[part in copyist’s hand]

1819 Mar. § 5.

To Erskine

Lett. 6. E. Anti Reformist

§ 5. 3. Reformists Luddites

23

1

☞ 7 June 1819 Stet, all but verbal revision.

§.5. Expedient 3. Representing Reformists as Luddites.

The truth is, that among Your Lordships wishes, is that of seeing all such of us as really use any endeavours in favour of reform, eventually put to death, in I know not what number, in form and ceremony; and amongst Your Lordships endeavours that of causing no meat[?] to be so dealt with, unpleasant as it is an opinion to this effect I shall find myself altogether unable to change, until it shall have been your Lordship’s pleasure to make public a declaration to the contrary. For unless this be really among your Lordship’s wishes and endeavours, I know at what aim has been your Lordship object in the endeavour to cause it to be believed that our objects were the same with those of the Luddite: that it was for the purpose of promoting Parliamentary Reform that the plans /schemes/ for the destruction of Machinery were set to work.

By insinuation it is of course that an /the/ intimation to this effect is like so many others is conveyed. But in and by the passage in question unless this be the conception meant to be conveyed, I am sure I know not what other is or can be. “If Parliament” – says Your Lordship p. 28) “should fearless enact ... an extension of the Representation, those gangs of turbulent and almost distracted men, which more than once have impelled his Majestys Ministers to suppress them by unpopular suspensions, and even permanent abridgments of public liberty, would vanish, of themselves”. Now unless those same gangs were either themselves reformists or set on by reformists, how is it that parliamentary reform or any thing in the shape of it, should cause them to vanish?