date

1818 Dec. 30 Parl Reform Bill
1818 Dec. 30

Parl Reform Bill

Dialogue

Prel.

Evils & Remedies

Dialogue 3

II Remedies

Excluded

1. Office -bearers

4

4

Anti-Reformist. Well, and why are /must/ men so circumstanced {to} be excluded?

Reformist. For three reasons. 1. Placed in this universally superintending

situation, a place-man can not but be judge in his one cause. + 2.

The duty of this situation is quite sufficient to occupy the whole of his disposable

time. 3. Howsoever by the election proved to be possessed of the confidence of one

set of Electors, he would still be an object of well grounded suspicion and thence of

desertion[?] and disapprobation to the 657 others. And not only he, but on his

account his Electors likewise.

Anti-Reformist. This last reason considered I know not very well how to refuse my

fiat to the exclusion thus applied. Otherwise I might have puzzled you a little. For

by one man’s vote, you must acknowledge if you have not already acknowledged, no

sensible evil can in this situation be produced without the concurrence of others in

a number sufficient to constitute a majority. And then as to the demand which the

situation presents for the whole of a man’s time, {though} you may thus prevent him

from stealing from his parliamentary trust /function/ time and applying for the

purpose of applying it /to apply it/ to other public business you can not prevent him

from stealing it for the purpose of applying it to private business, or to whatever

goes by the name of pleasure.

Reformist. For the term of one year, no. But by the arrangements which you will see,

I render it not very probable that if he steals from his parliamentary business much

time to give to /bestow upon/ any other employment he will ever sit a second term:

and at any rate if he bestows upon his parliamentary business any considerable part

of that time which is not necessarily occupied by private avocations, either the

duties of his other public situation whatever it be, will be ill-performed, or the

situation itself will be a sinecure and as such a /an unendurable/ nuisance not to be

endured.

+ Parl. Cat. Introd. §. | | Plan §.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1818 Dec. 30 Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: 1818 Dec. 30

    Parl. Reform Bill

    Dialogue

    Excluded

    II. Peers

    III. Churchmen

    5

    5

    Anti-Reformist. Well but, Lord /Peer/: I will not give you any trouble about the

    King, /the Grand Signor[?]/ the Emperors of China […?] Austria or Russia, the Emperor

    of Japan, civil or ecclesiastical, the Grand Signor[?], the Pope, or an English or

    Irish Bishop. But a Peer – what say you to a Peer

    Reformist. He may sit for one and unwelcome[?], if a set of Electors can be found to

    choose him. Be assured, by any virtually-universal suffrage men, voting secretly and

    therefore freely not so much as one would ever be chosen, who to the full conviction

    /assurance of the majority was not a friend to their cause. And then to repeat a

    former observation, in that House if there were fifty Peers all of them sworn enemies

    to that cause, what mischief could they do with twelve times the number of commoners

    to prevent it?

    Anti-Reformist. And a Clergyman?

    Reformist. He is an Office-holder: call him Rector Vicar or Curate what you please.

    For unless he be a Curate at least he can not be a Clergyman. This indeed by existing

    law which may be abrogated at any time. But at any rate if not occupied in saving

    souls in one way, he is in another: and that is quite employment enough for any man’s

    time.

    Anti-Reformist. But a Clergyman of a Non-Established Church?

    Reformist. He is, to this purpose at least, no Clergyman at all. Be his situation in

    that way what it may he will not be recognised as being in it. If a man although a

    Member of Parliament chooses to save souls, how can you hinder him? And why not

    occupy himself in saving souls, or in doing what you can never hinder him from doing

    – help destroying them at a gaming-table?
  • Title: [1818 Dec r. 30 Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: 1818 Dec r. 30

    Parl. Reform Bill

    Dialogue III

    {Preliminary View}

    Evils & Remedies

    Dialogue 2.

    II. Remedies

    1 Miselection

    1. Member

    1

    1

    Dialogue {2} /3/. On the remedies provided against the above evils.

    Evil 1 Miselection. Remedies appliing[?] to the situation of Proposed Member

    Anti-Reformist. Well, so much for your disorders for the disorders you have taken

    upon you to encounter. Now, for your remedies.

    Reformist. With pleasure. Having classed our disorders, we have thereby classed our

    remedies. Thus so much of our business is already dispatched /done/. Come I will not

    attempt to tax your memory any further. If it be not too much trouble, take this card

    in your hand this card. In it you will see the list of our Election Evils.

    Anti-Reformist. {Be it so.} I take it: take you my thanks for it. I shall call them

    in their order.

    Reformist. Do so. But first let me observe to you that with your leave on this

    occasion, and in the way of conversation, it will be advisable not to go into any

    minute explanation of particulars. These are given in the proposed draught itself: I

    mean that peculiar part of it which I have distinguished by the term /appellation/ of

    the rationale. In the rationale, attached to the leading word or words of each

    distinguishable claim, are the reasons by the consideration /contemplation/ of which

    the matter of that clause was determined. On this /This/ rationale, I hope you /a[?]/

    will do me the honour to cast an eye /honour by a glance/: this being presumed, were

    I /if/ at this time and in this way I were to attempt laying it before you in all its

    details, you would thus have double trouble.
  • Title: [1818 Dec. 23 Parl Dialogue]
    Description: 1818 Dec. 23

    Parl

    Dialogue

    Prel

    Evils & Remedies

    I Evils

    29

    10

    Reformist. Evils in fact – evils in tendency only, and therefore not yet, if at all,

    in fact. Another division, by your leave, and that too an exhaustive one.

    Anti-Reformist. If you keep on exhausting much longer, I will tell you of one thing

    that you will exhaust without intending it more than you could wish to do /exhaust/ -

    and that is my patience. Well, there is a distinction between facts and tendencies

    /facts and tendencies are not exactly the same thing/, every body knows that: But

    where is the use of it.

    Reformist. {A little} patience and you will see what a quantity of useless

    complication it will serve to exclude. You are not fond complication are you?

    Anti-Reformist. No, I hate it mortally. The more complication on one point, the more

    attention requisite /necessary/ on the other. Attention I leave to those who are paid

    for it: unless it be to a song, a poem, or a good novel: for that makes a difference.

    Reformist. What will /would/ you say, if I leave the door of the hustings open to

    madmen and to peers of the realm /peers and bishops/, all upon the strength of this

    distinction?

    Anti-Reformist. I should /shall/ say that you yourself are mad.

    Reformist. We shall see.

    Anti-Reformist. We are still in the clouds. One of these days /Some time or other/ I

    hope, we shall land on terra firma.