1820 July 4

Emancipation Spanish

.8. Corruptive influence

Buenos Ayres [...?] for a King

An incident that has but lately come to light, will afford to any fortunate and useful illustration of these truths.

In Buenos Ayres, and the neighbouring provinces, not to speak of Chile thought they had thrown off the yoke of your beloved Fer[...?] were still bent upon having a King, who for decency sake /form and imposition sake/ should be called a Constitutional one: and to whose [...?] there can be no doubt that their intention was to apply /limits/ considerably extensive and effective limits.

Why a King? For this plain reason that under a King a much greater share of the instruments of external felicity as abovementioned in all their several shapes will always be had there under a set of representives of the people that is to say chosen under the only [...?] and efficient Election system so far as [...?] the powers of appointment and removal under the people themselves.

This they perfectly understood.

Before them stood on one hand the British and French Monarchies: on the other hand the Anglo-American Republic or cluster of Republics. In France and Britain they saw the system of corruptive influence composed of depredation exercised for is own sake and for the sake of corruption carried to its perfection: in America the system of frugality and official probity: they took /made/ their choice! that choice which man or this situation might to be considered /regarded/ as being in all places and at all times determined to make if the people have it in their power. Followign the example of America they would have had more official security for every thing they could possess: but their security they would /have/ share with the whole body of the people, and have no larger a share than the meanest. Following the example of England and France they would have not offices: offices as rich, as in their bargain with the Monarch of their nature they could contrive to make them. It is true they would not have equal security. But a security in which the lowest of hte people are to share with the [...?] ones at least out of a hundred will always be content to barter for any portion of money, power, or though it be but factitious and imply dignity, in which he has the highest for this fellow sharers.