date

[129b-538] 2 April 1817 Plan
[129b-538]

2 April 1817

Plan Cat

Introd

§. Impermanence

2 Usage

4

5

Democratic ascendancy – the very system above ventured to be brought to view and advocated – democratic ascendancy in other words dependence of the Monarch on the body of the people – democratic ascendancy – the result of its {two} efficient causes – on the part of the Monarch perpetually recurring need of money – inability of obtaining it in sufficient quantity but by the free consent of the body of the people – on the part of the representatives of the people dependence where due, viz as towards the people, followed by independence where due viz. as towards the Monarch – such was the state of things during that long /long-lasting/ and auspicious period: no disuse of Parliaments for the purpose of tyrannizing without controul /by terrorism/ as under {the most mendacious {as well as} faithless though among the ablest of tyrants} Elizabeth: no perpetuation of the same Parliament by the means of corruption and for the hope and comfort of misrule, as under the last but one of the Stuarts. Prorogations altogether unknown: /On occasions more than one/ Parliaments more than one or even two in the same year: Years few without a Parliament comparatively few: of the continuance of one and the same Parliament for any such space as two years not a single example.
Similar Items
  • Title: [[129b-431] 16 April 1817 Plan]
    Description: [129b-431]

    16 April 1817

    Plan Cat

    2 o

    Introd

    §.16. Moderate Reform

    II. Uselessness

    III Representatives

    12

    2. As to impermanence

    If, by any such impermanence given to the situation as would be effected by the substitution of triannuality to septennuality, the mischief or danger of dependence where undue viz. as towards C r general and thence of want of dependence where due viz. as towards constituents could be in an adequate degree done away, by no degree of the insufficiency on the part of the proposed partial exclusion considered in its application to the case of the mere corruption-hunting class of corruptionists could any peremptory objection to the plan of reform in question be constituted. But when in this point of view a comparison must be made between triannuality and annuality the truth of the opposite supposition will it is believed be rendered sufficiently apparent.
  • Title: [1818 Nov. 3. Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: 1818 Nov. 3.

    Parl. Reform Bill

    Reasons

    §.3. Members Continuance

    King may dissolve

    3

    To this arrangement suppose any objection made, it will have for its cause the want of an adequate conception of the state in which the government would be placed by all the other particulars /arrangements/ of the proposed plan taken together. From the exercise of this power great beyond all possibility of doubt has been the mischief produced in former times. But this mischief by what has it been produced? one answer may serve for all cases: it has not been that the character, the only character for which it is here recommended has not belonged to it – it has not been in effect an appeal to the people.

    The cases in which it has not been an appeal to the people are /will be found/ reducible to two. The one is where the design has been to govern thenceforward without Parliaments: and without any possibility affording to the people so much as a possibility of their manifesting their desires. This was the case which was so often exemplified under the dynasty of the Stuarts.

    The other case is where though an appeal was /has been/ made, knowingly and intentionally made, yet it has not been to the people at large but to some comparatively minute portion of the people and to that alone that it has been made. This is the case which has been exemplified in the few instances in which the dissolution of the Parliament has had in the breasts of the Monarch and his advisers a dissatisfaction of which the proceedings of the House of Commons has been the object.
  • Title: [1819 May 21 Defence of Ballot]
    Description: 1819 May 21

    Defence of Ballot

    Tumult eulogized

    16

    2. No tumult, no zeal.

    3. Tumult should be – not extinguished but countervaild.

    Observations. Here we the course taken by the argument, in pursuance of the design and plan already indicated, namely the design of planting and cultivating in the minds of the lovers of peace and gentleness an antipathy to the cause of reform and to that democratic ascendancy to which the mouth-honour prescribed by policy has just been seen bestowed, by causing them to suppose that tumult universal and habitual tumult is not only /merely/ subservient but necessary to it.

    Now then as far as extends, how stands the fact? In that country where not only democratic ascendancy clogged by Aristocracy under a Monarchy, not only /merely/ democratic ascendancy /has place/ but pure democracy has place /is enthroned/, tumult is almost /comparatively/ unknown. Why almost unknown? Is it that the temper of the people has more of gentleness than here? Is it that social affection is there in the greater proportion to self regarding affection, and that dissocial affection that springs out of it? Is it that taken in the whole the public mind is there in a higher culture than here? Alas! the body of evidence which of late has been poured[?] upon the table of the public with such instructive profusion has given the contrary result: that result which is[?] due reflection on the nature of man in general, and of the circumstances in which in that particular situation in question, might have anticipated.