date

1819 July 10 To Erskine Lett
1819 July 10

To Erskine

Lett. 6 ?

§ 7.5. Petitions rely on ?

No indecent animadversions!

2

2

49

8

☞ Quere has not this topic been handled elsewhere already?

On this occasion, it is some satisfaction, though unhappily assuredly not of the most cheering kind to learn from the pen Lord Erskine from the Whig head of the law, even in his matured years what are his affections towards that guardian of all other liberties, the liberty of the press.

Speaking of Parliament, The state of things which his eloquence employs itself in representing as preeminently desirable [+] is that /one/ in which “no impunity” ... is to be expected for any indecent animadversions upon its character and conduct” so that, by some tribunal /judicatory/ or another – it is not stated what, but must of course have been meant if any thing were meant, a /some/ judicatory possessing adequate powers, by some person or persons punishment, and that of course adequate to the purpose of effectual prevention should on so easy a condition as the pronouncing the word indecent be applied to every person making animadversions upon the character and conduct of parliament.

That supposing the Utopia thus described created, I who write this /whose audacity here uttered/ should among the rest of the lower-orders alias swinish multitude be swept off for punishment follows of course: as does likewise the extirpation of all the existing vermin that make their appearance /infest in the shape of newspapers/ that annoy Honourable and Right Honourable eyes in the shape of Newspapers, and the planting in the room of them those of the pure Continental breed, to which we are indebted for such correct and punctual information relative to the locomotion of Kings and those whom each majesty delighteth to honour. In all this there would be nothing worth a thought. But Lord Erskine? how would it fare with Lord Erskine? As above observed Here and there has it not happened to him to say to speak (p. 27) not only of imperfections but of abuses as being in existence – of the removal of them as an operation, a motive for which is rather to be wished than expected ? of the dignity of Parliament (p. 28) as a quality already so effectually gone, that of the recovery of it the very hope may appear visionary or delirious.

Not

[+] p. 32
Similar Items
  • Title: [1819 Mar. 26 B + §.4 A To Erskine]
    Description: 1819 Mar. 26 B + §.4 A

    To Erskine

    ult o

    Lett 6 E’s Anti Reform labour

    §. 4. 2. Reformists threatened

    1

    20

    1

    ☞ 7 June 1819. Stet, all but verbal revision.

    §. 4. Expedient 2. Threatening Reformists if they act for themselves.

    Amidst all this caution a little expression {has by Your Lordship’s wisdom been suffered to escape} is observable from which it appears that for a supply to /to make up for/ the weakness of arguments Your Lordship has always been looking for the strength of punishments. {Not to speak of Right Honourable and Honourable Just so is it with all Lords, and in particular with all Law Lords. In p 32. amidst a profusion of words and topics in[?] confusion what I observe is – that according to Your Lordship’s plan no impunity is to be expected for indecent animadversions upon its character and conduct: The pronoun its is here the representative of Parliament: would that Parliament were as adequate a representative of the people. But here as well as every where else Your Lordship means nothing but what every body ought to mean. This is proved by the word indecent prefixt to the word animadversions

    Now my Lord does /is it known to/ Your Lordship what Lord Erskine’s view was in the stepping in with so much /such/ exemptions decency the word indecent? So little do eloquent men and noble and learned Lords possess of that time and patience which would be necessary to their possessing any tolerable knowledge of themselves.

    On the occasion In Your Lordships noble mind the word indecent had two uses. 1. One is the exempting the power of punishment in this case from all restraint: for, under the instruction of Your Lordship, to justify itself in punishing or visiting a man as the phrase is a man to the utmost of its power for any animadversion he may have made, a Parliament formed upon Your Lordship’s plan would then[?] have no /nothing/ more to do than to say, they were indecent, and from this I conclude, that Your Lordship, like Lord Grey, or Lord Granville or Lord Eldon, or the late Lord Ellenborough, or the present Lord Chief Justice Abbot, or Lord Castlereagh, or Lord Sidmouth or Lord Any-body-else would have no objection to see Your Lordship discourse or conduct taken for the subject of animadversion, so long as you chose the words of it.
  • Title: [1819 July 10 To Erskine Lett]
    Description: 1819 July 10

    To Erskine

    Lett. 6 ?

    § 7.5. Petitions rely on ?

    No indecent animadversions!

    3

    3

    50

    9

    Not to mention so many other intimations in this same Letter that have already been brought to view, in those which are here brought to view a second time is there not that which if haply the Judge whom Your /his/ Lordship has in contemplation for this adequate judicature should from the Bible or any inferior source of doctrine have learnt that he ought not to be a respecter of persons, would not the quondam head of the law run some risk of being swept off along with us of the swinish multitude into the sink of punishment into the place appointed for libellers? Supposing even that to the animadversions in question by the competent authority /judicatory/ in question the term indecent should not be found applicable – and nobody can be farther than myself from thinking that in this case it is justly applicable, among those appellatives which would be most indecent can /could/ any be found that to the set of men /authority/ in question would be more annoying? – more destructive of that reverence in which, if it were /where it is/ “well founded the legislature and the laws (Your Lordship assures us in this same passage /on this same occasion/) are regarded by the great body of the people? upon which reverence Your Lordship therein also assures us the security and confidence of every country mainly depends?
  • Title: [1819 Mar. 26 To Erskine ult]
    Description: 1819 Mar. 26

    To Erskine

    ult o

    Lett. 6. E. AntiReformist

    §. 4. 2. Reformists threatened

    2

    21

    2

    2. The other use is to save from reproach this call for arbitrary punishment. What says Your Lordship do you presume to give it as any wish of ours that Parliament should punish all animadversions upon its conduct? Calumny! calumny! when in so many words I had expressly told you it was only for “ indecent ones. And would you have indecent animadversions upon any body – indecent animadversions upon Parliament be made with impunity? That would be striking at the very form and condition of social life And thus it is that the profit of tyranny is put in for without prejudice to the reputation of the love of justice. {The recipe for thus combining oil and vinegar is as old and as much practised as any in Buchan’s domestic medicine or M rs Glass’s cookery.} Wrapt up in a cloud of words, Your Lordship has given us a confession or rather a Declaration /profession/ that the whole system /state/ of government in this country is as rotten as ever Borough was. + This Your Lordship has said: and all the time Your Lordship would have me punished for saying the same thing. It is to be deemed rotten for the purpose of a Whigs being lauded for the sagacity of destroying the rottenness and the virtue of wishing to see it corrected. /cured./ It is to be deemed not rotten for the purpose of justifying the Whig when instead of following up his /those/ wishes with any endeavours, his endeavours are employed in frustrating all /other peoples/ endeavours to give effect to those same wishes It is to be deemed rotten for the purpose of allowing every Whig to say so. It is to be deemed not /to be/ rotten, for the purpose of punishing any bad man, who is not a Whig if he presumes to say that it is.

    Inserendum?

    Your Lordship is I am quite certain for the admission of liberty: but if this little light I think I have spied does not deceive me Your Lordship is quite decided for the exclusion of all licentiousness: licentiousness, not only in animadversions upon Parliament, but in animadversions upon public men: upon all Whigs, and therefore as there is no sure mark by which a Whig can on one[?] occasion be distinguished from another man /a Non-Whig/, upon all public men.

    Now I my Lord, in so far as /concerns/ libel law is concerned specific lies knowingly or with inexcusable rashness disseminated excepted, am for liberty and licentiousness both. Why? because it is impossible to draw the line between the one and the other: so that to permitt a man to punish licentiousness is to permitt him to extinguish liberty. Now I had rather see licentiousness rise /swell/ to the greatest height that imagination can give to it, than lose a single grain of this same liberty.

    + ☞ Give the passage underneath