JB/109/067/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts

JB/109/067/001: Difference between revisions

Keithompson (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Keithompson (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
Ballot</note><lb/>
Ballot</note><lb/>


If the ballot should be thought a less offensive mode of voting<lb/>
<p>If the ballot should be thought a less offensive mode of voting<lb/>
against an individual than the voice, this slight advantage is<lb/>
against an individual than the voice, this slight advantage is<lb/>
altogether confined to those classes of society who have leisure for<lb/>
such <hi rend="underline">fantastic</hi> refinements.  In these cases, indeed, the efficacy of<lb/>
ballot is counteracted by obvious causes.  But are none such likely,<lb/>
or rather sure, to act on the two millions of voter who would be given<lb/>
to us by universal suffrage?  Let us examine them closely.  Will<lb/>
the Country labourer ever avail himself of the professed mean of<lb/>
secrecy? To believe this, we must suppose that he performs the<lb/>
most important act of his life, that which most flatters his pride,<lb/>
and gratifies his inclination, without speaking of his intention before,<lb/>
or boasting of his vote when he has given it.  His life has no secrets.<lb/>
The circle of his village is too small for concealment.  His<lb/>
Wife, his children, his fellow labourers, the companions of his <gap/>ations,<lb/>
know almost all that he does, and almost all that he thinks. Can<lb/>
any one believe that he would pass the evening before, or the evening<lb/>
after the day of Election, at his Alehouse, wrapt up in the secrecy of<lb/>
a venetian Senator, and concealing a suffrage as he would do a<lb/>
murder? If his character disposed him to secrecy, would his situation<lb/>
allow it? His landlord, or his employer, or their agents, or<lb/>
the leaders of a party in the Election, could never have any difficulty<lb/>
in discovering him.  The simple acts of writing his note, of delivering<lb/>
it at the poll, or sending it if he could not attend, would<lb/>
betray his secret in spite of the complicated ballot ever contrived<lb/>
in Venice.  In great Towns, the very mention of secret suffrage<lb/>
is ridiculous.  By what contrivance  are <del>the</del> public meetings<lb/>
of the two hundred and fifty thousand London electors to be prevented?<lb/>
There may be quiet and secrecy at the poll; but this does not<lb/>
in the least prevent publicity and tumult at other meetings occasioned<lb/>
by the Election.  A Candidate will not forego the means of<lb/>
success which such meetings afford.  The votes of those who attend<lb/>
them must be always known.  If the venetian Council often were<lb/>
dispersed among a Westminster Mob while Candidates were speaking,<lb/>
they would catch its spirit, and betray their voted by huzzas and <lb/>
hisses.  Candidates and their partisans committees in Parishes, agents<lb/>
in every street during an active canvass, would quickly learn the<lb/>
secret of almost any man in Westminster. The few who affected<lb/>
mystery would be detected by their neighbours.  The evasive answer of <lb/>
the ablest of such dissemblers to his favoured friend or party, would<lb/>
be observably different, at least in tone and manner, from that which he gave to the enemy.</p><lb/>


<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}}

Revision as of 12:11, 19 January 2021

Click Here To Edit

1819 May 20

Parl. Reform or Disfranchising

Edinburgh Review
Ballot

If the ballot should be thought a less offensive mode of voting
against an individual than the voice, this slight advantage is
altogether confined to those classes of society who have leisure for
such fantastic refinements. In these cases, indeed, the efficacy of
ballot is counteracted by obvious causes. But are none such likely,
or rather sure, to act on the two millions of voter who would be given
to us by universal suffrage? Let us examine them closely. Will
the Country labourer ever avail himself of the professed mean of
secrecy? To believe this, we must suppose that he performs the
most important act of his life, that which most flatters his pride,
and gratifies his inclination, without speaking of his intention before,
or boasting of his vote when he has given it. His life has no secrets.
The circle of his village is too small for concealment. His
Wife, his children, his fellow labourers, the companions of his ations,
know almost all that he does, and almost all that he thinks. Can
any one believe that he would pass the evening before, or the evening
after the day of Election, at his Alehouse, wrapt up in the secrecy of
a venetian Senator, and concealing a suffrage as he would do a
murder? If his character disposed him to secrecy, would his situation
allow it? His landlord, or his employer, or their agents, or
the leaders of a party in the Election, could never have any difficulty
in discovering him. The simple acts of writing his note, of delivering
it at the poll, or sending it if he could not attend, would
betray his secret in spite of the complicated ballot ever contrived
in Venice. In great Towns, the very mention of secret suffrage
is ridiculous. By what contrivance are the public meetings
of the two hundred and fifty thousand London electors to be prevented?
There may be quiet and secrecy at the poll; but this does not
in the least prevent publicity and tumult at other meetings occasioned
by the Election. A Candidate will not forego the means of
success which such meetings afford. The votes of those who attend
them must be always known. If the venetian Council often were
dispersed among a Westminster Mob while Candidates were speaking,
they would catch its spirit, and betray their voted by huzzas and
hisses. Candidates and their partisans committees in Parishes, agents
in every street during an active canvass, would quickly learn the
secret of almost any man in Westminster. The few who affected
mystery would be detected by their neighbours. The evasive answer of
the ablest of such dissemblers to his favoured friend or party, would
be observably different, at least in tone and manner, from that which he gave to the enemy.





Identifier: | JB/109/067/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 109.

Date_1

1819-05-20

Marginal Summary Numbering

05-Sep

Box

109

Main Headings

Parliamentary Reform

Folio number

067

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

C2 / E2

Penner

Watermarks

Marginals

Jeremy Bentham

Paper Producer

Corrections

Jeremy Bentham

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

35722

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk
  • Create account
  • Log in