1819 May 24

Defence of | | Ballot

Caucussing 1 unavoidable

2 beneficial

6

Let us now see in what case /part of the system/ if in any, seduction in either of its two shapes – bribery or terrorism is liable to have place: and at the same time in what part if in any it is not liable to have place.

A /The/ situation in which it is not liable to have place is that of the Elector, who not being a Member of the Caucus in question, nor on account in his own estimation qualified for the formation of a self-formed judgment naturally and almost unavoidably for the formation of his /a/ derivative judgment – the only other sort of judgment that the nature of the case admitts of – turns his eye towards the Caucus and the self-formed judgment formed and declared by it: formed by the majority – if not by the majority in number only – by the majority in number and influence taken together – and thence in ordinary cases naturally declared, and without much if indeed any departure from the pall[?] of sincerity declared to be the judgment of the whole.

In this situation, as has just been mentioned seduction as above explained is not liable to have place. No, but of this position the correctness depends upon secresy of suffrage: for in so far as any infraction of the law of secresy has place seduction in both its forms – terrorism and bribery is capable of having place: terrorism more particularly: to wit for the reason already given, the non-necessity of expenditure in any shape: bribery direct and virtual much less probably and extensively by reason of the necessity of correspondent expenditure and the improbability of an adequate fund, and the risk of ignominy in the case of an unsuccessful attempt.