date

1819 Oct. 5 Parl. Reform Bill
1819 Oct. 5

Parl. Reform Bill

Reasons

§ 5

§ 8

Art. Secresy

6

6

6

Thus then against Miselection so far as producable by influence of the intimidative kind, it is the nature of secresy of suffrage to afford a compleatly effectual remedy: against Miselection do far as producible by the only remaining mode of influencing will a remedy wanting little of being compleatly effectual nothing at all when conjoined with those others which are here[?] provided /and which/ some of which /them/ are already in use.

While the open mode leaves the door open to Miselection as produced by sinister influences in both shapes, acting in both shapes throughout the whole field of Election with unchecked force. It thereby is continually productive of Miselection to an amount /such an amount/ which baffles all calculation. to which no calculation can apply itself.

Only this much is incontestable, namely that the amount is such as of itself to give to the Constitution a character quite different from anything that it is said to be and in profession intended to be.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1819 Oct. 5 Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: 1819 Oct. 5

    Parl. Reform Bill

    Reasons

    §.5 Election Apparatus

    §.8 Election how

    Art. Secresy

    5

    5

    5

    In the open mode, the will of the Elector is exposed to the influence of will in both kinds at the hands of all persons in whose power it may be to cause him to receive evil in any shape, or to cause him to receive good in any shape, and to the number of persons so circumstanced, there is no certain limit: nor yet to the quantity of evil and of good which amongst them it may be in their power, as also in their inclination to cause him to receive: nor therefore to the force with which this sinister influence – for such surely it may be called – is capable of being made to operate.

    In the secret mode he may be, {and is of course} {compleatly and effectually} preserved from all influence of the intimidative kind. For not having any possibility of knowing in whose favour a Voter has given his vote, neither Candidate nor Candidate’s friend nor any other man can have motive or inclination to cause him to receive evil in any shape on that account /for that cause/: the evil he can not but see[?] may be just as likely to fall on a friend as on an enemy. From other sources a man /candidate/ may have reason in abundance for concluding the voter to be an adversary: but none at all from his vote.

    In the secret mode Voters may /will/ in great measure be preserved from influence of the corruptive kind For to the exercise of influence in this kind expence is for the most part necessary: and as in other cases so in this expence will generally speaking not be incurred without a reasonable certainty of an equivalent. By secresy of suffrage alone against the effect of influence in this kind freedom of suffrage would therefore in great measure be prevented /preserved/: namely in the same way that /by the operation of the same causes by which/ influence of the intimidative kind would so effectually be {prevent} preserved.
  • Title: [1819 Oct. 8. Parl. Reform Bill.]
    Description: 1819 Oct. 8.

    Parl. Reform Bill.

    Reasons

    §.5

    §.8

    Art Secresy of suffrage

    II Oppression or Conclusion

    3

    Never does a man lose an election /the loss of an Election take place/, but the seductive influence of the adversary is the cause: the seductive influence, partly in the corruptive, partly in the intimidative shape: but more particularly the intimidative that being the more tragical[?] shape, by which the image of men’s antipathies and through antipathies sympathies are most stirred.

    Well them will you have both excluded at once? will you have the secret substituted to the open mode? Oh no – not so: for then would the influence of property would be removed /excluded/ altogether: the influence of property the legitimate influence: for all influence howsoever irresistibly intimidative: all intimidative influence which is the influence of property is legitimate. Issuing from this source is Intimidative influence absolutely bad? Oh no: it is bad or good according as it is applied. Applied in favour /support/ of the Tories /a Tory/ – oh yes says a Whig it is bad indeed: applied in favour /support/ of a Whig is it then bad? Oh no, nothing can be better: it is employed /operates/ in favour of men of probity, and the only men who are so. Whatever is most bad if acted against us and ours, is most good if acted in support of us and ours. /is most good./ We are the salt of the earth. Not measures but mine are to be regarded. We are the only men: the only men who deserve the name. This is one grand maxim: this is one creed.

    See Fox’s History. : and Earl Greys speech in his motion on the State of Nation June 1810.

    Suffrage open or secret: say which you will have? This question – this is the spear of Ithuriel. At the touch of it, with not less agony than the most outrageous Tory, the Parliamentary Whig writhes.
  • Title: [1819 Oct. 5 Parl Reform Bill]
    Description: 1819 Oct. 5

    Parl Reform Bill

    Reasons

    § 5

    § 8

    Art. Secresy

    3

    3

    3

    In so far as it is by the idea of evil that the effect is produced {is endeavoured to be produced} the influence is stiled the influence of intimidation or terrorism: in so far as it is by the idea of good, the influence of corruption, of which bribery is one species: namely the coarsest and most prominent.

    In all these several cases it is universally understood – assumed by every one /all/, denied by none that the influence of will on will ought not to be exercised: that an Election produced by any such means is a Miselection: a Miselection, to wit in principle, howsoever /whatsoever/ it may happen to be by law. A circumstance by which the universality of this undertaking is testified is the sentiment of disapprobation which stands associated with these words, and which fails not to be called forth as often as they are mentioned.

    That it is universally understood that no influence of will on will ought thus to be employed in giving direction to votes – that election produced by such influence is Miselection even according to law, is established in the case of both these opposite modes of influence.

    That by influence of the intimidative kind operating with effect Miselection is understood to be produced is declared by the law or custom of Government under which Soldiers /Military Band/ under the command of the Monarch are removed from all places in which Elections are held.

    That by influence of the corruptive kind, operating with effect Miselection is understood to be produced is declared by those Statutes which in such multitude and with so much effect have been the professed intention of preventing Election bribery.