date

1819 July 6 Defence of | | ag t Edinb
1819 July 6

Defence of | | ag t Edinb gh Review

Horne Tookes Plan

1

As if to render the confusion so much the thicker, the arguments of the Reviewer brings in his hand /on the carpet/ of those[?] /Horne Tooke/ plans mentioned by them are by Horne Tooke || have[?] obtained from the Reviewer the greatest share of his approbation: “it is say they perhaps the least impowering.”

Horne Tookes views of the subject were incorrect and narrow: the true /only defensible/ end of government the greatest happiness of the greatest number was not /never/ present to his eyes: by opulence the […?] of his worship it was eclipsed. For the happiness of his fellow man at large he had no regard: the whole of it was engrossed by the ruling and influential few. Of a situation /place/ in the aristocracy of talent he was in possession: of a place in the aristocracy of wealth he was in expectancy. [1]

The great majority of the people his plan of representation want to exclude: opulence was the sole qualification he would admitt of: and the greater the opulence the greater the share a man was to possess in the faculty of naming the members of the ruling body, every man being to have as many votes as he could purchase. /being able he chose to purchase./

Ask him for a reason for this, he gives none, he has none to give: but instead of a reason in favour of this exclusion thus put upon all but the opulent few, he produces what in his eyes is an answer to those who claim the right for the majority that is for those whose means of subsistence are composed exclusively of the wages of labour.

|| p.184

p.191

[1] I take these from the extract given in the Edinburgh Review /on this occasion by the Reviewer/
Similar Items
  • Title: [1819 July 6 Defence of | | ag st Edinb]
    Description: 1819 July 6

    Defence of | | ag st Edinb gh Review

    4

    That which Horne Tooke did not say, or did not choose to seem to say, is not the less true is – that when by correspondent payment made the burthen in question is borne, there remains to the man of property /proprietor/ a benefit in which the man of no property /non-proprietor/ has no share. But in this case by the supposition there is a benefit to be disposed of: a benefit, namely the portion of power in question. This being understood to whom according to the maxim invented by Horne Tooke should the grant of this benefit be granted? /made?/ to the non-proprietor uncontrovertibly: for as to the proprietor he has his benefit, and that a much more sensible one in another shape: and this a benefit in which the non-proprietor has no share.
  • Title: [1819 July 6 Defence of | | ag st Edinb]
    Description: 1819 July 6

    Defence of | | ag st Edinb gh Review

    Horne Tookes Plan

    5

    But the all of a non proprietor says Horne Tooke is not so dear even to him as the all of a proprietor is to him. Here is /we have/ my[?] obscurity, ask him for the application and thence for the explanation of it, it /what he means/ is that the non-proprietor can not be so much to be depended upon for his staying upon occasion in the country, and thus contributing to its defence.

    But neither {is} /has/ this position confirmed by /the support /correct in point/ of/ fact. “The lowest order of men consume” (says he) thus all daily, as fast as they acquire it.

    Widely distant from the truth is this: especially as applied to the purpose of the argument. The subsistence of the few is derived from one sort of source; the subsistence of the many from another sort of source. The subsistence of the few is derived from /composed of/ the rent of land from the interest or profit of capital, or from a deduction made from both and existing in the form of pay attached to political office, with or without service or pretence of service. The subsistence of the many is derived /composed/ from the wages of labour

    But the proper object of the question need it be said is not the source from whence a mans being or well-being such as it is is /as[?]/ derived but the being and well-being itself. Well then the being and well-being of the man whose subsistence is derived from the wages of labour is it less dear to him than the being and well being of him whose subsistence is derived from rent of land movable capital or official pay? […?] could not seriously have answered in the affirmative.
  • Title: [1819 July 7 Defence | | Ed g Review]
    Description: 1819 July 7

    Defence | | Ed g Review

    Horne Tooke

    8

    3

    3. Extreme ignorance. This comes under /belongs to/ the head of want of appropriate intellectual aptitude. For excluding appropriate inaptitude in this shape and degree, Horne Tookes recipe extreme opulence affords no direct security: mine does: namely possession of the faculty of reading, proved /established/ by adequate evidence: reading the instrument by which the positive possession opposite to ignorance in every shape is at any time acquirable.

    4. Extreme dependence. Of this element of appropriate inaptitude the /to divest/ Croesus to whom the power of the country would under the Monarch with good things of all sorts in his hand have been given by Horne Tooke is more than his plan would perform /accomptable/ one may almost say had towards performing. In the instance of every voter without exception be they ever so many myriads my plan having the ballot in it accomplishes the object to a certainty.

    5. Extreme misery. Either this means extreme indigence or it is nothing to the purpose. If it does not mean extreme indigence, it means extreme suffering from any other cause in which case it is nothing to the purpose. But indigence itself is nothing to the purpose, any further than dependence is the effect of it.