[131a-019]

1818 March 23 +

Parl Reform Answer to Antiballotists

2 o

18

18

“ The charm of confidential friendship broken”? – No such thing. By no answer could the charm be broken: for by the question itself it would have been broken already. Without the law, the question would have been an impertinence: under the law it would be, as above, an insult. Under the impossibility of knowing whether the answer were true or false, what good purpose could such a question serve? In any case I see not how in case of falshood, friendship could be injured by the falshood. Yes: if by the friend it were known to be a falshood: but that, by the very nature of the case, is rendered impossible.

So much for the morals evils which, it has been supposed, would under the secret mode, be produced, in consequence of the protection afforded by that mode against terrorism. As to bribery, at the outset the case of bribery was posted off for further consideration. But, so plain is it – on the one hand, that the secret mode would be effectual against bribery – effectual even against undue punishment, and therefore still more effectual against undue reward – on the other hand, that, whatsoever leaning – perceived or unperceived by himself – an Antiballotist may have in favour of the intimidative – in favour of the stronger yet unexpensive mode of sinister influence, he can have none in favour of bribery, thus much observed, it seems that this topic may be dismissed.