date

1818 Nov r 25 Parl Reform Bill
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.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1818 Nov r 27 Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: 1818 Nov r 27

    Parl. Reform Bill

    '.1 Seats

    '.2. Electors Who

    Exclusions

    Non Readers

    13

    2

    Between readers and non-readers there is therefore no more separation of interests - no more possibility of opposition of interests, than between adults and non-adults. There is even not so much: since, as will be seen there[?] will not unless by accident be any adult in whose power it will not be to become a reader in less than three months time: whereas to a non-adult of no more than fourteen years of age it is not possible to become an adult in less than seven years time.
  • Title: [1818 Dece r 21 Parl Reform Bill]
    Description: 1818 Dece r 21

    Parl Reform Bill

    Dialogue III

    Preliminary View

    Universality

    Non-Adults

    {15}

    8

    Anti-Reformist. Perhaps not. But whatever /such as/ it is, it would be a

    satisfaction to me to see /you would oblige me by letting me see/ how it is you get

    out of it.

    Reformist. Many words will not be necessary. In the case of females, the Electors

    and the Non-Electors were two different sets of persons. In the case of Non-Adults,

    they are the same persons the persons are the same; the time of life alone different.

    No great danger here of the sinister sacrifice

    Anti-Reformist. {Not much I must confess.} At first blast /Upon the face of this

    statement/ none at all. in this way of putting it none at all But instead of Electors

    and Non Electors suppose the question to be between Representatives and Electors, the

    case will not be quite so simple. A possible case you will allow it to be, that in

    this situation of rulers, the powers given by fathers to themselves over their

    children may be too great.

    Reformist. Undoubtedly. For example in antient Rome, the power of life and death:

    and that not only at the commencement of life but to the very end of it: not only at

    the time /during the age/ at which the power inspires no terror, but at a time where

    the terror was so unremitting as to keep a man down to the end of life in a state of

    the most abject slavery.

    In this case accordingly I acknowledge that the sameness of person is such in words

    only, and not in effect.

    But if, under the notion of preventing in this case the sinister sacrifice I were to

    give votes to Non Adults, I should find myself plunged at once into a labyrinth of

    uncertainties /difficulties/.

    difficulties.
  • Title: [1819 Jan. 3. Dialogue III Preliminary]
    Description: 1819 Jan. 3.

    Dialogue III

    Preliminary View

    Evils & Remedies

    Remedies

    Miselection

    Electors

    Levelling undesirable[?]

    3 continued

    2

    19

    14

    This[?] proving the impracticability proves the undesirability

    4. Howsoever this were settled, the proposed sharers would be either the adults

    alone or the adults and non adults together: in which latter case all infants would

    be to be included down to those just born: not to speak of those in the womb: and

    here you have a few more points to be settled.

    5 Among adults either males alone would be included or females likewise: and among

    females either the unmarried only, or unmarried and married together: and so among

    the non-adults of both sexes. A man and his wife having ten children, of all ages

    from one day to twenty one years, shall they have but one share, or two shares, or

    twelve shares, or some and what number of shares between two and twelve? More

    /Another set of/ points to be settled.

    5. 1 Quantity of land say with Count La Borde acres 55,000,000 [+]

    2. Individuals /Number/ among whom it is /must be proposed/ to be divided

    17,096,200

    3 Share of each individual on the supposition of a division equal in respect of

    quantity, three acres: literally three acres with a fraction which for such a purpose

    may be neglected.

    Quantity alone is it to be regarded, or is value to be taken into the account? In

    the first case the inequality would be extreme. Another {material} point to be

    settled.

    In some places, the three acres being covered with buildings would be worth more

    than as many hundred thousand pounds: in others, not being covered with anything that

    grows they would not be worth one farthing.

    Palaces, Noblemen’s and Gentlemen’s Town Residences and Country Seats, Villas,

    Manufactories, Mines, Cathedrals Churches and Chapels Public Offices Ports and

    Canals, Navigable vessels from first rates down to wherries – what would be to be

    done with them? Non-division would be inequality in the extreme; division would be

    distinction.

    [+] Morn. Chron. 24 Dec r 1818