222—to Samuel Rogers
February 4, 1812.
My Dear Sir
,—
With
my best acknowledgments to Lord Holland
, I have to offer my perfect concurrence in the propriety of the question previously to be put to ministers. If their answer is in the negative, I shall, with his Lordship's approbation, give notice of a motion for a Committee of Inquiry. I would also gladly avail myself of his most able advice, and any information or documents with which 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, etc.
Footnote 1:
For Lord Holland, see
Letters
, vol. i. p. 184,
note
I. He was Recorder of Nottingham; hence his special interest in the proposed legislation against frame-breaking.
Footnote 2:
Owing to the state of trade, numbers of stocking-weavers had lost work. The discontent thus produced was increased by the introduction of a wide frame for the manufacture of gaiters and stockings, which, it was supposed, would further diminish the demand for manual labour. In November, 1811, organized bands of men began to break into houses and destroy machinery. For several days no serious effort was made to check the riots, which extended to a considerable distance round Nottingham. But on November 14 the soldiers were called out. Between that date and December 9, 900 cavalry and 1000 infantry were sent to Nottingham; and, on January 8, 1812, these forces were increased by two additional regiments. The rioters assumed the name of Luddites, and their leader was known as General Lud. The name is said to have originated in 1779, in a Leicestershire village, where a half-witted lad, named Ned Lud, broke a stocking-frame in a fit of passion; hence the common saying, when machinery was broken, that "Ned Lud" did it. A Bill was introduced in the House of Commons (February 14) increasing the severity of punishments for frame-breaking. On the second reading (February 17) Sir Samuel Romilly strongly opposed the measure, which passed its third reading (February 20) without a division. The Bill, as introduced into the Upper House by Lord Liverpool,
- rendered the offence of frame-breaking punishable by death; and
- compelled persons in whose houses the frames were broken to give information to the magistrates
. On the second reading of the Bill (February 27, 1812), Byron spoke against it in his first speech in the House of Lords (see
). The Bill passed its third reading on March 5, and became law as 52 Geo. III. c. 16. Byron did not confine his opposition to a speech in the House of Lords. He also addressed "An Ode to the Framers of the Frame Bill," which appeared in the
Morning Chronicle
on Monday, March 2, 1812. The following letter to Perry, the editor, is published by permission of Messrs. Ellis and Elvey, in whose possession is the original:
"Sir,—I take the liberty of sending an alteration of the two last lines of Stanza 2'd which I wish to run as follows,
'Gibbets on Sherwood will heighten the Scenery
Shewing how Commerce, how Liberty thrives!'
I wish you could insert it tomorrow for a particular reason; but I feel much obliged by your inserting it at all. Of course, do not put my name to the thing.
Believe me, Your obliged and very obed't Serv't,
Byron. 8, St. James Street, Sunday,
March 1st, 1812."
