1
results found in
3 ms
Page 1
of 1
1818 Dec. 24
Parl. Reform Bill
Dialogue II
Preliminary View
Evils & Remedies
I Evils
31
12
Anti-Reformist: Act[?] Office-bearers[?]? Custom House officers, Excise men?
Corruptionists, as you call them, - the whole lists of them?
Reformist. O yes; even were they more than they are The case is – facts not words
are what I look to: realities not professions and make-believes: substance, not made
show. For all practical purposes, so long as they can not be so in reality, evils
which are so but in tendency, are no evils are thrown /I throw/ out of the account:
just as you would fractions of a farthing in a pecuniary account. Appeals to the
public at large out of the question even in the House itself, a minority, supposing
it to remain always a minority – a minority though it wanted but two to be a
majority, would produce no effect at all consequently no evil effect: it would be but
a fraction and that an inoperative one. In the case of the aggregate number of voters
in an Election District, a minority be it ever so large an one, is still more
palpably ineffective: it is but a minute fraction of that same inoperative fraction.
The whole tribe /list/ of these seemingly objectionable persons suppose them to
combine and a together and to be disposed to vote on the same side – not that this
could ever happen: how many seats would they be able to fill? Disposed as they would
be, probably not one. But suppose them to fill a dozen: what would that signify? Just
nothing. But they would not do any such thing. First, because they would not all
agree. Secondly because being so dispersed /dispersed as they/, they would produce no
considerable effect upon the poll any where. 3. Because it being made impossible for
any man to know which way they gave their votes, they would be altogether exempt from
the only sinister influence by which voters can be acted upon in the considerable
numbers in numbers capable of giving an effectual support to a general system of
misrule.
1
results found.
Page 1
of 1