132-047.xml

Title: [1819 Apr. 1 + To Erskine 1]

Description: 1819 Apr. 1 +

To Erskine

1 o

II. Whig Merits

Observations

Windham – Law Taxes Rose[?]

1

14

Nay but, Sir, – I think I hear your Lordship saying – surely, Sir, with all your severity, one other deed of M r Windham’s may hope for your indulgence. When in 18 | | + he preached against Law-Taxes, whose book did he take for his text-book? take it – and not only use it as such, but, such was his candour – make reference to it and trumpet it. What say you, Sir? Was there No merit in that?

Alas! no my Lord. The answer has been already given. Good deeds, as much as you please: merit, none: All taxes are bad absolutely: the least good is bad comparatively. Every man cries out against taxes. No man sets himself any such task as that of comparing each tax with every other. One man cries out against one tax; another man, against another: and in this way every man but he who takes the worst for his theme gives his protection to the worst. Windham on administration, and Law Taxes proposed, think you he would not have supported them, as readily as he then opposed them? If before that he had opposed them, perhaps no: supporting them, he would have exposed himself. No: he would have done as George Rose did: he would have gone out, or sat silent. In that same way I remember hearing – in that same way did he deal by this and that measure of Romilly’s. In the presence of Pitt, declaring himself and master[?] convinced by that little work, George Rose declared to me at a dinner, there should be no more Law-Taxes. After Pitt, came Perceval, and then addition was made to Law-Taxes. George Rose absent or silent. George Rose had industry. Mr. George Rose had good inclinations. So at least it was impossible for me not to think. George Rose would have put into my hands all prisoners. George Rose would have put the Poor of the country into my hands. Pitt and Dundas would have done the same. A dinner day was appointed / named/: but it never came. One man there was, in the way: one man who was stronger than them all: Rose, Pitt and Dundas put together. After this, when George Rose met me in the street, he never saw me. Was this anger? never had he so much as imagined cause for it. No, my Lord, not anger: it was regret: it was compunction: not to say shame.

+ ☞ Fill up the blank

132-048.xml

Title: [1819 April 1 + To Erskine 1]

Description: 1819 April 1 +

To Erskine

1 o

II Whig Merits

Observations

Windham Law Taxes Rose

2

15

George Rose loved himself. For, unless it be in Armata, where is the man that does not? But George Rose loved his country: George Rose, with the exception of those whose skins were black, loved mankind. I say my Lord, he loved mankind as at heart his country Else, my Lord, what use could he think he had for use? I could give him no sinecures. George Rose could serve himself, and he did so: he could give himself sinecures, and so he did. George Rose could not serve mankind, George Rose could not serve his country; and therefore he did not.

{There is another man who could and would serve his country if they would let him: and that is Abbott. But they will not /never would nor ever will/ let him. Serve himself, yes that they would let him do: that they will let any man do who will serve them. But let him serve the country? No: nor even himself would they let him serve unless he injured the country: and so he injured it.}

There it is – thus it ever will be – under the system of corruption: that system, to which, on this occasion, Your Lordship’s eloquence, and even without being lighted up by fees, has, with so much eagerness, given[?] its protection. Midas, as he touched it, turned every thing into gold. Under the system of corruption, the Corruptor General turns into corruption the whole crop of the tree of good and evil, and without so much as touching it. Touching it, did I say? looking at him, it of itself becomes corruption: he need not so much as look at it.

But I have been wandering, and prating of past times. It is among the weaknesses of old men.

132-066.xml

Title: [[copyist’s hand] nd To Erskine]

Description: [copyist’s hand]

nd

To Erskine

3.

George Rose loved himself. For unless it be in Armata where is the man that does not? But George Rose loved his Country: George Rose, with the exception of those whose skins were black, loved mankind. I say my Lord he loved mankind or at least his Country. Ese, my Lord, what use could he think he had for me? I could give him no sinecures. George Rose could serve himself, and he did so: he could give himself sinecures, and so he did. George Rose could not serve mankind, George Rose could not serve his country: and therefore he did not.

Thus it is – thus it ever will be – under the system of corruption: that system, to which, on this occasion, your Lordship’s eloquence, and even without being lifted up by fees has, with so much eagerness given its protection. | | as he touched it, turned every thing into gold. Under the system of corruption, the corrupter General turns into corruption the whole crop of the tree of good and evil; and without so much as touching it. – Touching it did I say? Looking at him it of itself becomes corruption: he need not so much as look at it.

But I have been wandering and prating of past times. It is among the weaknesses of old men.

Well, my Lord, I have told your Lordship where merits are not: I will now tell you where they are. Direct indication commences the work of Instruction: contrast perfects it. Merits are not in your Lordship’s ‘great body’ of the Parliamentary Whigs: they are in the 3883 against whom these Whigs with their Tory Helpmates prevailed on at the Westminster Hustings in March 1819.

In the ‘great body’ of your Lordship’s clients, pretensions abundant: good deeds unavoidable and | | not a few: merits none. In the 3883, “in the Miserable little junto” – “in the Rump who administer Westminster in the name of Sir Francis Burdett” – there it is that merits may be seen – seen in an abundance by which I am the more astonished the more I think of it: seen by those whose eyes allow them not only to see Merits, but to see them where they are. In that miserable little Junto, would you see labour without profit – labour with expence instead of profit – would you see in a word self-sacrifice? there you may see self sacrifice: that you may see what a may look for till his eyes water and not find it in your Lordships calumniated Whigs of England (p.9 l.1.)

in