1
results found in
22 ms
Page 1
of 1
1819 Oct. 11
Parl. Reform Bill
Reasons
§.4[?]
§.8
Art. Secresy.
Burdet
5
6
Whether it be the word wish or the word interest that is employed, what must be understood as being the object that the votes as such should have the faculty of pursuing according to his own judgment, is – that which is his wish, or that which is his interest independently of any particular interest of the moment which it might be in the power of the Candidate to create in the breast of the votes, by means destructive of his happiness. Get a man into your power, cause him to be assured that unless he consents to have his brains blown out he will be made to expire at the end of four and twenty hours passed in torture, you may make it /it may in this way be made/ his interest to have his brains blown out. Suppose that, according to the case supposed in the abovementioned Statute of George the second, suppose the hustings surrounded with a file of musqueteers determined to put to death every man who shall have given a vote for any other Candidate than one named by the Monarch, you might thus make it the interest of every /all the/ Elector in the kingdom to vote for a compleat set of Candidates named by the Monarch: and this you might do effectually under the system of universal suffrage as under the present.
This plan, it can not be denied might alike be carried into effect under the secret mode as well as under the open mode. For though it would not in the instance of any one voter, separately taken be known which way he had given his vote, yet the whole numbers on each side would be known: and if thus it were known that they had all of them been rebellious to the commands of his most gracious Majesty they might all of them be put to death.
Similar Items
-
Title: [1819 Oct. 11 Parl. Reform Bill]Description: 1819 Oct. 11 Parl. Reform Bill Reasons § 5 § 8 Art Secresy Burdet 4 5 Interest for example, to a value not exceeding a minute fraction of a farthing, has been deemed a sufficient warrant for depriving the /a/ suitor who has right on his side from proving it by the testimony of a witness to whom an interest to this amount can be ascribed: such is the question of English Judges: creators and preservers of English Common Law By the receipt of his share in the mass of bribes in question, the interest of every such Elector would be served or promoted says the argument. The interest, yes: so it would by a farthing as truly though not as largely as by a thousand pound. The interest served, yes: but surely not the happiness secured. It was on this account that to come to the very point at once, employing that in preference to any others which might give occasion to obscurity and error, the word wishes has been here employed in preference to any such word as interest or happiness. A man’s Wish is the true and only proper immediate standard of conformity to which his vote should be applied: his wish must to this purpose be regarded as conclusive evidence of his interest, or the pretence of allowing him a vote is illusory, and a cloak for the most insolent as well as pernicious despotism You know what your wish is: but you know not what your interest is: your wish were it to prevail would be contrary to your interest. I alone know what your interest is: I, and I alone therefore am the fit person to determine the direction proper to be taken by your vote. Such would be the argument: and such howsoever disguised, such and no better is the principle on which the claims of Monarchy and Aristocracy ever have been and of necessity ever must be grounded
-
Title: [1819 Sept. 18 Parl. Reform Bill]Description: 1819 Sept. 18 Parl. Reform Bill Reasons §.9 Election Process Suffrage secret why 6 {The mode being open, suppose Napoleon sovereign of the United Kingdom, and every Election carried on in the presence of a party of his soldiers, known to have orders instantly to put to death every Elector who should give his vote for any proposed Member other than those proposed by Bonaparte. Against an arrangement to this effect what could be said? Nothing but what would amount to this: namely that in the instance of every voter the vote thus given by him being contrary to that which but for the terrorism would have been his wish was contrary to what in his opinion would have been contrary to his interest, and thence contrary to what there is reason to think would actually have been his interest: and so the votes thus given were, all of them taken together contrary to the interests of all: in other words contrary to the universal interest: the universal interest being thus sacrificed to the wish thence to the supposed interest thence to the real interest, of that one tyrant. Nay (says somebody for so somebody has said) Nay but here in this open mode the votes thus given are all of them given in conformity to the universal interest. This is exactly what you are so continually calling for: this is exactly the state of things for the bringing about of which you are labouring by advocating the open mode. In conformity to the universal interest? Yes /True/, but to an universal interest how created? By means conducive to the universal happiness? No: but by means destructive to the universal happiness. You will not say that in this /the thus supposed/ state of things under the open mode universal happiness would be as much promoted as if, with or without the terror the suffrages were taken in the secret mode?}
-
Title: [1818 Nov r 25 + Parl. Reform Bill]Description: 1818 Nov r 25 + Parl. Reform Bill Reasons '.1. Seats and Districts? '.2. Electors Who Votes but one why? 1 1 Question. 1. Under the present system, a man possessing a qualification in each one of a number of Election Districts, may deliver a vote in each be the number of them ever so great, deliver a vote in each, provided the times repectively appointed for the delivery of votes in these several districts, admitt of his so doing. On the here proposed plan, no man /person/ would have the faculty /it in his power/ to deliver a vote in any more than one Election District this faculty of delivering votes more than one would cease /have no place/. Why is it proposed to be thus made to cease? Answer. To exclude inequality. 1. In the eye of the legislator of the common Trustee and Guardian, the legislator, the interest of no one individuals shall[?] have claim to a greater degree of consideration /security/ than that of any other. 2. If there were any one /such/ individuals /existed any such preferable claim/ no claim reason could be assigned why those by whom it is at present possessed should be of the number rather than any others that could be named. If persons and their interest being neglected, votes were allotted to objects belonging to the class of things, such for example as the possession of such or such a portion of the earth's surface - suppose a portion of two acres, in such case, two men having each of them a [...?] of property exactly the same in extent and even in value, might possess and deliver the one of them thirty times as many votes or more as the other. But for no such advantage /inequality/ can any reason be assigned.
1
results found.
Page 1
of 1