date

[copyist’s hand] nd [wm 1818]
[copyist’s hand]

nd [wm 1818]

§.3. Eligible who

Art 3. No fewer than 6.

True it is that in favour of the number of twelve, here proposed for the maximum, no very decisive reason applies to the exclusion of any other particular number. But by its accidental association with Jury Trial, twelve is a number naturally recommended to the favour of all friends to the universal Interest; and in so far as reason is silent, Imagination may be allowed to speak. The unanimous suffrage of twelve distinguished persons – for in ordinary cases where there is any chance of success, such of course they will be – presents the idea of a sort of antecedent trial of appropriate aptitude.

II. Avoidance of Inconvenience in the shape of delay, vexation and expence.

In §.6. Provision is made for composing for circulation out of the several particular Recommendation Certificates delivered in favour of the several proposed Members, the General Recommendation Certificate paper of the District, to be posted up in placards and | | in Newspapers. Let on the one hand the Certificates, on the other hand the signatures to each be conceived to be to a certain degree numerous, placards and corresponding articles in Newspapers will be seen to be swelled to an impracticable length.
Similar Items
  • Title: [+ 1819 Sept. 30 Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: + 1819 Sept. 30

    Parl. Reform Bill

    §.3. Eligible who

    Art. 3 Certifiers six-twelve

    True it is that, in favour of the number of twelve, here proposed for the maximum, no very decisive reason applies to the exclusion of any other particular number. But by its accidental associations with Jury trial twelve is a number naturally recommended to the favour of all friends to the universal interest: and in so far as Reason is silent Imagination may be allowed to speak. The unanimous suffrage of twelve distinguished persons for in ordinary cases where there is any chance of success, such of course they will be – presents the idea of a sort of antecedent trial of appropriate aptitude.

    II. Avoidance of inconvenience in the shape of delay vexation and expence.

    In §.6 Provision is made for composing for circulation out of the several particular Recommendation Certificates delivered in favour of the several proposed Members, the General Recommendation Certificate paper of the District, to be posted up in placard and circulated in Newspapers. Let on the one hand the Certificates, on the signatures to each be conceived to be to a certain degree numerous, placards and corresponding articles in Newspapers will be seen to be swelled to an impracticable length.
  • Title: [[copyist’s hand] 1819 Oct. 3. 1819]
    Description: [copyist’s hand]

    1819 Oct. 3. 1819 Nov 4 Not now

    §.3. Eligible who

    Art 3. No fewer than 6.

    ( ) (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 mount for example, to hundreds – and amongst them in a large proportion men of distinction, man will be apt to feel little solicitude on this point, and may concur in giving a recommendation in favour of a proposed Member who in his (the Recommenders) own opinion possesses no place. By secrecy of suffrage, as per §.8. Voters themselves are it is true preserved from all sinister influence: but be the case of Recommenders | | 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 unheeded supporters put together, he can obtain, in lieu of all Election expenses on the part of Individuals, so small a sum – say as £120.
  • 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.