The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Errata—vol. III.
• Defence of Usury; Showing the Impolicy of the Present Legal Restraints On the Terms of Pecuniary Bargains; In Letters to a Friend.
• Letter I.: Introduction.
• Letter II.: Reasons For Restraint—prevention of Usury.
• Letter III.: Reasons For Restraint—prevention of Prodigality.
• Letter IV.: Reasons For Restraint—protection of Indigence.
• Letter V.: Reasons For Restraint—protection of Simplicity.
• Letter VI.: Mischiefs of the Anti-usurious Laws.
• Letter VII.: Efficacy of Anti-usurious Laws.
• Letter VIII.: Virtual Usury Allowed.
• Letter IX.: Blackstone Considered.
• Letter X.: Grounds of the Prejudices Against Usury.
• Letter XI.: Compound Interest.
• Letter XII.: Maintenance and Champerty.
• Letter XIII.: To Dr. Smith, On Projects In Arts, &c.
• A Manual of Political Economy: Now First Edited From the Mss. of Jeremy Bentham.
• Chapter I.: Introduction. *
• Chapter II.: Analytical Survey of the Field of Political Economy.
• Chapter III.: Of Wealth.
• Chapter IV.: Of Population.
• Chapter V.: Of Finance.
• Chapter VI.: Operation of a Sinking Fund On the Production of Wealth.
• Chapter VII.: Noscenda.
• Observations On the Restrictive and Prohibitory Commercial System; Especially With a Reference to the Decree of the Spanish Cortes of July 1820.
• Preface.: Observations, &c.
• Section I.: Nature of the Prohibitory System.
• Section II.: Mischiefs of the Prohibitory System.
• Section III.: Causes of the Prohibitory System.
• A Plan For Saving All Trouble and Expense In the Transfer of Stock, and For Enabling the Proprietors to Receive Their Dividends Without Powers of Attorney, Or Attendance At the Bank of England, By the Conversion of Stock Into Note Annuities.
• Introduction.
• Chapter I.: Plan For the Creation, Emission, Payment, and Eventual Extension, of a Proposed New Species of Government Paper, Under the Name of Annuity Notes.
• Chapter II.: Form of an Annuity Note. (see Table II.)
• Chapter III.: Comparison of the Proposed, With the Existing Government Securities, &c.
• Chapter IV.: Grounds of Expectation, In Regard to the Proposed Measure.
• Chapter V.: Financial Advantages.
• Chapter VI.: Advantage By Addition to National Capital.
• Chapter VII.: Advantage By Addition to Commercial Security.
• Chapter VIII.: Particular Interests Concerned.
• Chapter IX.: Rise of Prices—how to Obviate.
• Chapter X.: Reduction of Interest—proposed Mode Compared With Mr. Pelham’s.
• Chapter XI.: Moral Advantages.
• Chapter XII.: Constitutional Advantages.
• Chapter XIII.: Recapitulation and Conclusion.
• Appendix A.: Government Ought to Have the Monopoly of Paper Money, As Well As of Metallic Money.
• Appendix B.: Paper Money—causes Why Not Circulated By Government Without Interest, As Well As By Individuals.
• General View of a Complete Code of Laws.
• Chapter I.: General Division.
• Chapter II.: Relations Between the Laws Concerning Offences, Rights, Obligations, and Services.
• Chapter III.: Relation Between the Penal and Civil Code.
• Chapter IV.: Of Method.
• Chapter V.: Plan of the Penal Code.
• Chapter VI.: Of the Division of Offences.
• Chapter VIII. Titles of the Penal Code.
• Chapter IX.: First General Title of the Civil Code, * of Things.
• Chapter X.: Second General Title of the Civil Code. of Places.
• Chapter XI.: Third General Title of the Civil Code. of Times.
• Chapter XII.: Fourth General Title of the Civil Code. of Services.
• Chapter XIII.: Fifth General Title of the Civil Code. of Obligations.
• Chapter XIV.: Sixth General Title of the Civil Code. of Rights.
• Chapter XV.: Seventh General Title of the Civil Code. of Collative and Ablative Events.
• Chapter XVI.: Eighth General Title of the Civil Code. of Contracts.
• Chapter XVII.: Ninth General Title of the Civil Code. of the Domestic and Civil States.
• Chapter XVIII.: Tenth General Title of the Civil Code. of Persons Capable of Acquiring and of Contracting.
• Chapter XIX.: Of the Particular Titles of the Civil Code.
• Chapter XX.: Of Elementary Political Powers.
• Chapter XXI.: Of Elementary Political Powers— Subject Continued.
• Chapter XXII.: Plan of the Political Code.
• Chapter XXIII.: Plan of the International Code.
• Chapter XXIV.: Plan of the Maritime Code.
• Chapter XXV.: Plan of the Military Code.
• Chapter XXVI.: Plan of the Ecclesiastical Code.
• Chapter XXVII.: Plan of Remuneratory Laws.
• Chapter XXVIII.: Of Political Economy.
• Chapter XXIX.: Plan of the Financial Code.
• Chapter XXX.: Plan of Procedure Code.
• Chapter XXXI.: Of the Integrality of the Code of Laws.
• Chapter XXXII.: Of Purity In the Composition of a Code of Laws.
• Chapter XXXIII.: Of the Style of the Laws.
• Chapter XXXIV.: Of the Interpretation, Conservation, and Improvement of a Code.
• Pannomial Fragments.
• Chapter I.: General Observations.
• Chapter II.: Consideranda.
• Chapter III.: Expositions.
• Chapter IV.: Axioms.
• Nomography; Or the Art of Inditing Laws: Now First Published From the Mss. of Jeremy Bentham.
• Chapter I.: The Subject Stated.
• Chapter II.: Relations.
• Chapter III.: Proper End In View.
• Chapter IV.: Imperfections Primary.
• Chapter V.: Explanations Relative to the Imperfections of the Second Order.
• Chapter VI.: Of Remedies. *
• Chapter VII.: Of Language.
• Chapter VIII.: Of the Perfections of Which the Legislative Style Is Susceptible.
• Chapter IX.: Of Forms of Enactment.
• Appendix. Logical Arrangements, Or Instruments of Invention and Discovery
• Equity Dispatch Court Proposal; Containing a Plan For the Speedy and Unexpensive Termination of the Suits Now Depending In Equity Courts. With the Form of a Petition, and Some Account of a Proposed Bill For That Purpose
• Section I.: Purpose Explained. Jeremy Bentham to the Honest and Afflicted Among Equity Suitors.
• Section II.: Equity Suitors’ Petition For Dispatch Court. to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, —
• Section III.: Dispatch Court Bill—some Account of It.
• Section IV.: Information Requisite From Petitioning Suitors.
• Equity Dispatch Court Bill: Being a Bill For the Institution of an Experimental Judicatory Under the Name of the Court of Dispatch, For Exemplifying In Practice the Manner In Which the Proposed Summary May Be Substituted to the So Called Regular Sy
• Editor’s Note.
• Preface.
• Preamble.
• Part I.—: Judiciary.
• Section I.: Judge Located, How.
• Section II.: Remuneration.
• Section III.: Registrar, &c.
• Section IV.: Eleemosynary Advocate.
• Section V.: Judges’, &c. Deputes.
• Section VI.: Judge’s Powers—exemptions—checks.
• Section VII.: Prehensors and Messengers.
• Section VIII.: Consignees; * Or Say, In-trust-holders.
• Section IX.: Grounds of Decision For the Dispatch Court Judge.
• Section X. ‡: Suits’ Comparative Suitableness; and Order of Cognizance.
• Section XI.: Auxiliary Judges and Accountants.
• Section XII.: Sittings, Times Of.
• Part II.—: Procedure.
• Section XIII.: Definitions. *
• Section XIV.: Examination of Solicitors.
• Section XV.: Initiatory Examination of Parties, &c.
• Section XVI.: Appropriate Intercourse, Constant and Universal, Secured.
• Section XVII.: Mutual Security For Forthcomingness of Persons and Things. ‡
• Section XVIII.: Evidence-procuring Money, How Provided.
• Section XIX.: Subsequential Evidence, How Elicited.
• Section XX.: Execution, How Performed.
• Section XXI.: Equity Court Costs, How Disposed Of.
• Section XXII.: Dispatch Court Costs, How Disposed Of.
• Section XXIII.: Eventual Retrotransference of a Suit to the Equity Court.
• Section XXIV.: Expense of the Court, How Provided For.
• Supplemental Sections:—
• Section I. Or XXV.: Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
• Section II. Or XXVI.: Henceforward Dispatch Court.
• Schedules to the Bill.
• Plan of Parliamentary Reform, In the Form of a Catechism, With Reasons For Each Article: With an Introduction, Showing the Necessity of Radical, and the Inadequacy of Moderate, Reform.
• Introduction.
• Section I.: History of the Ensuing Tract—alarming State of the Country and the Constitution.
• Section II.: Most Prominent Present Grievance, Gareisoning France.
• Section III.: Causes of the Above and All Other Mischiefs:—particular Interests Monarchical and Aristocratical, Adverse to the Universal—their Ascendency.
• Section IV.: Sole Remedy In Principle—democratic Ascendency.
• Section V.: Remedy In Detail: Radical Parliamentary Reform: Elementary Arrangements In This Edition of It—their Necessity.
• Section VI.: Differences Between This and the Original Editions of Radical Reform.
• Section VII.: Virtual Universality of Suffrage Further Considered.
• Section VIII.: Virtual Universality of Suffrage—its Undangerousness.
• Section IX.: Freedom of Suffrage Further Explained—seductive Influence—its Forms, Instruments, &c.
• Section X.: Bribery and Terrorism Compared.
• Section XI.: Purchase of Seats—in What Cases Mischievous—in What Beneficial.
• Section XII.: Secresy of Suffrage—its Importance Further Developed.
• Section XIII.: Exclusion of Placemen, &c. From the Right of Voting—mischievousness and Profligacy of the Opposite Arrangement.
• Section XIV.: Universal Constancy of Attendance—its Importance.
• Section XV.: Representatives—impermanence of Their Situation—its Importance:—objections—their Groundlessness.
• Section XVI.: Moderate Reform—its Arrangements—their Inadequacy.
• Section XVII.: Trienniality Inadequate;—annuality Necessary.
• Section XVIII.: Interests Adverse to Adequate Reform—support Given By Them to Moderate, to the Exclusion of Radical: Tories—whigs—people’s Men.
• Catechism of Parliamentary Reform; Or, Outline of a Plan of Parliamentary Reform; In the Form of Question and Answer; With Reasons to Each Article.
• Section I.: Ends to Be Aimed At On the Occasion of Parliamentary Reform.
• Section II.: Means, Conducive Towards These Ends.
• Section III.: Means—their Uses, With Reference to Their Respective Ends.
• Section IV.: Means Conducive to Aptitude In Members: I. Placemen Not to Vote, Nor to Be Seated By Election.
• Section V.: Means, &c. Continued.—ii. Placemen Seated By the King, With Speech and Motion, Without Vote.
• Section VI.: Means, &c. Continued.—iii. Elections Frequent—annual.
• Section VII.: Means, &c. Continued.—iv. Speeches Authentically and Promptly Published.
• Section VIII.: Means, &c. Continued.—v. Attendance, Punctual and General, Secured.
• Section IX.: Inconveniences Incident to Elections, and Election Judicature.
• Section X.: Election Inconveniences—means For Their Removal.
• Section XI.: Collateral Advantages, Referable to the Situations of Electors, Placemen, Lords, &c.
• A Sketch of the Various Proposals For a Constitutional Reform In the Representation of the People, Introduced Into the Parliament of Great Britain, From 1770 to 1812.
• Radical Reform Bill, With Extracts From the Reasons.
• Preliminary Explanations.
• Title of the Proposed Act.
• Preamble.
• Section 1.—: Seats and Districts.
• Section 2.—: Electors, Who.
• Section 3.—: Eligible, Who.
• Section 4.—: Election Offices.
• Section 5.: Election Apparatus.
• Section 6.—: Promulgation of Recommendations In Favour of Proposed Members.
• Section 7.—: Voters’ Titles Pre-established.
• Section 8.—: Election, How.
• Section 9.: Election Districts and Polling Districts, How Marked Out.
• Section 10.—: Vote-making Habitations, How Defined.
• Section 11.—: Members’ Continuance.
• Section 12.—: Vacancies Supplied.
• Section 13.—: Security For the House Against Disturbance By Members. †
• Section 14.—: Indisposition of Speakers Obviated.
• Appendix, Including General Explanations.
• Radicalism Not Dangerous. Extracted From the Mss. of Jeremy Bentham. *
• Part I.—: Introduction.
• Section I.: Radical Reform Bill Recapitulated.
• Section II.: Persuasion of the Dangerousness of Radicalism—cause of It, and of the Vituperative Expression Given to It.
• Section III.: Terms of the Accusation,—speeches From the Throne, 16 Th July and 21 St November 1819.
• Section IV.: The Accusation In General Terms—counter-averment.
• Section V.: Plan of This Defence.
• Part II.—: Deference From the General Nature of the Case.
• Section I.: Conditions Necessary to a Man’s Embarking In Such a Design.
• Section VII.: Concurrence In Any Other Extensive Plan of Spoliation Impossible.
• Section VIII.: Concurrence of Any Constituted Authorities Impossible.
• Section IX.: Accomplishment Impossible—design Impossible.
• Section X.: The Talked-of Spunge No Proof of the Design.
• Part III.—: Defence From Experience In the Case of the United States.
• Part IV.: Defence From Particular Experience In the Case of Ireland: Years 1777 Or 1778, to 1783.
• Section I.: Analogy Between This and the Previous Case.
• Section II.: Democratic Ascendency, How Produced.
• Section III.: Fruit of Democratic Ascendency a Golden Age.
• Section IV.: Coincidence of Its Characters With Those of Radicalism.
• Section VI.: Extinction of Democratic Ascendency and Reform—restoration of Monarchico-aristocratical Ascendency, and Its Consequences.
• Conclusion.

SECTION IX.

FREEDOM OF SUFFRAGE FURTHER EXPLAINED—SEDUCTIVE INFLUENCE—ITS FORMS, INSTRUMENTS, &C.

Sub-topics proposed to be brought to view under this head. Opposite of freedom of suffrage, spuriousness:—efficient cause, by which—motives, by which—influential persons, by whom—modes, in which—situations, in and by which—instruments, by or with which—it is produced;—in respect of mischievousness, differences as between instrument and instrument;—seat-traffic as between proprietor and purchaser, how far mischievous;—penal laws for prevention of spuriousness, how far useful.

For the more effectual explanation of these several particulars,—distinctions, and points of agreement, not all of them (it is believed) as yet sufficiently noticed,—and for giving expression to these distinctions, here and there a word or phrase not as yet in general use,—must unavoidably be brought to view.

I. Efficient cause.—As in the case of election at large, so in the case of parliamentary election in particular,—the efficient cause, by the operation of which freedom of suffrage is or may be excluded—spuriousness to that same extent substituted,—may, with reference to the person operated upon, be termed, seductive influence:—it being understood that the sort of influence here in question is—according to a distinction already noted, the influence—not of understanding on understanding, but of will on will.

II. Motives.—As to the sort of motive, through which seductive influence operates, it may be either of the nature of hope, or of the nature of fear:—in the first case, it may be termed pleasurably-operating; or, in one word, pleasurable or alluring:—in the other, painfully-operating, painful, terrific; or, in so far as it operates with effect, coercive.

In general, when seduction is the word employed, the pleasurable is the sort most apt to be brought to view by it: but, of the two, as everybody feels, the painful—the terrific—is, in its general nature, the sort by much the more powerful in its operation; and, in the particular case here in question, it is by that that by far the greatest part of the mischief (it will be seen) is produced.*

III. Modes.—By seductive influence,—in whichsoever of the above two shapes it operates,—freedom of election may be excluded—spuriousness of suffrage in that same proportion produced and introduced:—introduced, viz. in either of two modes; the one direct, the other indirect:—direct, in so far as the situation of the persons to whom the force applies itself in the first instance is that of the electors themselves; indirect, in so far as the situation thus applied to is that of persons at large, considered in the capacity of candidates:—candidates actual or proposable.

Proprietor, proprietory seat, proprietorship; sole proprietor, co-proprietor; land-holding proprietor, office-bearing proprietor.* —Terrorist, terrorism; vote-compelling† terrorist; competition-repelling, competition-quelling or subduing, competition-excluding terrorist; land-bestriding, purse-brandishing terrorist:—Bribe-offering, bribe-giving, seducer or seductionist, corruptor or corruptionist;—bribe, in the pecuniary or money shape; bribe, in the quasi-pecuniary shape; ordinary bribe, bribe-royal:‡ —reference being had to the operative motive, viz. fear or hope, and to the situation operated upon. Of the objects meant to be respectively presented to view by these terms—of these objects, together with their mental relations—a general conception will, it is believed, present itself at the first mention; and, by the occasions on which they will come to be employed, whatsoever may be wanting to clearness or correctness will presently, it is hoped, be supplied.

IV. Instruments.—Free suffrage, proprietorship, terrorism, bribery:—behold in these the instruments by one or other of which every vote given by an elector is produced: by which, taken all together, the 658 seats in the House, taken altogether, are filled.

As to the votes,—the number of those which, on the occasion of each election, are really free, is the residuum of the number of those which, by any one or other of the above three instruments or modifications of the efficient cause of spuriousness, have been rendered spurious. Small, indeed, will probably appear to be the proportion of those in the filling of which free suffrage performs commonly the greater part; scarce one, perhaps, in which it constantly performs the whole.

As to free suffrage, of this instrument the nature is sufficiently explained, by its being said to be the result of the absence or non-operation of the several other instruments.

In regard to votes and the seats filled by them, the proprietor is already in possession of that which, antecedently to success, the terrorist and the corruptionist does but aim at. Proprietorship has for its effect the effect of terrorism or corruption consummated and perpetuated: freedom of suffrage excluded in perpetuity.

In relation to any seat or pair of seats, suppose amongst co-proprietors a disagreement as to the choice. In this case, a competition may have place: and room is made for employment to be given to the two remaining instruments, either or both of them, viz. terrorism and bribery.

So much as to the instruments themselves: now as to the field, and the different parts of the field, in which they respectively operate.

As to proprietorship, the field of its operation is composed of and confined to the proprietory seats: that being said, all is said.

As to terrorism, the county seats present themselves as constituting that part of the field, in which its operation is at the same time most conspicuous and most extensive: subjects of the oppression exercised by it, in the direct mode, electors alone; in the indirect mode as above, candidates, actual and proposable:—Candidates,—and through them electors again, viz. by the exclusion put upon the countless multitude of those persons, the worthiest of whom might otherwise have been taken for the objects of their choice. The shape in which, in this case, it operates in preference, is that of the land-bestriding terrorism. In this shape, and this alone, it operates, where there is no competition: electors being driven to the polling booth by the vote-compelling influence of the oppressive instrument—rival candidates driven from it by its competition-excluding influence. Comes a competition,—then it is that, in aid of land-bestriding terrorism, bribery and purse-brandishing terrorism are called in: the self-same money, while operating on electors in the shape of bribery, operates upon rival candidates in the shape of terrorism.

Thus stands the matter, in the case where the vote-compelling power of the instrument is, or is deemed to be, strong enough to operate upon the situation of candidate with such a degree of efficiency, as gives it the character, not merely of a competition-repelling, but of a competition-excluding instrument. By the opposite case, a demand is presented for a supplemental one in the bribery shape: in this case, while it is in the alluring shape that the influence operates on the situation of elector, it is in the terrific shape that it operates on the situation of candidate. In truth, it is only by the prospect of the quantity of force likely to be exerted by the instrument in its alluring shape upon the situation of elector in the event of a competition, that it can operate upon the situation of candidate with any such force as that which is indicated by the appellation of competition-excluding terrorism.

In the case of these county seats, if we look for the persons on whom, in the character of electors, it is in the shape of terrorism that the seductive influence operates, we shall find them—in the first place, tenants; in the next place, tradesmen, shop-keepers, artificers, and other persons of all sorts, in whose instance, by hope of custom for goods or labour, or by hope from any other source, or by a motive of a more irresistible nature from the same sources, viz. fear of loss—(fear, having for its object loss of any such profit or benefit, as in those or any other shapes had already been in use to be derived from the rich man’s expenditure—not to speak of any interest which he may have, or be supposed to have, with the superior givers of good gifts,)—consider themselves as more or less dependent on his good will, and those good offices, which may be among the expected fruits of it.

In this case, the instrument of force by which the voter is compelled and the vote extorted, is, on the part of the dependent elector, the fear of giving offence to, and thereby losing the good offices, and perhaps suffering under the ill offices, of the terror-inspiring candidate. In so far as—consideration had of the amount of the apprehended loss, and of the elector’s ability, in respect of his pecuniary circumstances, to preserve himself from it—the force is sufficient to engage the elector to take upon himself the expense of journeys to and from, and demurrage at, the election town,—in so far, terror—as being a force which in this case costs nothing to the person by whom it is applied—is the seductive force called into action: in so far as, in respect of its quantity, the force which in this shape is at the disposal of the candidate, is regarded by him as not sufficient,—seductive influence in the opposite shape, viz. bribery—seductive influence in this acceptable and alluring shape—is called in and employed, in aid of that which operates in the terrific shape:—indemnification, viz. against the expense of journeys and demurrage, is the cloak in which in this case the bribery is enveloped.

Thus much as to the situation of elector. Look upwards—look to the situation of candidate, and the instrument which you have just been seeing operate upon electors, in the shape of an instrument of alluring seductive influence—viz. the money spent in bribery—this same instrument you may now see in the shape of an instrument of terror, operating—and this, too, of itself, and without need of any hand to work it—operating upon the situation of candidate: operating, according to the degree of its efficiency, with the effect of a competition-encounter-repelling, a competition-quelling, or a competition-excluding instrument.

In the election town itself,—and within that circle, within which, by reason of vicinity to the town, all demand for expense of journey and demurrage, and consequently all cause and pretence for indemnification on that score, stands excluded,—the terrorism, in the above, viz. the purse-brandishing shape, finds not any place in which it can operate: and, as to rival candidates, actual and proposable,—the greater the distances between this central spot and the abodes of the respective voters thus purchasable, the more strongly coercive will be the force of the rival and terror-inspiring purse.*

Of terrorism, considered in respect of both the situations on which, and thence in respect of both the modes and directions in which it operates,—but more particularly in respect of the competition-excluding mode, the effect seems as yet, in comparison of its mischievousness, to have attracted but little notice.* In brief, so far as regards the competition-excluding mode, it may be thus expressed:—the reducing the quantity of appropriate official aptitude in the Honourable House, from that maximum to which a regard for the welfare of the community would seek to raise it, to that slender (alas, how slender!) scantling, which experience has brought to view:—a proprietorship in land, or a mass of property sufficient to operate with effect either in the way of terrorism, or in the way of bribery;—in the latter case, a surplus of ready money, to the amount of from £4000 to £5000 over and above what is necessary for habitual expenditure, and ready to be employed in the purchase of power in this shape;—an appropriate connexion with some person, who is himself in possession of an appropriate qualification, in one or other of those shapes:—in these behold the conditions, one or other of which is indispensably necessary, and at the same time altogether sufficient, to the purpose of a man’s being chosen to fill this most important of all offices. So as the purse be but full enough, no matter how empty the head.

Note well the persons, to whom, in this instance, the exclusionary force is in an immediate way applied: note well, that they are not the electors themselves, but persons at large, considered in the character of proposable candidates: note well the hand by which that same force is applied: note well, that it is not the hand of any individual human being, but the hand of the invisible nature of things—the offspring of the election system taken in its whole compages. Now then, all these circumstances considered, pregnant as is this state of things with a mass of mischief so immense, but at the same time so incalculable and inscrutable, great need not be the wonder at its having in so great a degree escaped notice.

The case of the county seats being thus explained, no further details can (it is supposed) be necessary for conveying a correspondent conception of the case of the borough seats. In so far as, by terrorism applied to the electors, the effect can be produced,—in this shape of course, as being free of expense to the seductionist—in this shape it is that the seductive influence is applied. At the same time,—in so far as the number of those, to whom in this unexpensive shape seduction can be applied with effect, being regarded as insufficient to carry the election, the assistance of bribery is regarded as necessary,—bribery is the shape in which it is accordingly applied: and here too, in so far as bribery is the force applied to the situation of elector,—purse-brandishing and competition-excluding terror is the instrument which, as above, applies itself to the situation of rival candidate, actual and proposable.

[* ]Gratitude may perhaps here present itself as a motive,—which, though not of the nature of either terror or bribery, may not unfrequently be capable of being productive of the same effect: and, in so far as this case is considered as exemplified, sentimental may be the adjunct employed for the purpose of giving expression to it: say, sentimental seduction, or sentimental seductive influence.

But, in the instances in which, at bottom, no motive but of the self-regarding kind, and that looking to the future, viz. either hope or fear, or a mixture of both, has place,—gratitude, the social motive, is a cloak, which, in so far as any tolerably plausible pretence can be found—(and whensoever a favour has been received, or supposed to be received, it always may be found)—is sure to be employed as a covering for the self-regarding motive: and, even when favours to any amount have been received, a self-regarding fear—fear of the reproach of ingratitude—is frequently the cause, by which, if not the whole, a part more or less considerable of the effect is produced.

On the occasion of election bribery, such as in this last case is the mode, in which the seductive influence is commonly applied and operates: in this way, if at all, must it operate, when the bribe is given beforehand: and in this case, to the reproach of ingratitude, will, in common apprehension, be added the stronger reproach of improbity, viz. in the shape of perfidy. See Springs-of-Action Table, as above.

From the situation of Elector, turn now to that of Representative.

In the motive of hope, with or without fear, and with a covering of gratitude more or less sincere, may be seen the seductive influence, by which, in this case, under the dominion of C—r-General, the conduct of members of parliament, both houses included, is, to so vast an extent, determined. To this case may be referred, in a more especial manner, the gratitude which has place under the sort of robe, the sleeves of which are of lawn. “When I forsake my King, may my God forsake me!” was the once famed speech of a high-seated and notorious profligate, to whom for once it seemed good to play the hypocrite. But in this case, lawn was not the material of the sleeves.

Hope, fear, gratitude,—in such situations, generally speaking, who but the Searcher of Hearts can distinguish the proportions in which those affections contribute to the production of the effect? Still greater is the difficulty as beween gratitude and fear of the reproach of ingratitude. When, in such a situation, the profession of gratitude has anything of sincerity at the bottom of it, the stronger the sincerity, the more mischievous the gratitude is apt to be. Why? Even because the stronger it is, the more strenuous the exertions with which it will operate towards the support of the separate and sinister interest.

As between individual and individual,—if, in so far as it exercises itself to the benefit of one individual who is the object of it, gratitude is a virtue,—yet, in so far as, when exercising itself to the benefit of the one, it exercises itself to the injury of any other, in so far, instead of being a virtue, can it be anything better than a vice? much more if, as between an individual and the whole community, exercised to the still greater injury of the universal interest. Gratitude, by which, at the expense of the universal interest, the private interest of the C—r-General is served—is this a virtue? Yes: if stealing money out of the Exchequer or the Bank, to slip it into the privy purse, would be a virtue;—not otherwise.

Behold a man eight-and-thirty years in parliament; three-and-thirty of those years in office: in all those three-and-thirty years—not to speak of the other five—though the measures of the monarch were ever so mischievous, never in any instance failing to give his vote (not to speak of his speeches) in support of them: and, in a life of him, written in lawn sleeves, by a brother of the right honourable person in question, this habit, as will be seen, placed to the account of virtue! In respect of extent, as well as malignity, see the character of this mischief admirably displayed in an Edinburgh Review of the last year, or last but one. But in this place the matter is too apposite, as well as too impressive, to be sufficiently put to use by a mere reference. Lord Viscount Barrington’s Life, by his brother, the Bishop of Durham, pp. 169 to 192: time, that of the American war. In October 1775, LETTER to the King, desiring leave to resign: no notice taken. June 7, 1776, for the first time, conversation on the subject with the King in his closet. Year of Lord Barrington’s age, the sixtieth:—of his official service, the thirty-first. Hear Lord Barrington: this from his own manuscript:—“Many difficulties,” I answered (p. 174,) “in respect to the House of Commons, were of the most serious kind, as they affected my conscience and my character. I have, said I, my own opinions in respect to the disputes with America: I give them, such as they are, to ministers, in conversation as in writing. I am summoned to meetings, where I sometimes think it my duty to declare them openly, before perhaps twenty or thirty persons; and the next day I am forced either to vote contrary to them, or to vote with an opposition which I abhor;” viz. not thatparticular opposition alone, but every opposition whatsoever, in whatsoever case, and on whatsoever ground acting.

Judge whether this be not true: view him in the year of his age the twenty-ninth; of his parliamentary service, the fifth or sixth (p. 12, anno 1745.) Then it is that, to his perfect astonishment, he discovers, that, in that one instance, opposition in parliament had given a certain degree of encouragement to rebellion: as if it were possible, that, where rebellion is in contemplation, opposition could in that place by any possibility be made, without contributing more or less to that effect. Thus made, the discovery, profound as we see it, suffices of itself to produce, on his part, a determination never to be in opposition in any case whatsoever: and to this determination, for such a number of years together—the whole time against his most decided judgment—to the support of one of the most tyrannical and disastrous measures—(disastrous?—to the would-be-enslaving country, yes: but to the country intended to be enslaved, how felicitous!)—ever contemplated, he most heroically adheres. Speaking of the rebellion in 1745, “he had seen,” says his right reverend biographer and panegyrist—“he had seen, with some degree of remorse, how much the conduct of opposition had encouraged that enterprise. He perceived,” continues he, “that appeals to the people against the parliament and the government contribute towards anarchy; and that ministers are more frequently deterred from right than from wrong measures, by the apprehension of opposition. Possibly,” continues he, “some may think, that his having an employment in administration might have contributed to his adopting these sentiments: being once, however, offered to his mind, the force and truth of them became irresistible.” Yes—“the truth of them,” says the good Lord Bishop.

Behold, then, the scrupulous Viscount, with his tender conscience. Thus, according to his own showing, was this man, and for so many years together, in the unvaried habit of voting against his own conscience—contributing in one of the most influential situations to the commission of legally dismurdered murders (to speak according to his opinion) committed in the wholesale way. And why? Only because, had his votes been given according to his conscience, and against these murders, he would have seen other votes operating in aid of his, and contributing to the efficiency of his, by being given in favour of the only system his conscience could approve of. After this comes the determination expressed to the King, over and over, and over again—the determination thus to continue voting—and, at the head of the war department as well as in parliament, acting to this effect against his conscience: and this to the end of his days, unless and until it should please his Majesty to consent to his ceasing so to do. P. 179, June 1st, 1777—“Your Majesty knows the very bottom of my mind: if, after that, you order me to remain as I am, I will obey you. I find I cannot force myself from you; and, whenever I go, your Majesty must voluntarily tell me that I may leave you.” After, as well as before this, from p. 167 to 169, see passages, reporting conversations or letters out of number, all to this effect. “The King thanked me warmly,” (viz. for continuing to operate towards the perpetration of the dismurderized murders, against the declared dictates of his conscience,) “and said,” continues his lordship, “it was impossible to act a more handsome part than I had done throughout.” Thus it went on, the King still refusing dismission—permission to act according to conscience; the war secretary still obsequious; till almost three years after the date of the letter, by which, for the cause in question, the desire to resign was made known: the 16th December 1778, on which day, with this lesson before his eyes, Mr. Jenkinson, father to the present Earl of Liverpool, to whom his paternal care could not but have transmitted it, kissed hands as successor to the present Earl, who, on the 15th June 1809, (Cobbett’s Debates, p. 1033,) “from long, deliberate, and mature consideration,” said, “I am convinced, that the disfranchisement of the smallest borough . . . . would eventually destroy the constitution.”—N.B. On this same 1st June 1776 (p. 179,) King to Lord Barrington:—“I will give you a mark of my favour at parting: but I wish much to keep you at present,” &c.: and, during all this conflict betwixt gratitude and loyalty on the one side, and conscience on the other, the quantum of this mark of favour remained to be determined; it was settled at £2000 a-year pension (King’s LETTER to Lord Barrington, in terminis (p. 191,) “until,” says the letter, “he shall be appointed to some other employment.”

Thus much for King and Ministers. Now for Bishop:—“Perhaps,” says he, p. 169, “the reader may be disposed to interrupt my narrative by observing, that if Lord Barrington objected to the general system which administration had adopted, and which they continued to act upon, notwithstanding his remonstrances, it was his duty to have resigned his appointment, and not to have taken any further part in measures which he disapproved. The answer is in itself complete. As soon as Lord Barrington found these measures would be persevered in, he tendered his resignation: but he did it in that candid and consistent manner which became Lord Barrington. He did not make his difference of sentiment the subject of appeal to the public favour,a or the means of thwarting national efforts, and embarrassing the King and his Ministers: but he submitted it in a private LETTER to his Majesty, as early as with propriety he could, in the beginning of October 1775; and he renewed his instances, until his retirement from public life could be permitted, without inconvenience to his Majesty or to the interest of the public.”

Behold in this one frame three portraits—the King’s, the Minister’s, and the Bishop’s—drawn by the pious hand of the original of one of them. In these three behold, moreover, a amily picture of Matchless Constitution:—monarchy and aristocracy above: sham democracy beneath—a slave crouching under both. But the sample afforded by this triad is a favourable sample: the King, a bettermost kind of king; the Peer and war-minister, a bettermost kind of Peer and minister: the Bishop, a bettermost kind of bishop: all agreeing in this, viz. that when a king is pleased to express a wish, be it even ever so faint a one, no part but obedience can be left to conscience. Note well, this from among the better-most sort: what would be to be expected from the ordinary sort? Answer: Exactly what we are now experiencing. These portraits from a partial pencil,—what if from an impartial one?

Walk in and see church and king!—walk in and see church and state! After this, what need can there be of libels? This, if it were not the work of a bishop, would it not in itself be the quintessence of all libels?—a libel on everything that is most excellent?—a libel accompanied with the most flagitious of all aggravations—the matters of fact unquestionably true?

Behold legitimacy in puris naturalibus. Behold not only passive obedience and non-resistance, but active obedience—active obedience to the monarch, whatsoever be his measures—professed and preached without reserve. If,—by any form given to language, thus speaking in generals,—it be possible, that any more profligate servility should be inculcated, any more profligate despotism invited, one should be curious to see it., And, while the pen is writing this, comes from Durham the intelligence, by which a practical comment on this theory is brought to view.

Turn back now to section 8,—one more glance at Westminster Election management. Behold there democracy—representative democracy—in its lowest stage: not, as in America, erect and independent; but, as in Britain, ever threatened and ready to be crushed. Say now whether property is probity: say whether kingship is probity: say whether peership is probity: say whether bishopship is probity: say whether,—if every one of these is probity,—tradesmanship probity, as exemplified for these ten years past in Westminster, is not worth all such other probities put together?

[* ]Office-bearer—the term in common use in Scotland for the possessor of an office.

[† ]In Pope’s Homer, the God Jupiter is cloud-compelling Jove.

[‡ ]Penny-royal, as well as other royals, is already in the language. Bribe-royal, a term that may be employed to signify all and singular the good things, applicable at the pleasure of C—r-General, in reward for parliamentary service, certain or contingent, past or future: good things, some transferable, as offices and contracts: some untransferable, as knighthoods, ribbons, baronetcies, peerages: the two last descendible.

[* ]By various persons—and even by persons by no means partial in their affections to the gentleman in question, it has happened to me, more than once, to hear spoken of as a matter of fact, not regarded as open to dispute, that in the instance of Mr. Wilberforce, in the character of a veteran member of parliament, might be seen a person, from whose declared judgment—self-formed or derivative—derivative judgments, in greater numbers than from any other, had, as it seemed to them, been for a long time in use to be derived. Well: not many years ago, by the mere force of terrorism—competition-excluding terrorism—in the hands of an as yet untried competitor, was this man driven from the seat: that seat which, with the effect just mentioned, he had so long filled. And this seat, what was it? It was one of the two seats filled by the county of Yorkshire: a county, by the exorbitant amplitude of which, the joint power of landholding and purse-brandishing terrorism are swelled to a maximum. £120,000, I have heard mentioned as the sum, which on the occasion of one election was expended, by one only of the two victorious competitors for the two seats: but the victory had conquest—complete conquest—for its fruit. The condition of a proprietory borough—a proprietory borough held in jointtenancy,—such is the condition to which that vast county, inclosing in its bosom three large counties called ridings, is reduced.

This is not all. For, by the same instrument by which the disease is produced and fixed, is all remedy barred out. Petition—if it aim at any thing better than the continuance of the disease; by this same instrument is petition nipped in the bud. And thus it is, that so long as, between the two high allies, peace and union shall continue to flourish, the peace of the county (for such is the appropriate phrase) remains secure: the peace of Yorkshire secured, and by the same instrument which, under the auspices of the new-invented Christianity, is with such irresistible effect occupying itself in the giving security to the peace of Europe.

In the debates, moreover, traces are not altogether wanting, of the impression made by the experience of terrorism: and that in its several shapes of vote-compelling influence, competition-repelling-and-excluding influence, in the hands of peers; and competition-repelling-and-excluding influence in the hands of the crown: with which are mixed, indications of the existence and degree of the undue dependence, in which nominees are held by proprietory and other possessors of seats under the name of patrons, more particularly peers, contrasted with the absence of due dependence as towards electors, in the small number of instances, in which, in the whole assemblage of those by whose suffrages a seat or a pair of seats are filled, suffrages completely free are in any proportion to be found.

Behold accordingly in this note, the following instructive particulars:—1. By Earl Grey, at that time Mr. Grey, a peerage not as yet in any near prospect, the existence of terrorism recognised, and, in so far as exercised by peers, not approved of: 2. By Charles Fox, the part borne by terrorism in the filling of the county seats recognised, and therefore the extension of the number of those seats not approved of: 3. By Charles Fox, the effect of terrorism, in the formation of a squadron composed of coroncted terrorists and their nominees, listed under the banners and the orders of C—r-General, indicated,—and their numbers, as they stood at that time, mustered.

Parl. Reg. anno 1793, p. 383. Mr. Grey, now Earl Grey.—1. “Mr. Grey remarked, that when Mr. Pitt moved for an addition of 100 members to be added to the counties, he could not carry his motion: and yet he had contrived to procure the nomination of forty members by indirect means; for he had added to the House of Peers thirty members, who either nominated directlya or by irresistible influence,b that number of members of the House of Commons, as appeared from the petitions then on the table, and which the petitioners were ready to prove.”

Woodfall’s Debates, anno 1797, p. 323.—Charles Fox.—2. “I submit, however, to the good sense and to the personal experience of gentlemen who hear me, if it be not a manifest truth, that influence depends almost as much upon what they have to receive, as upon what they have to pay; whether it does not proceed as much from the submission of the dependent who has a debt to pay, as on the gratitude of the person whose attachment they reward? And if this be true, in the influence which individuals derive from the rentals of their estates, and from the expenditure of that rental, how much more so it is true of government, who, both in the receipt and expenditure of this enormous revenue, are actuated by one invariable principle, that of extending or withholding favour in exact proportion to the submission or resistance to their measures which the individuals make?”

Woodfall’s Debates, anno 1797, p. 326.—Charles Fox.—3. “A noble lord says that the county representation must be good—that must be approved of: be it so. This proposes to leave the county representation where it is: I wish so to leave it. I think, that representation ought to be of a compound nature: the counties may be considered as territorial representation, as contra-distinguished from popular; but in order to embrace all that I think necessary, I certainly would not approve of any further extension of this branch of the representation.”

3. Woodfall’s Debates, anno 1797, p. 329.—Charles Fox.—“There is one class of constituents, whose instructions it is considered as the implicit duty of members to obey. When gentlemen represent popular towns and cities, then it is disputable whether they ought to obey their voice, or follow the dictate of their own conscience; but if they happen to represent a noble lord or a noble duke, then it becomes no longer a question of doubt: he is not considered as a man of honour who does not implicitly obey the orders of his single constituent; he is to have no conscience, no liberty, no discretion of his own; he is sent here by my lord this, or the duke of that, and if he does not obey the instructions that he receives, he is not to be considered as a man of honour and a gentleman. Such is the mode of reasoning that prevails in this house. Is this fair? Is there any reciprocity in this conduct? Is a gentleman to be permitted, without dishonour, to act in opposition to the sentiments of the city of London, or the city of Westminster, or of Bristol; but if he dares to disagree with the duke, or lord, or baronet, whose representative he is, then he must be considered as unfit for the society of men of honour? This, sir, is the chicane and tyranny of corruption, and this, at the same time, is called representation. In a very great degree, the county members are held in the same sort of thraldom. A number of peers possess an overweening interest in the country, and a gentleman is no longer permitted to hold his situation than as he acts agreeably to the dictates of those powerful families. Let us see how the whole of this stream of corruption has been diverted from the side of the people to that of the crown—with what a constant persevering art, every man who is possessed of influence in counties, corporations, or boroughs, that will yield to the solicitations of the court, is drawn over to that phalanx, which is opposed to the small remnant of popular election. I have looked, sir, to the machinations of the present minister in that way, and I find, that including the number of additional titles, the right honourable gentleman has made no fewer than one hundred and fifteen peers in the course of his administration; that is to say, he has bestowed no fewer than one hundred and fifteen titles, including new creations and elevations from one rank to another:ahow many of these are to be ascribed to national services, and how many to parliamentary interests, I leave the house to inquire. The country is not blind to the arts of influence, and it is impossible that we can expect men to continue to endure them.”

In the Statesman, for February 21, 1817, authenticated by the signature of Major Cartwright, may be seen a statement in these words:—“The writer has seen a very numerous troop of tenants, holding under a placeman and sinecurist, conducted to a county election as swine are conducted to market, one steward in the front, and another in the rear, as one hog-driver goes before the herd, and another follows after, to regulate the drift, and prevent straggling.”

Thus far the worthy father of radical reform. From the nature of the two corresponding situations, coupled with the circumstance of the two stewards, one behind as well as another before, let any one judge whether the surmise is likely to have been unfounded, or the parallel inapposite.

[* ]The only instance within my knowledge, in which, in any published work, any indication has been given of this circumstance, in the character of an imperfection attached to the constitution in its present state, is that which is afforded by a passage in Mr. Wakefield’s Account of Ireland, vol. ii. p. 321. In it, after mention made of two names,—“Think,” says he, “what must be the character and complexion of the constitution of this country, in so far as concerns the Commons House of Parliament, when for such a length of time as they have been in existence, neither of those names has ever been found in the list of the Members of this House.” Of those persons, one was Mr. Arthur Young; the other was a person with whom, otherwise than by reputation, Mr. Wakefield had not any acquaintance—and of whom it is sufficient to say, that from early youth, throughout the whole course of his life—even at that time (anno 1812) not a short one—his time had been almost exclusively devoted to the endeavour to meliorate the condition of his fellow-creatures in all countries, but more particularly his own, by labour as unremitted as it could not but be thankless, applied to the field of legislation.

[* ]Gratitude may perhaps here present itself as a motive,—which, though not of the nature of either terror or bribery, may not unfrequently be capable of being productive of the same effect: and, in so far as this case is considered as exemplified, sentimental may be the adjunct employed for the purpose of giving expression to it: say, sentimental seduction, or sentimental seductive influence.

But, in the instances in which, at bottom, no motive but of the self-regarding kind, and that looking to the future, viz. either hope or fear, or a mixture of both, has place,—gratitude, the social motive, is a cloak, which, in so far as any tolerably plausible pretence can be found—(and whensoever a favour has been received, or supposed to be received, it always may be found)—is sure to be employed as a covering for the self-regarding motive: and, even when favours to any amount have been received, a self-regarding fear—fear of the reproach of ingratitude—is frequently the cause, by which, if not the whole, a part more or less considerable of the effect is produced.

On the occasion of election bribery, such as in this last case is the mode, in which the seductive influence is commonly applied and operates: in this way, if at all, must it operate, when the bribe is given beforehand: and in this case, to the reproach of ingratitude, will, in common apprehension, be added the stronger reproach of improbity, viz. in the shape of perfidy. See Springs-of-Action Table, as above.

From the situation of Elector, turn now to that of Representative.

In the motive of hope, with or without fear, and with a covering of gratitude more or less sincere, may be seen the seductive influence, by which, in this case, under the dominion of C—r-General, the conduct of members of parliament, both houses included, is, to so vast an extent, determined. To this case may be referred, in a more especial manner, the gratitude which has place under the sort of robe, the sleeves of which are of lawn. “When I forsake my King, may my God forsake me!” was the once famed speech of a high-seated and notorious profligate, to whom for once it seemed good to play the hypocrite. But in this case, lawn was not the material of the sleeves.

Hope, fear, gratitude,—in such situations, generally speaking, who but the Searcher of Hearts can distinguish the proportions in which those affections contribute to the production of the effect? Still greater is the difficulty as beween gratitude and fear of the reproach of ingratitude. When, in such a situation, the profession of gratitude has anything of sincerity at the bottom of it, the stronger the sincerity, the more mischievous the gratitude is apt to be. Why? Even because the stronger it is, the more strenuous the exertions with which it will operate towards the support of the separate and sinister interest.

As between individual and individual,—if, in so far as it exercises itself to the benefit of one individual who is the object of it, gratitude is a virtue,—yet, in so far as, when exercising itself to the benefit of the one, it exercises itself to the injury of any other, in so far, instead of being a virtue, can it be anything better than a vice? much more if, as between an individual and the whole community, exercised to the still greater injury of the universal interest. Gratitude, by which, at the expense of the universal interest, the private interest of the C—r-General is served—is this a virtue? Yes: if stealing money out of the Exchequer or the Bank, to slip it into the privy purse, would be a virtue;—not otherwise.

Behold a man eight-and-thirty years in parliament; three-and-thirty of those years in office: in all those three-and-thirty years—not to speak of the other five—though the measures of the monarch were ever so mischievous, never in any instance failing to give his vote (not to speak of his speeches) in support of them: and, in a life of him, written in lawn sleeves, by a brother of the right honourable person in question, this habit, as will be seen, placed to the account of virtue! In respect of extent, as well as malignity, see the character of this mischief admirably displayed in an Edinburgh Review of the last year, or last but one. But in this place the matter is too apposite, as well as too impressive, to be sufficiently put to use by a mere reference. Lord Viscount Barrington’s Life, by his brother, the Bishop of Durham, pp. 169 to 192: time, that of the American war. In October 1775, LETTER to the King, desiring leave to resign: no notice taken. June 7, 1776, for the first time, conversation on the subject with the King in his closet. Year of Lord Barrington’s age, the sixtieth:—of his official service, the thirty-first. Hear Lord Barrington: this from his own manuscript:—“Many difficulties,” I answered (p. 174,) “in respect to the House of Commons, were of the most serious kind, as they affected my conscience and my character. I have, said I, my own opinions in respect to the disputes with America: I give them, such as they are, to ministers, in conversation as in writing. I am summoned to meetings, where I sometimes think it my duty to declare them openly, before perhaps twenty or thirty persons; and the next day I am forced either to vote contrary to them, or to vote with an opposition which I abhor;” viz. not thatparticular opposition alone, but every opposition whatsoever, in whatsoever case, and on whatsoever ground acting.

Judge whether this be not true: view him in the year of his age the twenty-ninth; of his parliamentary service, the fifth or sixth (p. 12, anno 1745.) Then it is that, to his perfect astonishment, he discovers, that, in that one instance, opposition in parliament had given a certain degree of encouragement to rebellion: as if it were possible, that, where rebellion is in contemplation, opposition could in that place by any possibility be made, without contributing more or less to that effect. Thus made, the discovery, profound as we see it, suffices of itself to produce, on his part, a determination never to be in opposition in any case whatsoever: and to this determination, for such a number of years together—the whole time against his most decided judgment—to the support of one of the most tyrannical and disastrous measures—(disastrous?—to the would-be-enslaving country, yes: but to the country intended to be enslaved, how felicitous!)—ever contemplated, he most heroically adheres. Speaking of the rebellion in 1745, “he had seen,” says his right reverend biographer and panegyrist—“he had seen, with some degree of remorse, how much the conduct of opposition had encouraged that enterprise. He perceived,” continues he, “that appeals to the people against the parliament and the government contribute towards anarchy; and that ministers are more frequently deterred from right than from wrong measures, by the apprehension of opposition. Possibly,” continues he, “some may think, that his having an employment in administration might have contributed to his adopting these sentiments: being once, however, offered to his mind, the force and truth of them became irresistible.” Yes—“the truth of them,” says the good Lord Bishop.

Behold, then, the scrupulous Viscount, with his tender conscience. Thus, according to his own showing, was this man, and for so many years together, in the unvaried habit of voting against his own conscience—contributing in one of the most influential situations to the commission of legally dismurdered murders (to speak according to his opinion) committed in the wholesale way. And why? Only because, had his votes been given according to his conscience, and against these murders, he would have seen other votes operating in aid of his, and contributing to the efficiency of his, by being given in favour of the only system his conscience could approve of. After this comes the determination expressed to the King, over and over, and over again—the determination thus to continue voting—and, at the head of the war department as well as in parliament, acting to this effect against his conscience: and this to the end of his days, unless and until it should please his Majesty to consent to his ceasing so to do. P. 179, June 1st, 1777—“Your Majesty knows the very bottom of my mind: if, after that, you order me to remain as I am, I will obey you. I find I cannot force myself from you; and, whenever I go, your Majesty must voluntarily tell me that I may leave you.” After, as well as before this, from p. 167 to 169, see passages, reporting conversations or letters out of number, all to this effect. “The King thanked me warmly,” (viz. for continuing to operate towards the perpetration of the dismurderized murders, against the declared dictates of his conscience,) “and said,” continues his lordship, “it was impossible to act a more handsome part than I had done throughout.” Thus it went on, the King still refusing dismission—permission to act according to conscience; the war secretary still obsequious; till almost three years after the date of the letter, by which, for the cause in question, the desire to resign was made known: the 16th December 1778, on which day, with this lesson before his eyes, Mr. Jenkinson, father to the present Earl of Liverpool, to whom his paternal care could not but have transmitted it, kissed hands as successor to the present Earl, who, on the 15th June 1809, (Cobbett’s Debates, p. 1033,) “from long, deliberate, and mature consideration,” said, “I am convinced, that the disfranchisement of the smallest borough . . . . would eventually destroy the constitution.”—N.B. On this same 1st June 1776 (p. 179,) King to Lord Barrington:—“I will give you a mark of my favour at parting: but I wish much to keep you at present,” &c.: and, during all this conflict betwixt gratitude and loyalty on the one side, and conscience on the other, the quantum of this mark of favour remained to be determined; it was settled at £2000 a-year pension (King’s LETTER to Lord Barrington, in terminis (p. 191,) “until,” says the letter, “he shall be appointed to some other employment.”

Thus much for King and Ministers. Now for Bishop:—“Perhaps,” says he, p. 169, “the reader may be disposed to interrupt my narrative by observing, that if Lord Barrington objected to the general system which administration had adopted, and which they continued to act upon, notwithstanding his remonstrances, it was his duty to have resigned his appointment, and not to have taken any further part in measures which he disapproved. The answer is in itself complete. As soon as Lord Barrington found these measures would be persevered in, he tendered his resignation: but he did it in that candid and consistent manner which became Lord Barrington. He did not make his difference of sentiment the subject of appeal to the public favour,a or the means of thwarting national efforts, and embarrassing the King and his Ministers: but he submitted it in a private LETTER to his Majesty, as early as with propriety he could, in the beginning of October 1775; and he renewed his instances, until his retirement from public life could be permitted, without inconvenience to his Majesty or to the interest of the public.”

Behold in this one frame three portraits—the King’s, the Minister’s, and the Bishop’s—drawn by the pious hand of the original of one of them. In these three behold, moreover, a amily picture of Matchless Constitution:—monarchy and aristocracy above: sham democracy beneath—a slave crouching under both. But the sample afforded by this triad is a favourable sample: the King, a bettermost kind of king; the Peer and war-minister, a bettermost kind of Peer and minister: the Bishop, a bettermost kind of bishop: all agreeing in this, viz. that when a king is pleased to express a wish, be it even ever so faint a one, no part but obedience can be left to conscience. Note well, this from among the better-most sort: what would be to be expected from the ordinary sort? Answer: Exactly what we are now experiencing. These portraits from a partial pencil,—what if from an impartial one?

Walk in and see church and king!—walk in and see church and state! After this, what need can there be of libels? This, if it were not the work of a bishop, would it not in itself be the quintessence of all libels?—a libel on everything that is most excellent?—a libel accompanied with the most flagitious of all aggravations—the matters of fact unquestionably true?

Behold legitimacy in puris naturalibus. Behold not only passive obedience and non-resistance, but active obedience—active obedience to the monarch, whatsoever be his measures—professed and preached without reserve. If,—by any form given to language, thus speaking in generals,—it be possible, that any more profligate servility should be inculcated, any more profligate despotism invited, one should be curious to see it., And, while the pen is writing this, comes from Durham the intelligence, by which a practical comment on this theory is brought to view.

Turn back now to section 8,—one more glance at Westminster Election management. Behold there democracy—representative democracy—in its lowest stage: not, as in America, erect and independent; but, as in Britain, ever threatened and ready to be crushed. Say now whether property is probity: say whether kingship is probity: say whether peership is probity: say whether bishopship is probity: say whether,—if every one of these is probity,—tradesmanship probity, as exemplified for these ten years past in Westminster, is not worth all such other probities put together?

[* ]By various persons—and even by persons by no means partial in their affections to the gentleman in question, it has happened to me, more than once, to hear spoken of as a matter of fact, not regarded as open to dispute, that in the instance of Mr. Wilberforce, in the character of a veteran member of parliament, might be seen a person, from whose declared judgment—self-formed or derivative—derivative judgments, in greater numbers than from any other, had, as it seemed to them, been for a long time in use to be derived. Well: not many years ago, by the mere force of terrorism—competition-excluding terrorism—in the hands of an as yet untried competitor, was this man driven from the seat: that seat which, with the effect just mentioned, he had so long filled. And this seat, what was it? It was one of the two seats filled by the county of Yorkshire: a county, by the exorbitant amplitude of which, the joint power of landholding and purse-brandishing terrorism are swelled to a maximum. £120,000, I have heard mentioned as the sum, which on the occasion of one election was expended, by one only of the two victorious competitors for the two seats: but the victory had conquest—complete conquest—for its fruit. The condition of a proprietory borough—a proprietory borough held in jointtenancy,—such is the condition to which that vast county, inclosing in its bosom three large counties called ridings, is reduced.

This is not all. For, by the same instrument by which the disease is produced and fixed, is all remedy barred out. Petition—if it aim at any thing better than the continuance of the disease; by this same instrument is petition nipped in the bud. And thus it is, that so long as, between the two high allies, peace and union shall continue to flourish, the peace of the county (for such is the appropriate phrase) remains secure: the peace of Yorkshire secured, and by the same instrument which, under the auspices of the new-invented Christianity, is with such irresistible effect occupying itself in the giving security to the peace of Europe.

In the debates, moreover, traces are not altogether wanting, of the impression made by the experience of terrorism: and that in its several shapes of vote-compelling influence, competition-repelling-and-excluding influence, in the hands of peers; and competition-repelling-and-excluding influence in the hands of the crown: with which are mixed, indications of the existence and degree of the undue dependence, in which nominees are held by proprietory and other possessors of seats under the name of patrons, more particularly peers, contrasted with the absence of due dependence as towards electors, in the small number of instances, in which, in the whole assemblage of those by whose suffrages a seat or a pair of seats are filled, suffrages completely free are in any proportion to be found.

Behold accordingly in this note, the following instructive particulars:—1. By Earl Grey, at that time Mr. Grey, a peerage not as yet in any near prospect, the existence of terrorism recognised, and, in so far as exercised by peers, not approved of: 2. By Charles Fox, the part borne by terrorism in the filling of the county seats recognised, and therefore the extension of the number of those seats not approved of: 3. By Charles Fox, the effect of terrorism, in the formation of a squadron composed of coroncted terrorists and their nominees, listed under the banners and the orders of C—r-General, indicated,—and their numbers, as they stood at that time, mustered.

Parl. Reg. anno 1793, p. 383. Mr. Grey, now Earl Grey.—1. “Mr. Grey remarked, that when Mr. Pitt moved for an addition of 100 members to be added to the counties, he could not carry his motion: and yet he had contrived to procure the nomination of forty members by indirect means; for he had added to the House of Peers thirty members, who either nominated directlya or by irresistible influence,b that number of members of the House of Commons, as appeared from the petitions then on the table, and which the petitioners were ready to prove.”

Woodfall’s Debates, anno 1797, p. 323.—Charles Fox.—2. “I submit, however, to the good sense and to the personal experience of gentlemen who hear me, if it be not a manifest truth, that influence depends almost as much upon what they have to receive, as upon what they have to pay; whether it does not proceed as much from the submission of the dependent who has a debt to pay, as on the gratitude of the person whose attachment they reward? And if this be true, in the influence which individuals derive from the rentals of their estates, and from the expenditure of that rental, how much more so it is true of government, who, both in the receipt and expenditure of this enormous revenue, are actuated by one invariable principle, that of extending or withholding favour in exact proportion to the submission or resistance to their measures which the individuals make?”

Woodfall’s Debates, anno 1797, p. 326.—Charles Fox.—3. “A noble lord says that the county representation must be good—that must be approved of: be it so. This proposes to leave the county representation where it is: I wish so to leave it. I think, that representation ought to be of a compound nature: the counties may be considered as territorial representation, as contra-distinguished from popular; but in order to embrace all that I think necessary, I certainly would not approve of any further extension of this branch of the representation.”

3. Woodfall’s Debates, anno 1797, p. 329.—Charles Fox.—“There is one class of constituents, whose instructions it is considered as the implicit duty of members to obey. When gentlemen represent popular towns and cities, then it is disputable whether they ought to obey their voice, or follow the dictate of their own conscience; but if they happen to represent a noble lord or a noble duke, then it becomes no longer a question of doubt: he is not considered as a man of honour who does not implicitly obey the orders of his single constituent; he is to have no conscience, no liberty, no discretion of his own; he is sent here by my lord this, or the duke of that, and if he does not obey the instructions that he receives, he is not to be considered as a man of honour and a gentleman. Such is the mode of reasoning that prevails in this house. Is this fair? Is there any reciprocity in this conduct? Is a gentleman to be permitted, without dishonour, to act in opposition to the sentiments of the city of London, or the city of Westminster, or of Bristol; but if he dares to disagree with the duke, or lord, or baronet, whose representative he is, then he must be considered as unfit for the society of men of honour? This, sir, is the chicane and tyranny of corruption, and this, at the same time, is called representation. In a very great degree, the county members are held in the same sort of thraldom. A number of peers possess an overweening interest in the country, and a gentleman is no longer permitted to hold his situation than as he acts agreeably to the dictates of those powerful families. Let us see how the whole of this stream of corruption has been diverted from the side of the people to that of the crown—with what a constant persevering art, every man who is possessed of influence in counties, corporations, or boroughs, that will yield to the solicitations of the court, is drawn over to that phalanx, which is opposed to the small remnant of popular election. I have looked, sir, to the machinations of the present minister in that way, and I find, that including the number of additional titles, the right honourable gentleman has made no fewer than one hundred and fifteen peers in the course of his administration; that is to say, he has bestowed no fewer than one hundred and fifteen titles, including new creations and elevations from one rank to another:ahow many of these are to be ascribed to national services, and how many to parliamentary interests, I leave the house to inquire. The country is not blind to the arts of influence, and it is impossible that we can expect men to continue to endure them.”

In the Statesman, for February 21, 1817, authenticated by the signature of Major Cartwright, may be seen a statement in these words:—“The writer has seen a very numerous troop of tenants, holding under a placeman and sinecurist, conducted to a county election as swine are conducted to market, one steward in the front, and another in the rear, as one hog-driver goes before the herd, and another follows after, to regulate the drift, and prevent straggling.”

Thus far the worthy father of radical reform. From the nature of the two corresponding situations, coupled with the circumstance of the two stewards, one behind as well as another before, let any one judge whether the surmise is likely to have been unfounded, or the parallel inapposite.

[a]Learn hence, that, in the opinion of both brothers, public opinion—the whole force of seductive influence notwithstanding—was really against the American war. N.B. Public favour would not have given him the £2,000 a-year, or any part of it.

[a]i. e. by means of proprietorship of so many proprietory seats.

[b]i. e. by terrorism; with or without an admixture of bribery.

[a]Viz. in the compass of about thirteen years, from 1784 to 1797: in the subsequent twenty years down to this time, what may have been the addition? Inquire and report,—ye good men and true—who have leisure.