The Great Pyramid Of Giza And Why It Was Probably Not A Tomb

a reply to: Scott Creighton

SC: And we know why you’re “not playing”. Because you know the answer to my two questions is “YES”. ...

No: because, as already explained, in quite simple words, loaded questions and attempts to force “yes or no” answers are fallacious and I’m not about to indulge you in your resort to such debating tricks.

SC: I am not questioning the law as it stood in 1807. ...

Yes, you are: even if you can't bring yourself to admit that you are.

... Until I pointed out to you that such a post election payment, if a 'prior promise' had been made and proven, would make the payment illegal. ...

As was explained to you in the first place by my co-author.

And where is the evidence of these prior promises?

... THAT IS BRIBERY. PERIOD.

From “The Hertford Borough Bill of 1834” by Violet Rowe, published in Parliamentary History in 1992:

In the ensuing debate several M.P.s declared themselves unconvinced that bribery and corruption had prevailed at the Hertford election – it was not illegal for an M.P. to distribute ‘vote-money’ after an election to those who had voted for him. ...

Why should we - or, indeed, anyone - take you seriously?

SC: Vyse was the candidate. He was responsible for his election. The buck stopped with him. ...

As legal opinion or moral judgement, I think we may safely discount this. It is certainly historically inept.

A mere reiteration of your dogmatic assertions is omitted.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Because, Hooke, the simple truth is this. ...

I've found from years of bitter experience, that, when you say something like this, what follows is usually anything but true.

... We know for a fact that Vyse PAID CASH FOR VOTES. That is what Joseph Hind actually attested to at the Beverley Bribery Commission in 1869. That is what Vyse DID according to this witness at that 1869 inquiry. ...

No ... we don't anything of the sort! Hind attested to no such thing.

I see you are careful not to mention that my co-author reproduced the relevant minutes of evidence on this board six years ago. These are those most relevant to the present issue:

[Minutes of Evidence taken before the Beverley Bribery Commission]

[Joseph Hind, examined by Commissioner Barstow on 13 September 1869]

[p. 393]

24,063. (The witness.) I should like now to explain to the Commissioners the custom which has prevailed with regard to this payment of money. I do not know whether they understand it or not. It has been customary for generations past. I hold in my hand a book of the date of 1807 containing a list of all the persons paid at that election. I should like the Commissioners to know this for the sake of the credit of the borough, as questions have been asked of different witnesses as to how it happens that this system prevails. On the first page of this book there is an entry, “Paying Capt. Vyse’s voters, 16th June 1808 [sic], R. Dalton.” Out of 1,010 who voted for Capt. Vyse it appears from these entries that only 78 did not receive money. For a plumper the amount paid was 3l. 8s., and a split vote 1l. 14s. There are several persons who did not vote, for a very good reason, for some of them were in prison. At that time they used to pay wives, grandfathers, grandmothers, uncles, aunts, and everybody connected with them. So that many of these freemen have drunk in the system with their mothers’ milk.

24,064. (Mr. Barstow.) What is the authority for these numbers?—It is in the writing of Mr. Frederick Campbell, one of my predecessors and afterwards mayor of Beverley; it is partly in his writing and partly in the writing of Mr. Bland; and it is added up in the writing of another of my predecessors, Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Bland was another leading gentleman in the town. You will see that there were several persons paid who did not vote. In fact the system was universal. Everyone took the money. It has been handed down to the present time, the principle of it. I am not mentioning it for the purpose of justifying it, but merely that the Commissioners might have a little consideration.

There is nothing here to warrant the impression you give, that Richard William Howard Vyse handed out cash in person. The name we see in connection with the payments is R. Dalton, probably Robert Dalton, a banker’s clerk, although we are told that the writing in the book is that of three other people. There is nothing which tells us who provided the money: it could have been his father, General Richard Vyse, or someone else in the local establishment who supported the younger Vyse’s candidacy. We don’t know.

... The question of a prior promise is irrelevant as is the fact that Vyse made the bribery payments after the election. ...

I think we may safely discount your expert legal opinion: it's got no relevance to how things actually were in 1807.

... Councillor Hind presents to this inquiry how Vyse's actions in the 1807 election were an example of how the "customary payment" for votes was done and how far back this electoral corruption in Beverley went. And why would Vyse have needed to pay the voters of Beverley? Because they were corrupt and expected the payment, as the inquiry learned:

Now you’re beginning to get the idea.

"...it was well known in Beverley that without expending money in corrupt practices no candidate would have the slightest chance of success." - Great Britain House of Commons, Commissioners Report: Elections Beverley Vol 18, p.12

Let’s see the whole of that sentence:

From the evidence of Mr. J. Hind, of Mr. Daniel Keane, and others, we have come to the conclusion that not less than four fifths of the persons who voted for the Liberal candidate in July 1865 were bribed; that from the commencement of the canvass it was contemplated by the candidate and his friends to have recourse to bribery, as it was well known in Beverley that without expending money in corrupt practices no candidate would have the slightest chance of success.

So, you’re projecting what was “well known in Beverley” in 1865 back to 1807 ...

My co-author went back further:

Lest anyone make the fatuous suggestion that serpent-in-the-garden Vyse introduced this “custom”, the Victoria County History already cited shows that electoral bribery went back much further than 1807, with the treating of voters “a well established custom by 1722”.

While you yourself, later that year and citing this same source, noted that it was events in Beverley which led to the Bribery Act of 1729.

The corruption of the Borough of Beverley went back a long way - and this was Vyse’s fault (born 1784) how exactly?

How does this prove that Vyse had a disposition to fraud, broadly defined, that might at a stretch be relevant to the events of 1837?

And if they all expected to be paid for their vote and Vyse then obliged them, then Vyse is as guilty of corruption as they are.

Is this your expert legal opinion? Or are you offering this as a moral judgement? I think we may safely discount both.

Vyse perpetrated electoral fraud in the UK General Election of 1807. You can deny it to yourself all you want but it won't make it any less so.

As “fraud” is a legal category, here you are merely lapsing back into your “Vyse broke the law” dogma - and this is nothing to do with my “deny[ing] it to [my]self” or any such reductive psychologising. It’s to do with challenging you to justify your assertions.

Prove it.

a reply to: Hooke

Let's make this even simpler for you, Hermione, as it seems I must.

My first question, which you refused to answer:

1) In 1807, was it illegal in UK General Elections to pay cash for votes (Yes or No)?

From the 1695 Act:



This Act of the English Parliament applied in 1807. As you can plainly see, cash for election votes was contrary to the act i.e. illegal. (Yes, it was ineffective for a number of reasons and unscrupulous MPs took advantage of that and went to considerable means to get around the act). But the simple FACT is: offering cash for votes was against the law. And that applied up to the 1807 election.

Now my second question, which you also refused to answer:

2) After his election victory, did Colonel Vyse pay cash to those who voted for him (Yes or No)?

"On the first page of this book there is an entry, “Paying Capt. Vyse’s voters, 16th June 1808 [sic], R. Dalton.” Out of 1,010 who voted for Capt. Vyse it appears from these entries that only 78 did not receive money. For a plumper the amount paid was 3l. 8s., and a split vote 1l. 14s."

SC: YES, he did. And the cash paid here to Vyse's electors, according to Hind, was for actual VOTES. Not for election expenses or any other legitimate expense that they may have incurred. But CASH FOR VOTES. That is what we are told the money was for. And if that knowledge had surfaced shortly after Vyse's election victory in 1807 or 1808, I rather suspect history would have been very different. But it didn't surface and he got away, Scot free.

Now you can try and bring in your latest little wheeze to try and exonerate Vyse from any blame here simply because he wasn't the one who was on teller duty, dishing out the actual cash, but all you're doing really is merely insulting our intelligence, expecting folks to accept that Vyse was somehow totally clueless and blameless as to what was going on. Sheesh!!

It was Vyse's election. Thus Vyse's responsibility. Vyse's corruption. And Vyse's electoral fraud. The electorate in Beverley were entirely open to bribery (to receiving the 'customary payment') and had been at every election for "generations". And Vyse, in 1807, didn't disappoint and indulged their expectations by coughing up the 'customary payment' (which, of course, being 'customary' would have been expected BEFORE the election). As I said before--they are as guilty of corruption as each other.

Vyse--guilty as charged.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

It was Vyse's election. Thus Vyse's responsibility. Vyse's corruption. And Vyse's electoral fraud.

And he had something to gain and made use of it, right?

So why (if the forgery is true, which I don't believe for a second) would he forge something and then not use it to his advantage? He's clearly ambitious.

I think that if he'd faked it (which isn't likely) then his name would be in the papers and he'd be lionizing himself all over England for it instead of the other accomplishments of his.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

At the time of the 1807 election, Vyse - in common with most other electoral candidates - followed what was then standard practice.

Despite the subsequent petition by Staples, his election was not voided, and he was never convicted of breaking any law.

In the relieving chambers of the GP, he found a series of crew-marks (based on cartouche names of Khufu) that were subsequently found to reflect AE labour organisation practice. He lost no time in inviting independent witnesses to come and look at them.

The proposal that he found, and copied from, a "secret cache" of such crew-marks is examined in detail in Part II of The Strange Journey of Humphries Brewer.

It is safe to conclude that the crew-marks discovered by Vyse and his colleagues were authentic.

a reply to: Hooke

H: At the time of the 1807 election, Vyse - in common with most other electoral candidates - followed what was then standard practice.

SC: People today will park their car on a double-yellow line, doesn’t mean it’s legally okay to do so just because lots of others are doing it. All you’re saying here is that “most other electoral candidates” were also breaking the law. That doesn’t absolve any of them. They’re all as guilty as each other. Those that engaged in this “standard practice “ were breaking the law as it stood in 1807.

H: Despite the subsequent petition by Staples, his election was not voided, and he was never convicted of breaking any law.

SC: And we know why. The evidence of his electoral malpractice did not surface until 15 years after his death. Had Joseph Hind’s little book of Beverley bribery been available to the Parliamentary Committee investigating the Beverley election of 1807 (as per Staples' petition), I have little doubt that they would have reached the complete opposite verdict.

Vyse, like many at the time, committed electoral fraud. And like many, he got away with it.

[snip]

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

The Bribery Act of 1729 was more useful than the 1695 Act but still not worth the paper it was written on - it was rejected twice by the House of Lords.

In 1807 only 5% of the population were elligable to vote and, of those, many took bribes from all parties. So even offering cash for votes didn't guarantee you would actually get that vote.

The 1832 Representation of the People Act went further towards eliminating corruption (particularly the sordid practice of rotten boroughs) but it wasn't until the 1867 Representation of the People Act (which massively increased the numbers of voters) that electoral fraud really became an issue and the need to stamp it out became widespread. Things moved quickly then, with the 1872 Ballot Act introducing the need for secret ballots and then further in 1883 the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act.

In short, in 1807 it may have been technically illegal but it was not enforced and it was widespread. The only people who could prosecute were the Lords and they had no appetite to change the status quo. The only chance of ever being convicted of electoral fraud was if you fell out with the wrong people.

It was 1867 that this started to change, not before.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Scott Creighton


It was 1867 that this started to change, not before.

It was against the law of the land in 1807 for anyone to pay cash (or receive cash) for votes at a UK election. Period. Vyse paid cash for votes in 1807. Vyse broke the law of the land in 1807. Period.

SC

Aren’t we are talking about the same Howard Vyse who brought a coffin into the third Giza Pyramid? A coffin from over 2,000 years after Menkara even lived. The same Howard Vyse that had the coffin filled with bones from someone who had lived in the Christian era? The same Howard Vyse who put the two together and claimed it as his archaeological find?

a reply to: Scott Creighton

It was against the law of the land in 1807 for anyone to pay cash (or receive cash) for votes at a UK election. Period. Vyse paid cash for votes in 1807. Vyse broke the law of the land in 1807. Period.

As I’ve mentioned a couple of times, I think we may safely discount your “expert” legal opinion.

You cannot go back to statute and “interpret” it freely and assume that it’s saying what you want it to say. You need to look at case law, to see how the relevant statutes were interpreted in practice. As already outlined, it is clear from the case of Sudbury in particular that statute was interpreted just as I’ve said it was interpreted—and interpretation of statute by competent authorities is law.

For your convenience, I repeat what Simeon wrote:

... a distribution of money after the election, unless coupled with an act done, or a promise made before, however it may induce suspicion [my emphasis], will not raise a presumption in a court of justice; ...

For your information, the text you say is from “the 1695 Act” (sic) and reproduce as an image contains a reference to “49 Geo. III, c. 118”: an Act of the reign of George III, so plainly this text is not from the Treating Act, 1696, even without our knowing (as is easy to find out) that the Act so referenced is of 1809 (and so, inter alia, plainly irrelevant to the events of 1807). As far as I can see, none of the wording you reproduce is actually in the statute of 1696, so I repeat my earlier suggestion: that “you may find it better, when purporting to quote from a statute, to actually do so.”

Your source would appear to be this one.

It is perfectly clear at this point that the “law” your expound upon with such orotund assurance is merely a figment of your wishful thinking. Adding “of the land” to it is not the improvement required.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Ah ok, you are more interested in the literal rather than the practical application. Fair enough.

But in which case, was Vyse charged and convicted of electoral fraud? No conviction then both literal and practical applications prove no crime was committed. Without conviction for the crime then it didn't happen - it's just hearsay.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Aren’t we are talking about the same Howard Vyse who brought a coffin into the third Giza Pyramid? A coffin from over 2,000 years after Menkara even lived.

A coffin dating to the 26th Dynasty, with bones dating to the Coptic period.

The same Howard Vyse that had the coffin filled with bones from someone who had lived in the Christian era? The same Howard Vyse who put the two together and claimed it as his archaeological find?

What is your evidence for this claim?

The reuse of tombs was not uncommon in AE.

Scott,

The source you quoted recently is Francis Newman Rogers (1820), The Law and Practice of Elections.

I suggest you look at how Rogers states the same point as the other sources I’ve quoted.

Hooke

Scott,

Again on Rogers (1820), how were you able to overlook this?

A voter is said to be bribed, if he “shall ask, receive, or take any money or other reward, by way of gift, loan, or other device; or agree or contract for any money, gift, office, employment, or other reward whatsoever, to give his vote, or to refuse or forbear to give his vote.” Such is the definition which is given of bribery in the stat. 2 Geo. II. This statute, however, did not alter the law, otherwise than by affixing to every distinct criminal act cumulative penalties. (Vide this Act, App. 2.)

The statute 2 Geo. II, c. 24, is the Bribery Act, 1729.

a reply to: Hooke

And around in circles we go.

You are back to your Sudbury defense. And you ignore my earlier comments on it. This defense is utterly MOOT.

Paying cash for votes after the election (even WITHOUT a prior contract/agreement or promise not being proven) can still be considered as bribery. From your Sudbury Case:



And that last sentence is also significant, for even the “…slightest understanding between the parties is sufficient…” to be considered as bribery.

As you pointed out earlier (although you left out the opening sentence):

‘inchoate’

adjective

1.
just begun and so not fully formed or developed; rudimentary.
"a still inchoate democracy"

2.
LAW
(of an offence, such as incitement or conspiracy) anticipating or preparatory to a further criminal act. (My emphasis).

The electors of Beverley in the 1807 election, as was customary at elections there, would have been anticipating the ‘customary payment’ from the candidate(s) for their vote. And that is what Hind tells us was paid to the voters -- a ‘customary payment’ for votes. (Barstow, correctly, identifies these ‘customary payments’ as bribes).

By coughing up an anticipated ‘customary payment’ to the voters of Beverley (even if after the election), does not get Vyse off the hook because the payments made by him being ‘customary’ (as per Hind) were thus “inchoate” -- there would have been more than the “slightest understanding” by Vyse of what this ‘customary payment’ was for and he and his voters would have had that understanding BEFORE a single vote was cast. Let me repeat that: ...he and his voters would have had that understanding BEFORE a single vote was cast. That is the implication of a 'customary payment' that Hind tells us Vyse paid. Expectation of a 'customary payment' by the voters from the candidate before a single vote was cast effectively amounts to a 'prior promise', an 'implied agreement'.

And thus, Vyse, by paying money (some time later) to voters who were anticipating receipt (at some future date) of such a 'customary payment' well BEFORE a single vote had been cast, means Vyse was indulging the voters’ pre-election expectations and, as such, he was engaging in electoral fraud.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

That is all just semantics though, isn't it?

He was either charged and convicted or he wasn't. And if he wasn't, then any allegations are simply either hearsay or spurious claims - not proof of guilt. That is the very premise of law, innocent until proven guilty.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Scott Creighton

That is all just semantics though, isn't it?

He was either charged and convicted or he wasn't. And if he wasn't, then any allegations are simply either hearsay or spurious claims - not proof of guilt. That is the very premise of law, innocent until proven guilty.

You'll be telling us next that Jimmy Savile should still be considered a national treasure here in the UK.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

You are back to your Sudbury defense. And you ignore my earlier comments on it. ...

I was being kind - and I think we may safely discount your “expert” legal opinion in this post also.

It’s not a defence, Scott. It’s a textbook reference on how the law was interpreted circa 1805.

... From your Sudbury Case:

Not my Sudbury Case. Again you are coy about your source, but it’s not too hard to find: the text you reproduce is from a work of 1844 and what you quote is part of a Select Committee’s discussion of an election at Lyme Regis in 1842. We see part of an argument advanced by a Mr. Cockburn (counsel for the petitioners): in developing his argument, he mentions a Sudbury case, described earlier in the text, as specified in the footnote: “Ante, p. 237.” Following that up, we find that the case concerns an election also in 1842, long after the one of which Simeon (1795) and Peckwell (1805) wrote.

Sorry to have to tell you, but the discussions and decisions of Select Committees in 1842 tell us nothing about how the law was interpreted circa 1807.

As you pointed out earlier (although you left out the opening sentence):

As I linked to my source, you have nothing to complain of. I see that you fail to specify yours. Here it is: Arthur Male (1820), A Treatise on the Law and Practice of Elections. Not sure what your point is here, as this is merely the same point as stated by Simeon and Peckwell, in (as you noticed) much the same words.

Sorry to have to say this, but your exposition is inept - and again, I think we may safely discount your pronouncements.

a reply to: Hooke

… I think we may safely discount your “expert” legal opinion in this post also.

SC: It’s not my legal opinion at all. It is the opinion of the Parliamentary Committee of 1842.

H: It’s not a defence, Scott. It’s a textbook reference on how the law was interpreted circa 1805.

SC: It is a reference you are using to defend Vyse, thus a “defence”.

H: …we find that the case concerns an election also in 1842, long after the one of which Simeon (1795) and Peckwell (1805) wrote. Sorry to have to tell you, but the discussions and decisions of Select Committees in 1842 tell us nothing about how the law was interpreted circa 1807.

SC: The Beverley Bribery Commission took place in 1869 – 62 years after Vyse’s corrupt election. I would have thought it was clear to you by now that matters can arise from investigations into later elections that raise matters relevant to earlier elections. Now, unless you can point me to the particular statute with regard to ‘prior promise/contract/understanding’ and show how it was repealed or reformed between 1807-1842, then the comments of the 1842 Commissioners are perfectly relevant to Vyse’s 1807 election. And what they say is this:

”…a contract is not so essentially necessary to bribery as is represented. It is next to absurd to talk of a contract where there could be no binding force annexed to it, which would be the case with a contract for the sale of a vote. There cannot be a legal contract where the subject of the contract is in itself illegal. Moreover, the definition given in the statute, which has been quoted, does not make a contract essential. The words of the statute are, “if any person having or claiming to have a right to vote shall ask, receive or take any money or other reward by way of gift, loan, or other device or contract for any money, gift, office, employment, or other reward whatsoever, to give or forbear to give his votes, &c.” The statute consequently contemplates two cases, the one where there is an agreement, the other where there is none, like the present case. It is clear that any understanding is sufficient without any contract.

From here.

H: Not sure what your point is here…

SC: And I am quite sure you know exactly my point. The above notwithstanding, a “customary payment” (as Joseph Hind describes Vyse’s payments) constitutes an “understanding”. This ‘customary payment’ was paid by the successful candidates to their voters in Beverley for “generations past”. Vyse’s electors anticipated such a post-election payment even before a single vote was cast. That was the ‘understanding’, the ‘unspoken, unwritten agreement’. The custom. A ‘customary payment’ becomes an 'understanding' or 'informal agreement' because the same system was in place “for generations past”. Being ‘customary’ implies knowledge of what went before, and Vyse followed what went before. Which means he would have had foreknowledge (i.e. before a vote was cast) that he would have to pay the Beverley voters cash for their votes. And he did pay them the 'customary payment'. That’s what Joseph Hind tells us. Vyse followed the custom.

So, even although Vyse (seemingly) handed over the cash after the election, it is plainly evident that he would have known (even BEFORE a single vote was cast), that he would have to pay the voters the customary payment for their vote (at some point). THAT is a premeditated action. THAT is bribery. THAT is electoral fraud.

"...it was well known in Beverley that without expending money in corrupt practices no candidate would have the slightest chance of success." - Great Britain House of Commons, Commissioners Report: Elections Beverley Vol 18, p.12

And Vyse certainly would have known, beforehand, he would have to indulge the corrupt voters of Beverley with his dirty cash for votes. And he did pay them his dirty cash. Making him as corrupt as them.

Doubtless you will now try and spin your way around this but customary payments being made by Vyse (or on his behalf) most certainly would have been found to be corrupt had Joseph Hind’s testimony been known to the investigating committee in 1807.

SC

a reply to: Hooke

A small correction: the elections at Sudbury and Lyme Regis, discussed by Select Committees in 1842, took place in 1841.