date

1819 Oct. 3 Parl. Reform Bill
1819 Oct. 3

Parl. Reform Bill

Reasons ult

§.5. Election Apparatus

§.8. Election how

Art | | Secrecy.

3

Be the mode of election pursued what it may, no man who has ever professed to approve of it, has ever professed to approve of it any further than in as far as the votes, by which, in the several instances, the Election has been determined, have been the genuine expression of the wishes of the several persons by whom they have been respectively delivered. No one has ever denied but that in so far as any vote has failed of being the genuine expression of the wish declared by it, evil has had place. Though an evil but in tendency still it is an evil: or neither Miselection to any extent, nor Misgovernment to any extent, are evils.

In the rude and inexperienced state of the public mind in early times, the open mode of voting, as being the most obvious, was the mode pursued. For secresy there no inducement presented itself, until by experience proof sufficiently conclusive had been afforded that under the open mode to an extent beyond all power of measurement the direction to /declared by/ men’s votes had by external causes been rendered opposite to that to which their wishes pointed: that in a word they had given their votes in favour of a Candidate, whose success was not among the objects of their wishes.
Similar Items
  • Title: [+ 1819 Oct. 3 Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: + 1819 Oct. 3

    Parl. Reform Bill

    §.5. Election Apparatus

    §.8. Election, how

    Art | | Secrecy

    4

    For clearness take an example. On the occasion of the last Election for Westminster, of two Candidates, the Honourable George Lamb and M r John Cam Hobhouse, the former succeeded, the latter failed. On that occasion Among all those by whom the choice so made was approved, can there have have been so much as one, who, on any occasion would have professed to ground such an approbation on any other supposition than this – namely, that, on the side of the successful Candidate the votes given in conformity to the wishes of the respective voters were more numerous than on the side of the unsuccessful candidate? Assuredly not: if so, then, by all persons by whom that choice was approved, it could not but have been admitted, that on the opposite supposition – the evil of Miselection, as above described would have had place.

    Now then in this state of things, how stands the question of superior fitness as between the open and the secret mode?

    1. In the open mode, easily to an indefinite extent the direction given to the votes may have been opposite to that pointed to by the wishes of the voters. Why? because in that mode causes more than one have place, any one of which is in its nature capable of being abundantly sufficient for the production of that undesirable effect: namely expectation of of eventual evil, and expectation of eventual good:

    evil
  • Title: [1819 Sept. 17 Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: 1819 Sept. 17

    Parl. Reform Bill

    Reasons

    §.9 Election Process

    Suffrage Secret why

    3

    This being the case, {what follows is that} he who in the case in question advocates the system of open suffrage, advocates a system of fraud and imposture, a system of fraud analogous to ordinary forgery, but consideration had of the extent to which it operates, beyond comparison more pernicious than any forgery that ever was committed. His conduct in so doing is tainted with an insincerity altogether incontestable, which it is his professed desire to see each voter give a vote expressive of a wish of his own uninfluenced by any other will, his endeavour is to cause voters in a countless multitude to deliver each of them a vote expressive of a wish which is not his own: expressive of a wish which in the several instances is the wish of this or that individual of whom the advocate knows nothing except that the power he thus possesses contributes to /is part and parcel/ the system by which the evil effects above-mentioned are produced.

    {The pretence is /fact as pretended is/ /pretended state of the case is/ that in the choice /in the Election/ of the aggregate number of the Members by whom the aggregate number of the seats are respectively filled, the Election is the result of the real and genuine wishes of the majority of the Electors voting to each seat /towards the filling of the several seats/}

    {The real state of the case is that on that same reason[?] the Election is the result of the wishes not of those same Electors but of persons not declared nor ever exactly known, but of whom these[?] much is universally known namely that it ought not to be the result of their wishes and that in so far as it is so the Constitution is radically different from what it is pretended to be, and at the same time incontestably

    ☞ Add some allusions for illustration}
  • Title: [1819 Oct. 3 Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: 1819 Oct. 3

    Parl. Reform Bill

    Reasons

    §.5 Election Apparatus

    §.8. Election how

    Secrecy

    5

    evil, at the hands of persons to whose wishes the voter in question were adverse: good at the hands of persons to whose wishes those same votes were unconformable.

    2. Under the secret mode no such undesirable effect could have taken place. Why? Because of the persons /whole number of the voters/ {by whom appre}hensions as above could not but be entertained votes were given in favour of the successful Candidate lest in the event of their voting and thence of /in whose instance the votes given by them in favour of the successful Candidate had no other cause than either their expectation of some good in the event of their giving that direction to their votes, or some evil in the event of their not giving that direction to their votes, there could not have been one by whom under the secret system his vote would have been given on that side. For Why? because in that case, it not being known in any instance which way a man had given his vote, neither qualificatory[?] vote, neither the cause of the good in the one case, nor that of the evil in the other could /would/ have had existence./

    In so far as it was by fear of eventual evil that the success of M r Lamb, as above was produced, it is by what is called intimidation or terrorism that it was produced: in so far as it was by hope of eventual good, it is by what is called bribery or by corruption in some other shape that it was produced.

    It stands asserted in print, that on M r Lambs side towards the production of the effect, sinister influence in both those ways was and but too effectually employed: that by his friends, expectation of good in various shapes from their hands was held out to Electors in the event of their voting on his side: evil in various shapes in the event of their not voting on his side. Not that in the situation on question to the production of expectation to the effect in question to a greater or less extent, any express intimation, of eventual intention is ever necessary. To a greater or less extent the bare contemplation of the situation is quite sufficient to produce the inference: no mind so ill informed or so much as not to be continually in the habit of deducing it.

    In the secret mode, in neither of those shapes could sinister influence have been employed. Why? because neither the intimidation nor the corruption could have found an object to apply itself to a mark to fix itself upon. Reward will not be offered /given/ where it is not possible to know that service has been rendered: punishment will not be threatened where it is not possible to know that transgression has had place.

    If there be any such thing as a proposition incapable of being controverted with any colour of truth, this then must be of the number: namely that of every person by whom the open mode is advocated, it is the wish, that terrorism and corruption, one or both of those engines, should be employed: and that accordingly, Miselection, to whatever extent it is capable of being carried by those causes – Miselection, and thence Misgovernment – should have place.