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

a reply to: Hooke

H: Paying voters after an election was not deemed to be bribery under the law as it stood in 1807.

SC: Rubbish!

Yes, Vyse made sure no money changed hands before or during the Parliamentary investigation into the charge against him. In 1807, elections were not the private affairs we have today. Each elector declared publicly who they were voting for and whether and how they wished their vote to be split. This allowed Vyse’s agents (likely with a nod and a wink) to take a note of all the electors who voted in Vyse’s favour and to later pay all but 78 of them (privately) after the parliamentary bribery enquiry had concluded (he’s hardly going to make payments to his voters during a bribery inquiry).

H: Nor were such payments considered to be grounds for voiding an election. It is mere supposition that the Select Committee which examined Major Philip Staple’s petition was unaware of these payments when it declined to void the result in Staple's favour. although, even if it had known about them, it would have made no difference.

SC: Rubbish!

[snip] Irrelevant tosh.

H: In passing: you may find it better, when purporting to quote from a statute (HOAX, 33), to actually do so. The Act in question is not called “the Corrupt Practices Act of 1696”, and nor does it contain the wording:
... candidates for election who gave or promised any present or reward to any person having a vote ...

SC: In passing, you do so love to pick a pedantic point, don’t you. Well, once again, you’re talking rubbish.

The Corrupt Practices Act 1695 (7 & 8 Will. III, c. 4) was an Act of Parliament of the Parliament of England passed in 1696, the long title of which is "An Act for preventing Charge and Expence in Elections of Members to serve in Parliament." – from en.wikipedia.org...

SC: I used the colloquial description. Big deal! Now consult HOAX, 36 and you’ll find I give the Act its proper name, the “Treating Act, 1696”. Now just quit the pedantry obsessions.

H: Despite your claims, therefore, what Vyse did could not be called bribery, and he was at no point deemed to have broken any laws.

SC: These aren’t my claims – it’s a fact. Vyse’s electors were paid handsomely for their votes. That it was never shown that a prior promise of payment was made by Vyse or his agents (i.e. before or during the vote) is the only reason Vyse got away with it and wasn’t convicted. Paying your voters AFTER an election is just as ILLEGAL as before or during the election if it can be proven that a prior promise of payment was made, thus your comments above that paying voters afterwards was somehow perfectly okay are utter rubbish. It would only have been okay and legal if NO PRIOR PROMISE had been made. And how many of Vyse electors would admit to such and risk losing that promise of cash? I suspect precisely none.

Now, if you think such a prior promise of payment wasn’t made by Vyse or his agents to Vyse’s electors and that Vyse made these payments to them afterwards only out of the kindness of his heart, then you are merely engaging in cynical expediency and intellectual cheating, which I simply will not entertain. You are not that naive. The man was corrupt and these payments made to his electors after the inquiry into his election had concluded (a year later), prove it.

“A distinction was clearly drawn by electors between bribery to attract votes and payments and gifts as a reward to the loyal supporters of a political party, and those who admitted receiving money often displayed a sophisticated ability to make subtle moral distinctions.” – Markham, Nineteenth Century Parliamentary Elections, p.4

SC: You are indulging in the exact same moral chicanery.

SC

a reply to: Hooke

H: Having established that Vyse was not guilty of any breaches of electoral law as it stood in the early 19th century, perhaps I could now move on to the other points in your post.

SC: No one said he was convicted. The evidence that surfaced after his death, however, tells us he paid his voters and thus should have been convicted. (Unless you take the naïve and frankly cynical view that Vyse merely paid his voters afterwards out of the kindness of his heart). Only a fool or an intellectual cheat would believe such rubbish.

Doubtless then you would barely wince at video footage of Jimmy Saville with kids sitting on his knee because he was never found “guilty” by any court of law. Or does your moral compass work only when it suits you?

[snip] Deflection.

H: As for me, I am happy to go with the consensus of those who, having studied the subject, know something about it (such as Lepsius, Sethe, Reisner, Roth, Dobrev, Andrássy …

SC: You’re entitled to your opinion. You’re entitled to believe who you want to believe. However, presenting a bibliography of et als is nothing more than another of your fallacies, this time. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (argument from authority).

H: it is not the job of evidence to “prove” that things are “genuine”.

SC: It was evidence that proved the ‘Hitler Diaries’ were fake. Paper, bindings and ink are all pieces of evidence and, when forensically analysed, provided information that was inconsistent with the diaries being genuine. What forensic analysis has been made of these painted marks? What forensic analysis has been made of Mr Hill’s facsimile copies of these marks? What forensic analysis has been made of Perring’s drawings? What forensic analysis has been made of Vyse’s private journal?

H: It therefore falls to you to show that prima facie ancient Egyptian inscriptions are not what they appear to be: inscriptions written by ancient Egyptians.

SC: Exactly! “appear to be”!! You do not know if those painted marks are genuine because the mere existence of those painted marks says nothing of their provenance and they cannot prove their own provenance. Their provenance still must be confirmed by those claiming authenticity. You are merely accepting their authenticity on the word of a known fraudster. And that is nothing more than blind faith. The thinking among us require a much higher standard of proof and, even more so, when there is now considerable information available that runs contrary to their believed authenticity.

SC: How many of those individuals you cite have considered (just to cite a few examples), the back-to-front numbers in Campbell's Chamber,

H: Your less-than-lucid reasoning on this point is less than convincing.

SC: Evasion. The point stands.

SC: or the disappearing sign from Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber

H: There was no disappearing sign. The problem lay in your failure to grasp the technical processes required in the 19th century for the publication of images.

SC: Trying to deflect the problem into some deficiency on my part is an old ploy – it won’t work.

Here are the drawings made by Perring and Hill from a stone block in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber:



Mr Perring's drawing is a lithographic reproduction. Mr Hill's is my own impression of Hill's original.

Notice the sign in the blue dashed box (Perring’s). That is an upside-down sign (Gardiner’s AA20). It is the only sign on that block that is upside-down, thus anomalous. It is also the only sign on that block that has been duplicated – the sign (bottom-left) is the roughly drawn, upright version of the same sign. Why do you think the anomalous sign in the blue dashed box has disappeared from Mr Hill’s drawing? (Keep in mind here that these drawings by these two men were likely made within a few days of each other and that Hill's drawing was checked against the actual block marks some weeks later and verified as an accurate facsimile by several witnesses).

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

H: Paying voters after an election was not deemed to be bribery under the law as it stood in 1807.

SC: Rubbish!

A statement of the relevant point (of law) in a work of 1805 (Peckwell):

... the case of Sudbury, 2 Ld. Gl. 137. was cited, as a stronger case than the present: there, “the petitioners stated that they could prove a very public distribution of money among the voters for the sitting members after the election, but as they did not say they had any proof either of money being given, or promises of money being made by them previous to, or during, the election, the committee seemed to think this would not affect their seats: and no evidence was gone into on this head.”

Which - actually - of us is writing “rubbish” ... ??

Yes, Vyse made sure no money changed hands before or during the Parliamentary investigation into the charge against him. ...

Which has nothing to do with it, even if you were there, watching ...

H: Nor were such payments considered to be grounds for voiding an election. It is mere supposition that the Select Committee which examined Major Philip Staple’s petition was unaware of these payments when it declined to void the result in Staple’s favour. although, even if it had known about them, it would have made no difference.

SC: Rubbish!

See above.

H: In passing: you may find it better, when purporting to quote from a statute (HOAX, 33), to actually do so. The Act in question is not called “the Corrupt Practices Act of 1696”, and nor does it contain the wording:
... candidates for election who gave or promised any present or reward to any person having a vote ...

SC: In passing, you do so love to pick a pedantic point, don’t you. Well, once again, you’re talking rubbish.

Whereas you love to seize on a trivial point, to distract us from an important one. What’s important is this: on page 33 of HOAX we find the following:

Staple’s petition to Parliament was grounded on the Corrupt Practices Act of 1696, which stated that “candidates for election who gave or promised any present or reward to any person having a vote, for the purpose of influencing their vote, shall be declared not elected.” ...

The wording you give in quotation marks is not (as we are led to assume) in the statute, however named. It appears to be from this.

SC: These aren’t my claims – it’s a fact. Vyse’s electors were paid handsomely for their votes. That it was never shown that a prior promise of payment was made by Vyse or his agents (i.e. before or during the vote) is the only reason Vyse got away with it and wasn’t convicted. Paying your voters AFTER an election is just as ILLEGAL as before or during the election if it can be proven that a prior promise of payment was made, thus your comments above that paying voters afterwards was somehow perfectly okay are utter rubbish. It would only have been okay and legal if NO PRIOR PROMISE had been made. And how many of Vyse electors would admit to such and risk losing that promise of cash? I suspect precisely none.

From Simeon (1795), a source cited by Peckwell (above):

... 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; ...

Your suspicions two centuries on are neither here nor there. They would not have been admissible as evidence in a court of law in 1807. Here you merely bulldoze through the fact that this evidential requirement was not met. This is law, Scott: you can’t just make the evidence up. All we have is the evidence of voters having been paid after the election and as we saw in the case of Sudbury, such payments were not considered (by Select Committees) to be grounds for voiding the result of an election (as I wrote in the first place). (To correct another of your misconceptions: it was not the job of Select Committees examining petitions to convict or not to convict: their job was to decide on whether or not to overturn the result of the election in question, usually in the petitioner’s favour. Staple’s petition was a last-ditch attempt to get into Parliament: it was itself dirty politics.)

Now be realistic about how things were in Beverley in 1807. As was usual in elections at that time, those acting for Vyse (his agents) were local men who knew local custom and who were very likely known by the voters. In such a situation, there was no need for promises, “a nod and a wink” or anything else of that kind. Paying voters was an established custom and all relevant parties - agents and voters - knew how these things were done. To argue in your style: Vyse and his agents didn’t have to break the law, therefore they didn’t.

In summary: there is no evidence to warrant your incessant assertions that “Vyse broke the law” and it’s likely that he didn’t, if only through not needing to.

Allow me to remind you that it was you chose to answer all moral arguments with a merely legalistic one.

Now, if you think such a prior promise of payment wasn’t made by Vyse or his agents to Vyse’s electors and that Vyse made these payments to them afterwards only out of the kindness of his heart, then you are merely engaging in cynical expediency and intellectual cheating, which I simply will not entertain. You are not that naive. The man was corrupt and these payments made to his electors after the inquiry into his election had concluded (a year later), prove it.

You may not “entertain” them, but you certainly engage in them. As for your knowledge of the law, it is patently lacking: I suggest you leave off second-guessing what “should” have happened under it.

a reply to: Hooke

Vyse paid cash for votes. With the benefit of history we know precisely how many of his electors were paid and by how much. Paying cash for votes in 1807 was illegal. Vyse committed electoral fraud. That you are trying to use a loophole that the money was only paid afterwards as a 'customary payment' (for votes) might help exonerate him in your head but I rather doubt many will share your view. You can try and dress this up any way you like but a different dress won't change the fact that Vyse paid cash for votes; that Vyse committed electoral fraud. Period.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton
Do you think the hook is a relative of Vyse? He sure seems to be hiding something. Awful worried that the Pyramid may have nothing to do with a Pharaoh whose biggest statue was only 2 centimeters high.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
a reply to: Scott Creighton
Do you think the hook is a relative of Vyse? He sure seems to be hiding something. Awful worried that the Pyramid may have nothing to do with a Pharaoh whose biggest statue was only 2 centimeters high.

Hi spiritualarchitect,

Hooke is female. She is a director of the the ultra-orthodox Egyptology web site, 'In the Hall of Ma'at' where she is known as Hermione. She has a few other handles on other sites. And she simply cannot accept that Howard Vyse's payments of cash to voters in the 1807 UK General Election should be considered as electoral bribes and, as such, he perpetrated electoral fraud. Because if he could commit fraud here in the UK, then it becomes perfectly possible that he could commit fraud elsewhere, like at Giza where he claims to have found Khufu's various names within the Great Pyramid. In Hooke's world she would have us believe that Colonel Vyse paid out that money after securing his Parliament seat merely out of the kindness of his heart.

But who am I to get in the way of folks and their delusions?

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

Vyse paid cash for votes. With the benefit of history we know precisely how many of his electors were paid and by how much. Paying cash for votes in 1807 was illegal. Vyse committed electoral fraud. That you are trying to use a loophole that the money was only paid afterwards as a 'customary payment' (for votes) might help exonerate him in your head but I rather doubt many will share your view. Vyse committed electoral fraud. Period.

SC

This is nothing to do with “exonerating Vyse in my head” or any such reductive psychologising ad hominem. It’s to do with correctly stating a point of law and not deceptively misstating it, as you persist in doing in the face of clear evidence of what the law really was in 1807.

For your information: “I rather doubt many will share your view” is argumentum ad populum; the rest is proof by assertion, “an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.”

a reply to: Hooke

Hermione, answer these two simple questions:

1) In 1807, was it illegal in UK General Elections to pay cash for votes (Yes or No)?
2) After his election victory, did Colonel Vyse pay cash to those who voted for him (Yes or No)?

Answer the questions.

SC

a reply to: jeep3r

I have recently been reading about the investigations on the Queens Chamber shafts over at cheops.org...

It seems that whilst the Southern shaft has been fully explored up to the 'door', that the Northern shafts could only be explored part-way due to the way that it bends.

Is anyone aware if there has been any further exploration of this shaft and if so any details released of what has been found?

a reply to: Scott Creighton
'In the Hall of Ma'at'
An anti-alternative web site!
A place for stationary thinkers.
A place for those who cannot handle change.
A place for those who need to defend all the money they spent learning past falsehoods in school.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
a reply to: Scott Creighton
'In the Hall of Ma'at'
An anti-alternative web site!
A place for stationary thinkers.
A place for those who cannot handle change.
A place for those who need to defend all the money they spent learning past falsehoods in school.

A place for those that know what they're talking about.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
a reply to: Scott Creighton
'In the Hall of Ma'at'
An anti-alternative web site!
A place for stationary thinkers.
A place for those who cannot handle change.
A place for those who need to defend all the money they spent learning past falsehoods in school.

A place for those that know what they're talking about.

Harte

Off you trot then.

In my experience that place is filled with nothing more than a coterie of control freaks with absolute zero tolerance of anyone with ideas of our past that dares to question their zealous, orthodox dogma. I think the late, great John Anthony West described it as the Hall of Matzis - or something like that. But this guy's description of the Hall of Ma'at site summed up that godforsaken place way better than I ever could.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

Hermione, answer these two simple questions:

1) In 1807, was it illegal in UK General Elections to pay cash for votes (Yes or No)?
2) After his election victory, did Colonel Vyse pay cash to those who voted for him (Yes or No)?

Answer the questions.

SC

Well, over a day and still no answer to my two simple questions. I am not surprised though. It has become something of a habit when I ask some awkward questions of you, they are met with stony silence.

You see, Hermione. Those two little questions above are the entire crux of the issue here. And that is why I asked you to answer those two specific questions. I suspect you realised where it would lead and expediently refrained from going there.

But let's do that now. Let's go there.

You witter on about payments being made by Vyse to his electors afterwards, as though that is some way of excusing his actions. It isn't. All you have tried to do there is introduce a red herring; a point of law that has no bearing on the issue at hand one iota.

Because, Hermione, the simple truth is this. 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. The question of a prior promise is irrelevant as is the fact that Vyse made the bribery payments after the election. We don't even need to go that far. 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:

"...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 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.

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.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I see that your interest in fallacies - doubtless in avoiding them and not merely in their rhetorical potential - has faded already. Allow me to remind you that your “yes or no” game undoubtedly is one. Perhaps you will find this helpful.

This is law. You can’t bluster it into being what you want it to be, or bulldoze through its specifici provisions. When you lapse into such drivel as this, it's just a muddle:

You witter on about payments being made by Vyse to his electors afterwards, as though that is some way of excusing his actions. It isn't. All you have tried to do there is introduce a red herring; a point of law that has no bearing on the issue at hand one iota.

You may wish to advance this as a moral point, but it affects the point of law not one jot. That you are trying airily to wave away a point of law of undeniable relevance to “the issue at hand” - which is, allow me to remind you, whether or not Vyse “broke the law” - is conspicuous. You’ve made the allegation: it’s incumbent on you to represent the law correctly - and you are not doing so.

Thank you for this additional example of proof by assertion.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Purely on Vyse and electoral fraud, in 1807 you could pay for votes. It may not have been moral or ethical but it was certainly still legal.

This started to change with the Representation of the People Act of 1867. The purpose of this act was politically enfanchise the skilled working class. This was followed by the Ballot Act of 1872. This Act addressed that the skilled working class were susceptible to bribery, intimidation and violence for votes and therefore aimed to prevent (or at least reduce) this.

As a little aside, this could also work in favour (monetary) of the skilled working class who often took bribes from all parties.

None of this has anything to do the Great Pyramid of Giza but it does prove that Vyse couldn't have committed electoral fraud as there simply wasn't such a crime in 1807. Trying to say he is guilty of something that didn't exist at that time is spurious at best and downright dishonest at worst.

As i said earlier in this thread, Egypt is nothing but a (distant) interest for me. History on the other hand.......

a reply to: Hooke

Unsurprisingly, you avoid giving a straight answer to my 2 simple questions and spin harder than a Tory politician to cover the fact. Here they are again:

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

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

And you refused to give straight answers because you KNOW the answer to both question is, YES.

Councillor Joseph Hind, at the Beverley Bribery Commission in 1869, tells us unequivocally that Vyse paid cash for votes. That is ALL we need to know. Vyse PAID CASH FOR VOTES. That FACT has been established. How many times does it have to be said to you before it sinks in? Vyse PAID CASH FOR VOTES. FACT.

Fortunately for Vyse, that FACT (Hind’s testimony) didn’t become known during his lifetime, so Vyse got away with it, was never prosecuted. But Joseph Hind’s testimony is clear: Vyse PAID CASH FOR VOTES. He even tells us how many were paid and by how much. It was all noted down. As such, Vyse clearly committed electoral fraud and SHOULD have been prosecuted for it with the full force of the law at the time. Paying the cash for those votes after the election is entirely IMMATERIAL in view of this immutable FACT.

We KNOW what his payment AFTER the election WAS FOR: it was his PAYMENT FOR VOTES RECEIVED. If we didn't know what he had paid that money for (after the election), then you might have had a (legal) point. But WE DO KNOW WHAT IT WAS FOR. It was PAYMENT FOR VOTES RECEIVED. And THAT is the POINT. THAT is what MATTERS. We KNOW what the delayed payment WAS FOR. We don’t even have to determine if a prior promise existed because we have already been told by this witness, Joseph Hind, that VYSE PAID CASH FOR VOTES. Case closed. Unless you are now going to try and tell us that Joseph Hind lied under oath to the Bribery Commission, then Vyse’s CASH FOR VOTES (i.e. BRIBERY) IS A FACT!!

Now get that FACT into your head.

SC

I have not had time to read this whole thread, so just a refresher here.
Did not Birch, the English expert say that Vsye had copied the cartouche from John Wilkinson’s erroneous book?

Did not Vsye use a newer version of the cartouche, one that was not around in Khufu's reign?

Did not Vsye also claim to find mummies and mummy cases inside the pyramid?

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Hooke, answer these two simple questions:

1) In 1807, was it illegal in UK General Elections to pay cash for votes (Yes or No)?
2) After his election victory, did Colonel Vyse pay cash to those who voted for him (Yes or No)?

Answer the questions.

Now you’re trying your “yes or no” loaded question ploy?

Really?

Not playing, Scott - and I suggest you refrain from issuing orders.

1) The law which applied in 1807 has been explained in detail, with citations, so your question lacks even the appearance of good faith. This is law: you cannot talk it into saying what you want it to say and nothing in what has been proven meets the law’s definition in 1807 of bribery.

2) The payments were made by R. Dalton, probably Robert Dalton, a banker’s clerk. We do not know if the money came from R. W. H. Vyse (who had yet to inherit the estates which made him wealthy), his father (who was not that rich), or from someone else in the local establishment who supported his candidature.

Allow me to remind you that it’s you who’s made “Vyse broke the law” his answer to every attempt to bring nuance and fairness to the discussion of Vyse’s actions. I suggest you learn to live with the repercussions of that choice, as it’s become increasingly clear that your assertion is highly questionable and certainly unprovable on the evidence we have. If you want to make the u-turn my co-author predicted and insist that your point is after all a moral one, go ahead. It will still fall short of what you are trying to achieve.

a reply to: Hooke

H: Now you’re trying your “yes or no” loaded question ploy?
Really?
Not playing, Scott - and I suggest you refrain from issuing orders.

SC: And we know why you’re “not playing”. Because you know the answer to my two questions is “YES”. You just cannot bring yourself to admit that.

H 1) The law which applied in 1807 has been explained in detail, with citations, so your question lacks even the appearance of good faith. This is law: you cannot talk it into saying what you want it to say and nothing in what has been proven meets the law’s definition in 1807 of bribery.

SC: I am not questioning the law as it stood in 1807. I am questioning YOUR application of it. You started out implying that merely by making payment after the election would have had Vyse in the clear. 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. A fact that you made no mention of. YOU’RE the one that didn’t clearly understand the law. You cannot use a law that simply does not apply to the situation at hand. The law, as it stood in 1807, is clear: If you pay cash for votes, THAT IS BRIBERY. PERIOD.

H: 2) The payments were made by R. Dalton, probably Robert Dalton, a banker’s clerk. We do not know if the money came from R. W. H. Vyse (who had yet to inherit the estates which made him wealthy), his father (who was not that rich), or from someone else in the local establishment who supported his candidature.

SC: Vyse was the candidate. He was responsible for his election. The buck stopped with him. Just because "daddy might have paid the bill for him" wouldn't have made it any less fraudulent in the eyes of the law.

H: Allow me to remind you that it’s you who’s made “Vyse broke the law” his answer to every attempt to bring nuance and fairness to the discussion of Vyse’s actions. I suggest you learn to live with the repercussions of that choice, as it’s become increasingly clear that your assertion is highly questionable and certainly unprovable on the evidence we have. If you want to make the u-turn my co-author predicted and insist that your point is after all a moral one, go ahead. It will still fall short of what you are trying to achieve.

SC: The witness evidence that we have tells us that Vyse paid cash for votes. A lot of people, a lot of cash. As such, Vyse DID break the law. He PAID FOR VOTES. THAT is clear. That is what Hind testifies to. Your clinging to the fact THE payments were made after the election is moot in the face of Hind's testimony (had that been known in 1807). It doesn’t matter if Vyse (or his agents) had paid out the money before, during or after the election. The POINT IS – we know that the MONEY WAS PAID FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCURING VOTES. That is ALL THAT MATTERS.

Vyse was corrupt, perpetrated electoral fraud and, in so doing, broke the law of the land as it stood in 1807 whereby paying cash for votes was illegal. That is the only salient point here that matters. You can try and spin and sugar-coat his actions all you like, it won’t change the fact that he paid cash for votes and, in 1807, that was illegal in UK elections.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Again, you are totally ignoring the fact that even if he did pay for votes in 1807, it was not illegal.

In 1869 it was illegal (but still required another Act in 1872 following the 1867 Act).

You can't find someone guilty of something years later following a change in the law. The law is "active" from the moment legislation is passed - it doesn't give the right to apply that law retrospectively.

As i said, it may have been immoral and unethical but it certainly wasn't illegal in 1807. It was also widespread throughout the House of Commons at thst time.

This isn't speculation or theory, it is documented fact.

You obviously know more about Ancient Egypt than i ever will. And you obviously have far more to question about this period than i ever will (other time periods in other parts of the world are my fascination) but this Vyse "election fraud" is a nonsensical thing to push.