21 Jan y. 1810

Parl y. Reform

Influence

Ch.2.

'.1.

8

8

Objector. Good. So far so good /Agreed/ But if you admitt of influence, what do you get by limiting it to that sort of influence which is exercised {by understanding} over understanding? why not as well admitt of that sort which is exercised by will on will? By the influence exercised on it by understanding is not understanding continually liable to be misled and in consequence conduct misdirected in consequence? But if conduct be misdirected, what matters it whether it be by understanding or by will that is misdirected.

Author. Doubtless the one you have been mentioning is a cause of misconduct as well as the other. But in my turn give me leave to put the question is it not better to have but one cause of misconduct than to have two?

Now then in between the two causes of misconduct in the case in question the matter stands thus. {Misconduct so far as it has for its cause a deceptitious /an improper/ /a misleading/ influence exercised on understanding by understanding it is in this case impossible to prevent or diminish by any legal arrangements: misconduct so far as in this same case it has for its cause influence exercised by will over will it is not impossible to diminish at least by legal arrangements.}