date

[clxii. 35] 1820. Aug. 14  Comments
[clxii. 35]

1820. Aug. 14  Comments for the English translation

Emancipation Spanish

Summary

Transfer to U.S.

Give up all no half measures

Sell to U.S.

Now in this same limit - what every body knows - what you in particular can not but know - there is nothing new. Look to Louisiana there you see already a precedent. From the generosity of your own beloved Monarch Bonaparte obtains that fair country: he sells it to the United States - for these | | years it has formed part of Yankey-Land. Thus far we /you/ have a case in point as our lawyers phrase it: a precedent in point. Our own Lord Chancellor /Eldon/ could not find any thing to object to it on that score: our own Earl Grey would not pronounce it absurd, visionary and senseless our own Lord Erskine our own Lord John Russel would not pronounce it wild and visionary. our own House of Lords our own House of Lords according to whom so it have been but once done under the most corrupt of Constitutions whatsoever has been done is right our own House of Lords even though headed /led/ by a Lord Eldon.

One condition however, if it depended upon me, I would venture as above to propose - and that a somewhat new one - namely that without the consent of a majority at least of the people whose fate /lot/ was thus disposed of, the bargain should not take place. Here indeed I should have all those illustrious /noble/ persons with all their ancestors upon my back: this would indeed be absurd, visionary and senseless; this would indeed be wild and visionary.

 Consult Erskine [...?] vituperation

Against this I should find my friends of the Edinburgh Review, in the agony of despair not being able /unable/ to find so much as the shadow of an argument against it entering their protestation /saying all they could find to say against it and exclaiming in black and white We protest! saying thus against it all they could find to say against/ that protest which in the like agony they entered against the faculty of reading established in the character of a qualification for giving a vote: that qualification which in 1811 I proposed /ventured to propose/ in theory and which in 1812 and again in 1820 Your rulers (blessed be they for the honour done to an obscure old Englishman!) converted into practice

Oh /Alas!/ where would /will/ Grandees be! where will Lords be - not forgetting their retainers, when the use of letters and the voting in the choice or removal of rulers were become faculties equally and universally diffused?

Oh yes - the consent of the parties whose every thing is disposed of by it must be given to the treaty, or my signature can not be given to it.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1819 June 8 To Erskine § 7]
    Description: 1819 June 8

    To Erskine

    § 7.5. Spontaneity rely on

    2

    If Your Lordship Lord Grey were the same man with himself in 1794, what would his Lordship in his high-charactered eloquence say to the expectation thus held out to us of this same free spontaneous act. He would pronounce it in the words of his Fox-deum – Newcastle – Speech “absurd, visionary and senseless”. For proof of it – and for what that high-charactered eloquence is pleased to say, self-say is always sufficient proof – he would repeat his 1794 Honourable House speech and say “This House will never reform itself, or destroy the corruption by which it is upheld, by any other means than those of the resolutions of the people acting upon the prudence of the House; and that point they could only accomplish by meeting in bodies as recommended by a Minister (Pitt) in 1782.” At that time it is the notion of a parliamentary reform produced by the free spontaneous act of Honourable House that was “absurd, visionary and senseless”: at this time a parliamentary reform produced by this same free spontaneous act is one of the two sheet authors in which our hope is bad to repose itself: and now it is, that (ask him else) the idea of producing that change by any other means than that same free spontaneous act or respectful petitions of the people – and in particular by any such “resolutions of the people” as were capable of acting upon the prudence of the House – resolutions of the people met in bodies as recommended in 1782 by Minister Pitt just before he became Minister, is absurd visionary and senseless.
  • Title: [1819 July 2 To Erskine Lett]
    Description: 1819 July 2

    To Erskine

    Lett. 7. Whigs AntiReformists

    §.2. Pos. 1. Desire impossible

    Purity of Motive

    3

    Now if there be such a thing as an Utopian theory it is this theory of pure motives: if in Lord Greys language there be /any/ such a theory, as a “wild, visionary and senseless” one, it is this theory of pure motives the pure motive theory: yet /and/ it is by the trumpeters of this wild visionary and senseless theory, that these wild, visionary and senseless appellatives are lavished /continually poured/ upon that theory which is the direct reverse for it, and which is the theory of the plainest common sense, which has the universal experience of the whole species for its support.

    Note /Mind/ /Let me be not misunderstood/, what I say is – not that there is no such thing as purely social affection – as sympathetic affection – as sympathetic affection operating upon a large scale – nay even upon the largest scale conceivable upon the /a national/ scale of the whole nation of the whole species the whole aggregate /world/ of sensitive beings: nor that in the case where it has for its object the whole human race, it is not capable of operating, it is even known by experience to have operated with very considerable effect. Else what are those works by which a man labours to encrease the happiness of the whole species, and of which the destiny is not to see the light till reputation is of no use to him? If I said any such thing I should say that of the falsity of which I am myself conscious /is made known to me by consciousness/. But what I say is – that the greater the number of the objects it embraces, the more dilute and weak the affection commonly is: that even in its dilutest state that which operates upon a national scale has never in any political body other than rare: and that in a state dense enough willingly to give existence to any considerable degree of self-sacrifice, it has never yet been seen, nor is ever like to be: and that in any state those who hath most of it are very likely to be of the number of those who feel least of it.
  • Title: [+ 1819 Oct. 10 Parl. Reform Bill.]
    Description: + 1819 Oct. 10

    Parl. Reform Bill.

    §.5

    §.8

    Art. Secresy

    3

    Go to Westmoreland! Go to Cumberland! according to his conscience! To vote according to conscience! /learn there how good and joyful it is, brethren to vote according to conscience! how sad a thing to vote against conscience! how wicked a thing to force men to it!/ Good: but how? by voting out of the sight of tyrants? of tyrants on one side, as well as on the other? Oh no, that would be “wild and visionary, absurd, visionary, and senseless”: practice in America is not practice: never could any a man have thought of such a thing, had he been as conversant with men as with books.

    When the subject many – when Peoplesmen have condemned secresy of suffrage, it has been for want of thought: when the ruling few – when Tories and Whigs – condemn /have condemned/ secresy of suffrage, it has been from the result of thought: when the others have condemned it, it has been because they knew so well.

    Suffrage, open or secret: say which of the two you will have? This question – this is the spear of Ithuriel. At the touch of it, with not less agony than the most outrageous Tory, the Parliamentary Whig writhes.

    Say secret suffrage – secresy of suffrage. Do not say ballot. Election may be by ballot, and yet no secresy. Such will of course be the case, wherever the design is that the secresy professed shall not be preserved. Matters are so contrived that there is no secresy, and then you are told there can be none.

    When a Whig Candidate solicits a vote, the only answer need be this question. In and out of Parliament, will you do your utmost to procure Election in the secret mode? If he declines or remains silent – Go hypocrite! the most undisguised advocate of despotism is less profligate than you. Such should be his dismissal. – What? Is it to ambition such as yours, that the bread of my family and of so many hundreds of families is to be made a sacrifice? Is this your patriotism? Yes: knowingly and wittingly, you and those you act with, are either among the creators, or among the preservers of all the evil you profess to lament.