date

1819 Jan y 5 Parl. Reform Bill
1819 Jan y 5

Parl. Reform Bill

Dialogue

Preliminary View

Evil & Remedies

Remedies

Miselection

Electors

Qualifications

1

30

25

Anti-Reformist But, were it only for […?] sake, for the sake of humouring

/humouring/ people in their opinions in those opinions which you call prejudices – would it not be better to require on the part

of the Electors either[?] one or more of those endowments which have been customarily

which hitherto have every where been required under the name of qualifications?

Reformist. By humouring you mean – I will take for granted unless you disavow me

/correct me/ - avoiding to displease – to produce pain or uneasiness of mind.

Uneasiness of mind is an evil – a sensible evil – or there is no such thing in human

nature. Yes – to be sure, I would humour every body /man/, as far as the evil here in

question can be prevented without the introduction of a greater evil. Where I could

not humour every body, I would humour as many as I could, and accordingly where one

set of men could not be humoured without the adoption of a proposed measure

/arrangement/ nor another set of men without the rejection of it, I would so far as

humour could be warrantably consulted /taken for the guide/ as above, the greater

number is the number that I would on every occasion I would humour, not the lesser.

Will this satisfy you?

Anti-reformist. So far as mere humour I see not at present any thing presumptory[?]

to object to it: I mean so long as the humour lasts. For whether it is likely to

last, and if yes, how long it is likely to last this is a point on every occasion to

be considered

Reformist. Unquestionably it is.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1819 Jan. 6 Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: 1819 Jan. 6

    Parl. Reform Bill

    Dialogue

    Preliminary View

    Electors

    Qualification

    3

    32

    27

    Reformist continued. Well there as to the avoiding the giving the {people}

    uneasiness. You will find, I am apt /inclined/ to think, these opiates

    /qualifications/ of yours will not be found very well adapted to the purpose.

    Anti-Reformist. How so.

    Reformist. Because, if I do not much mistake by the same opiate by which one set of

    men would be soothed, another set would be irritated by which /whereby/ uneasiness

    would /might/ be lessened in sense in one set of men it would be created in another.

    Another thing is that I fear I am surer of the production of the uneasiness in the

    one case than of the diminution of it in the other: and moreover that in those who

    will be exasperated will be more in number than those who are soothed. that the

    exasperation will find more to partake in it /partakers/ than the soothing will.

    Anti-Reformist. Well, come, let us see how the matter stands

    Reformist. I am ready. First then as to proprietorship. Make proprietorship a

    necessary qualification be it in quality shape and quantity what it may you put an

    exclusion upon all non proprietors.

    In quality and quantity make /be/ your qualification what it may from no human

    breast is uneasiness removed, and it is excited in every breast that feels[?] itself

    excluded it is excited.

    See then the dilemma you are in. You more you leave unexcluded, the greater the

    unrelieved unmitigated uneasiness you leave to the antireformist and the moderate

    reformist exclusionist. The more you exclude the greater the uneasiness you produce

    in the breasts of the universal-suffrage men /radical reformist/; the greater the

    uneasiness, and the grater the number of the breasts that share in it. /feel it./ in

    which it is felt.
  • Title: [1818 Dec. 21 Parl Reform Bill]
    Description: 1818 Dec. 21

    Parl Reform Bill

    Dialogue II

    Election Evils

    {20}

    1

    Inserendumne?[?]

    Dialogue 2 o. {Evils and remedies} – Evils /What evils there are/

    to be guarded against: {what remedies are for that purpose proposed to be provided

    Anti-Reformist. Well, so it is – I am in[?] computation[?] of interest. I am in[?]

    disposition[?] to make and to persevere in making the sinister sacrifice, and as to

    the time of so doing /making it/, that by the supposition is out of the question, it

    is unfortunately implied in the appellation of ratios. Here

    then is so much evil. But your own scheme this remedial[?] scheme of yours, think you

    that no evil is to be found in it?

    Reformist. The question you put is for form sake No such absurdity I am sure do you

    mean to impute to me. […?] Government is but a choice of evils. - Taking evil in a

    certain sense life itself – the very happiest life is but a choice of evils. Taken by

    itself, government is in every shape an […?] evil: government in my own proposed form

    of course as well as in any /every/ other.

    Anti-Reformist. You take me right. Accordingly with very little expence of thought,

    I could present you with evils in plenty to none of which you could yourself imagine

    your scheme of reform to be unexposed. But since this matter has been so well

    /thoroughly/ considered by you, the shortest way would be for you to give in[?] to

    produce your own list of these evils, with the remedies by which you regard yourself

    as having in a manner more or less effectual made provision against them. It would

    /will/ then be to be all along upon the watch for the purpose of satisfying myself in

    the first place whether your list of evils be a compleat one; in the next place how

    far your remedies afford a promise of being sufficient.
  • Title: [1818 Dec. 21. Parl Reform Bill]
    Description: 1818 Dec. 21.

    Parl Reform Bill

    Dialogue II

    {Preliminary View}

    II. Dialogue 2.

    23

    4

    Inserendumne?[?]

    Anti-Reformist. Who are these that you have in view?

    Reformist. Ah! more than you would have patience to hear of. Take Locke for one.

    According to him nothing is done but by uneasiness. So long as a man is in a state of

    activity /action/ /in action/, so long is he in a state of uneasiness: and if

    uneasiness be not evil – I mean positive evil, and not merely negative evil, the mere

    absence of greater good, I know not what else is. By Uneasiness is meant not only

    absence of enjoyment, but presence of sufferance.

    If this were true, a man who is sitting down to a good dinner with a good appetite

    to a good dinner with the partner of his bed opposite to him, is in a /uneasy/ state

    of un not only all dinner time, but from thence until bed-time, or he would not go to

    bed at all.

    According to D r Johnsons notice of the matter, all the time

    between breakfast and dinner what a man thinks most of is his dinner. Supposing this

    to be the case, do you think he is in a state of uneasiness all that time.

    Anti-Reformist. I should be sorry if it were so.

    Reformist. There was moreover a French Philosopher named Maupestrier[?], who, thus

    deluded by a set of words /made melancholy by a set of words/ proved to demonstration

    that from the beginning of his life to the end every man was miserable. which being

    supposed the only wise thing a man could do would be to hang himself: unless so it

    were, that a being of infinite benevolence created man for the purpose of making his

    being continually miserable in this life, on pain of being everlastingly so in […?];

    which if true would require, at least, to be well proved. For my own part, in

    whatsoever shape the pleasures presented themselves, while I was in the enjoyment of

    one pleasure, I never felt the pleasure converted into pain so much as tinged with

    uneasiness, by my having in prospect a still greater pleasure which I was doing my

    endeavour to get possession of.

    For