THE

FLEET PAPERS.

THESE Papers are principally intended for the perusal of the friends of Christianity and the Constitution; particularly the Clergy and the Aristocracy, and of all persons who are possessed of Property. The object of the writer will be to explain the reason for the present alarming state of English society, and the consequent insecurity of life and property; also to offer some remarks upon the folly and wickedness of attempting to uphold our Institutions, particularly that of Private Property, by the unconstitutional means of Centralization, Commissioning, Espionage, and Force; finally, to state his own views on the best mode of restoring Peace, Contentment, Security, and Prosperity, to every rank of the people of England.

The author is perfectly aware of the fact, that every Parliamentary leader is now only attempting to legislate for the present moment-putting off the evil day -making laws" from hand to mouth," in the hope that some unforeseen, fortunate event may enable succeeding Statesmen to legislate for permanency. Ile is also convinced that there is a mode of successfully re-establishing our Institutions upon their original foundation-Christianity;-and that that is the only way to preserve them from the encroachments of political partisans, who are now paving the way to universal Ruin, Anarchy, and Despotism.

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.

The KEEPER of the QUEEN'S PRISON has ordered the gates of the Prison to be locked at Six o'clock in the evening. No stranger is now allowed to enter or remain after that hour.

Mr. OASTLER begs to remind his friends, that ON MONDAY he is always occupied in writing;' and on that day HE IS NOT "AT HOME."

EDWARD HARPER, Sunday's Well, Cork.-His kind letter and beautiful songs as soon as possible.

J. POSTLETHWAITE, Edinburgh, asks, “Hare we a Government?-Certainly not. The Ministers have long since lost the respect and confidence of the country. Now, although they retain' a majority in Parliament, they have lost its respect. They know that they are upheld by men who despise them. How can it be otherwise, when their Home Secretary cannot speak the truth? Assert a fact, give SIR JAMES GRAHAM as your authority, and straightway it is discredited. Such want of moral principle would destroy a stronger Ministry than the present. The Conservative Ministry is virtually defunct. SIR JAMES GRAHAM has (as MR. OASTLER always said he would) destroyed them. No Government can stand with such a perfidious member among them. Let him be Jailor, if you will, but Jailor and Minister he cannot remain.

F.. Preston. MR. OASTLER does not believe that the "Ten Hours' Bill" will be granted by' the present Government.

THE REV. J. B., York, asks, “How can the repeal of the New Poor Law be secured?"-How? By the clergy of the Church of England insisting upon it. The clergy should remember that. they own this to " their own order," because two of their bishops recommended that accursed

measure!

LONDON:

BAKER STREET,

W. J. CLEAVER, 80, BAKER

PORTMAN SQUARE;

AND

JOHN PAVEY, 47, HOLYWELL STREET, STRAND.

NOTICE OF THE FLEET PAPERS.

"The FLEET PAPERS.-MR. OASTLER AND THE FACTORY BILL AGAIN.-Mr. Oastler has returned to the attack upon the education clauses of the ministerial Factory Bill. His remarks have a force about them which we look for in vain in the writings of any other man. The • Flecters' are now, indeed, of additional interest: the thoughts of the King's' are words of wisdom to the King's' subjects-his poor factory hands, who we know will be delighted to learn that he still maintains their right, and advocates their cause, even when addressing the 'educated' portion of the world. In the forthcoming number (dated May 27), he thus addresses Sir James Graham:"The Northern Star, May 27, 1843.

The following correspondence will interest many readers.-R.O.

IRELAND, HER RULERS AND HER AGITATORS.

The leller of which this is a copy, was placed in Sir Robert Peel's hands on the 11th instant, and copies of the same were transmitted to the Duke of Wellington and Earl De Grey respectively.

TO THE RIGHT HON. SIR ROBERT PEEL, BART., &c. &c. &c.

SIR,-As an impartial Irishman, a devoted subject of the British Crown, and a well-wisher to your Government, I implore you to consider whether some hitherto ustaken step is not required in order to quell the tumult which so unhappily pervades Ireland,

Have you seasonably, sufficiently, and paternally warned the susceptible and misled people of Ireland to desist from their present proceedings? for by not doing so, you leave the popular mind open to the uncontrolled influence of agitators. Place your Government in dignified, yet benignant communication with Irish people, and all may yet be well.

The vast assemblages in Ireland are either lawful or unlawful; and this great point should not be any longer enveloped in doubt. If they are lawful it is unworthy on the part of upright rulers to visit with vengeance magistrates who attend public meetings not declared to be illegal; and the quick spirit of a tributary country is roused resentfully by this exercise of arbitrary authority. If, on the other hand, these gigantic gatherings of the populace are unlawful, the plain course is to state the truth in a Royal Proclamation, couched in firm though kindly language; pointing out to the beguiled people, the uncompromising determination of Government to maintain the existing polity of the State, and indicating the legal modes of giving expression to the popular sentiment, so as not to endanger the public peace. Such an appeal to the mind and affections of the Irish nation would, in my opinion, still the alarming disquietudes which now shake the Sister Island; and at the least, would have the effect of placing the Irish malcontents, (in case of their continued contumacy,) clearly in the wrong.

But, Sir, the large meetings in question ARE unlawful; not merely (as alleged by Lord Lyndhurst) because they may prove detrimental to the public peace, but upon a much plainer and juster ground, in strict accordance with the whole analogy of British Constitutional law-BECAUSE THOSE MEETINGS ARE NOT CONVENED BY ANY LAWFUL, COMPETENT AUTHORITY.* This is the true test of the legality or illegality of a public meeting; and to the neglect of this test, even by eminent Crown lawyers, may be ascribed much of the disorder which has harassed England as well as Ireland of late years. It is not the conduct of a public meeting which evidences its legality—it is is constitution. The Repeal of the Union also, though a very inexpedient, (as I think) a very foolish subject, is not a theme which it is unlawful to discuss: but meetings convened by irresponsible persons, clothed with no acknowledged authority, are beyond question unlawful assem blages; and the Government should tell the people the plain truth, and prohibit them from repairing to such disorderly, and it may be, perilous public meetings. My impression is strong that the people of Ireland would immediately submit themselves to the wise warning of their rulers, and yield contentedly to a faithful exposition of the law. I will not venture to estimate the evils of a contrary course of policy.

Pray pardon the freedom of this communication. 1 feel for my erring countrymen, and I perceive the perplexity of your position as First Minister of the Crown; and if I were circumstanced as you are, I would forgive, yea prize the friendly suggestions of an honest though humble com. municator of Christian counsel. A single false step at this important juncture may shake the British Empire to its foundations. May God in his merey avert the greatest of all evils-the horrors of a Civil War!

I have no motive for addressing you but the public good. I want nothing, wish for tothing that your power or patronage can bestow; and I earnestly request that you will not trouble your. self to acknowledge the receipt of this letter.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

With much respect, your obedient servant,

8, Southampton Row, Russell Square, London,

June 10, 1843.

THOMAS MULOCK.

* If this be so, which I doubt, it would be useful to publish the reasons and authorities.-R.Q.

Sir Robert Peel presents his compliments to Mr. Mulock, and begs leave to acknowledge the receipt of his communication of the 10th inst.

Whitehall, 12th June, 1843.

London, June 15, 1843.

Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington presents his compliments to Mr. Mulock. As it appears that Mr Mulock had addressed the Minister, the Duke concludes that he will give him an answer. He is one of the few men in these days who does not meddle with questions over which they have no control.

Mr. Mulock presents his deep respects to the Duke of Wellington, whom he always considered (since he first had the honour of being made known to Sir Arthur Wellesley) as one of the most eminent men of any age or nation.

Mr. Mulock ventures to assure His Grace that he (Mr. M.) cannot be fairly classed with the multitude of idly ambitious persons who "meddle with questions over which they have no control." But Mr. Mulock thinks it perfectly possible that a plain Christian man may see and set forth truths (not schemes and speculations) which have escaped the attention of renowned statesmen and legislators.

London, June 16, 1843.

Supplemental Correspondence (now first published).

To R. S. BLEWITT, Esq., M.P.

8, Southampton Row, Russell Square, July 6, 1843.

SIR, I have just seen, in the Morning Chronicle of yesterday, a report of proceedings in the House of Commons, in which you are made to say "A few days ago Mr. Mulock addressed a letter to the Duke of Wellington, which his Grace acknowledged in the following terms.”

Permit me. Sir, to inform you, that this statement is incorrect. I did not address a single line to the Duke of Wellington, but merely transmitted to his Grace a copy of the letter which I had written and forwarded to Sir Robert Peel.

I am, Sir, yours very respectfully,

THOMAS MULOCK.

To MR. MULOCK.

Reform Club, London, July 6, 1843.

SIR.I have just had the honour to receive your letter of the 6th inst., and I am sorry that I unintentionally committed the mistake to which you refer.

I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,

REGINALD J. BLEWITT.

To R. J. BLEWITT, ESQ., M.P.

London, July 7, 1843.

SIR,I feel obliged by your prompt and polite avowal of the little error to which I took the liberty to draw your attention. It is, however, thus far important, that it serves to show how purely gratuitous was the Duke of Wellington's repudiation of Ministerial responsibility.

Notwithstanding Sir Robert Peel's censorial rebuke, it appears to me. Sir, that the question you mooted in the House of Commons, as to the political position of the Duke, was perfectly justifred by his Grace's volunteer statement to myself. How can a Cabinet Minister be truly said to have no control" over such a question as the peace of Ireland?

But there is another point which deserves consideration. The Duke of Wellington is the first Commander-in-Chief who has also been a Cabinet Minister. If I recollect rightly, there is no bistorical precedent of such a conjunction. I do not for a moment question the right of the Sovereign to heap even conflicting responsibilities upon a subject whose talents and merits are so transcendent as those of the Duke of Wellington; but if there ever was a time when increased invidiousness would attach to a great public functionary, who had to counsel policy in the Cabinet, and direct the movements of the whole military force of the empire, that time is the present, when Ireland is covered with troops, and when it appears to me so desirable that the State policy should not wear so martial an aspect. In short, I think the Duke himself would be more at his ease if he were only Commander-in-Chief.

I am, Sir, your odedient servant,

THOMAS MULOCK.

MR. PERCEVAL has received the following answer to the letter he addressed to the Poor Law Commissioners on the 13th ult., which was inserted on the Cover of these Papers, Vol. 3, No. 27.

TO JOHN PERCEVAL, Esq., KENSINGTON.

Poor Law Commission Office, Somerset House, June 26, 1843. SIR. I am directed by the Poor Law Commissioners to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th instant, in which you state that you attended on the 17th of May at their office. with a deputation from the parish of Kensington, to call the attention of the Commissioners to a Petition about to be presented to Parliament, praying for the separation of the parish of Kensington from the Kensington Union; and you complain, that no answer with regard to the proposed measure had been sent by the Commissioners to the members of the deputation. You also animadvert on a letter which the Commissioners lately addressed to the board of guardians of the Kensington Union.

I am to state that the Commissioners, in the letter referred to, fully expressed their views on the subject of the proposed dissolution of the Kensington Union; and as you are a member of the board of guardians, and would therefore have the opportunity of perusing that letter, the Commissioners thought it unnecessary to send you a copy of it. I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

W. G. LUMLEY,

Assistant Secretary.

This is MR. PERCEVAL'S rejoinder :

TO THE POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS.

7, Camden Ville, Kensington, June 28, 1843. GENTLEMEN,-In reply to your letter of the 26th of July, (signed W. G. Lumley, Assistant Secretary,) I have the honour of observing, that this is the first time that I have heard of a vestry, or of any other public body, who have addressed the authorities through their own clerk and their own Committee, being answered by a letter addressed to the clerk of another body, differently constituted, and composed of different and adverse elements. I am at a loss also to understand why your answer should have been directed to me, when there are other gentlemen of equal. if not of higher rank, in the deputation that waited upon you, of greater influence, and of inuch longer standing in this parish.

I beg leave further to remark, that the apology you have made for your apparent want of Courtesy in not replying to the vestry of this parish, contains additional proof of your want of knowledge of the operation of that board, concerning whose efficiency for the transaction of the business of the Union, you have expressed your feelings of conviction.

In the first place, it does not follow, because I am a guardian of the parish of Kensington, that I should be able to be constant in my attendance at the board of guardians.

In the next place, the letters which we have the honour of receiving from Somerset House appear usually so officious, or contain such inconclusive answers to the questions which have been proposed to you, that they excite derision; and the announcement of the clerk that he is about to read letters, is generally a signal for the members of the board to disperse, if more than one or Lo are remaining, and for the chairman to supplicate one or two guardians to continue, to form a Jegal board, and to carry on the farce of the New Poor Law Commission; and as the reading of your letters is, by your own orders, postponed to the latter part of the business of the board, it did not follow, even if I attended the board the day that your letter was read, that I should remain till the perusal of it.

For these several reasons, therefore, it was possible I might never have heard of the existence of your letter at all. The vestry of this parish would then have remained in complete ignorance of your views and sentiments.

With regard to the letter in question, if you consider that you have fully expressed your views in it, I can only say, that I consider it a very disrespectful answer to the application and representations of the vestry of this parish, who, I have no doubt, will concur with me in this opinion.

When a parochial body, gentlemen, address the authorities of a country, to redress a real or a conceived abuse, and found their application upon facts, upon arguments drawn from those facts, and upon experience corroborating such argument, they expect either a refutation of those facts. or a demonstration that the conclusions they have drawn from such facts and from such experience are erroneous, and not a mere counter assertion on the part of the authorities that they feel convinced that those who have applied to them are wrong-addressed, too, to a board composed chiefly of members who have no connexion with the parish, whose parochial interests are, as far as mere pecuniary outlay is concerned, apparently opposed to them, and the majority of whom have expressed their opinions in concurrence with the views of the authorities who are addressing them. I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,

Your obedicat, humble servant,

JOHN PERCEVAL,

Guardian of the Poor, and Trustee for the parish of Kensington.

Printed by Vincent Torras & Co., 7, Palace Row, New Road, London.

THE

FLEET PAPERS.

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.

Mr. OASTLER begs to remind his friends, that ON MONDAY he is always occupied in writing; "AT HOME." and on that day HE IS NOT

J. BLACKWALL, Norwich, asks, “What is Fixity of tenure' ?"—It is an Irish expression, which, being translated into English, means "Tenant right." This just claim of the Irish tenantry, is denied by the extortion and cruelty of certain Irish landlords, who think that a tenant has no claims-no rights. Thus, one evil begets another, and rebellion is invoked by the suffering tenants, to rid themselves of the tyranny of unjust landlords. In the course of years, the same spirit of disaffection will prevail in England, if the avaricious spirit of some landlords shall be allowed to progress. "CUSTOM" gives certain RIGHTS to English tenants; but some greedy landlords, being counselled by ignorant and selfish stewards, force their tenants, under a threat of discharge, to sign agreements by which their claim to the "custom of the country," on leaving, is abandoned. This practice is as wicked as it is foolish. If it be allowed to progress and become universal, revolution must be the consequence. Those silly landlords will then find their mistake. Stewards and landlords may rest assured that every attempt to weaken the just claims of the tenant to the profit of their labour in the soil, will sooner or later recoil on their own heads. By such extortion the landlord applies a lever to the foundation of his own title. For a season the landlord may seem to gain-the end will be ruinous to his interests. Many will have cause to rejoice if this warning be heeded. The empire is now paying the penalty of permitting Irish landlords and stewards to loosen the bonds which ought to unite the tenants to their lords. Woe to England if her landlords and stewards shall be permitted to play the same game.

W. J. CLEAVER, 80, Baker Street, has presented MR. OASTLER with a very neat little book, called A Tribute to Hydropathy. The author, J. E. E. WILMOT, Esq., gives a very concise but interesting narrative of the system adopted at Stansted-Bury for the restoration of health. Water inside and outside, early rising, plenty of exercise, and plain wholesome food, are the ingredients. Many useful hints, for home practice, may be gathered from this It is barbarous to shut little manual for those who have neither time nor money to spare. MR. OASTLER wishes that MR. WILMOT would call upon SIR JAMES GRAHAM, and say to him,

up two or three hundred human beings in the Queen's Prison, and, after laying out so many hundred pounds in new walls, iron bars, spikes, and grates, to leave the poor wretches without a single bath." No one outside can conceive how distressing it is to be pent up here without the possibility of enjoying a bath! Still, it is supposed that this is a Christian country! Let the Reverend Inspector blush-if he can!

A FRIEND OF THE GOVERNMENT, is very angry with MR. OASTLER. Let him bottle his spleen, and waste no more of it. MR. OASTLER is not to be daunted by an anonymous scribbler. When SIR ROBERT PEEL has cured the patient. MR. OASTLER will praise him—when SIR JAMES GRAHAM has learned to speak the truth, MR. OASTLER will forgive him. See how the Netherby Baronet writhes under the direct charge of falsehood made to his face by LORD JOHN RUSSELL, and then lamely pockets the affront. Hitherto GRAHAM's whole political life is a lie. His high office does but magnify his crime. A CONSERVATIVE thinks that MR. OASTLER should bear with more patience the punishment of imprisonment. MR. OASTLER has not complained of imprisonment-he protests against the unconstitutional exercise of power by the Home Secretary. MR. OASTLER has never feared to grapple with the oppressors of others, of whatever grade-now that the Principal Secretary of State has ventured to victimize him, MR. OASTLER rejoices at the opportunity of grappling with his own oppressor hand to hand-foot to foot. When Graham leaves hold, ŎASTLER will be silent-not till then.

ERRATUM ON LAST COVER-Notices to Correspondents, last line but one, for “they own this," read" they owe this.".

AND

STREET,

JOHN PAVEY, 47, HOLYWELL STREET, STRAND.