date

[mainly in copyist’s hand] 1819 Sept
[mainly in copyist’s hand]

1819 Sept. + +

Parl. Reform Bill

Reasons

§.1. Seats and Districts

1

Note to p. 3

658. Why propose 658 for the number of the seats.

Reasons.

1. Avoidance of unnecessary change.

This is at present the number of the seats. Suppose a different number proposed, some specific reasons would require to be given in support of such different number: reasons tending to prove that any less number would be too small; any greater, too great. No such particular and preferably apt number has ever presented itself. No proposal, proposing as preferably apt, with or without particular reasons, any other particular number, has ever been observed.

Thus much as to the total number. But as to the proportions as between Great Britain and Ireland see §.9. Election Districts &c.

Follows however lower down, certain reasons why at present the number in question ought by no means to be encreased; and why, moreover, at some succeeding period, it might be found advisable to diminish it.

II. Convenience in respect of accommodation room, and facility of reciprocal view and hearing.

It is a matter of prime and undeniable importance that each Member should be provided, in as simple a manner as possible, with the means of delivering his sentiments to every possible advantage: and for that purpose it were evidently desirable, that, if practicable, he should be provided with {a small Desk or table, on which without obstruction to the view of his Colleagues, he might keep before him any such Papers as he might on the day in question have occasion to refer to in the course of his Speech. Accommodation of this Sort is seldom refused to the boys in an ordinary Schoolroom – at Washington, in the chamber occupied by the Assembly of Representatives in Congress it is afforded to every Member – See Fearon 315 –} /an accommodation such as will be seen mentioned below./

Whether {this} /the/ accommodation were afforded or not, suppose the number of seats in any considerable degree greater, than as above, so extensive would be the space necessary for the containing of them, the consequence would probably be that, in a large proportion of the whole number of seats, a voice of ordinary strength would to a great degree fail of making itself heard and understood, in a larger proportion of the seats most distant from it; much more a voice below the ordinary strength.
Similar Items
  • Title: [[copyist’s hand] 1819 Nov. 9. Not]
    Description: [copyist’s hand]

    1819 Nov. 9. Not now

    Parl. Reform Bill

    Reasons

    §.1. Seats & Districts

    Art. 4 Seat one only

    2. Question 2. Art. 4. For each District, why no more Members than one.

    Reasons.

    1. Avoidance of inequalities of influence as between the Elector of the District and the Electors of another District

    1. If not so great as that of two for every District, the whole number of Seats were greater than that of one for every district, in this case while to each one of some Districts there were no more than one seat to others there would be some number greater than one. But in this case, as between District and District there would be inequality: inequality, and no use in it or reason for it: on the contrary in proportion to the degree of it, injustice and sense of injury: To set against this Inconvenience what advantage would be gained? Not any. In the present state of things, in which two seats to a District is the ordinary complement, no assignable advantage presents itself as having in any Instance resulted from the greater number: and if any such advantage could be shewn, no reason could be drawn why, supposing, as according to the present plan, the number of Electors in each District should be possessed with the advantage, while any other were debarred from it –

    2. Avoidance of nullity of the Elector’s influence in every District in which the two Members take opposite sides –

    Under the existing system, though with the exception of the City of London, no more than two Seats are in any Instance filled by one District, considerable is the Inconvenience produced even by this lowest degree of plurality. When, in one and the same District, the two Seats are filled by two Members, who, on respect of the general silence of Government are, with relation to another guided by opposite opinions or moved by opposite interests, they in so far nullify one another: the District which they represent is without influence: with two such Representatives it is no better served than if it had none. Even under the proposed Reform but for the arrangement here proposed the case would in this respect be the same.
  • Title: [[mainly in copyist’s hand] 1819 Nov]
    Description: [mainly in copyist’s hand]

    1819 Nov 9.

    Bentham Radical

    §.1. Seats & Districts

    7

    But, sooner or later, a result that seems by no means improbable, is – that all such expedients would prove ineffectual: and this in such sort, that a reduction in the numbers would be felt to be absolutely indispensable. In this case the plan here proposed would afford a very simple mode. Throughout the whole expanse of Territory, put two or more contiguous Districts together: this done, let the thus consolidated Districts choose but one Member each, instead of two. The votes of all the voters would in this case be all collected into one Election district office instead of the two.

    As to probability of adoption, on the part of the population of the House, for an operation of this sort no great degree of promptitude could with any colour of reason be looked for: it is from the population of the Country, and that quarter alone, if from any, that any such promptitude could be exhibited. Nor even from that quarter does it seem probable that the commencement of any measures, having for their object the application of such a remedy, would take place, till the inconvenience had already risen to a serious height. Why? Because, as in the House, each Member’s chance of returning to his Seat would upon an average be reduced to half its value, so among the Electors would each man’s vote be apt to appear to be: though, upon reflection he might see, that what he lost by the encreased number of the tickets, he gained by the encreased value of the prize.

    For the purpose of doing, what the nature of the case admitts of doing in the first instance, towards lessening the difficulty of a condensation, the demand for which is liable to become so imperious, an expedient that might be employed at the outset, is the giving as the 658 Districts are marked out, intimation what two or more Districts may when the time comes, be most conveniently laid together.
  • Title: [[mainly in copyist’s hand] 1819 Oct]
    Description: [mainly in copyist’s hand]

    1819 Oct. 2 Nov 9 + +

    Benthams Radical

    Reasons

    §.1. Seats & districts

    Over number Remedies

    1

    4

    Supposing the time arrived, when the evil from superabundance of Speakers became sensible and serious, the following expedients present themselves in the character of Remedies.

    1. Limit the length of time allowed to each speaker; allow suppose in the first Instance half an hour. This, in free debating Societies, has been a not uncommon practice. Add, or add not, five minutes for eventual explanation.

    2. On occasions of adequate magnitude, on which full justice (it is supposed) can scarcely be done to the argument, without an extra length of time – power to the House to choose a certain number of persons to whom an unlimited time shall be allowed.

    N.B. Here the difficulty would be so to order matters as to prevent the predominant party from having all such unlimited speakers on its side.

    3. In full view of all the Members, keep suspended a Table of Fallacies: a table, in which the irrelevant and other fallacious arguments to which the nature of the business is apt to give rise, are designated by appropriate names. Place it within reach of the Chairman, who, being provided with a wand, points, upon occasion, to any head of fallacy, which it appears to him that the Member who is speaking is endeavouring to employ.

    By an instrument of this sort, not only might time be saved, but the reasoning faculty improved.

    In the case of any Assembly, which is, not either by sinister interest or pride, precluded from the faculty of improving its mode of procedure – in a word in the case of any Assembly not clothed with power – the adoption of an instrument of this sort may be regarded as not altogether improbable.

    Even by a Governing Assembly – and how great soever might be its power – the adoption of it might be regarded as a less evil, than the taking from half or two thirds of its number their prospect of reassuming their seats.