Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow SECTION XI.: PURCHASE OF SEATS—IN WHAT CASES MISCHIEVOUS—IN WHAT BENEFICIAL. - The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 3

Return to Title Page for The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 3

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Economics
Subject Area: Political Theory
Subject Area: Law

SECTION XI.: PURCHASE OF SEATS—IN WHAT CASES MISCHIEVOUS—IN WHAT BENEFICIAL. - Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 3 [1843]

Edition used:

The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843). 11 vols. Vol. 3.

Part of: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, 11 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


SECTION XI.

PURCHASE OF SEATS—IN WHAT CASES MISCHIEVOUS—IN WHAT BENEFICIAL.

In comparison of purely gratuitous,—nomination for what in law language is called valuable consideration—is it upon the whole a pernicious, a beneficial practice, or a matter of indifference?

Answer: In each instance, which of the three qualities belongs to it will, in this, as in all other cases, depend upon the manner in which the universal interest is affected by it.

In comparison of the person, who but for the sale would have been seated in the way of gratuitous nomination,—the course taken by the possessor by purchase, will it be more beneficial, less beneficial, or neither more nor less beneficial, to the public interest? In this question may be seen the answer to the last preceding one.

For this last question, from no other source can any answer be deduced than from the consideration of the quality and quantity of the effective influence exercised by the individual in question, in all shapes taken together, during his continuance in the seat.

Individuals being unknown, as to the quantity nothing can here be said. Quantity being supposed the same,—as to the quality, which depends on the direction taken by it, thus much, and thus much only, can be said,—viz. that for ascertaining it, in so far as it is capable of being ascertained, the only criterion which the nature of the case affords is,—the consideration of the situation occupied by him with reference to party. Tories, Whigs, People’s men, Neutrals—taking him during the whole of his career together, with which of all the several classes thus denominated, has he acted?

In the course of this inquiry, the persuasion which the author has all along found pressing upon his mind with irresistible force is—that, to the disposition, the Tories or King’s men add already not only the power, but the practice, of driving the country down headlong in the descent that terminates in the gulf of pure despotism:—that—such is the state of interests—the Whigs, whether in or out of office, are driving, and would continue to drive on in that same course; though in both situations with a degree of force and velocity more or less inferior to that which belongs to the nature of their naturally and almost constantly successful rivals:—that, if it be among the decrees of destiny, that in its way to that abyss the country shall at any point be stopped,—it can only be by the energy of the people, headed and led by the few people’s men by whom any place shall have been found in the House, reinforced by such of the Whigs, if any, in whose view, as the prospect of perdition comes nearer and nearer, the shares they respectively possess in the universal interest, may come to present itself as exceeding in value their respective shares in the particular and separate interests possessed by them in virtue of their connexion with the party to which they belong.

In this view of the matter—barring the application of the only remedy as above—the arrival of unmitigated despotism being, sooner or later, a result altogether certain,—the only effect of which, in this respect, the practice in question, or any other, can be productive, is that which respects the predicament of time: the causing it to take place a little sooner or a little later than it would otherwise.

Of the practice of venal, contrasted with that of gratuitous nominations, is the acceleration or the retardation of this catastrophe most likely to be the effect? I answer—the acceleration; and for these reasons:—

It being the property of money and money’s worth, when applied to the accomplishment of any object, to apply to the minds on which that accomplishment depends, a quantity of influencing force, over and above whatsoever would otherwise be acting on those same subjects in that same direction,—the effect of the venality, i. e. of the purchases made by means of it, will in this case be—to give to the party, whichsoever it be, by whom they are made, an accession of strength beyond what it would possess otherwise.

The accession of strength, whatever it be, which may be derivable from this source,—by which of the several denominations is it likely to be devived in the greatest quantity?—Answer: By the Tories:—by that party, headed as they are and supported by C—r-General and their interest and their affections identified with his.

As it is, the number of members belonging to this denomination,—not to speak of persons without doors—corruption-eaters, and corruption-hunters, and blind-custom-led men, and indifferentists taken together,—seems at present to be far greater than that of all the other denominations put together: and, as despotism advances,—and while this sentence is writing, it is advancing in seven-leagued boots,—the number will be receiving continual increase. Proportioned to their number will be the aggregate amount of the quantity of ready money in their hands, applicable to this convenient purpose: and,—quantity of money in hand the same—of him whose prospect of appropriate return is nearest, the biddings will naturally be higher than of him whose prospect is more distant.

Thus much as to the general tendency of the practice. But, from this general tendency, supposing it admitted, does any such proposition follow, as that to the character of a true people’s man it belongs to lay down to himself any such rule as that of abstaining from it? No, surely: but exactly the reverse. The greater the velocity of the disastrous descent, the more strenuous are the exertions by which it should be endeavoured to be retarded.

For my own part, had I some ten or twenty millions of money at my disposal,—I would, though to an opposite purpose, effect the very monopoly, the mischievousness of which, reference being made to the at present established practice, has just been represented as being in the direct ratio of the extent of it. Instead of buying land with the money for my own kindred, I would buy liberty with it for the people. With that money, not only should I buy up all the existing venal borough seats and county seats, as they came to market, but I should raise to the rank of venal ones many others which now are not so. With that money in hand, I could and would open honourable eyes, in sufficient abundance: I would enable them even to see—(oh the astonishing sight!)—that liberty is better than slavery, sincerity than imposture, good government than misrule, the absence of waste and corruption than the presence, dependence on the people than dependence on an essentially insatiable shark with his subsharks—the love and respect of the people, than their merited abhorrence.*

[* ]The pace at which, in virtue of such a series of antecedent impulses, they saw the chariot of the State descending towards the gulph, was not yet rapid enough to satisfy the impatience of the Phaëtons, from whom it receives its guidance. Behold one instance in which, on the spur of the occasion, to give redoubled energy to the indefatigable arm, the surtout of common decency was cast off, as being a needless incumbrance.

A bill for the more effectually preventing the sale of seats for money, and for promoting the monopoly thereof to the treasury,by the means of patronage:—such was the title moved for by Lord Folkestone for the act 49 Geo. III. c. 118. Out of 161, 28 voted for this amendment. (Cobbett’s Debates, June 13, 1809.) To denounce to the people, and in language so expressive, the true character, of this measure, required the generous boldness of a Lord Folkestone. To read this character in it, belongs to any man, to whom the words of it are not unreadable.

Would you form an adequate conception of the anxiety by which on this occasion that Honourable House was agitated? Read it in the anxiety expressed—not to say betrayed—by the right honourable gentleman who is the head of it. Bursting the bond of those delicacies, which, but six days before (June 1st,) had produced the well-considered and elaborate declaration, of the reluctance by which, down to that time, he had been restrained from “mixing in the debates,”—twice in one day—viz. on the 7th of that same month—did he stand up and insist, that the word express (that being the word employed for the grant of the licence included in the monopoly) should be inserted. Inserted?—and upon what grounds? On grounds to which the absence of all grounds would surely have been in so small degree an advantageous substitute.

In the determination of Honourable House to establish the monopoly at that time—in that determination which he was thus labouring to produce—he saw an earnest of their determination to abolish it as soon as the occasion should require: and, in an imagined rule of common law already punishing the practice with an adequate punishment in both cases, he saw a sufficient reason for adding a regulation of statute law for punishing it in the one, and for refusing to add it in the other, of those same cases.a

[* ]The pace at which, in virtue of such a series of antecedent impulses, they saw the chariot of the State descending towards the gulph, was not yet rapid enough to satisfy the impatience of the Phaëtons, from whom it receives its guidance. Behold one instance in which, on the spur of the occasion, to give redoubled energy to the indefatigable arm, the surtout of common decency was cast off, as being a needless incumbrance.

A bill for the more effectually preventing the sale of seats for money, and for promoting the monopoly thereof to the treasury,by the means of patronage:—such was the title moved for by Lord Folkestone for the act 49 Geo. III. c. 118. Out of 161, 28 voted for this amendment. (Cobbett’s Debates, June 13, 1809.) To denounce to the people, and in language so expressive, the true character, of this measure, required the generous boldness of a Lord Folkestone. To read this character in it, belongs to any man, to whom the words of it are not unreadable.

Would you form an adequate conception of the anxiety by which on this occasion that Honourable House was agitated? Read it in the anxiety expressed—not to say betrayed—by the right honourable gentleman who is the head of it. Bursting the bond of those delicacies, which, but six days before (June 1st,) had produced the well-considered and elaborate declaration, of the reluctance by which, down to that time, he had been restrained from “mixing in the debates,”—twice in one day—viz. on the 7th of that same month—did he stand up and insist, that the word express (that being the word employed for the grant of the licence included in the monopoly) should be inserted. Inserted?—and upon what grounds? On grounds to which the absence of all grounds would surely have been in so small degree an advantageous substitute.

In the determination of Honourable House to establish the monopoly at that time—in that determination which he was thus labouring to produce—he saw an earnest of their determination to abolish it as soon as the occasion should require: and, in an imagined rule of common law already punishing the practice with an adequate punishment in both cases, he saw a sufficient reason for adding a regulation of statute law for punishing it in the one, and for refusing to add it in the other, of those same cases.a

[a]Cobbett’s Debates, June 7, 1809, xiv. 926.—“The Speaker stated his wish on the first view to extend the provisions of this bill to the purchase of seats in parliament, as well by office as by money. The great rule was—to strike at the prominent and most flagrant points of offence. Amongst those, most certainly, was the proof of an express contract. These, he would state, always impressed him with the conviction, that this species of traffic, whether carried on by implied or express covenants, was an offence against the law of parliament, and, in his opinion, punishable as a misdemeanor at common law. It was fully within the power of the House to provide any future enactments against any future offences, which in the course of the operation of this measure might subsequently arise.”“Mr. Ponsonby, with considerable diffidence in his own opinion, when opposed to the very high authority of the Speaker, still contended that the insertion of the term “express,” in a declaratory act of parliament, conveyed the interpretation, that the penalty attached to express agreements, and that all of an indirect nature came not within its operation.”“The Speaker considered, that the resolutions of that House in 1779 bore fully upon a traffic carried on by an implied contract, and therefore he saw no reason to oppose the proposed clause, as now worded.”