he might be pleased to intrust me, to bear me out in the statement of facts it may be necessary to submit to the House.

“From all that fell under my own observation during my Christmas visit to Newstead, I feel convinced that, if conciliatory measures are not very soon adopted, the most unhappy consequences may be apprehended.  Nightly outrage and daily depredation are already at their height, and not only the masters of frames, who are obnoxious on account of their occupation, but persons in no degree connected with the malecontents or their oppressors, are liable to insult and pillage.

     “I am very much obliged to you for the trouble you have taken on my
     account, and beg you to believe me ever your obliged and sincere,”
     &c.

* * * * *

LETTER 89.  TO LORD HOLLAND.

     “8.  St. James’s Street, February 25. 1812.

     “My Lord,

“With my best thanks, I have the honour to return the Notts, letter to your Lordship.  I have read it with attention, but do not think I shall venture to avail myself of its contents, as my view of the question differs in some measure from Mr. Coldham’s.  I hope I do not wrong him, but his objections to the bill appear to me to be founded on certain apprehensions that he and his coadjutors might be mistaken for the ‘original advisers’ (to quote him) of the measure.  For my own part, I consider the manufacturers as a much injured body of men, sacrificed to the views of certain individuals who have enriched themselves by those practices which have deprived the frame-workers of employment.  For instance;—­by the adoption of a certain kind of frame, one man performs the work of seven—­six are thus thrown out of business.  But it is to be observed that the work thus done is far inferior in quality, hardly marketable at home, and hurried over with a view to exportation.  Surely, my Lord, however we may rejoice in any improvement in the arts which may be beneficial to mankind, we must not allow mankind to be sacrificed to improvements in mechanism.  The maintenance and well-doing of the industrious poor is an object of greater consequence to the community than the enrichment of a few monopolists by any improvement in the implements of trade, which deprives the workman of his bread, and renders the, labourer “unworthy of his hire.”  My own motive for opposing the bill is founded on its palpable injustice, and its certain inefficacy.  I have seen the state of these miserable men, and it is a disgrace to a civilised country.  Their excesses may be condemned, but cannot be subject of wonder.  The effect of the present bill would be to drive them into actual rebellion.  The few words I shall venture to offer on Thursday will be founded upon these opinions formed from my own observations on the spot.  By previous enquiry, I am convinced