date

22 March 1817 Plan Cat 2 o
22 March 1817

Plan Cat

2 o

Introd

§ 10 Bribery & Terrorism

2

2. Bribery how comes it to have been made punishable? To speak more distinctly though

less familiarly more distinctly, by the forces of what interest have the penal laws

against the practice been produced.

Answer 1. One interest is the sort of interest possessed in or more particularly by

the class of men called Country Gentlemen – the land-bestriding of whom principally

is composed the class of terrorists. The laws against seduction in its alluring form

are instruments employed in the hands of that land bestriding class of seductionist

and other other seductionists whose instrument of seduction or terror the laws

against seduction in the /its/ alluring form are instruments by which the competition

of the purse brandishing seductionist is endeavoured to be excluded

In the language of shallow /superficial/ morality sentimentally[?] Bribery being

commonly held up to view in the character of an […?] immorality, hence the

affectation of seeking to exclude it by the force of penal law the republic[?] of a

regard /claim is laid to the […?] of zeal/ for morality. […?]
Similar Items
  • Title: [3 Feb. 1817 Plan Cat. Introd. Rudiments]
    Description: 3 Feb. 1817

    Plan Cat. Introd. Rudiments

    §. Introd.

    Members classed.

    2

    Sinister Sacrifice

    { 18 or 1

    Effect – constant sacrifice of community aggregate interest to partial d o of Monarch and his instruments. }

    19 or 2 Members classed

    Classes of men provided

    1 Men of all work

    2 Idlers

    3 Terrorists: many included in the Idlers –

    20 or 3 Members classed.

    1 Men of all work, placemen: in possession or expectancy:

    sole use of their votes as contradistinguished from their seats engaging them to take a constant & leading part leading part in

    the sacrifice –

    { 21 or 4 Terrorists

    Terrorists who? Classes on whom the term is exercised.

    I Electors – viz – Tenants and other dependants. Vote-compelling Terrorists

    2. Competitors, or would-be d o.

    Competition-repelling Terrorists

    22 or 5 Terrorists

    Instrument of terror.

    1 On Electors, publicity of the suffrage a removal of

    2 on Competitors, overbearing purse: }

    { 23 or 6 Terrorists

    1 Country State.

    Principal Terrorists Great Land holders – viz- Peers and richest Country Gentlemen

    expence of journey and demurrage considered, nothing but terror /compulsion/ (add a

    bribery) could suffice to send the votors to the distance they have to travel (50-

    miles)

    24 or 7 Terrorists

    Here terror and bribery act, one, or both, in various proportions: terror as far as

    it can be employed: in default of it, bribery –

    25 or 8 Terrorists

    1 County seats –

    Persons operated upon by the terror are

    I Country Gentlemen less opulent

    2 d o. less abounding in ready money –

    3 - or in appropriate ambition. }

    26 or 9. Terrorists

    Intellectual aptitude being rather inversely than directly as oppulence, natural

    consequence general in aptitude in these seats

    { 27 or 10 Terrorists

    Competitors excluded by Terrorists – all whose | | surplus of money is in their eyes

    insufficient for a contest i.e the great bulk of those most highly endorsed with the

    several elements of appropriate aptitude. }

    { 28 or 11 Terrorists

    The Money holding Terrorists are less mischievous than the Land-holding d o. for }

    1 They have more appropriate intellectual aptitude Ex-gr

    1 Merchants

    2 Manufacturers

    3 Acting Managers of great Corporation

    4 Men inured[?] to Government in British India

    29 or 12 Terrorists

    2 On Electors they operate less by terror – more by comparatively innoxious bribery –

    { 30 or 13 Property

    So much for the legitimate influence of property: ie aristocratical – not better than

    monarchical legitimacy }

    31 or 14 Property

    Under no one of the elements of aptitude is property

    included: for no one of them does it exclude the demand –

    Part I. The cause of the disorder stated and the cause of it stated

    Part II. The sole possible remedy stated and explained in principle

    Part III. The disorder and its causes explain in detail
  • Title: [[129b-630] 19 March 1817 Plan]
    Description: [129b-630]

    19 March 1817

    Plan Cat

    3 o

    Introd

    §.10. Bribery & Terrorism

    10

    Text

    As to the universal Seductionist, his demand – the number of points, to be compassed ere it can be satisfied – is as comprehensive as this his name. It is a maximum. Boundless not only in kind and place but time, services in every imaginable shape are comprized in it: and be it ever so ample, the supply afforded by his popinjay are but too adequate to it. As to the private seductionist where ease is here in question, in every particular but the number of the hands at which it may happen to the service to be required, his demand is a minimum: at each hand one service above required – a vote: services but one, and that a momentary one.

    {In regard to hazard, however, the same exemption is possessed in both situations. Whatsoever may be the quantum of seductive force possessed and efficiently exercised by the particular seductionist in the exercise thus given to terrific seduction, no sort of hazard is he in his seduction exposed to any more than the universal seductionist in the exercise given to his seductive power in its alluring shape. (a)}

    Note (a)

    (a) Cocagne is the name of a sort of object which in France was, on gala occasions wont to be held out by authority to the concupiscence of the multitude. It was composed of a various mass of eatables piled up in the form of a pyramid. At a signal given, the multitude were let in to scramble for its contents. In one particular the cocagne institution differs from the C – r General’s popinjay: in the one case, nothing is done for what is got: in the other case every thing: many a thing long before any thing is got, and by many a man by whom nothing is ever got by it.

    End of the Note.
  • Title: [22 March 1817 Plan Cat 2 o]
    Description: 22 March 1817

    Plan Cat

    2 o

    Introd

    §.10 Bribery & Terrorism

    1

    Better perhaps omitted

    Terrorism being thus noxious, bribery comparatively not to say absolutely innoxious,

    how happens it /whence comes it/ that what terrorism is /has/ not, bribery has been

    made punishable? Two questions there – and to each of them a separate answer

    requisite

    On the part of those on whom it depends were there ever any inclination to take

    terrorism for the subject of legal punishment, the nature of the case it may have

    been seen already would not admitt of it. To produce the effect of terrorism neither

    an act on the part of the terrorist nor on the part of any other person is any act at

    all, necessary, no act at all /in any shape/ consequently no act to which punishment

    can attach.

    But as to punishment were the application of it to terrorism ever so easy no such

    application would be made of it. The reason – the motive by /consideration by the

    force of/ which any such arrangement would be prevented has been seen already. The

    class of men to whose interests terrorism is subservient are the rich: the richer a

    man is /greater the mass of a mans opulence/ the more powerful is the instrument of

    oppression which it puts into /thus put into his/ hand