JB_126_125.xml

Title: [21 Jan y. 1810 Parl y. Reform]

Description: 21 Jan y. 1810

Parl y. Reform

Ch.2. Influence

'.1

6

Objector. Do you admitt then that in the case in question a man's conduct may with propriety be determined by authority? - by intellectual authority, according to the explanation you have just been giving of it?

Author. Most assuredly I do: and that by its being determined in this manner, not that I recommend this as the universally preferable mode the trust in question is not broken, nor the design of the institution counteracted.

Objector. But how in this case is the description which you have above been giving /above given by you/ of the obligation attached to the trust conformed to? how in such case can it be said with true[?] that it is by the trustee's own understanding that any view of the matter has been taken?

Author. {The conformity, you will see, is beyond dispute.} Yes: even in this case you will find that by the trustee's own understanding a view of the matter has even[?] in this case been taken: and that it is by that view, and the report made in consequence by his

understanding that his will is determined.

For is it not the work of understanding to form and pronounce a judgment on the strength of another man's? not to speak of that other judgment which to the one in question in many cases is so necessary an accompaniment viz. on the probity of the moral part of the same person's[?] frame[?] /mind/, and not merely of the general strength of the understanding but of the particular strength as applied to the particular subject in hand.

JB_126_295.xml

Title: [12 Aug 1809 Parl y Reform B]

Description: 12 Aug 1809

Parl y Reform

B.II. Influence

Ch.1. Explanations

'. Influence on understand g innocent

{3}

2

1 o

Influence[?]

{In this way Influence of understanding over understanding may be exercised without any exertions without any exertions without so much as the knowledge of him by whose understanding it is exercised.}

 Add to [...?] will over will, reference to Elements of [...?].

It is in this sense that on the < > of < > 1809 influence was exercised by M r Waithman[?] over the Common Council /many a Livery-man/ of the City of London.

It is thus that on the < > of < > 1809 influence are exercised by M r Cobbet over many a freeholder of Hampshire. The Common Council /Livery of London/ (such of them on whom this influence was exercised) may have been misled in the one case: the freeholders of Hampshire (with /under/ the like limitation) on the other. Misled let them in both cases have been, all of them: but will any one say, would M r Percival, would M r Davies Geddy[?] who if the Report of the debate of < > 1809 is to be believed is so fond of influence, and so acutely sensible of /to/ the necessity of it, would either of them take upon himself to say, if any of these Electors that on this occasion they were corrupted? Had either M r Waithman[?] or Mr Cobbet either of them either of these places, so much as a banknote to give or to take away from any of these electors?

Oh yes - the understanding of those people was corrupted - corrupted by the sophisms and fallacies[?] they were plied with - Well then - be it so observing that this is itself a sophism of your oath stripping the word corrupted of its plan since at[?] which it was meant to convey, and fathering upon it a different sense - a figurative sense. But dependent - what will /can/ you make of that? can you corrupt that? No, that you cant: not all the resources of corruption in either sense will enable you to say, with any the least chance of obtaining assent /for/ on the part of any one to/ what you say, that in relation either to M r Waithman[?] or M r Cobbet every of the persons whose understanding right or wrong, took the understanding of one or other of those distinguished persons for their guide were in a state of dependence.

JB_126_130.xml

Title: [21[?] Jan y. 1810 + Parl y. Reform]

Description: 21[?] Jan y. 1810 +

Parl y. Reform

Note ?

Ch.2. Influence what purpose

'.1

1

11

In the situation here in question by will on will whatsoever influence is exercised is sinister: no influence that is not sinister can be exercised that is not sinister: all such influence might /should/ therefore as far as possible be excluded. And that to a great and even /to all probability/ sufficient degree it may be excluded /is practicable/ will be seen hereafter.

In the same situation, by understanding on understanding influence may be exercised that is not sinister, to exclude all such influence, whether possible or no could not be proper or desirable.

On the contrary in this same situation the admission of this sort of influence is desirable: desirable, and to /even in/ such a degree as to be altogether necessary.

True it is that along with such influence of this kind as is salutary and conducive to right conduct the admission of such as is of an opposite tendency, viz. sinister, pernicious and conducive to misconduct is not altogether, is indeed only in a comparatively inconsiderable degree, capable of being avoided /avoidable/. At whatever door can be opened for the admission of salutary instructive influence of this sort instructive influence of this sort pernicious, deceptitious is capable of finding entrance: and here to distinguish between the one and the other and choose[?] accordingly is the task which rests in the judgment in all cases.