date

[131a-039] 1819 May 20 Defence
[131a-039]

1819 May 20

Defence of the Ballot

Edinb

Ballot

Objection I

In ballot no secrecy

4

4

4. Per Reviewer. Universal suffrage men would not keep their own secret. Per J.B. General answer – it would not be in their power to break it. The talk which the Reviewer has in view what is the time of it? Is it before the act of voting? there is no act to tell of: nothing but the sort of intention a man chooses to profess. Is it after the voting? To this case alone is the general answer applicable or needful.

5. Per Reviewer, they could not if they would. Per J.B. Oh yes they could: any or all could: and at the worst at no other expence than that of a self-preserving untruth, such as a man would tell to another who should want to know where a barrel of gunpowder is kept that he might set fire to it. But even such untruths are better prevented than uttered For /As to/ the proposed means of prevention, see above and below.

6. Per Reviewer. The secret would be betrayed by the mode of voting. Yes; if contrived for the purpose of making known what it professed to conceal: as in Honourable House, as above: and this whichever side had the choice of it..

7. Per Reviewer. By secrecy at the Poll tumult in previous meetings would not be prevented. Per J.B. Be it what it may in itself, this objection is here out of its place: the objection to be proved is – not that the secrecy would if attained be productive of inconvenience, but that it is unattainable. The practice will be answered in its place.

8. Per Reviewer. In the canvas, affections would be betrayed. Per J.B. Neither is this position in its place, except in so far as the general answer applies to it. Canvassing and voting are not the same operation. Voting may exist without canvassing, in several of the United States it does so. Canvassing will be considered in its place.

9. By ambition, the leaders, though or because they were but petty tradesmen would betray themselves. Per J.B. General answer, as above. Such of them as choose to betray themselves do so: the Reviewers conclusion is they would all do so, whether they chose it or no.
Similar Items
  • Title: [[131a-038] 1819 May 20 Defence]
    Description: [131a-038]

    1819 May 20

    Defence of the Ballot

    Edinb

    Ballot

    Objection I

    In ballot no secrecy

    3

    3

    Follows an abstract of the subordinate position advanced by the learned Reviewer /Gentleman/ in support of the objection here in question: each is accompanied with a short answer. That To give the most efficient check which in the nature of the case can be opposed to misrepresentation on my part, undesigned or /and/ if it be more agreable to gentlemen to say /add/ designed, I shall not be angry – the text of the Review will be found at the bottom of these pages.

    1. Proof 1. Case 1. Case of Clubs, where Members are chosen or rejected by ballot. By this means quarrels are indeed excluded: but secresy there is none. Answer. To this case as to every other applies the general observation: if the mode of voting is what it professes to be and might be, certainty as to the truth of any thing that is said about the direction taken by /effect given to/ the vote is impossible. But in small clubs, the smaller the club, the easier are each mans affections known in the loose sense of the word knowledge: the greater is the degree of probability of which a guess in relation to them is susceptible. In respect of numbers how opposite this case is to that in question, any /every/ body who does not shut his eyes will /may/ see.

    2. Proof 2. Case 2. Case of House of Commons. Ballot produces not secresy; nor independent choice. This is admitted by J.B Answer. Oh yes that it is. Observation /Answer/ I. the universally applying answer as above: no use in repeating it any more. Answer 2. Neither is this case in point. In the principal case in question the individuals proposed for choice are proposed separately: in that case here referred to, in lists. This being a complicated case, an appropriate modification of the plan in question would be necessary. Answer 3. In this case to the purpose of practice the cause why secresy is not preserved is – that the intention is it shall not be preserved.

    3. Proof 3. Case 3. Case of India House Ballots. Per Reviewer, secresy is not here preserved. Reason paid: because not desired to be preserved. Assumption for Reviewer. On this occasion every thing that any body says is true. Per J.B. On this occasion suppose a man who never says any thing about the matter, tell us which way it is he has voted, and how it you know it?
  • Title: [[131a-040] 1819 May 20 Defence]
    Description: [131a-040]

    1819 May 20

    Defence of the Ballot

    Ballot

    Objection I

    In ballot no secrecy

    5

    5

    9 continued. Ah poor silly creatures! they have a sad /sad is/ propensity to betray themselves. Give them freedom in any shape they are sure to be the worse for it: freedom of conscience, freedom of suffrage freedom of choice in every shape. Every thing should be chosen for their betters: religion, by the Bishops: votes by Tories, and Whigs: not forgetting the Reviewer who seeing what bad use they would make of freedom is at all this pains in the hope of keeping it for ever out of their hands.
  • Title: [[131a-036] 1819 May 20 Defence]
    Description: [131a-036]

    1819 May 20

    Defence of the Ballot

    Objection I

    In Ballot no secresy

    1

    1

    Objection I. “Ballot would not produce secresy”. There we have the position: and that a radical one: this root cut, all that springs out of it – withers.

    Now for the proof. It consists in giving intimation of the realisation /reality/, and that to an unlimited amount, of a supposed matter of fact which at the expence of a very little attention, any body may see to be plainly and absolutely impossible. The supposed matter of fact is – a man making known to as many as he pleases, a matter of fact which by the supposition is known to nobody but himself. True it is /To be sure/ if whether by design, or for want of apt design, the mode of voting is so conducted, that the mode of voting is not in its nature secret – in other words that besides the voter himself there are others one or more who have the same means of knowing what he is doing as he himself has, this being admitted then if this mode of voting be stiled /what is meant by/ Ballot, true it is that Ballot would not produce secresy.

    But this supposition would not serve the learned Gentleman’s purpose. For then it would be said to him. The mode of voting which you have in view, and which for this purpose you have brought to view is one which you are sensible will /does/ not answer its intended or pretended purposes But to prove your position it is not enough to prove that there is a mode of ballot /voting/ that does not produce secrecy. What you must prove, or it is nothing to the purpose is – that no mode of voting can produce secrecy.

    Necessity compells me here to have recourse to the botanical archetype. For Lord Castlereagh has spoilt the architectural one, by confounding /combining/ it with the anatomical one. Good your Lordship, spare /leave/ to us this one means of communication, or we shall we still more effectually endeavoured to silence them by Lord Sidmouth and his gagging-bills.