date

[131a-006] 1818 March 22 +
[131a-006]

1818 March 22 +

Parl Reform Answer to Antiballot Observations

2 o

5

5

2. By the evils, which, in contradistinction to the above political evil, I would in conformity with the Antiballotists distinguish by the appellation of moral evils, I understand the morally evil effects of those causes, by which, under the open mode, the political evil abovementioned would as it seems to me be produced.

That which, for the purpose in question, I assume, and as above, can not but assume, is – that under the open mode the suffrages given would to an incalculable extent, be productive of an effect opposite to the wishes and thence to the interest of the voters. If not free the votes are not genuine[?], and if not secret, they can not in general be free.

1. But in so far, as it would be productive of an effect opposite to the wishes and interests of the voters themselves, it would thence be an injury done to the voters themselves: if on this occasion the word right is to be employed it would be productive of a violation of their rights.

2 Moreover, under the most extensive system capable of being included under the denomination of universal suffrage, each voter will, in respect of his vote, be acting in two distinguishable capacities: viz. that of a principal, possessor of a personal right of his own, directed and properly directed in its exercise to the advancement of his own personal interest; and that of the possessor of a trust-right; to which, as to every trust right, is attached a duty: a duty to be performed for the advancement of the interest of those for whom the trustee is in trust.
Similar Items
  • Title: [[131a-008] 1818 March 22 +]
    Description: [131a-008]

    1818 March 22 +

    Parl Reform Answer to Antiballot Observations

    2 o

    7

    7

    Now then of the open mode, in contradistinction to the secret mode, what in so far as it operates are the effects?

    1 In the first place to produce a forced sacrifice of each voters personal interest: of his interest, and thereby, if the word right be employed, a forced surrender or relinquishment of his own right. I say forced: for (setting aside the case of bribery, of which afterwards) in so far as the openness of the mode fails of producing this effect, it produces no effect other than that which would have place in the secret mode: and those who contend for the open, to the exclusion of the secret mode, have no motive for so doing.

    2 In the next place to produce a {forced} sacrifice of the interest of other persons whose interest the voter ought to join in the protection of: of the persons, for whom, as above, he is in trust, it produces a violation of duty: it produces a breach of trust:

    But, in so far as either of these effects are thus produced, the production of them having for its cause fear of evil, at the hands of the author of the force (and fear of cessation of good which otherwise would accrue is one modification of the fear of evil) in proportion as these effects are either of them produced, compulsion, oppression, tyranny – these words, any or all of them, may, it seems to me, be with unimpeachable propriety applied. For distinction’ sake, and moreover with a view to a purpose which will be mentioned presently, I would call this tyranny Election-Tyranny.
  • Title: [[131a-004] 1818 March 22 +]
    Description: [131a-004]

    1818 March 22 +

    Parl Reform Answer to Antiballot Observations

    2 o

    3

    3

    {1. You don’t get /can have no assurance of getting/ the real wishes: you get spurious ones

    2. The spurious ones you get by a breach of trust

    3 The breach of trust you produce[?] by compulsion, compulsion employed to produce sacrifice of personal interest as well as of the universal interest, such compulsion[?] is arranged[?]}

    As to the moral acts stated by the antiballotists as attached to the secret mode, they will not afford matter of conclusive objection any otherwise than in as far as they are preponderant over the evils attached to the opposite, viz. to the open mode. This consideration renders it necessary to begin with bringing to view these last mentioned evils.

    1. The grand evil is that which may be distinguished by the name of the political evil: the radical and all embracing political evil. I mean the substituting, to an extent beyond the power of calculation, to the elections produced by the wishes of the majority of the people elections produced by the wishes of a comparatively minute minority. Such an effect, in so far as it has place, I can but place in my own mind to the account of evil. Why? because, in my view of the matter as given in my book, the wishes of the majority of the people would be produced by the conceptions entertained by that same majority in relation to their own interests, and those conceptions would, to the purpose of procuring those same interests and thus accomplishing those same wishes be sufficiently correct; whereas on the other hand the wishes of the small minority in question would be produced by the conception entertained by that same small minority in relation to the interests of that same small minority; while the interests of that same small minority are in a state of constant and irremediable opposition to the interests of the majority, and their conception of this their particular and sinister interest, would to the purpose of promoting that same sinister interest and accomplishing those same sinister wishes be sufficiently correct.
  • Title: [[131a-010] 1818 March 22 +]
    Description: [131a-010]

    1818 March 22 +

    Parl Reform Answer to Antiballotists

    2 o

    9

    9

    Argum {for continuing[?] tyranny the insincerity produced by the endeavour to escape from it.}

    Such being the evils, moral as well as political, attached to the open mode, what are those which by the Antiballotists have been imputed to the secret mode?

    1. In the first place stands the alledged insincerity. What is this insincerity? It is the insincerity, practiced by him, who, under the proposed secret mode, anxious to escape from the tyranny, his deliverance from which is the object aimed at by the secret mode, finds or fears it to be out of his power so to do, any otherwise than at this unpleasant price. To preserve him from this tyranny is the object of the secret mode: of that mode which by the supposition is for that very purpose established by law.

    But, so close and adhesive is the gripe of this tyranny, all that the law has regarded itself as able to do for his […?], has not of itself been found sufficient. To supply the deficiency in what the law has been able to do for his emancipation, what, according to the supposition, does the destined slave? Giving effect to the known wishes and endeavours of the law, he accomplishes his own […?]: he fulfills the law; he fulfills it though at this degrading and unpleasant price.

    Such is the state of things, and so distressing is his situation under it, he is reduced to make his option between immorality and immorality. He sees before him immorality in two shapes: one, in which it is productive of ulterior evils in addition to itself, and operates in opposition to the known wishes of the law: the other, in which it is productive of no such evils, and operates in conformity to and to the accomplishment of, the known wishes of the law. He produces the lesser evil it is true: but by doing so he excludes the greater evil: and that an evil which could not otherwise be excluded.