131-397.xml

Title: [[copyist’s hand] 1819 Oct. 3.]

Description: [copyist’s hand]

1819 Oct. 3.

A succedaneum already[?] made[?]

§.3. Eligible who

Art. 6. (appropriate probity &c.) Question 3. Why make the Certificate thus particular, in respect of the points or elements of appropriate aptitude?

Reasons.

1. Avoidance of Miselection.

Suppose the choice would otherwise have fallen upon a person in any degree more apt: the Election of any person, how apt soever, is, comparatively speaking so far Miselection.

The more particular the account is, which is given of a person’s supposed fitness, the more closely the attention of persons in general is thereby directed to the character of the Individual, and to the question whether the aptitude thus ascribed to him be really possessed by him. In this or that particular point, suppose it clear that his character will not bear examination: men, who themselves enjoy a good reputation will shrink from the task of delivering in his favour a false declaration, by the falsity of which their own Reputation either in respect of sincerity or in respect of discernment, may in proportion to his deficiency in the particulars in question, be injured.

The more particular the description of the points of aptitude thus attributed to a man, the stronger will be the security thus afforded for his possessing them. But a degree of particularity beyond that here exhibited should not be attempted without great caution. The danger is lest, by the requisition of qualities which how beneficial and laudable soever in private points of view have little or no bearing in appropriate aptitude considered merely with reference to the public situation in question, a man possessed in a preeminent degree of this only material qualification should every now and then be excluded. A man deplorably abundant in bad qualities the influence of which is felt in private life may yet upon the whole be fitter for this public situation than any other person that can be found for it. Repulsive pride, overbearing arrogance, disgusting vanity, intemperance in the pleasures of the table, irregularity in the pleasures of the bed, maybe conspicuous in him, and yet with reference to the situation in question he may be incomparably more apt than a person whose character is compleatly clear of all these spots.

131-392.xml

Title: [+ 1819 Sept. 30 Parl. Reform Bill]

Description: + 1819 Sept. 30

Parl. Reform Bill

§.3. Eligible who

Art. 3 Certifiers six-twelve

Art 3 No more than 12

( ) (Six Certifiers ..... twelve) Art. 3.

Question 2. Why limit the signatures to so small a number as twelve?

Reasons

1. Avoidance of Miselection.

The greater the number, of those among whom, in case of a recommendation given in favour of a proposed Member more or less conspicuously deficient in respect of any of the elements of appropriate aptitude, the reproach is shared, the less sensibly it is felt by any one. Suppose them to amount, for example, to hundreds – and amongst them, in a large proportion men of distinction a man will be apt to feel little solicitude on this point, and may conceive in giving a recommendation in favour of a proposed Member, who in his (the recommender’s) own opinion possesses no place. By secresy of suffrage as per §.8 Voters themselves are, it is true, preserved from all sinister influence: but to the case of Recommenders, as here, that security can not be extended.

If, in favour of the person in question, Recommenders in so small a number as six can not be procured, in the first place, scarcely can there be much probability of appropriate aptitude on his part; in the next place – what is still more decisive – still less can there be any probability of his obtaining a majority of the Votes.

So, if, neither from his own stock, nor that of all his intended supporters put together, he can obtain, in lieu of all Election expences on the part of individuals, so small a sum – say as £120.

131-374.xml

Title: [+ 1819 Sept. 30 Parl. Reform Bill]

Description: + 1819 Sept. 30

Parl. Reform Bill.

Reasons

§.3. Eligible who

( ) Art. 6. (provisional – Certificates)

Question 1. Why allow of any such provisional Certificates? and eventual selection?

Reasons

1. Avoidance of Miselection.

But for such provision, in the view of excluding this or that person whose election they apprehended, persons of no reputation or of bad reputation might, of themselves, on some party consideration, or by the procurement of some rival Candidate, join and deliver, as it were in favour of the person in question for the very purpose of disgracing him a Recommendatory Certificate with their signatures; and in pursuit of this plan, if no more than one such Certificate were allowed, deliver in such thus insidious instrument this before any other had been delivered in by persons whose object were really, as well as professedly to promote the Election of the person therein mentioned.

Note that the task of selection as above would to the Members by whom the selection were made be obviously of rather an invidious nature: the number being, as above, a limited one, any of the Recommenders who were not included in it might be apt to feel more or less of disappointment and mortification. On this account it would be the interest, and thence naturally the wish, of proposed Members, that the requisite number of Recommenders should be made not by concert among their well wishers. Naturally speaking, Such accordingly would generally, if not universally, be the arrangement that would have place. But, depending altogether on free consent, legal regulation could not be employed to any use in the endeavour to secure the adoption of it.