[131a-036]

1819 May 20

Defence of the Ballot

Objection I

In Ballot no secresy

1

1

Objection I. “Ballot would not produce secresy”. There we have the position: and that a radical one: this root cut, all that springs out of it – withers.

Now for the proof. It consists in giving intimation of the realisation /reality/, and that to an unlimited amount, of a supposed matter of fact which at the expence of a very little attention, any body may see to be plainly and absolutely impossible. The supposed matter of fact is – a man making known to as many as he pleases, a matter of fact which by the supposition is known to nobody but himself. True it is /To be sure/ if whether by design, or for want of apt design, the mode of voting is so conducted, that the mode of voting is not in its nature secret – in other words that besides the voter himself there are others one or more who have the same means of knowing what he is doing as he himself has, this being admitted then if this mode of voting be stiled /what is meant by/ Ballot, true it is that Ballot would not produce secresy.

But this supposition would not serve the learned Gentleman’s purpose. For then it would be said to him. The mode of voting which you have in view, and which for this purpose you have brought to view is one which you are sensible will /does/ not answer its intended or pretended purposes But to prove your position it is not enough to prove that there is a mode of ballot /voting/ that does not produce secrecy. What you must prove, or it is nothing to the purpose is – that no mode of voting can produce secrecy.

Necessity compells me here to have recourse to the botanical archetype. For Lord Castlereagh has spoilt the architectural one, by confounding /combining/ it with the anatomical one. Good your Lordship, spare /leave/ to us this one means of communication, or we shall we still more effectually endeavoured to silence them by Lord Sidmouth and his gagging-bills.