date

22 Aug 1809 Parl y Reform Corruption
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[?]/.
Similar Items
  • Title: [22 Aug 1809 Parl y Reform Corruption]
    Description: 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?
  • 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: [21 Aug 1809 + Parl y Reform]
    Description: 21 Aug 1809 +

    Parl y Reform

    B.III. Influence

    Corruption

    Electors

    1

    The Lords are in for themselves: Why may not Electors be?

    '. Bribery be on the part of the Elector?  Not till after Corruption on the part of the Member.

    The parliamentary Elector in his situation does he not do mischief, by accepting of money or what is equivalent, for his vote?

    I answer, as before /above/ - that depends upon the character and disposition of the Member whom his vote contributes to place in the House: in which is included the this /these two/ proposition, viz. that, if without his vote the candidate would equally have been placed there, or is not placed there at all, no mischief is produced.

    The Member /Candidate/, who being a man of an independent mind, means to act upon independent principles gains his election by bribery, and acts upon those principles to the last. The Candidate who had he succeeded on his election would have been from first to last a tool of the Minister, gives no bribes and loses it. Now where is the mischief in this? - just none: the case /event/ in which the mischief, whatever mischief the case is susceptible of, would have taken place, is the opposite case /event/.