1819 Oct. 3

Parl. Reform Bill

Reasons

§.5 Election Apparatus

§.8. Election how

Secrecy

5

evil, at the hands of persons to whose wishes the voter in question were adverse: good at the hands of persons to whose wishes those same votes were unconformable.

2. Under the secret mode no such undesirable effect could have taken place. Why? Because of the persons /whole number of the voters/ {by whom appre}hensions as above could not but be entertained votes were given in favour of the successful Candidate lest in the event of their voting and thence of /in whose instance the votes given by them in favour of the successful Candidate had no other cause than either their expectation of some good in the event of their giving that direction to their votes, or some evil in the event of their not giving that direction to their votes, there could not have been one by whom under the secret system his vote would have been given on that side. For Why? because in that case, it not being known in any instance which way a man had given his vote, neither qualificatory[?] vote, neither the cause of the good in the one case, nor that of the evil in the other could /would/ have had existence./

In so far as it was by fear of eventual evil that the success of M r Lamb, as above was produced, it is by what is called intimidation or terrorism that it was produced: in so far as it was by hope of eventual good, it is by what is called bribery or by corruption in some other shape that it was produced.

It stands asserted in print, that on M r Lambs side towards the production of the effect, sinister influence in both those ways was and but too effectually employed: that by his friends, expectation of good in various shapes from their hands was held out to Electors in the event of their voting on his side: evil in various shapes in the event of their not voting on his side. Not that in the situation on question to the production of expectation to the effect in question to a greater or less extent, any express intimation, of eventual intention is ever necessary. To a greater or less extent the bare contemplation of the situation is quite sufficient to produce the inference: no mind so ill informed or so much as not to be continually in the habit of deducing it.

In the secret mode, in neither of those shapes could sinister influence have been employed. Why? because neither the intimidation nor the corruption could have found an object to apply itself to a mark to fix itself upon. Reward will not be offered /given/ where it is not possible to know that service has been rendered: punishment will not be threatened where it is not possible to know that transgression has had place.

If there be any such thing as a proposition incapable of being controverted with any colour of truth, this then must be of the number: namely that of every person by whom the open mode is advocated, it is the wish, that terrorism and corruption, one or both of those engines, should be employed: and that accordingly, Miselection, to whatever extent it is capable of being carried by those causes – Miselection, and thence Misgovernment – should have place.