date

1819 July 4 Defence | | against Edinb
1819 July 4

Defence | | against Edinb gh Review

II Indirect attacks

4 Appropriate aptitude

2

Now in the first place it was clear that these outward and visible signs /manifestations/ of the favour[?] of Fortune were /are/ not any one of them themselves either appropriate probity, appropriate intellectual aptitude, or appropriate talent. In the next place neither did it or does it seem to me that by the possession of these spurious titles to public confidence a man is rendered the more likely to be possessed of those exclusively genuine ones: on the contrary it seemed to me that in proportion as the quantity of these spurious pledges possessed by a man encreased, the quantity of the genuine ones which he possessed was more likely to be diminished

Thus therefore of these distinctions in so far as they obtained acceptance the tendency was to cut the ground from under the feet of the learned Reviewers Clients[?]. Had this tendency been to a certain degree favourable to these same pretensions these explanations and distinctions might have been found demonstrative /to be the result/ of practical wisdom: it being such as has been seen, the whole assemblage of them /language by which they were found expressed/, theoretical, speculative wild visionary and so forth

Cartwright and J.B.

The way in which the Reviewer has upon this occasion brought in[?] a contract with my old friend the father of parliamentary reform puts me /brings to/ my mind one of the scenes /a little scene/ in early life. A father wishing to see which of two boys weaker than /not so strong as/ himself was in the school boys phrase the best man, gave one of them a pretty smart push against the other: but instead of seeing what he wished the rogue felt what he did not wish, the intended objects of his […?] joining together and bestowing upon him the compliment he had expected /looked/ to see them pay to one another. ☞ Now quote the passage
Similar Items
  • Title: [1819 May 27 Defence of | | Ballot]
    Description: 1819 May 27

    Defence of | | Ballot

    Conclusion

    Queries to Antiballotist

    2

    1. Efficacy[?]

    2. Bribery. 3. Terrorism

    For the ultimate consideration of all such persons, if any such there are I would beg leave to submitt the following queries, with a request that /to/ each of them, a precise answer may be found and delivered.

    1. Is it or is it not your wish that bribery by moneys worth given or personal service in other shape rendered to Electors should be prevented?

    2. When the value set upon the situation is such as to render it worth a mans while to employ money in the purchase of individual votes for the obtaining of it, know you of any other way /course/ so effectual as that of making it impossible for a man, in the event of his giving money for a vote whether the vote was given according to his wish?

    3. Is it or is it not your wish, that the votes given at each Election should respectively be given by each /the several/ Electors according to his /their/ wish, governed /guided/ by his opinion concerning the appropriate aptitude of each Candidate in all parts taken together meaning by appropriate aptitude his fitness for the discharge of the trust by means of his being endowed[?]

    If you hear a man say it is a matter of indifference to me whether the ballot is emploied or no, do you not mean to say that it is a matter of indifference to you whether in what proportion the votes are free and genuine, and in what proportion, forced or bought, and in both cases spurious.
  • Title: [1819 July 15 Defence of Ballot against]
    Description: 1819 July 15

    Defence of Ballot against | | B

    When I say I am for Election by votes, I mean of course by such as are free and genuine, not spurious and such as are produced either by bribery or intimidation: when I say I am for Election by votes I mean of course by genuine not spurious votes: just when I call for change for sovereign or pound bank-note, the shillings I mean to have are silver out of the mint, not whitened copper ones.

    When a man says I am not for the ballot what is it that he really means? What he means is that his wishes are to have votes the greatest part of them produced either by bribery or intimidation. Let him say what he will, this is what he means in reality: for be he ever so weak in mind he can not be really /in reality/ so weak, as to suppose that by his saying bribery ought to be resisted or intimidation out to be resisted, any such resistance will be produced.

    Curious indeed is the argument of the sentimentalist to whom the idea of insincerity in answer to a question /the case of a question/ who did you vote for is intolerable. Against possible insincerity, and that in retail only /at the interest in a minute /very small/ seat, and without any determinate evil consequences other than good ones, his gorge rises: but against /as to/ certain insincerity, upon a vast national scale, and with the most determinate and extensively mischievous consequences – to this he has no objection: on the contrary, this he is so attached to that he can not bear to part with it.
  • Title: [1819 June 5 Defence of | | Ballot]
    Description: 1819 June 5

    Defence of | | Ballot against B

    2

    To say /If what is above is true, to say/ I am indifferent about the Ballot – is as much as to say it is a matter of indifference to me whether votes are genuine or spurious – in what proportion they are in the one case or the other. It is as much as to say What I am anxious about /for/ is that I may self may have as many votes as possible at my command, and no one of all those who give them should have at his command the vote he gives. The man who says thus – the man who thinks thus – is he a reformist? is he a lover of freedom in any sense