date

1818 Nov r 25 + Parl. Reform Bill
1818 Nov r 25 +

Parl. Reform Bill

Reasons

'.1. Seats and Districts?

'.2. Electors Who

Votes but one why?

1

1

Question. 1. Under the present system, a man possessing a qualification in each one of a number of Election Districts, may deliver a vote in each be the number of them ever so great, deliver a vote in each, provided the times repectively appointed for the delivery of votes in these several districts, admitt of his so doing. On the here proposed plan, no man /person/ would have the faculty /it in his power/ to deliver a vote in any more than one Election District this faculty of delivering votes more than one would cease /have no place/. Why is it proposed to be thus made to cease?

Answer. To exclude inequality. 1. In the eye of the legislator of the common Trustee and Guardian, the legislator, the interest of no one individuals shall[?] have claim to a greater degree of consideration /security/ than that of any other.

2. If there were any one /such/ individuals /existed any such preferable claim/ no claim reason could be assigned why those by whom it is at present possessed should be of the number rather than any others that could be named.

If persons and their interest being neglected, votes were allotted to objects belonging to the class of things, such for example as the possession of such or such a portion of the earth's surface - suppose a portion of two acres, in such case, two men having each of them a [...?] of property exactly the same in extent and even in value, might possess and deliver the one of them thirty times as many votes or more as the other. But for no such advantage /inequality/ can any reason be assigned.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1818 Nov r 25 Parl Reform Bill]
    Description: 1818 Nov r 25

    Parl Reform Bill

    Reasons

    '.1. Seats & Districts

    '.2. Electors Who

    4

    Question 8. By admission given to the votes of non-adult males would inconvenience in any and what shapes be produced?

    Answer. In several shapes.

    1. In the shape of increase given to expense, vexation and delay, as in the case of females /last mentioned/.

    2. In the shape of inequality. In so far as the minds of the children remained subject to the influence of understanding on understanding, a /each/ man would have as many votes as he had children between the earliest age at which a child being capable of giving or was accordingly admitted to give a vote, and the earliest age at which it had come to emancipate itself from that influence. By secrecy of suffrage, non-adults would indeed as well as adults have been emancipated from the influence of will on will /seductive influence/: but by the influence of understanding on understanding a sufficient /very considerable/ number of votes would, in the case in question be placed at the command of a single individual: although /while/ no sufficient reason, if any, can it should seem be assigned, why any one instance of such pluralism should have place.
  • Title: [1818 Nov r 25 A +[?] Parl. Reform]
    Description: 1818 Nov r 25 A +[?]

    Parl. Reform Bill

    '.1. Seats and Districts

    '.2. Electors Who

    1

    1

     14 Oct.[?] 1819 Inserendienum[?]?

    Question 1. What is the characteristic principle of the plan of Constitutional reform exhibited by this Bill?

    Answer: The principle of virtually universal/ity of/ suffrage /Generosity[?] of suffrage/:

    Question 2. What is meant by /the use of/ the word virtually? in what does the principle of virtually universal suffrage differ from the principle of universal suffrage?

    Answer. According to the principle of universal suffrage {all descriptions of persons without exception would be entitled to vote:} every human being /all human beings/ presenting him or herself at any place /Election Office/ appointed for the receipt of votes, would be entitled to deliver a vote: at any Election Office; and thence unless particular arrangements were made for preventing /excluding/ such a result /an inequality/, at each one of any number of such Offices. Every human being: and thence, amongst others, all females, non-adults, persons insane and criminals[?]. According to the principle of virtually universal suffrage, of the abovementioned descriptions some only would be admitted to vote, the rest would by law /by regulation/ stand excluded.

    Question 3. Have /Has/ there ever been any person by whom the principle of universal suffrage, as thus described been embraced and supported?

    Answer. No: nor in all probability ever will be. The name ought therefore to be altogether excluded. The use of it produces confusion: by making a man not only call for that which he does not wish to have, but moreover angry with those who do not call for it.
  • Title: [+ 1818 Oct. 21 Reasons §.1 Art 4 Parl]
    Description: + 1818 Oct. 21 Reasons §.1 Art 4

    Parl Reform Bill

    Reasons

    §.1 Seats and Districts

    Art 4 Seat one only

    10

    2

    2. Avoidance of nullity of the Electors’ influence, in every District in which the two Members take opposite sides.

    {Question 2. Seats – why no more than one to a District?

    Reasons

    1. If while the whole number of seats being as at present not less than 658, two seats were in all instances as at present in most instances allotted to a /an Election/ District, the number 668 already but too large would be swelled to 1336.

    2. If while one set of Districts filled each of them but one seat, another set districts not twice as populous as those of the former filled each of them two seats, here would be inequality, and no use in it or reason for it.}

    Under the existing system, though with the exception of the City of London no more than two seats are in any instance filled by one District, considerable is the inconvenience produced even by this lowest degree of plurality. When, in one and the same district, the two seats are filled by two Members, who, in respect of the general scheme of government, are, with relation to one another, guided by opposite opinions or moved by opposite interests, they in so far nullify one another: the district which they represent is without influence: with two such Representatives it is no better served than if it had none. Even under the proposed Reform, but for the arrangement here proposed, the case would in this respect be the same.

    3. Securing the freedom of Election against partition-treaties between rival Candidates.

    2. Under the existing system two proposed Members, who, if the district had but one seat would enter into competition, and thus allow to the several Electors the faculty of giving their votes to the worthiest, enter into a compact with one another, and by terrorism, in one or more of its shapes, exclude competitors, share the two seats between them, and thus for that time deprive the whole body of the Electors of the faculty of giving /exercise of their franchise/. Under the proposed system, no such terrorism could have place: not but that by combination, after every thing that could be done, emulation and competition might, in cases in which they would have been useful, be incidentally excluded. But the instances would be comparatively rare.