1819 June 11

Parl. Reform Bill Reasons

Electors Who

Universality

Idiots – Brougham

2 June 1818

1

Admission of Idiots. In what M r Brougham said on this subject he knew better things than to suppose for a moment, that in the way of fair argument there was any thing that was worth a straw. But he knew the sort of man that he had to deal with, that when it was not by sinister interest it was by fallacy in some shape or other that they were led. He knew that at the mention of the word idiot in conjunction with the idea of a person thus designated giving a vote at a parliamentary Election the prudence /imagination/ of his auditors would point to them the idea of a House of Commons filled by idiots returned by bodies of Electors composed of Idiots. He saw perhaps in a vision the Archbishop of Canterbury or on the 10 th of June 1819 saw in another vision two Houses of Parliament /a House of Lords/ composed of those of Catholics: concluding and gave this as a reason for continuing to shut the door against the dozen or score of Lords /Members/ of that persuasion: the Catholic religion being either so true or so bewitching[?] that as soon as {all} those who possessed it go to their seats all the others Bishops and all would go over to that side.

In regard to idiots what I say is this

1. That under my plan they would not in fact vote any of them give a vote.

2. That they would not do any the least harm if they every one of them gives a vote. This M r Brougham brings to view and virtually acknowledges. But the question with him was not whether the arrangement had any thing bad in it but whether by giving a false conception of it, a laugh could not be raised against it.

3. I could go further and say that Elections are in great numbers carried at present by a description of persons such that if idiots were substituted to them, the change would prove decidedly beneficial to the universal interest. In this case are all those who by corruption[?] of intimidation are engaged against them an opinion to give their votes either in favour of a Tory against a Whig or a Peoplesman or in favour of a Tory or a Whig against a Peoplesman: for supposing the voter an idiot the sinister interest would have no hold on his vote, and Tories, Whigs and Peoplesmen would all have an equal chance for it.