date

12 Aug 1809 Parl y Reform B
12 Aug 1809

Parl y Reform

B.II. Influence

Ch.1. Explanations

'. Influence on understand g innocent

2

1

{2} /1/

1 o

{Wide indeed is the difference where in speaking of the influence exercised by one person on or over another the influence of understanding over understanding the influence which by the siren[?] power of his understanding merely one man is frequently able to exercise over the understanding of another is the only species /sort/ of influence that is in view.

Widely different /distant/ from the above so widely indeed as to be opposite to it is that state of things in which by the the influence of understanding over understanding is the only influence that has place. In this case no corruption no dependence is to be found Misled a man may be, misled by the understanding of another: corrupted, in this case dependent in this case he can not be.

Take any subject whatever in the whole field of government - in a word in the whole field of thought and action put together - and thence in the whole field of controversy. A man /Titius Tyro/ /To Lancelot Low it/ has not found leisure /never happened/ to apply his thoughts to it: or if he has, he has not sufficient confidence in his own judgment /powers/ /faculties/ or opportunities of information to venture to pass a judgment on it: he looks out for some person whose opportunities or powers or both together appear to have more competent than his own: in a word for that person whose opportunities and powers taken together (not forgetting that sort of probity which affords the only security for his either acting or speaking in conformity to his own judgment) appear to him likely to be most competent: he has found as it seems to him that person in the character of Sapphonius. In relation to the subject in question He learns what the opinion of Sapphonius is, and acts accordingly.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1822 Oct. 19 Tripoli. Securities against]
    Description: 1822 Oct. 19

    Tripoli. Securities against Musrule

    Preliminary Explanations

    Chance of Concession

    Cautions

    6. If the case admitts not of any other supposition than that the Monarch has been misled, let the supposition implied be that it has been by false statements as to matters of fact, than by unwise judgments and advice. The being misled by false reports /statements/ is a misfortune from which no degree of wisdom can always preserve any human being: on the part of the /a/ person thus misled no error in judgment, no intellectual weakness in any shape is implied in the supposition. Not so in the case of being misled by bad advice. Intellectual weakness in some shape or other is in this case necessarily implied. The opinion of another man is looked to by him as a ground for the opinion on which he is to act. Why looked to unless it be because he is not only incompetent to form an opinion of his own for the guidance of his own conduct, but so clearly so, as to be himself sensible /conscious/ of his own incompetance. Thus in the first place, by the consciousness of the weakness of his own judgment he is in a manner compelled to borrow a judgment from another man: in the next place when this judgment is lent to him, though by the supposition it is an erroneous one, his judgment has not enabled him to see in it what it is to discover the real character of it.
  • 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.
  • Title: [21 Jan y. 1810 Parl y. Reform]
    Description: 21 Jan y. 1810

    Parl y. Reform

    Influence

    Ch.2.

    '.1.

    8

    8

    Objector. Good. So far so good /Agreed/ But if you admitt of influence, what do you get by limiting it to that sort of influence which is exercised {by understanding} over understanding? why not as well admitt of that sort which is exercised by will on will? By the influence exercised on it by understanding is not understanding continually liable to be misled and in consequence conduct misdirected in consequence? But if conduct be misdirected, what matters it whether it be by understanding or by will that is misdirected.

    Author. Doubtless the one you have been mentioning is a cause of misconduct as well as the other. But in my turn give me leave to put the question is it not better to have but one cause of misconduct than to have two?

    Now then in between the two causes of misconduct in the case in question the matter stands thus. {Misconduct so far as it has for its cause a deceptitious /an improper/ /a misleading/ influence exercised on understanding by understanding it is in this case impossible to prevent or diminish by any legal arrangements: misconduct so far as in this same case it has for its cause influence exercised by will over will it is not impossible to diminish at least by legal arrangements.}