date

23[?] Aug 1809 Parl y Reform
23[?] Aug 1809

Parl y Reform

Bribery & Corruption

From the practice of bribery, as applied to electors one consequence there is which in my eyes is a mischievous one, productive of a mischief which in my view of it has been sufficient to bespeak /secure/ my endeavours - and those not sham but sincere and honest ones, for /towards/ the prevention of it.

This is the giving to /a/ candidates whose sole qualification may consist in opulence, the exclusive possession of these seats, to the utter exclusion of men of talents and industry, qualifications to /with/ which though a degree of affluence above that of the labouring and most numerous classes is necessary, a certain quantity of wealth /degree of affluence/ is little less than incompatible.

This in my view of the matter is sufficient - to oppose to every idea of having bribery unprevented not only an objection, but that a peremptory one.

But those men, those that in terms of such convenient ambiguity, maintain that "property ought to have a predominating influence on the Election of Members" +, those men whose opinion it is that a man who can not shew himself to be in possession of ,600 or ,300 neat[?] income in a particular form ought not to be permitted to sit in the House, by whatsoever numbers of electors deemed the fittest of all men that could be placed there - with what consistency can such an exclusion be ranked under the head of evil in their estimate?

+ Speaker's Speech Cobbett

King's 10[?] Jan[?] 1809

N.B. This only for the moment: till a proper[?] example can be found: his words not warranting it.
Similar Items
  • Title: [24 Dec r 1809 Parl y Ref m]
    Description: 24 Dec r 1809

    Parl y Ref m

    Ch.15. Electors Contin

    '.1. Mischief to the State

    5

    7

    7

    Now, instead of being so many pocket votes - votes already purchased - suppose all these to be so many free votes - free to choose, yes and add disposed to choose a purchaser - each of them, at all times - a purchaser. Yes, and disposed to take for that purchaser the best bidder.

    As it is /On the former supposition/ so many sets of them, so many secret dependents in those who ought to be constitutionally and openly dependent upon them - so many corrupt judges, stationed /seated/ in the most important seats of judicature.

    On the present supposition, being at /to take/ the very worst /case/, disposed all of them to sell themselves to the best bidder, on each election, that best bidder is in the instance of each seat just as likely to be, in relation to the corrupter[?]-general, in a free and independent as in a dependent state.

    In the case where every thing was as it should be where there was no bribery no corruption - nothing for any man to find fault with, it was all sure loss in the article of independence. In the present case it is all corruption all bribery - corruption in the grossest of all its forms - "dry and sordid" bribery /gain/. + Yet, compared with that pure and unexceptionable case, here is gain - no less than 50 per Cent gain to independence.

    + Speaker's Speech

    Cobbet's Register

    10 June 1809
  • Title: [23 Aug 1809 + Parl y Reform]
    Description: 23 Aug 1809 +

    Parl y Reform

    Corruption

    Electors

    Candidates

    6

    1

    1

    Yet In the case of this particular Office in particular, according to a very general opinion - according to an opinion which has even received the sanction of law, one qualification - and that not merely a desirable but an indispensable one is opulence /affluence/.

    Of his possessing this qualification in effect the money giving candidate has given a proof much more conclusive and undeceptitious than any that has ever been given /secured/ or can ever be given /secured/ by legal requisites. The pecuniary parliamentary qualification required by British law is for a County Member ,600 a year, for a Borough Member, ,300 a year. Even this is evaded and very happy it is that it is so. But were the quantum ten times as much and no evasion practicable still the security it would afford for the exertion of affluence would fall short of that which is afforded by this pretendedly corrupt practice. Affluence depends not only upon a mans means but upon his wants: it is in the direct ratio of the one; it is in the inverse ratio of the other. A man of vast means may be placed (and how often do we not see him placed!) may be placed in a state of practically-operative indigence /of indigence/, by the still superior vastness /magnitude/ of his wants. By Expenditure in the way in question shews not merely the magnitude of means but the ratio of means to wants. it shews the excess of means above wants: and though it will not shew the whole of the /exact/ excess it shews at any rate which is the only thing to the present purpose to the purpose of incorruptibility material - it shews at any rate that there is an excess /exists/.
  • Title: [2 Jan y 1810 Parl y. Reform]
    Description: 2 Jan y 1810

    Parl y. Reform

    + '.3

    Ch.14. II. Electors

    ' 3. Opposite scales

    7

    1

    '.3. Scales of mischievousness as between species and species according to the Speaker's doctrines and the above.

    Suppose then my principle applied to these three several cases (I say my principle - for to the purpose of /carrying on/ the argument such presumption is unfortunately indispensable) the case of the open borough stands at the very lowest possible point in the scale of mischievousness: and this even though the bribery were in all boroughs of this denomination universal; a supposition which the example of the most open of all boroughs viz Westminster is sufficient to disprove. Degree of mischievousness less in these than in either of the two other cases. Why? Because even when /where/ the obsequiousness is undue, the efficiency of the efficient cause of this undue obsequiousness is at the lowest [...?] of certainty.