date

22 Aug 1809 Parl y Reform Corruption
22 Aug 1809

Parl y Reform

Corruption

3 Electors

Candidates

12?

 Held[?] J.B.'s opinion of such bribery - he thinks well of every body that committs it - he himself would have committed it.

Such being the species and degree of guilt if guilt it be to be called, on the part of the Elector by whom a bribe has been received in return for his vote, we are now in a condition /situation/ to view in its correct and proper point of view the guilt if such it be to be called, of the candidate the successful /successful or unsuccessful/ candidate by whom the bribe has been administered.

Whatsoever be the guilt of the bribed elector, the bribing candidate is let it be said apprized of that guilt: he is the procurer and in that sense the author, one /an/ author at least of that guilt. Whatsoever mischief is done by that vote, of the electors the candidate the procurer /purchaser/ of that vote is the author of that mischief. Whatever mischief is in his belief and opinion the consequence of that vote, he in that his belief and opinion is the author of that mischief.

But, except in the case where in placing himself in such seat his design is to place himself in a state of dependence under the Minister, in the opinion and belief the Member the /this bribing/ Candidate no mischief at all is done or can be done by such vote. No mischief but on the contrary /contrarywise/ good. Thus if in this case there be any thing to which the name of guilt can be with any propriety be applied - how [...?] and evanescent, at the utmost, must it not be?
Similar Items
  • Title: [22 Aug 1809 + Parl y Reform]
    Description: 22 Aug 1809 +

    Parl y Reform

    Corruption

    Electors

    2

    Thus much as to /for/ the immediate, the actual mischief. Now as /Look we now/ to the disposition betrayed by the accepter of the bribe, that disposition let it be said, created by the bribe, the disposition having for its efficient cause the bribe itself, and for its author the giver of the bribe.

    What is the opinion /in the opinion/ entertained by the bribed Elector concerning /in regard to/ the eventual use which the Candidate means as above to make of his seat? that he will act an /the/ independent part or the /an/ /a/ dependent one? In the latter case true it is that what the bribed elector has done, is that which is about to be the cause of evil, and thence itself evil, in his own eyes. But in the other case what is it that he has done? what is it that in his own eyes - in his own judgment - he has done? Not evil but good. Good is what he has been doing: good is what he conceived himself to be doing. Now here is the evil in all this? I, For my part I can find none. Had he taken the opposite course, in that course, indeed, evil might have ben , nay could not but have been, to be found.

    Nay but says the rigorist /man of austere virtue/ what he ought to have done - is to have voted as he did, but not to have taken any bribe.

    Doubtless had he so done, the part he took would have been more honourable /dignified/ more estimable, on the side of censure. But this seems to be as much as can be said.

    If it be Glorious in this case to refuse a bribe, it does not follow that it must be flagitious to accept one.
  • Title: [22 Aug 1809 Parl y Reform Corruption]
    Description: 22 Aug 1809

    Parl y Reform

    Corruption

    Electors

    12

     Add why.

    Whatsoever may the opinion entertained concerning the absolute degree of guilt on the part of the acceptor, and the giver of such bribes the Candidate /Member/ and his Elector - on the subject of relative or comparative degree of guilt in each instance [...?] relation being had to the guilt of him who for a bribe given whether in the shape of office or any other shape by the Minister sells /gives/ his vote to the Minister there can surely be but one opinion in any reflecting and impartial mind.

    Yet the two species of guilt are perpetually and most unhappily confounded under the same name! and of this unity of name /identity of denomination/ advantage is taken to represent them as being in effect upon a par - as being in effect the same.

    And how and to what end are two objects so widely distant and dissimilar thus confounded? Why? but that under favour of the confusion the partakers[?] of /character [...?] by/ the real the only tangible and ponderable guilt may escape: may escape not only from the preventive operation of remedial law, but even from censure and ill repute /if possible from the very breath of censure[?]/.
  • Title: [12 Aug 1809 Parl Reform Qualification]
    Description: 12 Aug 1809

    Parl Reform Qualification of Electors

    Case in which all Electors by pursuing each his own interest (in respect of the

    choice of Representative) might yet counteract the interest of the whole candidate is

    a rule powerful – each Elector so poor that he is forced to give up his lasting to

    his […?] interests, the Candidate bribes him with his own money.

    Remedy – Check the duration of Representatives situation so short that viz[?] that it

    shall not be worth his while to employ bribery

    No one permanent class of men whose interests are

    constantly and habitually sacrificed. No Helots[?] – No slaves &c

    But the less opulent a variable description of men are habitually sacrificed to more

    opulence

    Remedies against Corruption from[?] the course[?] – in addition to d o against bribery at large

    1. Keeping the matter of bribery in excess out of the hands of the Commons this is

    now[?] become impossible

    2. Keeping it from being applied to the Judges over […?] in such manner as to

    influence their judicial conduct: this the only recourse.

    Remedies against bribery at large

    1. Electors numerous – bribery the[?] expence

    2. Duration of Parliament short – bribery not worth while

    3. Voting epistolary: thence occasion of expence over portion for bribery

    /corruptive/ expence lessened

    4. Voting by ballot: the /each man’s/ right being previously established

    5. Annuality: the seat not worth bribing for.

    On the supposition of universal suffrage each Elector could not do wrong if

    independently of any sinister interest that might be employed to influence his vote

    he pursued his own interest and that his permanent interest – his having a a compleat

    and correct conception of that interest.

    Wealth comes under consideration

    1. as being possessed or receivable by an Elector.

    2. as being possessed by a person possessing an influence either over the will or the

    understanding of an Elector.

    When an Elector feels himself incapable of forming any judgment on the merits of a

    Candidate any the slightest neat[?] packet of personal advantage will be sufficient

    to determine him: and if he sees no such advantage he will not give himself the

    trouble of going to vote.

    He sees no mischief that can ensue from his acceptance of a bribe: I[?]

    And it does not follow that because a man will accept a bribe on ordinary occasions,

    he will on every occasion ... where he feels himself capable of forming a judgment.

    { Corruption from /by/ individuals much less mischievous than d o

    by the Crown.

    {Bribery} /Corruption/ of Electors by the Crown is no further of mischievous than as

    it determines them to choose a Representative who would be corrupted by the Crown,

    but this result may be considered as certain

    Corruption of Electors by individuals is no further mischievous than as it

    determines them to choose a representative who would be comparatively unfit either by

    want of probity or intelligence

    A representative can never of himself produce in parliament any mischievous result,

    to do so he must have on the question in question a majority on his side.

    But by selling himself to the Crown he may not on each question /proposition/

    supposed by the crown contribute to the success of that measure but he may moreover

    get a measure in which he has a sinister interest carried for him by the Crown. }

    {The only corruption therefore which is seriously formidable is that in which

    mediately or immediately the Crown is the corrupter.}

    {Duration short loses.

    1. Making bribery not worth a lot (viz. occasional but the Crown is a permanent

    briber)

    2. Preservation of Members probity Not worth while to plan

    the […?] of a Member, when the fellow[?] may be ousted from it the next year

    3. Promoting intelligence on the part of Members, by making them ashamed of […?]

    & silent votes.

    4. In case of frequent change producing competition, emulating[?] intent[?]

    5. Securing Members attendance.}

    In the hands of an electors advisor, wealth considered as an index of superior

    probity and intelligence may serve to guard him against wealth administered to him by

    means of corruption.

    In the case of Electors probity is no otherwise of use viz. to himself as to that of

    fellow subjects – than in so far as it is accompanied by intelligence in so far as he

    acts under the guidance of intelligence

    The intelligence under the guidance of which he acts may be his own or borrowed.

    In so far as he is free and pure

    an Elector, if conscious of inability to judge for himself will borrow a judgment of

    the person or persons whom he looks upon as best qualified to give it

    Instruction is of no […?] where men are steeled against it by sinister interest

    If Elenboro’ and Percival had their will there would be no

    more liberty in England than in France. Their power to this

    purpose is but suspended.

    Voting Epistolary

    Advantages

    1. Electors in many districts may vote in all without trouble or expence.