1819 May 25

Defence of | | Ballot

Caucussing

2. beneficial

10

1. Walsham[?]. 2. Whitlock[?]

Thus then by /in the/ recommending of a Candidate who {in the opinion of the Electors in general} were /on trial should prove/ on any account pre-eminently unfit, or even one who {in the opinion of the Electors in general} /that on trial/ should be found in a considerable degree below par, all who concurred or were regarded as concurring in the recommendation would see /behold/ a sure cause of the loss of their influence or what is the same thing in other words of their situation in this all-directing board. Among the members of it, suppose this or that one disposed to receive {and accordingly actually receiving} a bribe and in virtue of that bribe to give his recommendation in favour of a worthless Candidate, suppose this disposition /situation/ fully understood by one of the Candidates and in case of an adequate prospect of success, the Candidate fully prepared to give the bribe. Even Under these circumstances would the bribe be given? No. For by no recommendation which could be given by this one member would /could/ the effect be produced, to be produced a correspondent recommendation would need to be given by a majority or at the least by a large proportion of the other Members. As in the case of the firstmentioned member so in the case of each of these others, here there would be the necessity of a fresh bribe. But in no one of all these instances could the offer of any such bribe be made but there must be at the least two persons each of whom would have put his reputation in the power of the other: and though for his own sake each might during his own life persevere in forebearing to destroy the reputation of the other, yet upon his death the same interest no longer operating with the same force upon those who by intimacy with him would have been partakers in the secret, upon /thus on/ the death of the other party each party to the disreputable /scandalous/ contract would see the probable exposure of the shame.