Note XIII. Page 28.
Question. Why, for establishing the existence of the several facts employed in the composition of the title to a vote, omit to employ the ceremony of an vath'i Follow the answers.
1. The effect of it would be to put an exclusion upon an eminently re«pecta- 1)Ie class of persons, who, but for the bar set up against them by this instru- ment, would be entitled and admitted to vote.
2. By the ceremony, a considerable quantity of time and expense would be uselessly consumed.
S. In but too many instances, it is proved by experience to be void of effi- cacy, and thereby useless ( ).
4. By giving increase to the number of instances, in which it is notoriously au object of violation and contempt,* the application of the ceremony, on the * Amongst others, English University Oaths, by which, at entrance, the members, all of them swear to the observance of a set of ordinances, which no one of all these swearers fails to disobey: (see this shewn in " Swear not at ALL:") these University men, all of them: and amongst them, with few ex- ceptions, all who come afterwards to be Church of England Clergymen; and, with no exceptions, all who come afterwards to be Bishops and Archbishops; 62 62 occasion here in question, would liave the effect of dimiuishing whatsover in- fluence it might otherwise still possess, and thereby whatsoever useful security it might otherwise be capable of affording.
Note XIV Page 35.
[Enlarged Country Sc(de.'\ For some years past, a survey of Great Britain, on a scale that promises to be fully competent to this purpiise, has been going on with, under the orders of the Ordnance Board. Of the engravings, the scale is an inch tJ a mile: not more: on tliis scale thirty sheets are already pub« lished. In these sheets are included the following six Counties entire: namely, 1. Essex. 2. Cornwall. 3. Devon. 4. Somerset. 5. Dorset. 6. Hautv. 7. Pembroke. 8. Rutland. Also parts of the four following ones: nameiyi 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 Lon- don 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.
Note XV. Page 37.
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 21.
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 wlio pays Taxes. Good: but what Taxes? Taxes payable to the National Fond, such as those of late years called Assessed Taxes? or Taxes paid to local funds, such as Poor rates. Sac.? and what local funds in particular?
Under the existing system, in some Boroughs, every pot-wohbler, as tlie phrase is, is an Elector: every liaixitation in which a pot is boiled, gives a vote; and, in so far as this is admitted, the distinction between Householder- ship and Inniateship is obliterated. For, married or sin^e, 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 borrowed one.
But, with that exception, under the existing system, there is not (it is be- lieved) in any House more than one Householder: namely, the one peraoa by whom all House-taxes are paid. Lodgers, though there be ever so many diffe- rent families of them, pay House-taxes: heads and all other members of fanii- lies are indiscriminately styled Inmates.
not forgetting those who, under the name of blasphemy, are so eauer to draw down punishment, on the heads of all who, against that which for lucre they Uave made profession to believe, have written any thing which, in their opinion, cannot be sufficiently answered otherwise than by line and imprisonment.
So likewise Custom-House Oaths, and a vast vaiiety of other oaths prescribed by statutes.
Also Petty-Juj-ymen's Oaths:— oaths which are constantly violated by the minority, as oftea as any ultimate difference of opiniaa has place.
03 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 Dwel- ling 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 the taxes 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 tvhom 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 v. as called for by the nature of the case. Not but that, in a rough manner, it miglit perhaps be found not alto- gether impracticable to arrange the business, withont 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 siiould 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 re- form: a gradual progress in doing nothwg. 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 ele- ments, 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 agree- ing 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 in- deed 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 — saj', accordingly, upon ei'e\-y imaginable plan, operator in chief, one only, the Election-Master-General. Of his operation in Gi-eat 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 SHre resource than whit could be afforded by already existing maps: the rest would be to be dojie by 'separate 64 64 Idqniries. The Population Returns ef 1812 point out the persons to be resorted to, and tUe mode.
In Ireland, unfortnnately, the mass of those resources could not, it is appre- hended, 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 naigbt be imagined. For the Office, any Town that, in other re- spects, would be suitable, would furnish a Town Hall, a Market Honse, 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 niiglit 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 wonid have scarce any thing to do on any number of days in a year beyond one. In both instances the Official per- son would naturally be gome Country Attorney, For the Salary of the Polling Dis- trict Clerk — the only one of the two upon whom there woulJ 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 behavjpur it would secure to him an ample stock of business.
In the case here supposed, the rights of siiffmge not being determined by re- ference to habitations previously ascertained, distinguished, and denominated,— the difficulty to be overcome, is that which might be liable to be produced '.)y influxes of itinerant voters, broucht together by accident withoiit design, or by mischievous design. Householder suffi-age might seem to obviate this. But, so as to exclude contestation and indefinite delay, how is it that for such a pur. pose the Households could be ascertained and distinguished? Without contes- tation or difficulty, in by far the greater p,>rt 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 tlie Irish Cottages.
Note (0 XVII. Pace 39.
(Length of Journeys.) Tiie 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 jonrneys, with the expense and loss of time attending them, should be as short as general convenience in other respects will admit, is indis- putably desirable. The shialler 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. It, in regard to these points, namely, smallness and centrality of situation, these P»lling Districts are brought into a conformity with general convenience, — what the Election Districts are — the Election Districts in which the Polling Districts are respectively inch:ded — will, in these inspects, he matter of indifference. The extent of the Election District is determined by the quantity of population; and this, as neaily as convenience in other re- spects will admit, is to be the same in all. But, as in respect of density of population, the diffiirence between District and District will be so ^^ri tt — having for its limits the density ()f the pnpnlation in the purely Town D:stiicts, and the thinness of the population in (he 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 Pulling Offices, which, tor reducing the length of joinn^y-. will require to be establisiied in it. For this purpose, in the pun-Iy Town District, no Polling Office distinct from the Election District Office will be reijuiiiti'. — Dor does it appeal' why it should tor any other purpose. For, even upon th« universal suffrage plan, the greatest possible number of voters (it will be seen) would not be more tlian 5 or 6000; the customary number perhaps not more than three fourths or a half of that number: and, by addine; to the number of secret-selection Boxes, as per Section 8., an unlimited addition might be made t« the number of voters giving their votes at the same time.
Thus much as to tlie 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 nimiber which might require to be esta- blished in the most thinly peopled Election District, it is not possible to speak with any thing 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 DO trifling one.
Here then romes 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 moat 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 (jiian- tily of the population; a quantity which, us 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. Rick- man's masterly and most instructive Preliminary Explanations prefixed to th« Parliamentary Population Returns, printed in ISli?, for the use of the Members, afford lis onicb and very satisfactory information.
1. First, then, as to Great Britain.
1. Inhabitants in Great Britain (anno 1811) per do 12,353,000 3. Square miles in do, as per do 87,503 3. Divide inhabitants 12,353,000, by Seats 558, No. of inhabitants to a seat is, 22,137* 4. Divide square miles 87,502 by Seats, thence by Districts, 558, No. of square miles to a District is, 156 5. In a DislTict, 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 frac- tion less than 11 m.
. 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. 4f.
* 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 gene- ral legislative body, (date of the constitution, 17 September, 1787,) in speak- ing of the Congress House of Representatives, it is said: — " The number of Representatives (meaning from all the States taken together) shall not exceed •ne for every 30,000." Art 2, Section 2.
H 66 But it is in Districts tliat are purely Town Districts, tliat a large prtiportion of tlie total population of Great Britain is contained. Of any sucli attempt, as tliat of ascertuining the exact proportion, by travcliiDf; for tliis purpose over the whole field of llie Parliamentary Returns, the use would not here pay for the labour. For aid to conception, let us assume a result, diti'ering pet haps not' very widely from the correct result, and suppose the h(tlf of the population to be contained in those Districts that are upon the purely Town scale. But in Dis- tricts 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 aveiage 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 mimber 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 regn- lar series. This con-idered, instead of as large again, we may perhaps state the utmost length of journey, in that District which is the most thi.ily peopled and thence the most extensive, as being half as large again as tlie number above stated.
On this supposition, we shall have for this utmost length, 24m. 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 al- lotted 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 despo- tism:— could be done, and accordingly eras 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 libertj'.
^lote that, at the Union with Scotland, the injustice was still more flagrant.
Now as to Ireland.
1. Inhabitants in Ireland, as per Playfaii-'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, 4,114,33S 3. Divide inhabitants 4,114,333, by seafs 100, present actual number of in- habitants to a seat, neglecting fractions, is 41,143 4. Per Rickman, p. 30, " Scotland (with its islands) is about equal to Ire- land in area, and is half as large as England and Wales." Supposing these di- mensions 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, ggj Such are the existing proportions, as marked out by the Irish Union act, un- der the system of distribution actually in existence. Observe now what would be the proportions under a system of equal justice.
The population of Iieland being, as above, one-third of Great Britain, the number of s<=u<s allotted to Ireland ought to have been, and ought now to be, one-third of the number of those allotted to Great Britain.
67 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 S. 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-fourtb 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 Inha- bitants, Seats nearly 100 At that time the Population of Scotland could nothave been less than i,000,000 Seats for the million no more than 45 Note, on these occasions, as on all others, injustice, the continnally increasing offspring of uncontrouled power. At the Scottish Union, En<;Ian(! being strong- est, was unjust to Scotland. At the Irish Union, England and Scotland together, being strongest, were unjnst 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 other honours. Lords of the Ocean indeed! This means Lords of all other men upon earth, whenever they come upon tlie 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 every where: 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 re- form? 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 agains' 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 Scotch- men together, to shut the eyes of Irishmen, — against injustice proposed to be com- mitted 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 every body else.
Though in Ireland there has not as yet been any enumeration of the people, nor has any guch survey been commenced, as that in which such considerable progress has already been made in Great Britain, 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.
Note XVIIT. Page 41.
{This considered'] The formulary thus expressed is here substituted through- out to the Whereas which has beeu hitherto in use. Without the benefit of the addition made by it to the otherwise sufficient incomprehensibility of the rule es of action, the sentences in an Act of Parliament are snfBciently protracted qnd involved: with this addition, tiie attention is frequently exhausted before so much as any one expression of the le<;islator's will is so much as commenced. In Kuffhead's edition I remember seeing a statute, in which the preamble, introduced by this word, occupies more than 13 pages of that close and spacious letter press. Bound volumes might be found, each of which does not contain more than this preamble. I am sorry 1 can not now make reference to the statute. I am inclined to think it is one of those of which the East India Company was the subject.
In French legislation the sort of matter our lawyers introduce by a Whereas, has a particular name. The times before the Revilution are those which I have in view. It is called the Condderant oi the law. It exhibits the facts or supposed tacts, on the consideration of which, in the character of reasons, or inducements, the law, or portion of law, has been grounded. But, like our Whereas, this Cunsiderant used to precede the mention of the facts, and in the same way glue them together into one sentence. Leaving them to be set down before it one by one, the form here employed (it may be seen^ sets them free.