16 Jan y 1810

Parl y. Reform

'.1.

2

2

Of the two positions that have presented themselves to my view in that light one is that "in the election of Members to serve in this House", the "Influence" which "the possessions of property .... have" is a legitimate influence": viz. such as a man has a "right" to exercise - such as a man " ought to have", and such as ought be "a predominating influence".

Of the term rights, together with the /its/ attributive /adjunct/ legitimate here adjoined to it the intended import is seems to be put out of all doubt by the words ought to have. The object of them is to present {to view the more legal rights /sort of right /acts//, viz. the faculty of doing such acts as a man has a right to do has inasmuch as he can not be punished for the doing them /having done them/} to view the exercise of the sort of influence in question not merely in the character of an act which a man has a legal right to perform, inasmuch as he can not be punished for having performed it, but in the character of an act which in the event of his having performed he has not in so doing {infringed any moral obligation nor therefore incurred any just censure nor} done any thing which in consideration of its influence on the public welfare it were desirable that he should not have done /there is any sufficient reason for wishing that he had not done/.