JB/109/066/001

Click Here To Edit

1819. May 19.

Part a Disfranchising

Edgh Preceeded
Blet

1
Ballot. On this
universal suffrage
men rely for their
usefullness and unrness
of their
plan. This the point
an which the whole
dispute depends.

The question of ballot remains. On Ballot the advocates
of universal suffrage seem exclusively to rely for the defence of
their scheme. Without ballot, they appear tacitly to admit that
Universal suffrage would be an impracticable and pernicious
proposal. But all males in the kingdom, it is said, may annually
vote at Elections with quiet secretly. Whether this expectation
be reasonable, is the question on which the decision of the dispute
seems now to depend.

2
& Secrecy
impossible
Proof 1 Exempt of Club
Quarrels excluded ;Secrecy
none

The first objection to this proposal is, that ballot
would not produce secrecy. Even in those classes of men
who are most accustomed to keep their own secret, the effect of
ballot is very unequal and uncertain. The common case
of clubs, in which a small minority is generally sufficient
to exclude a Candidate, may serve as an example. Where the
club is numerous, the secret may be kept, as it is difficult
to distinguish the few who reject; but in small clubs, where
the dissentients may amount to a considerable proportion
of the whole, they are almost always ascertained. The practice
it is true is, in these cases, still useful; it is only because it
is agree by a sort of tacit convention, that an exclusion by ballot
is not a just cause of offence. It prevents quarrel, not disclosure. 3
2. for J.B. in
Command House Ballot
produces not secrecy
in independent choice.
In the House of Commons. M<hi rend="underline">r</hi> B. allows that ballot does not secure
secrecy or independent choice. The example of the Elections
at the India House, is very unfortunately selected. From every thing
which a ballot is supposed to prevent is to be found in these
elections:- public and private canvass, the influence of personal
friendship, connection, gratitude, expectation; premises almost universally 4
3. Indirect House Ballot
Secrecy not preserved,
because not desired to
be preserved
made and observed; votes generally if not always known;
as much regard, indeed, to public grounds of preference as in
most other bodies; but scarcely any exclusion of private motives,
unless it be the apprehension of incurring resentment, which is
naturally confined within narrow limits, by the independent condition
of the greater part of the Electors. In general, indeed, they refuse
the secrecy which the Legislature seems to tender to them, Prokindness, from esteem, from other motives, they are desirous that
their votes would be known to Candidates whom they favours
and what is disclosed to friends, it speedily discovered by opponents.

Identifier: | JB/109/066/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 109.
Date_1	1819-05-19	Marginal Summary Numbering	01-Apr
Box	109	Main Headings	Parliamentary Reform
Folio number	066	Info in main headings field	Parl. Reform or Disfranchising
Image	001	Titles
Category	Copy/fair copy sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	C1 / E1
Penner		Watermarks	[[watermarks::I&M [Prince of Wales feathers] 1818]]
Marginals	Jeremy Bentham	Paper Producer	Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington
Corrections	Jeremy Bentham	Paper Produced in Year	1818
Notes public		ID Number	35721
Box Contents