[129b-413]

19 March 1817

Parl Cat

2 o

Introd

§.10. Seat Traffic

4

Omitt?

With what shadow of reason /On what ground were it ever so slight/ could they /the/ expectation of any such self-denying ordinance be entertained, when not satisfied with the sure but to the eye of anxiety /concupiscence/ not yet speedy enough arrival of the Millennium of misrule, the Act was passed by which, {while in form[?] a prohibition was put upon the sort of purchase /trade/ in question in the case the article in which the commodity is /was/ paid for was that sort of article viz. money in quantities more or less considerable which all persons without distinction are capable of having in their hands alike acceptable /within the reach/ to all hands.} by which in express words and even by the very word express the faculty of giving office in exchange /barter/ for office a commodity of which C – r General has the monopoly was with a degree of hardyhood sufficient of itself to shew the state in which the Constitution stands, excepted from the prohibition, by which in the forms /due form/ of law, and under an assurance such as to a set of minds labouring under a less morbid state of anxiety might have been deemed sufficient, the continuance of the so prohibited practice was secured. By the Act in question (49 G.3. c.| |) buying seats with money is pretended to be restrained; restrained by penalties, by which under the circumstances of the case nobody ever has been, nor will any body ever be, restrained. By the same Act Buying seats with offices is in express terms allowed: allowed – by implication only, but that implication a necessary one, the very word express being the very word expressly employed for the giving admission to it. To any man to whom the Act, and the debates by which it was preceded are unknown, this account of the matter may have the air of a riddle. But a glance at either will suffice for the solution of it.