131-140.xml

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.

131-136.xml

Title: [1819 July 6 Defence of | | ag t Edinb]

Description: 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/

131-142.xml

Title: [1819 July 7 Defence | | ag st Edinb]

Description: 1819 July 7

Defence | | ag st Edinb gh Review

Horne Tooke

7

2

5. Extreme criminality – Here are the usual /too customary/ /too frequently exemplified/ oversights: 1. /One is – the/ Supposing that a distinct line is drawn between two species of human beings, by the cluster of accidents that while it has caused certain species of acts to have been aggregated by force of law to the class of crimes extreme crimes, and therefore some men to have been proved in form of law to have committed /performed/ /exercised/ certain individual acts thus aggregated to those same species of acts, has left other acts and individual agents not included /comprehended/ within the boundary lane thus /so/ marked out.

2 The other is the not seeing that unless of the whole number of the persons comprehended under these and all other supposed ill qualified classes /denominations put together is sufficient to give determine the aggregate /ultimate/ result of the polling process and determine it on the wrong side, no evil in any shape is produced. As to criminals put them aside: for be the species of crime what it may, for one that has been legally made known you have in that time not been legally made known. Take persons insane, those that are so are /have/ without many exceptions been made known. To act /Acting/ as patron of a seat – to act as the one person by whose sole power a seat is filled. Yes: if this were done by a maniac there might be real inconvenience. Even in this case a maniac /madman/ is hardly so improper a person as a lord: for the nominee of a lord will be almost sure to be a man predetermined to give his support to a narrow interest opposite /hostile/ to the universal interest, whereas the nominee of a maniac might be any one person as well /likely/ as any other. But acting[?] as one out some thousand as though it were but hundreds of persons each of them contributing in equal and no more than equal proportion to the ultimate and aggregate at ultimate result of the polling process, what matters it whether the utmost possible number of men of the obnoxious /reprobated/ description of men in question be or be not admitted? Not that on my plan they /any/ would be able to reach the polling place. But suppose they all did. The effect would be no other than that of determining so many votes by chance instead of choice.