date

1818 Sept. 9 A Picture of Misrule
1818 Sept. 9 A

Picture of Misrule things as they ought to be

Appendix

Borough Mongers

§.1. Why not attacked by J.B.

1

1

Power of the Borough-mongers – why not here stated /held up to view/ as the principal power against which the reformists have to contend?

In speaking of the powers against which the system of radical Parliamentary reform has to contend against, the power of a certain description of persons under the name of Borough-mongers is that which of late years the advocates of reform have to a great extent been in use to hold up to view in the character of the principal power if not the only one: as if there were a determinate set of men to and by whom not only the King but the House of Lords are /were/ held in subjection, in such sort that instead of being a mixt Monarchy the government is a sort of aristocracy – an aristocracy, the Members of which are /which has for its Members/ the persons the individuals who ever they are who are to be considered as comprehended under that name.

Of an enquiry of which this conception has been the subject the result has been that the representation /this conception/ given by it is not /wants much of being/ upon the whole /not/ a correct one; that errors are included in it and that of /among/ the errors included in it, there are /the natural /practical/ result is some the effect of which, if acted upon would be to lead the mind aside from the course best adapted to the purpose of applying the most advantageous remedy, and such errors the /an/ effect of which if not corrected might have a disadvantageous effect /exercise a disadvantageous influence/ on argument and practice.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1819 Aug. 21 Disfranchisement]
    Description: 1819 Aug. 21

    Disfranchisement

    Apology for the Borough-mongers, or Defence of Reform

    2

    behold[?] this delusion is dissipated, all conception[?]

    will be inadequate inefficient[?]

    To all those whose power has /terrorism/ for its sole or principal ground terrorism, it is manifest how acceptable this delusion – and thence the phrases which is /are/ /the figure and the phrases which are/ the vehicle of it can not but be: in proportion as it prevails, it points the whole force of reform against their rivals, leaving their own power untouched. It suits them as possessors of landed opulence; it suits them as men of taste: for pretensions to taste, i.e. to a share in the monopoly of /exclusive possession of the endowment of/ good taste, is one of the features of aristocracy, and naturally not to say necessarily accompanied with insolence and intolerance: with those antisocial vices for the display of which the word serves as a pretence. Being associated with the ideas of stench and putrefaction – with the idea of putrefaction, and thence with that of stench, it excites disgust: and it is in consideration of this disgust that it is condemned: condemned by many a man, who so it were not mischievous to himself and his own circle, would care little or nothing in what degree it were mischievous to the community at large. to any body else
  • Title: [[xxxvi. 144] 1822 July 16 Constitut]
    Description: [xxxvi. 144]

    1822 July 16

    Constitut. Code Rationale

    Supreme Operative

    I Monarch absolute

    II Monarch Limited

    III Aristocracy

    IV Monarcho-Aristocracy

    1. Borough-mongers subject.

    2 Why spoken of as paramount.

    ?. In a limited say rather a mixt Monarchy, the Aristocracy are not in practice co-equal with but dependent on and instruments of the Monarchy.

    In England the Borough-mongers are under the King not the King under the Borough-mongers.

    The King (it has been said) is in a state of subjection to the Borough-mongers. The party by whom this notion is adopted is the party of the people: it is on every occasion assumed, and argued upon as a principle. In relation to it, two questions will here present themselves. 1. Is it correct?: 2. Correct or /If/ incorrect to what cause is the use made of it to be attributed /what is the cause of its currency?/

    Question 1. Is it correct /true/? Answer. It is not. /untrue./ That they /the two powers/ act not in constant union, thus far is true. But, on each occasion whatsoever be the course taken by the union, it is by the will of the King not by the will of any power that that course is determined: not by the will of any other power whatsoever be the situation of it, or by what name so ever denominated.

    By Borough-mongers are meant the aggregate of the several individuals by whom the seats in the Commons House are filled. The cause why this denomination is employed will be mentioned in its place.

    What is here assumed is - that the Lords House in its corporate capacity is in fact /practice/ in a state of subjection to the Commons House. Thus much is true, manifest and undisputed. ( Quere whether to state the proofs)

    What is also assumed is that in a very large proportion the occupiers of the seats in the Commons House are located by individuals who have seats in the Lords House. This also is manifest and undisputed.
  • Title: [1818 Sept. 9. Things as they are]
    Description: 1818 Sept. 9.

    Things as they are

    Appendix

    Borough Mongers

    §.1.

    5

    5

    What is true is – that to the Monarch it belongs to dissolve the Parliament and with it the House of Commons whenever he pleases: 2. that in the hands of the Monarch alone is the power of appointment with regard to all offices and of removal at pleasure in regard to the greatest part of the value[?] of whole mass, purse and pay taken together: 3. that in the hands of the Monarch alone is the whole of the military power, by sea and by land, over regulars and over non-regulars and that in no one of these powers are the so-called Borough mongers either collectively or individually considered partakers.

    On the other hand what is no less true is that of the persons appointed by these so called Borough Mongers /these Borough mongers and the persons appointed by them/ is composed a considerable majority of the Members of the House of Commons: true it is moreover /perhaps/ that by a dissolution of Parliament it would not at any time be in the power of the Monarch to destroy their effective power to reduce their habitual majority to a minority.

    But to the members of this set of Borough mongers the object of concupiscence, those objects by which alone /principally/ such their condition is rendered valuable to them are many by office and commission – power by peerage bishopricks and inferior office, and fictitious dignity in all its various shapes, and by any other hand than his /without his concurrence thought[?]/ not one of all these good things is there any one of them that could ever possess himself of.