date

[131a-045] 1819 May 20 Defence
[131a-045]

1819 May 20

Defence of the Ballot

Objection III – hostile to liberty

Love of Liberty extinguished

10

10

Objection III. Secrecy would extinguish the love of liberty.

Observations.

Oh sad! its end. But the reason is that the fervour /quantity/ with which alone the love of liberty can be kept up would be rendered inapt for the purpose it rendered too little or if that would not do, too great and too little at the same time.

Were radical reform to take place Every man would be indifferent as to every thing on which the comfort of his life depended, whether he were or were not called upon to pay in taxes what he was unable to pay, whether he was or was not insulted[?] for his poverty by one who wallowed in wealth while he had none: whether what was called justice was or was not administered upon terms such that it was in his power to put in for a chance of it whether the state of the laws were or were not such that it was possible for him to know what they were possible to escape being ruined, […?] or put to death although these were the laws to warrant it or for want of being able to know what it was, whether there be any one whom because they or their forefathers bought for money or servility a mass of factitious and spurious reputation /dignity/ found means to enjoy at his expence a quantity of respect to which they had no other title. Thus thinks the learned gentleman; thus at least his ingenuity employs itself in the endeavour to make us think: my lot it is to think otherwise.
Similar Items
  • Title: [[131a-041] 1819 May 20 Defence]
    Description: [131a-041]

    1819 May 20

    Defence of the Ballot

    Objection II

    Franchise narrowed

    6

    Objection II. Instead of extending, secresy would narrow the exercise of the election franchise.

    Observations on this position

    1. The wisdom /instruction/ with which under the head of this objection has been bestowed upon us[?] has been bestowed in waste. Of a state of things which can not take place what matters it what, if it were to take place, would be the effects? But the object here it may be said is to prevent the evils which supposing the first mass of wisdom /instruction/ not sufficiently profited by might be attendant on the experiment which it endeavours to prevent.

    2. The question we have here is a question of quantity: and wherever quantity is in question, and that quantity more or less indeterminate, learned gentlemen find themselves {very much} at their ease. Be it what it will, the quantity which is to be opposed is sure to be improper: it is too great; it is too small; it is both at once. On the present occasion in this double case it will be seen to be in the extracts at the bottom of the page

    ☞ Search out the passage

    3. Possession of The right is one thing: exercise of it is another. The first object is to give the possession to as many as can have it without hurt /more than equivalent hurt/ to themselves or others or both the possession of this right, and so long as all who chose to exercise it were at liberty to exercise it each in the way wished for by himself, the number of those by whom on each occasion it came to be actually exercised might upon a very simple scale vary without sensible inconvenience.
  • Title: [7 March 1817 Plan Cat Introd]
    Description: 7 March 1817

    Plan Cat

    Introd

    §.16.

    Conclusion House is fit object of contempt

    Impossibility of forcing love confidence respect

    For my demonstrations of it, yes: those[?] did Bonaparte

    Respect forced from A – b comes[?] d o natural from B. &

    C. viz in the way of […?] Judgment[?]. That can not be so

    here.

    By[?] Bonaparte not only veneration[?] but real respect produced because though a

    tyrant it was without meanness and he did some good things

    Commons House it has tyranny added its own meanness

    I may be forced to say I respect corruption unduly[?], since that[?] I can I really

    respect it?

    So impossible is it that to any man to whom its Constitution is known and to whom is

    its Constitution not known the Commons House should be an object of respect in giving

    it the values[?] of respect it calls for there is no […?] other[?] than the language

    of servility[?] adulation it will be understood[?] to mean […?]: the greater the

    outer demonstration[?] of respect the stronger the evidence of inward contempt

    Good. if in the language of Speaker Nickes[?] the documents in which it bears[?] a

    part are no more to be regarded than D’some[?] an assembly of dormitory[?]

    Porters[?]. In neither[?] case he would no otherwise have regarded it: good[?] for

    the state[?] if in other cases it met with no other regard.

    By stopping Money Bills Commons House unjust[?] may have th s[?]

    dissolve the Government. Ah! if ordered[?] of their betrayers this were in the power

    of the betrayed people! Can the first power be approved and the second be condemned?

    In addressing the few[?] House it the forces of respect no insincerity

    Suppose In an address to the population of a Hulk suppose an eulogy[?] magnifying

    their probity, or of a Brothel eulogizing their chastity, in this would there be any

    thing of insincerity. make[?] sounds[?] more than written visible[?] representatives

    amount to any thing any further than as they are representatives /true pictures

    /copies// of the mind.

    Luke[?] speaks of a young man /dancer/ who could not d without a certain trunk[?] in

    a certain corner of the room could not dance.

    Without a lie in his mouth the true lawyer knows not how to speak When to the

    insincerity so necessary to the man of law is added the insincerity so natural at

    least to the Commons House Veteran, to the population of the Common Laws[?], think

    /imagine/ what may be the result!

    In From henceforth at any rate when /by/ difference will /can/ Honourable House be

    spoken of under any other /better/ character than a cloak (and how thread bare a

    cloak it is!) for disposition.

    Happy the man who has turned his thoughts to politics!
  • Title: [May 19. 1780 In my last written by last post]
    Description: May 19. 1780 In my last written by last post I gave you an intimation which if it came time enough will I hope have been sufficient to stop you from taking any step incompatible with the idea suggested to you by this. I asked L. whether he would have any objection to take upon him such an employment: he said, no, provided there was a salary. But what is there to be done said he, "with regard to the young men that "may be sent over here for education"? I answered, nothing more as I understood than just to give an eye to them now and then: to see that they are provided with proper masters, & settled in proper families and to pay them their allowances so many times a year. To this he would have no objection. I then told him what your views were with regard to the getting the appointment for yourself, and the reasons you had to think it would be given you were you to ask for it: and thereupon asked him whether upon your getting it for him instead of yourself (if you could do such a thing) it would be any injury done to him were you to have a share in the profits? he said, no certainly: I therefore asked him what share he would think a reasonable one? he said you should have an equal share. I think this perfectly fair not to say generous on his part; and therefore can not but recommend it to you to close with it and write to the D. immediately. You will then be at liberty to accept the Russian offer; which if less in point of profit than what you would give up by this plan, would be more in your own way, and and afford you such a scope for exercising your invention as you could not have by any other means. You are by this time grown so saucy I suppose, that you would scarcely say thank you for any assistance that my pen could give you, however as a means of saving your precious time, Sir, I take the liberty of suggesting the limits contained in the other , with the most profound deference to your better judgment & superior savoir-faire. I have read over the above & subscribe very heartily to the terms your Brother mentions. But before any engagement with his Highness I should wish to see a from him: As then I could judge not how far the thing suits me — which as times go is the first question a man asks but what is of more consequence, whether I suit the King. We are in hourly Expectation of news from Clinton and Rodney. The latter has been ill but is recovered & writes in high Spirits — Sir Charles Hardy is dead. If Barrington succeeds to the Command it will be no less to the Country, or the Service — You would name Lord Howe — Give me Barrington.