date

[131a-018] 1818 March 23 +
[131a-018]

1818 March 23 +

Parl Reform Answer to Antiballotists

2 o

17

17

Of an intimation of this sort the effect would frequently be – the acting in subserviency, to, and giving effect to, Election tyranny. To no good purpose could any such intimation be necessary. For giving expression to whatever opinion it may happen to a man to entertain, or to wish to express, strange indeed it will be, if the whole quantity of times anterior to that of his giving his vote will not be quite sufficient.

To compleat the emancipation of the voter from Election tyranny, a prohibitive clause, inhibiting this practice will be altogether necessary. To the person on whom the prohibition is imposed it can not be a hardship: on the contrary, in so far as he stands exposed to influence by yielding to which he would go counter to his own wishes, it can not fail of operating as a relief. Accordingly, any intimation given to any such effect, the law should declare to be an act of complicity with Election tyranny, the person who is guilty of it, an accessory – an accessory after the fact – to Election tyranny: an accessory after the fact, but not so as to require for conviction proof of the principal offence. For punishment his name might be entered in the Black book: entered in that reproachful book, but without being gazetted.

Evidently enough, in this as in every other case, where it is really a man’s wish to avoid doing a thing, at the same time that it is the wish of some person under whom he is in any respect in dependence, that he should do it, a prohibition inhibiting him from doing it is – not a burthen but a relief. Nothing can more effectually free him from the irksome influence: after this, a question – how did you give your vote – would be an insult – it would be a command to committ an offence, and that a dishonourable one: it would be to say to him – you are that sort of person who to ingratiate yourself with me, or save yourself from any resentment, unjust as it would be are ready to committ a dishonourable offence.
Similar Items
  • Title: [[131a-009] 1818 March 22 +]
    Description: [131a-009]

    1818 March 22 +

    Parl Reform Answer to Antiballot Observations

    2 o

    8

    8

    Now as to the moral evils:- in any[?] view of the matter they will not be far to seek.

    1. In the first place, if there be any such thing as an evil, the exercise of tyranny – the exercise of power to a bad end – is an evil: and, where the power is all-comprehensive, it is the sum and substance of all evils, not political only but moral likewise

    2. In the next place, comes the opposite but correspondent and necessarily concomitant evil, the evil of servility: the exercise of obsequiousness to a bad end.

    3. In the third place comes the falshood, the imposture. As often as, on this occasion, and in this way, a man gives[?] as and for his own wish, that which in truth is not his own wish but the wish of another man; – a wish, which, though contrary to his own, he gives as and for his own, – an act of imposture is committed. The Election- tyrant commands the imposture: the Election slave obeys and executes it.

    The first mentioned and chief of the effects imputed by the antiballotists, in the character of moral evils, to the secret mode, is insincerity. But if on the part of the Election slave, as above defined, insincerity has not place, I must confess myself at a loss where else to look for it.

    The antiballotists whose moral sense is so much hurt by the insincerity which in their view would be produced by any law made for relief against Election tyranny, how comes it that they are so insensible to the insincerity which can not but be produced by the Election tyranny, in every instance in which it operates with its effect?

    As to the tyranny, unquestionably it has its limits: in respect of the suffering produced by it, it is not to be put in comparison with any such tyranny, to the exercise of which the tyrant causes innocent men to expire in torture. But to the extent of it, and as far as it goes, the one of these two modes of exercising power is with no less propriety termed tyranny than the other. And so as to the slavery.
  • Title: [1818 May 15 Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: 1818 May 15

    Parl. Reform Bill

    Reasons?

    VIII Penal Securities

    Accessory

    Sequential Offences

    *5

    Offences riding[?] in tendency &[?] completed offences

    In description Sequence of offences depends on the term

    employed for the designation of the consummated offence.

    The descriptive name according to the nature of the consummated offence /the

    consummated has a name belonging to it/.

    Connective mutual Offences /Consequently successive concatenated offences/ of the

    same sequence /connected in the way of causation/ in a sequence, or Offences inchoate

    and consummated with /considered as bearing/ relation to the above Election are as

    follows.

    1. The consummated offence an offence considered as consummated.

    2. Any act in which the consummated offence has its commencement. Such act, if the

    offence fails of being consummated – i.e. if the pernicious design fails in so far of

    being accomplished, is denominated an attempt.

    3. Any preparatory act, or act of simple preparation,

    perfor- /exercised/ with the design of producing the effect produced by the

    consummated offence, but in point of time anterior to the act which is considered as

    an attempt.

    Offences thus concatenated may be the offences of the same individual, or offences

    of so many different individuals. One individual may be convicted of the consummated

    offence, another of an attempt to committ in prosecution of the same individual

    design that same species of consummated offence: which attempt of the offence in

    question is not consummated, is but an abortive attempt: another individual of an act

    which with reference to that same offence considered as consummate is but an act of

    preparation: not having run /advanced/ to the length of an attempt.
  • Title: [[131a-020] 1818 March 22 +]
    Description: [131a-020]

    1818 March 22 +

    Parl Reform Answer to Anti-ballotist

    2 o

    19

    19

    But canvassing is mentioned:– and how (it may be asked), how, upon your plan, under all these prohibitions is canvassing to be carried on? I answer – to every useful purpose, just with as much facility as at present. Every person, who either proposes or wishes to support a Candidate, will be just as much at liberty as at present to declare his opinion of that same Candidate:– to commend as many candidates as he pleases – to discommend as many candidates as he pleases. But, that which is not by any means necessary, is – that to this purpose he should declare to whom he means to give, or to whom he means to refuse, his vote. Why? because betwixt the time of the commendation or discommendation altered[?], an event that has nothing at all improbable in it is – that of his seeing reason, and very sufficient reason, for altering the prior intention respecting his vote.

    Still, as a farther security against Election tyranny, a declaration to any such effect may likewise be included under the prohibition: the use of it is – to prevent would-be Election tyrants, from forcing their dependents, by declarations of this kind to give additional and undue weight to the opinions declared by them, and at the same time in a sort of indirect way to put to others the question how do you mean to give your vote? – tell me this, or it may be the worse for you.