who were seeking for a pretence, would not silence have been a very advantageous substitute to such arguments?

Another reason I will give for my persuasion /in support of my inference/. That reason is – that if, M r Brougham is to be believed and in this I do really believe him, it would be or at least would have been for his interest that in the Election in which he was Candidate the mode of voting should be secret.

[1] Brougham’s Speech 2 June 1818

JB_128_155.xml

Title: [1818 June 23 Parl. Reform Bill]

Description: 1818 June 23

Parl. Reform Bill

Preface?

4

Look to Westmoreland for example. Behold there Manicheism illustrated: behold there

the combat between influence and influence, between the good spirit and the evil one.

In Westmoreland, the same influence is it a good thing or a bad thing? {Answer me my

learned and honourable friend /and learned gentleman/ who from that proud eminence on

which no one more sincerely than I do wish to see you reseated[?], poured down such a

torrent of eloquence upon your absent yet not altogether undefended /unprotected/

friend. /the ridiculous and the would be mischievous though well-meaning visionary./}

Now[?] I will save you the trouble. In Westmoreland there is good /evil/ influence

and influence: there is the good /evil/ sort: there is the evil /good/ sort The evil

sort is that which employs itself in support of the Lowthers: the good sort is that

which employs itself for Brougham of Brougham. Is it fit and right that the

Representatives of the People should be named by Peers? That depends upon their

title. Bad if the title be from the honour of Lonsdale: good if it be from the Soke

of Thanet.

The curious thing is to see a Candidate who has no influence – whose sole dependence

as he himself not only knows but desires[?] is in freedom of suffrage, yet whom it is

called ballot inveighing against it, and calling it bad

names. Of the existence of this phænomenon I have proof before me /an example in

black and white/ An honest man ought not to have any regard to his own[?] interest:

therefore, he will not, at any rate, so far as it depends on the vote he gives. {Such

is the tope, and where learnt? even at the feet of Gilbert Wakefield.}