date

1818 July 7 Parl. Ref. Bill
1818 July 7

Parl. Ref. Bill

Reasons

§ VI. Mode of Voting /Voting how/

Voting secret why

4

An /One/ objection I have heard /has been/ made against the secret mode is – / – and that is/ the falshood which will be produced, as often as being /to a /the/ question/ interrogated /questioned/ how he has given vote has been given put to him by one to whom he is unwilling that the direction really given to the vote should be known, the answer returned /account given/ /statement made/ is false.

Answer. 1. Under the here proposed plan at any rate, such falshood does not seem likely to be otherwise /other/ than extremely rare: no question, no false answer.

Independently of the particular security here proposed The law of secresy has for its professed object the securing the weak against the tyranny of the powerful. From a person to whom the voter had any thing either simply to fear, or to hope and thence to fear, the question would be an insult. My wish is to make /injure/ you suffer: against my injury the law has done all that it thought it could do to afford you protection: fruitless is the endeavour: put yourself, I charge you put yourself out of the protection of the law

2. Under an /the/ article here proposed, each Voter makes a solemn promise made in writing and under his hand remaining on record that he never will declare say to which way he has given his vote: never will say: for, as to the making known, this is from first to last physically and utterly impossible. If it be an insult to call upon a man to act in contrariety to the known intention of a liberty-protecting law, how much greater the insult when the act would not be performed without the violation of a solemn promise
Similar Items
  • Title: [[131a-019] 1818 March 23 +]
    Description: [131a-019]

    1818 March 23 +

    Parl Reform Answer to Antiballotists

    2 o

    18

    18

    “ The charm of confidential friendship broken”? – No such thing. By no answer could the charm be broken: for by the question itself it would have been broken already. Without the law, the question would have been an impertinence: under the law it would be, as above, an insult. Under the impossibility of knowing whether the answer were true or false, what good purpose could such a question serve? In any case I see not how in case of falshood, friendship could be injured by the falshood. Yes: if by the friend it were known to be a falshood: but that, by the very nature of the case, is rendered impossible.

    So much for the morals evils which, it has been supposed, would under the secret mode, be produced, in consequence of the protection afforded by that mode against terrorism. As to bribery, at the outset the case of bribery was posted off for further consideration. But, so plain is it – on the one hand, that the secret mode would be effectual against bribery – effectual even against undue punishment, and therefore still more effectual against undue reward – on the other hand, that, whatsoever leaning – perceived or unperceived by himself – an Antiballotist may have in favour of the intimidative – in favour of the stronger yet unexpensive mode of sinister influence, he can have none in favour of bribery, thus much observed, it seems that this topic may be dismissed.
  • Title: [1819 Oct. 7 Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: 1819 Oct. 7

    Parl. Reform Bill

    §.5. Election Apparatus

    §.8. Election, how

    Art. Secresy

    IV. Insincerity

    3

    15

    3

    The secret mode (it has been said) is a cause of insincerity: for the question may be put to a vote – how /for whom/ have you voted? and being assured that in the event of his answering falsely, the falshood can not by any possibility be discovered, here then is entire the impossibility, the stronger the temptation to committ it. But

    1. In the first place the more entire the impossibility of detecting the falsity if to the question the answer returned be false, the less strong /weaker/ the inducement to put any such question: a question from which no information it is plain can reasonably be expected to be gained.

    2. Under the circumstances of the case any such question would be an insult: an attempt to exercise oppression. If insult were not meant, no such question would be put: and if insult were meant, this is one of the last forms that would be apt to present themselves for the purpose.

    3. The propounder of the question /command/ having no right to expect obedience to it, the answer of false would be no wrong done to him, no more than if given to a robber /the question of a housebreaker/ where the plate was kept or to that of a madman where the gunpowder was deposited. As it would be no wrong /harm/ done to any third person so neither would any be done to the individual himself: to his reputation yes: if the falsity were discovered: but that, by the supposition, is impossible

    4. The fraternity of Free Masons have their secrets. This being known, no person not intimate with a Free Mason would for any purpose but that of insult, put any question to him calling for the disclosure of any such secret: no friend would think of pressing any such question even under favour of the closest intimacy. Never has any such notion been advanced as that on this account the institution of free-Masonry has a tendency to promote insincerity, and that a tendency to promote immorality is therefore among the fruits of it.
  • Title: [1818 July 7 Parl. Ref. Bill]
    Description: 1818 July 7

    Parl. Ref. Bill

    VI Mode of Voting

    Voting secret why

    5

    This would be as bad as the giving the lie

    3. Under these circumstances the question would not surely be often put. How should it be put /To what end would it be that of insult/ when the impossibility of obtaining the information sought by it is so entire?

    The smaller the number of instances in which it is put, the smaller the number of instances in which it is answered.

    But in some instances – be it admitted – it will be put: and in part of that number it will receive an answer. Well in each of those instances the answer given will be either true or false. If true, the case under the secret mode is in this respect the same as in the open mode: not better indeed but not worse

    Remain the cases in which it is /will be/ false. Falshood it can not be denied is a bad thing: if /wherever/ without the introduction of evil still worse in quality and quantity it can be excluded, so it ought to be.

    But surely if there be a case in which the evil of it is at its minimum this is that case. In its immediate consequences it is so much pure good: for it exempts from suffering an individual, without subjecting to it any other. In this respect it is analogous to the case of /where/ an article of false information communicated to a madman or a house-breaker /robber/, to avert the intended mischief of which true information would have been productive.

    As to the man’s reputation that from this cause it should receive any /the least/ injury is compleatly impossible: for though by the supposition the information is false, yet that it should to any one but the author be known to be false is absolutely impossible.