date

1819 May 15 I. Disfranchising II Boroughmongers
1819 May 15

I. Disfranchising II Boroughmongers’ Apology.

Disfranchisement

§.2[?] […?]disfranchised

5

Thus then[?] it appears to me that the exclusive use of this term in the case in question has been shewn to be deceptitious This being supposed it remains to be shewn to what causes its prevention is /ought/ to be ascribed

1. In the first place neither is the mischievous effect nor the existence of the fact in those individual cases in which the mischievous estates of things respectively take place so conspicuous in the case of terrorism as in that of bribery: not to speak of those other modes of operations to the same end by receipt or hope of good which do not in the ordinary acceptation of the word come under the head of bribery
Similar Items
  • Title: [1819 May 15 I Disfranchising II Boroughmongers]
    Description: 1819 May 15

    I Disfranchising II Boroughmongers Apology.

    Disfranchisement

    §.2[?] […?]disfranchised

    3

    1. As to the mode /that one to which it confines itself of the two modes/ in which the sinister influence may be and is applied. Such I say is the effect of this inadequate application, that the evil thus complained of is[?] the only one might be thus compleatly eradicated removed and the state of the representation and the condition of the county in consequence instead of being bettered rendered so much the worse

    Suppose all Borough-rights /Elections/ extinguished: and for example the faculty of filling the seats transferred to the Hundreds or other Territorial districts in any degree larger, in which those Boroughs are respectively situated. In this case either terrorism would be compleatly substituted to bribery, or in addition to terrorism, bribery to an unlimited amount perhaps to a greater one than Crassus[?] could continue the persons[?] of the individuals by whom the bribes were received being to an extent more or less considerable changed – together with the amount of the money given to each in the way of bribe. As to the power therefore no change would be produced other than a change for the worst.

    2 Even admitting that terrorism is not more mischievous than bribery or even that of the two modes of producing unfree and spurious votes, namely terrorism and bribery, bribery is the only one that is pernicious, – even admitting that for the purpose of the argument, still the effect of the term[?] Borough-mongering would be /is/ to produce deception, since it does not place the alledged evil on its true ground.

    For the seats in question suppose none of them ever sold: whether possible or no, suppose for the purpose of the argument the matter so arranged, that it were become visible /manifest/ to all men that no seat could ever be sold. Where would be the benefit? Not any. The seats would pass from possessor to possessor like entailed Estates. They would continue in the same families with a degree of permanence equal to that with which landed property at large does so: for I suppose it would not be proposed by any body to give to the /this/ continuance any greater degree of permanence.
  • Title: [1819 May 15 I. Disfranchising. II]
    Description: 1819 May 15

    I. Disfranchising. II Boroughmongers’ Apology.

    Disfranchisement

    §.2[?] […?]disfranchised

    4

    Well then in so far as the number of the seats in question extended, the House of Commons would be converted into another House of Lords. The Aristocracy would so far be enlarged and strengthened: the Democracy excluded /diminished/ and weakened.

    In a word the term supposes that the mischief consists principally if not exclusively in this, viz the facility and frequency with which the faculty of filling those seats changes hands. But it has been shewn already that by this facility so far from being encreased, what mischief there is in the abundance /existence/ of those unfree and spurious votes is lessened.
  • Title: [1819 May 15 I. Disfranchising – II]
    Description: 1819 May 15

    I. Disfranchising – II Boroughmongers’ Apology.

    Disfranchisement

    §.2[?] […?] disfranchised

    6

    2. In the next place, in the public mind a sort of antipathy is in the habit of pointing itself against every thing to which in the case of a public trust any such term as venality can be applied. You are a slave: you set yourself up to be sold in that quali /to serve in that character./ But at the command of his master a slave finds /may find/ himself under the obligation of making himself an instrument to the commission of all manner of crimes, be they ever so atrocious and mischievous. He who without is[?] consent is in this abject condition is an object of well-grounded contempt and commiseration: he who with and by his own consent is so[?] is an object of well grounded contempt and abhorrence.

    Such are the ideas which in experience have become generally associated with the words venality and sale thus applied to a public trust.

    But in the instance of the public trust in question it has been seen how inapplicable they are. The mischief of any would in respect of duration and frequency be confined to the time occupied in the giving of a single vote: from a vote thus given /the practice of giving votes in that mode/ it has been shewn that no real sensible /perceptible/ mischief ensues: and if there were any it there ends: as to all other purposes the conduct and character of the sort of person in question is as free from the /as that of any/ imputation of mischievousness in any shape