date

[129b-506] 4 April 1817 Plan
[129b-506]

4 April 1817

Plan Cat

2 o Note (a) ?

Introd

§. Interests adverse

I. Look to interests

Good & bad motives

6

The observations /elucidations/ by which so practically pernicious a system of confusion and delusion is endeavoured to be dissipated, to these observations may by him to whom by means of power exercised over men power is given over the signification of words be termed metaphysics. And in speaking of such elucidations in the mouth of one who like Edmund Burke was a lover of mankind and a continuer[?] of all but the corrupt part of it, the assertion I hate metaphysics may without difficulty be admitted for true. But, as it is by the sort of theory here endeavoured to be exposed that the rod /cleat/ that through the medium of corrupt judicature corruption in every other branch of government may be protected and perpetuated, so is it in elucidations such as these that the salvation /preservation/ of the people from the hands of misrule and tyranny well should it be the destiny any eyes now living to see to see any such blessed sight be effected.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1819 June 16 To Erskine Let]
    Description: 1819 June 16

    To Erskine

    Let. 7. Whigs AntiReformists

    §.5. Pos. 4. Whig Excellence

    7

    After the distress /distressful state/ to which Your Lordship’s Clients have been reduced it may seem barbarous to push them on the ground any farther. But the /this/ barbarity – it is none of mine – these troublesome questions they have already been pressed with them. It is by M r H. they have been thus pushed. Against this logic what are the resources of Your Lordships eloquence /rhetoric/? Had it been Edmund Burke been on Your Lordships case he would have had his answer /argument/ ready I hate metaphysics: this is a question about identity: this is metaphysics: I hate metaphysics. Thieves hate gas-lights: Burke hated metaphysics.

    ☞ Give a sketch of what Wilkins[?] says on this ground.
  • Title: [[129b-391] 25 Jan y 1817 Introd]
    Description: [129b-391]

    25 Jan y 1817

    Introd

    3

    5

    Ask what in this supposed aggregate mass of benefit there is that is imaginary the answer that may be but too truly given is that with the exception of the above mentioned securities of detail of which not a single one can be made the preservation of which is not unless in case of a change altogether precarious every security that can be imagined to exist against the constant /continual/ sacrifice of the universal interest of the whole people to the separate and mutually more or less intimately /wholly/ associated interests of the monarchy and the aristocracy: that the interest principally espoused by the tories is that of the monarchy: that the interest principally espoused by the whigs is that of the aristocracy. But that in one thing the tories considered as a party and the whigs considered as a party have always, and not only without concert but without need of concert, and even under the semblance of opposition been constantly agreed: and that is that in considering the aggregate mass of the property of the people, out of which for the joint benefit of the monarchy and the aristocracy with their respective instruments retainers annuities and dependencies, fortunes to the utmost extent practicable may without just reproach and accordingly without disguise endeavoured to be made. In the case of Edmund Burke who being at the time in question the efficient member of the aristocratical party the Whigs may be considered as the mouthpiece of the Whigs that that principle was not only avowed without disguise but deliberately and with all the force that could be applied to the subject by the most splendid talent, deliberately and in print contended for has /this is what has/ been shewn in that Defence of Economy which is already before the public.
  • Title: [1819 May 22 Defence of Ballot]
    Description: 1819 May 22

    Defence of Ballot

    No considerate choice

    2

    So then, if a man /as often as/ it is a man’s endeavour to make /render/ his judgment deliberate, or the choice he makes /his choice/ considerate, he is to be exposed to the contempt which all those who behold or to whom misrule and abuse are the sources of profit or of hope have /keep/ in store ready to be cast /poured/ forth upon the heads of all those who are denounced to them by /under/ any of those names.

    A position which there is continual occasion to call to mind is – that in the way of reproach no man ever calls out theory, without harbouring some theory in his own mind, and that a foolish one, a theory so foolish, that either he dares not for very shame venture to bring it in so many words to view, or at any rate can not without exposing himself and his cause, and therefore in prudence ought not. When common honesty, guided by common sense is against a man, then it is that he cries out theory! or no theory! or join with the cry of Edmund Burke “I hate metaphysics”. Oh yes that he did: as truly and with as much reason as thieves /house breakers/ hate gas-lights and watchmen’s rattles.

    Now mind the theory which constitutes the offence, punished[?] /visited/ by the Reviewer with the stigma imprinted by the word speculators: then confront and compare with it the theory he employs and argues from

    1. Subject in question judgment Peoplesman’s theory: Judgment ought to be deliberate. Contrà Theory Reviewer Council for the Whigs – his theory – Judgment ought not to be deliberate

    2. Subject in question, choice. Peoplesman’s theory Choice ought to be considerate. Whig theory as above, Choice ought not to be deliberate.

    There is theory and theory. The sincere reader if there be one, may now well take his choice.

    Let a man who has an abuse to defend, be he Whig or Tory set up a cry of theory against me, I will engage to shew that if he attempts to argue it is from a theory that he argues, and that his theory is in contradiction to common sense or common honesty or both.