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 9.

Election Districts and Polling Districts, how marked out.

Art. I. In this Section, provision is made for determining the limits of the several election districts, with the polling districts therein respectively contained.

In the following Section, for determining the mode in which the several vote-making households shall be ascertained, registered, denominated, and marked.

Art. II. For these purposes, commissioners, in such number as to his Majesty shall seem meet, will by his Majesty, at the recommendation and with the advice of the election-master-general, be appointed.

Their numbers may, from time to time, be augmented or reduced, as occasion may require.

Of these commissioners, the official name is—Commissioners of Survey and Demarcation and Enumeration for Parliamentary Election purposes; or Commissioners of Survey and Demarcation; or Demarcation Commissioners.

Art. III. For Great Britain, one set of such commissioners shall be appointed; for Ireland, a different one.

Art. IV. No election district or subdistrict shall be composed partly of land in Great Britain, partly of land in Ireland.

Art. V. As between England and Scotland, no such separation, as per Article III. need have place.

Art. VI. The surveys to be performed are two:—1. The preliminary or ordinary geographical; 2. The appropriate.

Art. VII. The preliminary operation is, that by which the geographical divisions—expressed by degrees, minutes, and, if need be, seconds, of longitude and latitude—will, as in ordinary maps, be determined and marked out, by physical and mathematical observations, measurements, calculations, and delineations; with the addition of the physical distinction between land and water, with or without the distinction between plain land and elevated; together with the existing political divisions into kingdoms, provinces, counties, hundreds, and so forth.

Art. VIII. The appropriate operation is that by which the new and appropriate division into election-districts and sub-districts will be performed.

It will have for its basis the ordinary geographical operation.

Art. IX. The appropriate operation, in its several parts, may either be performed at nearly the same time with the ordinary operation, or at any greater intervals, according as the election-master-general shall from time to time appoint.

In so doing, let him have regard to convenience in respect of delay and expense; and, in each instrument of appointment, particularise his reasons.

Art. X. For the preliminary and the appropriate operations, the same set of commissioners may serve.

Out of the general set, particular sets or particular individuals may from time to time be appointed by him to particular portions of the business: he will throughout have regard to presumable appropriate aptitude, as indicated by profession, known experience, or otherwise.

Art. XI. Of the preliminary operation, the maps, constituting the geographical result, will be upon two different scales:—namely, the country scale and the town scale.

Art. XII. The country scale is that upon which the general or all-comprehensive map is to be constructed.

Of this general map, let the scale be large enough for inserting, in every space allotted to a country parish, the name of the parish.

Also, in every space allotted to a town parish, a number referring to its name in the margin of the map; as likewise, in a manner more or less conspicuous, an indication of the site of every the smallest dwelling-house.

Art. XIII. From this map shall be copied or constructed, on the same scale,—or on a scale as much larger as local convenience, in the judgment of the election-master-general, may require,—separate parish maps, exhibiting the several parishes:—namely, either on the original country scale, or on an enlarged country scale.*

In some instances—for example, to the purpose of the poor-rates—the parish, by reason of its largeness, stands already divided into sections, named tythings or townships, or by some other appropriate name. In every case of this sort, at the discretion of the commissioners, may be constructed, instead of one map of the whole parish, a map for each one of these sections.

Or, so as the whole parish be exhibited, any two or more of them may be comprised in one and the same map.

An extra-parochial place may either have a map to itself, or be comprised in the map belonging to some adjacent parish or section of a parish.

Art. XIV. On the town scale, shall be constructed maps, and portions of maps, large enough to exhibit to view, in a more distinct manner, the sites of the several habitations.

According to the density of the population, in some parishes the whole of the territory will require to be laid down upon the town scale;

In other parishes, no part of it.

In others again, the whole of the territory being laid down upon the country scale, namely, on the original scale,—or, as per Article XIII, on the enlarged scale,—particular portions, one or more, will require to be laid down likewise upon the town scale.

These will be to be exhibited either in the margin, or upon a separate sheet, as convenience may require.

Art. XV. Here follows the description of the mode of indication, which, for facility of reference, shall be employed in every such map:—

1. By parallel vertical lines, crossed at right angles by horizontal lines, the whole surface of the engraved part of the paper or parchment is divided into a certain number of compartments.

2. To the left of the left-hand one of the vertical columns thus formed, is attached a correspondent vertical column, composed of the letters of the alphabet, with any such number of additional marks of the same nature, as may be necessary for the designation of the total number of the compartments in that column, as A B, &c.; A a, A b, &c.; B a, B b, &c.

3. Over the highest horizontal line runs a line of numbers in numerical order; one over each vertical column.

4. By means of a LETTER or pair of letters, with a number added to it, each compartment in the map will thus have its distinctive name. The LETTER will show the place of the compartment in the horizontal line; the number will show the place of the compartment in the vertical line.

5. Thus the first compartment on the left at top will be A 1; the next to it in the horizontal line at top will be A 2; the next below it in the vertical line B 1.

6. The several places mentioned in the map are set down in the margin of it, in the alphabetical order of their names. Immediately after the name of each place comes the LETTER and number of the compartment within which it will be found.

7. As for example:—Abingdon, D 7; if that be the compartment within which that town is placed in the map.

8. Of this series of names, with such their respective accompaniments, entered as above on the margin, is composed an index to the map. It is called the marginal index.

9. The lines by which the boundaries of the compartments are expressed are called indicative lines, index lines, lines of reference, or reference lines.

10. These lines of reference are to be expressed in such manner as to be as clearly distinguished as possible from the ordinary geographical lines, expressive of longitude and latitude.

For example: by difference of colour, or by their being, the one undiscontinued, in the manner of an ordinary line, the other composed of dots.

Art. XVI. Here follows the mode in which the districts are to be marked out:—

In the operation, the commissioners will have for their object the rendering these portions of territory as nearly equal to one another in respect of population, as the necessarily and continually changeable condition of every portion of country, in respect of population, and the regard due to local convenience, will allow.

As they proceed in their survey, they will note and set down the several habitations in each parish or other such place.

In each habitation, they will inquire out, and set down, the numbers of the inhabitants, under the distinctions of sex and age. Of the male inhabitants, the age will be to be noted: of the female inhabitants, not.

To this purpose, habitations are to be distinguished into simple and compound.

A simple habitation is a habitation inhabited by one householder,* and no more: and thus containing but one household.

A compound habitation is a habitation containing householders, and thus households, more than one.

Instances of compound habitation are—

1. An ordinary house, when it happens to be inhabited by more householders than one:

2. An edifice, designed to contain, and accordingly containing divers habitations; as a college, an alms house, an hospital, an inn of court:

3. An edifice which, though not principally designed for habitation, yet incidentally affords lodging to householders, one or more: as the treasury, the East India House, a town hall, or any other public office.

Art. XVII. For these purposes it will be necessary, that not only each habitation, but in each compound habitation each household, shall have its distinctive name.

These names will be constituted by words and figures, for which see Section 10.

The name of the habitation will be composed of the name of the approach to it, with a number (to wit, the name of an arithmetical number) annexed.

Of what is meant by approach, the words Edgeware Road, Hounslow Heath, Kew Green, Putney Common, Parliament Street, Chancery Lane, Grosvenor Square, Palace Yard, will serve for the present as examples. See Section 10.

Art. XVIII. As the population comes thus to have been ascertained, the numbers expressive of it will be set down in the map with reference to the division into parishes.

So likewise with reference to the compartments in the map, as per Article XV.

In each parish, section of a parish, or extra-parochial place, as the case may be, males so many; females so many; males, of such and such ages.

So in each compartment.

Art. XIX. When the United Kingdom has thus been laid down in the general map, and the several habitations with their inhabitants noted down in it, then and not before will be the time for determining and marking out the division into districts and sub-districts; always with a view to equality of population as between every one and every other.

Art. XX. In the marking out of districts and sub-districts, the commissioners are to be guided by the division into parishes, sections of parishes, and extra-parochial places.

On this occasion they are not to divide a parish, or section, or extra-parochial place, in such sort as to allot one part to one district or sub-district, and another part to another;

Unless, for want of such division, the inconvenience should be in an adequate degree considerable—

1. In respect of length of journeys* to and from the polling district;

Or, 2. In respect of inequality of population, as between district and district.†

[* ]For some years past, a survey of Great Britain, on a scale that promises to be fully competent to this purpose, has been going on with, under the orders of the Ordnance Board. Of the engravings, the scale is an inch to a mile, not more: on this scale thirty sheets are already published. In these sheets are included the following six counties entire: namely, 1. Essex; 2. Cornwall; 3. Devon; 4. Somerset; 5. Dorset; 6. Hants; 7. Pembroke; 8. Rutland. Also parts of the four following ones:namely, 1. Kent; 2. Surrey; 3. Berks; 4. Wilts; 5. Shropshire; 6. Staffordshire. One of these maps is before me. In parts that I am acquainted with, I see expressed the sites, not only of streets in towns, but of single houses, where the magnitude of them is considerable. Even this might, perhaps, serve for the scale spoken of in the text, by the name of the country scale. But the scale on which the original drawings were made, is a scale of six inches to a mile. This scale might at any rate serve for what was in view in the text, in speaking of the enlarged country scale. Whether this would suffice for the town scale, I cannot take upon me to say. But, that which at any rate could not fail to suffice for this largest scale, is that on which Horwood’s map of London is constructed. The scale of this map, if the information furnished from the geographer-royal’s shop is correct, is twenty-six inches to a mile: a sheet of it lies before me.

[* ]A precise definition of a householder, as contradistinguished from an inmate, would be requisite on this occasion, as well as on the occasion of the vote-making certificate, as per Section 2.

This definition would be as necessary on the plan of those who approve of householder suffrage and no more, as on the plan of those who call for virtually universal suffrage. A householder is one who pays taxes. Good: but what taxes? Taxes payable to the national fund, such as those of late years called assessed taxes? or taxes paid to local funds, such as poor-rates, &c.? and what local funds in particular?

Under the existing system, in some boroughs, every pot-wobbler, as the phrase is, is an elector: every habitation in which a pot is boiled, gives a vote, and in so far as this is admitted, the distinction between householdership and inmateship is obliterated. For, married or single, where is the person who for such a purpose, may not have it in his power to boil a pot? if not of his own, a horrowed one?

But, with that exception, under the existing system there is not (it is believed) in any house more than one householder: namely, the one person by whom all house taxes are paid. Lodgers, though there be ever so many different families of them, pay no house taxes: heads and all other members of families are indiscriminately styled inmates.

In this way the matter stands on a very simple footing: payment of the taxes is secured; and thus the only object looked to is accomplished. But the same building which, at one time, is used only as an out-house to a dwelling-house, is at another time inhabited, and used as a separate dwelling-house: and, whether it be for burthen or for benefit—for payment of taxes, or for giving a vote—it seems not easy to say why a man’s lot should be varied by circumstances so indeterminate and irrelevant.

So far as concerns taxes, it seems right enough: for a lodger pays to his householder so much the more, on account of the householder’s bearing his (the lodger’s) share of the taxes.

But so far as concerns the right of suffrage, it seems difficult to say on what principle it should be confined to the person by whose hands thetaxes are paid. The principle of property is hardly applicable: for nothing is more common than for the lodger to be in better circumstances than the person by whom the lodging is let.

[* ]In and by the course above submitted, any person might take upon himself to answer for the carrying the design into effect; and to describe such a course seemed to be the problem, the solution of which was called for by the nature of the case. Not but that, in a rough manner, it might perhaps be found not altogether impracticable to arrange the business without this process of survey, demarcation, and registering of habitations: and, if it were practicable, the saving in expense would be of no inconsiderable importance;—the saving in time, of incomparably greater importance. But, in that case likewise, the essential thing would be—that the direction of the process should be, the whole of it, in one hand: if committed to a number of hands, those, for instance, of so many local authorities, there would never be an end to it.

Numerous would be the adversaries—some open, some perhaps disguised under the masks of friends: against the artifices of these last in particular, it would have to secure itself. It is sufficiently known what sort of a reform every Whig reform is that has ever been proposed in the character of a gradual reform: a gradual progress in doing nothing. But, were it not for a warning such as this, Whigs, if pressed, might, if they thought they saw their account in it, give in to the proposition even of Radical reform: and this, even in all its elements, without exception, they might accordingly support, up to a certain point of time, with very little danger of success. Among the local authorities, some would be in the confidence of the Whigs; others in that of the Tories: Whigs or Tories, on any such occasion, one thing they could find no difficulty in agreeing in; namely, to disagree without end.

One circumstance however there is, which is in favour of the business. The inquiry has for its object the knowing throughout who it is that has a right to vote. Among those who have the right, few, if any, will be desirous of losing it: and if they are, and lose it accordingly, there will be no harm done: nobody will have any injury to complain of. And, as to an election-master, it seems difficult to conceive how, in the adjustment of a set of rights, collectively indeed so important, but individually so small, he should be exposed to the action of any sinister interest strong enough to turn his course aside from the path of rectitude.

Operator—say, accordingly, upon every imaginable plan, operator in chief, one only, the election-master-general. Of his operation in Great Britain, the basis would be the population returns. In these he would see the parishes contained in each division immediately subordinate to that into counties. Within these limits, for determining relative positions, he would, upon the rough plan now in question, have no other constant and sure resource than what could be afforded by already existing maps: the rest would be to be done by separate inquiries. The population returns of 1812 point out the persons to be resorted to, and the mode.

In Ireland, unfortunately, the mass of those resources could not, it is apprehended, but be much more imperfect.

On any plan, district offices, with their respective office-bearers, could not be dispensed with. But, in any case, the expense need not be so great as at first sight it might be imagined. For the office, any town that, in other respects, would be suitable, would furnish a town-hall, a market-house, or some such public building. In the city of London, the churches are applied to this purpose, and without scruple. In case of need, even any dwelling-house might serve. Where necessary, portable hustings might be erected for the day at a very moderate expense. As to the office-bearer, neither in the case of the district-clerk, nor in the case of the sub-district-clerk, would much time be occupied. As to the district-clerk, he would have scarce anything to do on any number of days in a year beyond one. In both instances, the official person would naturally be some country attorney. For the salary of the polling-district clerk—the only one of the two upon whom there would be a demand for any considerable part of his time—a hundred a-year, or even less, might suffice. The office would bring him into universal notice: with ordinary good behaviour, it would secure to him an ample stock of business.

In the case here supposed, the rights of suffrage not being determined by reference to habitations previously ascertained, distinguished, and denominated,—the difficulty to be overcome is that which might be liable to be produced by influxes of itinerant voters, brought together by accident without design, or by mischievous design. Householder suffrage might seem to obviate this. But, so as to exclude contestation and indefinite delay, how is it that for such a purpose the households could be ascertained and distinguished? Without contestation or difficulty, in by far the greater part of the United Kingdom, perhaps, yes: still, in many parts, there might remain enough to produce a quantity of contestation, the result of which it seems not very easy to foresee. Witness the Irish cottages.

[† ]The journeys in question are—those between the abodes of the several voters on the one part, and the respective polling offices on the other.

That these journeys, with the expense and loss of time attending them, should be as short as general convenience in other respects will admit, is indisputably desirable. The smaller the polling district, and the nearer the office is to the central point of the district, the shorter, upon an average, will these journeys be. If, in regard to these points, namely, smallness and centrality of situation, these polling districts are brought into a conformity with general convenience,—what the election districts are—the election districts in which the polling districts are respectively included,—will, in these respects, be matter of indifference. The extent of the election district is determined by the quantity of population; and this, as nearly as convenience in other respects will admit, is to be the same in all. But as, in respect of density of population, the difference between district and district will be so great—having for its limits the density of the population in the purely town districts, and the thinness of the population in the thinnest peopled country district—hence the difference in respect of extent will be proportionably great.

But, in the instance of each district, proportioned to its extent will be the number of the polling offices which, for reducing the length of journeys, will require to be established in it. For this purpose, in the purely town district, no polling office distinct from the election-district office will be requisite:—nor does it appear why it should for any other purpose. For, even upon the universal suffrage plan, the greatest possible number of voters (it will be seen) would not be more than 5000 or 6000; the customary number perhaps not more than three-fourths or a half of that number: and, by adding to the number of secret-selection boxes, as per Section 8, an unlimited addition might be made to the number of voters giving their votes at the same time.

Thus much as to the main consideration, by which the number of the polling districts in each election district will require to be determined. As to the number, and in particular as to the number which might require to be established in the most thinly peopled election district, it is not possible to speak with anything like decision, without a calculation, the labour of which would not here be paid for by the benefit. The only consideration, by which any limits can be set to the number, is that of the expense; and that unquestionably is no trifling one.

Here then comes in a question, by what fund the expense shall be borne? Answer—By the national fund; not by any local one. Neither the benefit, nor the facility of supporting the burthen, is any greater in the most thinly peopled than in the most densely peopled district: therefore neither should be the burthen itself, as expressed in pounds, shillings, and pence.

But though the exact extent of an election district is thus far immaterial, it may be in some degree matter of satisfaction to the reader to have in mind some general conception in relation to it. So likewise in relation to the quantity of the population, a quantity which, as above observed, will not only want much of being determinate, but will moreover be as near the average in the least extensive as in the most extensive districts. To this purpose, Mr. Rickman’s masterly and most instructive Preliminary Explanations prefixed to the Parliamentary Population Returns, printed in 1812, for the use of the Members, afford us much and very satisfactory information.

First, then, as to Great Britain:—

1. Inhabitants in Great Britain (anno 1811) per do. . . . . . . . . . . 12,353,000

2. Square miles in do., as per do. . 87,502

3. Divide inhabitants 12,353,000, by seats 558, Number of inhabitants to a seat is . 22,137a

4. Divide square miles 87,502 by seats, thence by districts, 558, number of square iniles to a district is . . . . . . . . . . . 156

5. In a district, greatest direct distance of any habitation from the district office, upon the supposition of its being in the centre of the circle in which the square is inscribed, is a fraction more than . . . . . . . . . . 8 miles 6 f.

6. Greatest travelling distance, on the supposition that to the above distance is to be added one-fourth more for the twinings and windings of roads, a fraction less than . . . 11 miles

7. Greatest travelling distance, on the supposition that, by reason of want of exact centrality in a town sufficiently adapted to the purpose, there are in some districts habitations at a distance half as great again as the above from the district office, a fraction more or less than . . 16 m. 4 f.

But it is in districts that are purely town districts, that a large proportion of the total population of Great Britain is contained. Of any such attempt, as that of ascertaining the exact proportion, by travelling for this purpose over the whole field of the parliamentary returns, the use would not here pay for the labour. For aid to conception, let us assume a result, differing perhaps not very widely from the correct result, and suppose the half of the population to be contained in those districts that are upon the purely town scale. But in districts so circumstanced, all taken together, the whole quantity of land is, in comparison of the whole quantity contained in the country districts, so small, that for simplicity of calculation, it may, perhaps, on this occasion, without any error very material to this purpose, be considered as nothing, and left out of the account. This being done, the consequence would be, that, to find the average number of square miles in a district, instead of dividing the whole number of square miles by the whole number, we should have to divide by no more than half the number of the districts. On that supposition, the lengths of utmost distance, as above mentioned, would be to be doubled. But, from the number of square miles in the most thinly peopled district, to the number in the most densely peopled district, the number would be descending in a regular series. This considered, instead of as large again, we may perhaps state the utmost length of journey, in that district which is the most thinly peopled, and thence the most extensive, as being half as large again as the number above stated.

On this supposition, we shall have for this utmost length, . . . . . . . . 24 m. 6 f.

Thus then comes in a topic, which, important as it is, could not have been touched upon in the text: namely, that of the injustice done, done by the Irish Union act, to Ireland, in respect of the proportionable number of the seats allotted to it. To Ireland, as to Great Britain, injustice in that or in any other shape could be done, and but too easily, under the system of disguised despotism:—could be done, and accordingly was done. But, with any prospect of success, neither in that, nor in any other shape, could injustice, especially so flagrant and so palpable, be so much as proposed, in any proposed system of equal liberty.

Note that, at the union with Scotland, the injustice was still more flagrant.

Now as to Ireland:—

1. Inhabitants in Ireland, as per Playfair’s “Statistical Tables,” anno 1800, and Pinkerton’s “Geography,” Vol. I. p. 213, anno 1807, by conjecture, in round numbers, . 4,000,000

2. From other accounts, that number being supposed to be rather under than over the mark, especially for the year of the British population returns, 1811, take, instead of it, the number which forms an exact third of the number of the inhabitants in Great Britain; namely, 4,114,333

3. Divide inhabitants 4,114,333, by seats 100, present actual number of inhabitants to a seat, neglecting fractions, is . . . . . . 41,143

4. Per Rickman, p. 30, “Scotland (with its islands) is about equal to Ireland in area, and is half as large as England and Wales.” Supposing these dimensions correct, as they are sufficiently for the present purpose,—say then square miles in England and Scotland taken together being 87,502, as above, square miles in Ireland are . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,167

5. Divide square miles 29,167, by seats 100, No. of square miles in Ireland to a seat is . 291

Such are the existing proportions, as marked out by the Irish Union act, under the system of distribution actually in existence. Observe now what would be the proportions under a system of equal justice.

The population of Ireland being, as above, one-third of Great Britain, the number of seats allotted to Ireland ought to have been, and ought now to be, one-third of the number of those allotted to Great Britain.

1. No. of seats for Great Britain and Ireland taken together is . . . . . . . . . 658

2. Instead of 658, take, for both together, the number which, being divisible by 3, is next above 658. This is . . . . . . . . . . 660

3. Proper share of Great Britain (three-fourths of 660) is accordingly—seats, instead of the present actual 558, . . . . . . . . . 495

4. Proper share of Ireland (one-fourth of 660) is—seats, instead of the present actual 100, . 165

Anno 1707 (the year of the Scottish Union) population of England, as per Rickman, from the population returns of 1812, . . 5,240,000

Divide inhabitants 5,240,000 by seats 513, this gives, to a million of inhabitants, seats nearly 100

At that time the population of Scotland could not have been less than . . . . 1,000,000

Seats for the million no more than . . 45

Note, on these occasions, as on all others, injustice, the continually increasing offspring of uncontrouled power. At the Scottish Union, England being strongest, was unjust to Scotland. At the Irish Union, England and Scotland together being strongest, were unjust to Ireland. But, Scotland being swallowed up in England, it is still to England that the honour of the injustice is due. On the ocean, England prides herself in being unjust to other nations—in exercising dominion over them: and this is another of her honours. Lords of the ocean indeed! This means lords of all other men upon earth, whenever they come upon the ocean. Out of our own country what right have we to be lords over any other men any where? But the time is coming when rascality will be rascality everywhere: not less when manifested upon the largest scale, than when upon the smallest.

But (says somebody) is not this sowing dissension amongst the friends of reform? Sowing dissension? Yes; so it would be, if, by shutting his own eyes, it were in a man’s power to shut other men’s: if by shutting their own eyes against injustice, when prepared to be committed to their advantage, it were in the power of Englishmen to shut the eyes of Scotchmen,—of Englishmen and Scotchmen together, to shut the eyes of Irishmen,—against injustice proposed to be committed to their disadvantage. But exists there any sort of mechanism capable of producing any such effect? I, for my part, know of none. Under the system of force and fraud, there is little difficulty in this; and practice insures, in a great degree, the success of it. Not so under a system of freedom and sincerity. In a case like this, I see not how, upon any tolerably promising grounds, a man can expect to receive justice, unless he begins with rendering it. For my part, I believe not that there either is, or can be, any scheme of political deception, that is not either already exposed, or in a way soon to be so. When a thing, that to me seems to be material, presents itself to my view, my notion always is—not that it will present itself to nobody else, but that it will present itself to everybody else.

Though in Ireland there has not as yet been any enumeration of the people, nor has any such survey been commenced, as that in which such considerable progress has already been made in Great Britain, [viz. in 1811,] yet, as in Ireland the quantity of surface is not more than about one-third of that in Great Britain, Ireland seems to be the country in which the conjunct operation might reasonably be expected to be soonest completed.

[† ]The journeys in question are—those between the abodes of the several voters on the one part, and the respective polling offices on the other.

That these journeys, with the expense and loss of time attending them, should be as short as general convenience in other respects will admit, is indisputably desirable. The smaller the polling district, and the nearer the office is to the central point of the district, the shorter, upon an average, will these journeys be. If, in regard to these points, namely, smallness and centrality of situation, these polling districts are brought into a conformity with general convenience,—what the election districts are—the election districts in which the polling districts are respectively included,—will, in these respects, be matter of indifference. The extent of the election district is determined by the quantity of population; and this, as nearly as convenience in other respects will admit, is to be the same in all. But as, in respect of density of population, the difference between district and district will be so great—having for its limits the density of the population in the purely town districts, and the thinness of the population in the thinnest peopled country district—hence the difference in respect of extent will be proportionably great.

But, in the instance of each district, proportioned to its extent will be the number of the polling offices which, for reducing the length of journeys, will require to be established in it. For this purpose, in the purely town district, no polling office distinct from the election-district office will be requisite:—nor does it appear why it should for any other purpose. For, even upon the universal suffrage plan, the greatest possible number of voters (it will be seen) would not be more than 5000 or 6000; the customary number perhaps not more than three-fourths or a half of that number: and, by adding to the number of secret-selection boxes, as per Section 8, an unlimited addition might be made to the number of voters giving their votes at the same time.

Thus much as to the main consideration, by which the number of the polling districts in each election district will require to be determined. As to the number, and in particular as to the number which might require to be established in the most thinly peopled election district, it is not possible to speak with anything like decision, without a calculation, the labour of which would not here be paid for by the benefit. The only consideration, by which any limits can be set to the number, is that of the expense; and that unquestionably is no trifling one.

Here then comes in a question, by what fund the expense shall be borne? Answer—By the national fund; not by any local one. Neither the benefit, nor the facility of supporting the burthen, is any greater in the most thinly peopled than in the most densely peopled district: therefore neither should be the burthen itself, as expressed in pounds, shillings, and pence.

But though the exact extent of an election district is thus far immaterial, it may be in some degree matter of satisfaction to the reader to have in mind some general conception in relation to it. So likewise in relation to the quantity of the population, a quantity which, as above observed, will not only want much of being determinate, but will moreover be as near the average in the least extensive as in the most extensive districts. To this purpose, Mr. Rickman’s masterly and most instructive Preliminary Explanations prefixed to the Parliamentary Population Returns, printed in 1812, for the use of the Members, afford us much and very satisfactory information.

First, then, as to Great Britain:—

1. Inhabitants in Great Britain (anno 1811) per do. . . . . . . . . . . 12,353,000

2. Square miles in do., as per do. . 87,502

3. Divide inhabitants 12,353,000, by seats 558, Number of inhabitants to a seat is . 22,137a

4. Divide square miles 87,502 by seats, thence by districts, 558, number of square iniles to a district is . . . . . . . . . . . 156

5. In a district, greatest direct distance of any habitation from the district office, upon the supposition of its being in the centre of the circle in which the square is inscribed, is a fraction more than . . . . . . . . . . 8 miles 6 f.

6. Greatest travelling distance, on the supposition that to the above distance is to be added one-fourth more for the twinings and windings of roads, a fraction less than . . . 11 miles

7. Greatest travelling distance, on the supposition that, by reason of want of exact centrality in a town sufficiently adapted to the purpose, there are in some districts habitations at a distance half as great again as the above from the district office, a fraction more or less than . . 16 m. 4 f.

But it is in districts that are purely town districts, that a large proportion of the total population of Great Britain is contained. Of any such attempt, as that of ascertaining the exact proportion, by travelling for this purpose over the whole field of the parliamentary returns, the use would not here pay for the labour. For aid to conception, let us assume a result, differing perhaps not very widely from the correct result, and suppose the half of the population to be contained in those districts that are upon the purely town scale. But in districts so circumstanced, all taken together, the whole quantity of land is, in comparison of the whole quantity contained in the country districts, so small, that for simplicity of calculation, it may, perhaps, on this occasion, without any error very material to this purpose, be considered as nothing, and left out of the account. This being done, the consequence would be, that, to find the average number of square miles in a district, instead of dividing the whole number of square miles by the whole number, we should have to divide by no more than half the number of the districts. On that supposition, the lengths of utmost distance, as above mentioned, would be to be doubled. But, from the number of square miles in the most thinly peopled district, to the number in the most densely peopled district, the number would be descending in a regular series. This considered, instead of as large again, we may perhaps state the utmost length of journey, in that district which is the most thinly peopled, and thence the most extensive, as being half as large again as the number above stated.

On this supposition, we shall have for this utmost length, . . . . . . . . 24 m. 6 f.

Thus then comes in a topic, which, important as it is, could not have been touched upon in the text: namely, that of the injustice done, done by the Irish Union act, to Ireland, in respect of the proportionable number of the seats allotted to it. To Ireland, as to Great Britain, injustice in that or in any other shape could be done, and but too easily, under the system of disguised despotism:—could be done, and accordingly was done. But, with any prospect of success, neither in that, nor in any other shape, could injustice, especially so flagrant and so palpable, be so much as proposed, in any proposed system of equal liberty.

Note that, at the union with Scotland, the injustice was still more flagrant.

Now as to Ireland:—

1. Inhabitants in Ireland, as per Playfair’s “Statistical Tables,” anno 1800, and Pinkerton’s “Geography,” Vol. I. p. 213, anno 1807, by conjecture, in round numbers, . 4,000,000

2. From other accounts, that number being supposed to be rather under than over the mark, especially for the year of the British population returns, 1811, take, instead of it, the number which forms an exact third of the number of the inhabitants in Great Britain; namely, 4,114,333

3. Divide inhabitants 4,114,333, by seats 100, present actual number of inhabitants to a seat, neglecting fractions, is . . . . . . 41,143

4. Per Rickman, p. 30, “Scotland (with its islands) is about equal to Ireland in area, and is half as large as England and Wales.” Supposing these dimensions correct, as they are sufficiently for the present purpose,—say then square miles in England and Scotland taken together being 87,502, as above, square miles in Ireland are . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,167

5. Divide square miles 29,167, by seats 100, No. of square miles in Ireland to a seat is . 291

Such are the existing proportions, as marked out by the Irish Union act, under the system of distribution actually in existence. Observe now what would be the proportions under a system of equal justice.

The population of Ireland being, as above, one-third of Great Britain, the number of seats allotted to Ireland ought to have been, and ought now to be, one-third of the number of those allotted to Great Britain.

1. No. of seats for Great Britain and Ireland taken together is . . . . . . . . . 658

2. Instead of 658, take, for both together, the number which, being divisible by 3, is next above 658. This is . . . . . . . . . . 660

3. Proper share of Great Britain (three-fourths of 660) is accordingly—seats, instead of the present actual 558, . . . . . . . . . 495

4. Proper share of Ireland (one-fourth of 660) is—seats, instead of the present actual 100, . 165

Anno 1707 (the year of the Scottish Union) population of England, as per Rickman, from the population returns of 1812, . . 5,240,000

Divide inhabitants 5,240,000 by seats 513, this gives, to a million of inhabitants, seats nearly 100

At that time the population of Scotland could not have been less than . . . . 1,000,000

Seats for the million no more than . . 45

Note, on these occasions, as on all others, injustice, the continually increasing offspring of uncontrouled power. At the Scottish Union, England being strongest, was unjust to Scotland. At the Irish Union, England and Scotland together being strongest, were unjust to Ireland. But, Scotland being swallowed up in England, it is still to England that the honour of the injustice is due. On the ocean, England prides herself in being unjust to other nations—in exercising dominion over them: and this is another of her honours. Lords of the ocean indeed! This means lords of all other men upon earth, whenever they come upon the ocean. Out of our own country what right have we to be lords over any other men any where? But the time is coming when rascality will be rascality everywhere: not less when manifested upon the largest scale, than when upon the smallest.

But (says somebody) is not this sowing dissension amongst the friends of reform? Sowing dissension? Yes; so it would be, if, by shutting his own eyes, it were in a man’s power to shut other men’s: if by shutting their own eyes against injustice, when prepared to be committed to their advantage, it were in the power of Englishmen to shut the eyes of Scotchmen,—of Englishmen and Scotchmen together, to shut the eyes of Irishmen,—against injustice proposed to be committed to their disadvantage. But exists there any sort of mechanism capable of producing any such effect? I, for my part, know of none. Under the system of force and fraud, there is little difficulty in this; and practice insures, in a great degree, the success of it. Not so under a system of freedom and sincerity. In a case like this, I see not how, upon any tolerably promising grounds, a man can expect to receive justice, unless he begins with rendering it. For my part, I believe not that there either is, or can be, any scheme of political deception, that is not either already exposed, or in a way soon to be so. When a thing, that to me seems to be material, presents itself to my view, my notion always is—not that it will present itself to nobody else, but that it will present itself to everybody else.

Though in Ireland there has not as yet been any enumeration of the people, nor has any such survey been commenced, as that in which such considerable progress has already been made in Great Britain, [viz. in 1811,] yet, as in Ireland the quantity of surface is not more than about one-third of that in Great Britain, Ireland seems to be the country in which the conjunct operation might reasonably be expected to be soonest completed.

[a]In the Congress House of Representatives, the proportion was, in 1810, one representative to every 35,000 inhabitants: that is, if the whole territory were divided into election districts, 35,000 inhabitants to an election district.—Seyfert, p. 13.In the constitution of these United States, of which the Congress is the general legislative body (date of the constitution, 17th September 1787,) in speaking of the Congress House of Representatives, it is said:—“The number of representatives (meaning from all the States taken together) shall not exceed one for every 30,000.” Art. II. Section 2.