date

[131a-022] 1818 March 24 +
[131a-022]

1818 March 24 +

Parl Reform Answer to Antiballotists

2 o

21

21

So again in the practice of the India House. There you see it – there you see this supposed novelty in constant use, practiced on the occasion of those decisions, by which, under the superintending power of the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, the fate of the people of Hindostan, to the number of some forty or fifty millions, that number continually on the encrease, is occasionally disposed of.

Here too it is objected to: nor altogether without reason. Why? Because, in the exercise of their power in this mode the whole body of East India Proprietors, acting in the character of the ruling few, act under the dominance of an interest which unhappily is but too frequently, and to too great an extent, like the interest of the ruling few by whom the rest of the British Empire is more immediately governed, in a state of diametrical, and but too well understood, opposition, to the interest of the subject many, over whom in this mode the power is exercised. Fixt in this their situation for as long as they please, few in proportion find any action[?] for that attendance by which alone the power is exercised: Of those few who do attend, some perhaps, were the mode of voting open, might, by shame be deterred from giving those votes, by which the interest of so many millions is sacrificed to the personal interest of their rulers. The effect of the secret mode is therefore in this case[?] to promote not the legitimate interest which alone ought to be promoted, but a sinister interest opposite to it.

Here ends, for the present at the least, my answer to the four objections, which are the only tangible ones I can find urged against the secret mode of voting, on Elections of Representatives of the people, to sit in the Commons House, on the supposition of annuality of election and virtual universality of suffrage. J.B.
Similar Items
  • Title: [[131a-021] 1818 March 22 +]
    Description: [131a-021]

    1818 March 22 +

    Parl Reform Answer to Antiballotists

    2 o

    20

    20

    So much as to the alledged moral evils objected by the antiballotists to the secret mode.

    III Novelty As to the alledged novelty, I can not suppose that upon that circumstance, in the character of an objection, any great stress is laid. If novelty – or, to use the dyslogists word, innovation – is to be regarded as an objection – there is an end to the whole scheme: to the whole scheme of {radical} /parliamentary/ reform in whatever form it could be proposed. For, in the state of things in this respect whatsoever main features would be found to be antient, and as such not to come under the imputation of novelty, still in respect of the details, without novelty – without novelty in abundance – nothing would be to be done.

    But, so far as regards the secret mode of voting, in point of fact how stands the objection of novelty? In the whole of the plan as proposed in my book, this is really the feature, which, with reference to any time within the compass of several centuries, has in it the least of novelty.

    In the House of Commons, – in the service[?] of that share in the government of the subjects and inhabitants of the British Empire which is exercised by that House, on the Election of persons for certain functions, the Ballot has along been occasionally[?] in use. In this instance, what must be admitted is – that there has been a strong objection to it: so strong as to have been regarded as conclusive. But – this objection – what is it? – Not an objection to the secret mode, but an objection to the particular mode in question, on the ground that, though styled ballot, it is so practised as not to be in reality a secret mode: that, like so many other practises of Honourable House, it is a sham:– a known, an undeniable[?], a not only irreputed but confessed – in a word a compleatly exposed – imposture: one of the many impostures, with which, for the purpose of having men’s actions of right and wrong at his command, and, on every occasion, obsequious to his own sinister interest, the man of law has, to so large an extent, contrived to defile, and so effectually to corrupt, the practice of Honourable House.
  • Title: [[131a-002] 1818 March 25 + +]
    Description: [131a-002]

    1818 March 25 + +

    Parl Reform Answer to the Antiballotist

    2 o

    1

    1

    M

    r

    Benthams Defence of the Ballot:

    being an answer to certain arguments against the proposed use of the Ballot in the Election of Members of the Commons House, on the supposition of annuality of Election, and virtual universality of suffrage.

    In the argument of the Antiballotists, + as contained in the very ingenious paper which lies before me, I find four and no more than four distinguishable considerations, employed in the character of reasons, or objections, against the use of the secret mode of voting + on the occasion here in question. I shall distinguish them by the leading terms which I find employed in designating them. These are,

    Note +

    + In this paper, in preference to the word ballot, familiar as it is, I use for the most part the words secret modes (viz. of voting): because it presents to my mind a much clearer idea of the nature of the case, than does the word ballot, of which I do not know the origin; and because it matches so well with an appellative of the opposite mode /equally characteristic/, viz. the open mode, which, for the designation of it has not any such single word as the secret mode has in the word ballot.

    The term Antiballotists is used here merely to save words. No such sentiment as that of blame is meant to be attached to it.

    Comments on particular words and phrases would occupy to wide a space. My endeavour will be to collect the substance of the argument, and the fault will lie not in the will but in the understanding, if in any particular I fail of doing it justice.

    End of the Note.
  • Title: [[131a-013] 1818 March 22 +]
    Description: [131a-013]

    1818 March 22 +

    Parl Reform. Answer to Antiballotists

    2 o

    12

    12

    In regard to this distinction of honour – in regard to the punishment that would be inflicted by it – what (it must be confessed) requires here to be considered, is – that the only persons to whom it applies are the Candidates themselves: the Candidates, by whom, or to or for whose benefit it would be exercised. – {the candidates themselves to wit such of them and no other as at the time in question will feel /concur/ themselves unpopular to such a degree its[?] thought of by the people /electors/ to such an extent – as to stand in need of the said tyranny then exercised.} But the Candidates themselves (it will be observed) {all Candidates popular and unpopular together} are but a minute portion of the whole number of persons, by whom, but for such preventive as the open mode does not present, and the secret mode does present, this tyranny would – for the benefit of Candidates or even without a view to such benefit – be exercised: exercised, perhaps without its being known to the Candidate, at any rate without its being known that he knows it. By how unlimited a multitude of persons – agents, private friends, or neither agents nor friends, but merely man of the same party, or in the same interest – in support of one and the same candidates – may not the tyranny be – for continually, and to a prodigious extent is it not – actually exercised?