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

{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.
Similar Items
  • 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

    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.
  • 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.}
  • Title: [11 Sep. 1809 Parl y Reform]
    Description: 11 Sep. 1809

    Parl y Reform

    B.II. Influence &c

    Ch.1. Generalities

    '. Influence allowable?

    4

    4

    Dependence, the real and immediate mischief, corruption, not mischievous but through that.

    When /Of/ A person (Obsequius) who finds himself placed in a situation in which his will is habitually exposed to influence exercised on it by the will of another person B (Patronus) is said to be dependent on him: relation being had to Patronus, the situation of Obsequius is termed a situation of dependence.

    By the mere[?] act /fact/ of having received an object of desire say a sum of money however recently, if without expectation of any ulterior sum from the same source, no dependence is created.

    By actual bribery therefore, no dependence is created

    By the expectation of a bribe indeed dependence may be created.

    But, as already shewn by the mere expectation of a bribe in the shape of a given sum, say ,500, viz. to be once paid, and not oftener, whatever dependence is /may be/ created can not be equal to the dependence which would be produced by an equally strong expectation of being made to lose /part with/ a sum to the same amount.

    [unnumbered: between 126-293 and 126-294]

    [part of page lost through tear]

    nd [wm 1806]

    Parl y Reform

    1

    (a)  Quere whether to add the words dependence and independence to the first sentence, or afterwards?

    '. Of dependence considered as the effect /result/ of influence.

    The stronghold of the advocates of the system of corruption and dependence lies in the /in a single word - the/ word influence - in the vast extent <...> its import and thence in the two distinct and widely <...>ent[?] sences /purposes/ in which it is alike capable of being in-<...>.

    Influence of will on will - influence of under<...>ng on understanding - note well the distinction between these two species of influence - or rather between these two different occasions on which and purposes for which the term influence is employed and the spell of delusion is dissolved.

    It is only on the occasion on which the idea /object/ presented by the word influence, is that of the influence exercised by will over will, that either corruption or dependence or corruption have really any place, corruption the cause, dependence the effect. {In this case and in this rule[?] are the two terms influence and corruption virtually synonymous:} in this case and this only can the epithet corrupt with truth and purposity[?] be attached /annexed/ to the term influence: in this case and in this only can dependence be said to be the fruit and result and fruit of the influence exercised /1.[?]/: corruptor the person /party/ by whom the influence is exercised: corrupted and dependent, by being corrupted brought into and kept in a state of dependence the party on and over whom the influence is exercised.