date

1818 Sept. 9. Things as they are
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.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1818 Sept. 9. Things as they are]
    Description: 1818 Sept. 9.

    Things as they are

    Appendix

    Borough mongers

    3

    3

    5 That in this state of things the interest of the Monarch is in opposition /opposite/ to the interest of those so called Borough mongers: and their aggregate interest opposite to his.

    6. That moreover as to what regards the people at large, the interest of the Monarch if not identical with /agreeing /in agreement/ with/ that of the people in all its points, is so at any rate in this point viz in being adverse to that of the so-called Borough-mongers: for that so it is that by the Boroughmongers dominion is exercised not only over the people, but over him, and through /th/ him over the people and that it is by the /a/ dominion that /which/ they exercise over him that they exercise the dominion which they exercise over the people

    7. That accordingly in the actual state of things it is the interest of the Monarch that to the dominion of the so called Borough mongers there should be an end: in so much that /for that/ if this same dominion were at an end, power possessed and exercised by the Monarch would be greater than the power possessed and exercised by him at present.

    8. That whereas by the proposed system of radical reform the power /dominion/ of these so-called Borough minders would be put to an end, so it is that under the proposed system of radical reform the effective power possessed and exercised by the Monarch would be greater than the power possessed and exercised by him at present.
  • 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. 1. Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: 1818 Sept. 1.

    Parl. Reform Bill

    Reasons ult o

    '.2. Electors Who

    Universality

    4

    4

    reserved. By refusing certain supplies altogether, they may dissolve the whole frame of government:

    by not granting such supplies but in conditions of their own imposing /annexing/ they may draw to themselves successively all the several other powers of government:

    neither by the Monarch nor by the House of Lords nor by both together could any such condition be imposed, any new powers acquired.

    Draughtsmans Note

    In the existing state of things, the representative this power of conquest though possessed is not exercised by the House of Commons. In the proposed state of the Representation neither would it be exercise. In the proposed state of things the constitution would in power of force be the same as it is in the existing state. The sole differences would be in the effect. In the existing state the effect is that the interest of the ruling few is consulted in preference to that of the subject many: in the proposed state the interest of the subject many would be consulted in preference to that of the ruling few. {See further reason - where this is shewn [...?] at large.} In the existing state of things, the majority of the House of commons habitually sell their power to the monarch and his subordinates and adherents, by whom it is employed in the advancement of their separate interests at the expence of the universal interests: the House of Lords pursues[?] habitually the same course. In the proposed state of things the House of Commons would not have it in their power thus to sell themselves. As to the House of Lords their power would hardly be worth the buying; and if it were, the Monarch would not have it in his power to make the purchase.