the indignant rejection by the reformed House of Commons, of the humble petitions of many hun dred thousands of persons, because, as Lord Howick said, they did neither kill nor burn.' "I have not, on this occasion, room to explain my views on the principle of the New Poor Law. I believe it to be an axe laid to the root of all property, and of every social institution. If the Legislature are justified in depriving the poor of their legal right to relief and liberty when they cannot obtain employment, or when they are incapable of working; in other words, if it be just that the rich should deprive the poor of their property in the soil, it must be just that the poor should seek by every means to recover their right; and the inevitable consequence of their failing in that attempt This determination will be a determination on their part, if possible, to destroy the title of the rich. may for a while be successfully resisted by the opulent, but in the end, as sure as water will always find its level, the owners of property will discover that their own law will recoil upon themselves, and that parchment will no longer convey a title to any estate. "I have not formed this opinion rashiv. I have the authority of the late learned and venerable Earl of Eldon for what I have stated. That estimable and noble Earl did me the honour to give me his opinion on the New Poor Law before it was passed; and he has, since it was enacted, stated to Earl Stanhope, that the Poor Law Amendment Act is the most execrable and atrocious law ever enacted.' The late Right Hon. William Pitt has said, the law which prohibits relief where any visible property remains should be abolished. The degrading condition should be withdrawn. No temporary occasion should force a British subject to part with the last shilling of his little capital and descend to a state of wretchedness from which he could never recover, merely that he might be entitled to a casual relief.' "The names of Eldon and Pitt have great weight with me, and when I know that their opinions are sanctioned by the revealed will of God, and backed by the national prejudices and the strongest feelings of Englishmen, I am sure that I am more than justified in believing that we neither can have nor ought to have internal peace, until that execrable aud atrocious law' is totally repealed. "I know, Sir Robert, that the Whig Government issued a commission of inquiry, with instructions to their Commissioners to find out a case to enable the Government to pass a law to force the people of England to live on a coarser sort of food.' But I know also, that those Ministers ought to have been impeached for so doing. I am aware that the Commissioners did invent a case' against the people of England, and then declared them to be, as Lord Brougham expressed it, the sons of idleness, vice, and profligacy.'-' preferring idleness and a bare subsistence to plenty earned by toil.' His Lordship says their minds are become debased, as their habits are degraded;' 'Idleness and her sister, Guilt, now stalk over the land,' &c. "Yes, Sir Robert, I am aware that the people of England were thus represented by these Commissioners, but I know that truth was never more awfully perverted-that never were a people so wofully libelled; and I think that those Commissioners, and not the poor, ought to have been punished. I believe that the old Poor Law was improperly administered in some places, but I know that the fault was in the administrators, and not in the poor; and yet the guilty administrators have been rewarded, and the poor have been punished! This is inconsistent with justice, and consequently with security. "As soon as I knew that these things had issued in a bill in Parliament, I procured a copy of it, and found that it was worthy of its authors, and of the means which they had adopted. I immediately came to London, and waited upon the Duke of Wellington and other peers. I explained my views to them, but it was of no use; the Commissioners were believed, and I was thought to be an enthusiast. Every event which I predicted has since happened, in the order in which I mentioned them. "When the law was passed, I exhorted the disgusted and insulted people not to revenge, but to petition. They did so. Never was there a more solemn, peaceful movement. The people met by hundreds of thousands, but there was no tumult: all was still and quiet; but hope was strong-that hope was blasted! The reformed House of Commons rejected those petitions under the represen tation of Lord Howick that they were only the petitions of Oastler and a few agitators,' and that the people of England were perfectly satisfied, in proof of which his Lordship said, they neither killed nor burned.' "The refusal of those petitions, and the hint conveyed in those words of Lord Howick, changed the character of the agitation, and I withdrew from the masses, leaving the Government to take the responsibility of their own wickedness and folly. You are therefore fully justified in saying, 'that the Government have no right to complain of my agitation:' and I think I have proved, that whatever of wickedness' there may have been in the agitation against the New Poor Law, it is entirely attributable to the Government. If anything herein stated should induce you to reconsider the whole of the Poor Law question, I shall rejoice; and if, on consideration, you should come to the opinion of the Earl of Eldon and the Right Hon. William Pitt, I shall be thankful that I have written this letter. "I have the honour to remain, Sir Robert, your most obedient servant, "No. 8, Rawstorne Street, Brompton, Middlesex, Feb. 2. "RICHARD OASTLER. "P.S.-I am thankful that Lord John Russell has at last done me more than justice by placing me at the head of the New Poor Law agitation.' I am proud of any place amongst the host who hate that law, but I do not deserve the first place. I am content to follow such leaders as Stanhope, Exeter, &c., and to imbibe the opinions of Eldon and Pitt."-R.O. I deeply regret that Sir Robert Peel was not convinced by Pitt and Eldonthat, however, is his look out, not mine. He would have found them safer guides than Malthus and Brougham, as, if I mistake not, the sequel will prove. I am your Prisoner, P.S.-"Rent-Roll" next week.-R.O. RICHARD OASTLER. Printed by Vincent Torras & Co., 7, Palace Row, New Road, London. Being Letters to THOMAS THORNHILL, Esq., FROM RICHARD OASTLER, His Prisoner in the Fleet. WITH OCCASIONAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM FRIENDS. www "The Altar, the Throne, and the Cottage."-"Property has its duties, as well as its rights.” The Husbandman that laboureth, must be first partaker of the fruits." "He shall judge the poor of the people, He shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the Oppressor." VOL. II.-No. 45. LONDON, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1842. PRICE 2d. The Fleet Prison. THOMAS THORNHILL, Esq. SIR, Shall I apologize for having detained you so long in answer to the Whig Ministerial charge of Incendiarism, which the Morning Chronicle has been instructed to renew against me? I cannot do so, even if you should be weary. Surely the time has now arrived when it is necessary that I should prove to my readers, that they who invented and propagated that charge against me, did so, knowing that it was false, for the sole purpose of hindering the public from listening to my arguments and denunciations against themselves and their wicked measures. It is high time that they were driven from the shelter of abuse behind which they vainly hoped to hide their sins; that they were convinced (as I had hoped they had long since been by their indignant expulsion from office) that the people of England will no longer submit to be deluded by their invectives and slander; that now they must subject their principles to the closest investigation of reasonable men, or for ever remain in that sad state of degradation and debasement in which their arrogance and falsehood, their pride and cowardice, have left them. Yes, the time is now arrived when their mask of "liberal and enlightened" nonsense, and their battery of invective and slander, can no longer avail them. The Morning Chronicle must not again assume to open his "school," if he can do no more than rake up the worn-out invectives and nicknames of his cashiered pedagogues. I must not, however, leave my slanderer without furnishing him with the complete repetition and refutation of Whig official spite, of which hist accusation has reminded me. I shall not soon be out of his debt for the opportunity with which he has furnished me of fully explaining to my readers why it is that so many persons have supposed that I was a dangerous individual, and that my views and principles were opposed to the Constitutional institutions of this country. No man was better known to the Whigs than myself. My stern adherence to the fundamental principles of Toryism were fully appreciated by them. They had heard me boldly avow them when it was dangerous even to hint at them;bludgeons and brickbats were then their only answers. I had, however, compelled them to feel the force of unaided truth; and in my own county, as hundreds of thousands can testify, I had succeeded in tearing off their masks, and had made them stand before their former dupes in all their native ugliness. When they found that they were thus exhibited, by the light of truth, to the disgust of their followers-when they felt that their importance was lowered, their influence was waning, and their places were tottering-when they found that neither hired bludgeon-men nor their venal press could protect and save them, it was then that a grand Ministerial effort was resolved upon to put me down, either by indictment or by official slander. It is a fact, that all the papers which I had furnished to the Prime Minister, recounting all my proceedings, together with my long three days' examination, which they obtained from me by fraud, through their Commissioner Muggeridge, and for which they never paid my expenses-in which examination I had candidly avowed my most "violent" opinions on their unconstitutional and revolutionary measures, and also the destructive effects which an approach to free trade and the absence of protection had had upon the industry and the commerce of the country,-it is a fact, Sir, that all these documents were laid before the law officers of the Crown, and a warrant was issued for my apprehension: policemen were stationed to watch my lodgings, and "report" to the Home Office; but doubts having entered the mind of the Home Secretary of State, a Cabinet Council was held upon the subject. There, the question was, Shall Oastler be indieted or traduced? They knew that if I were indicted, I should be enabled to prove, that I had sinned only because I had endeavoured to save my country from the conspirators and traitors who then held the seals of office-the Whig Ministers. They therefore resolved to endeavour, by Ministerial slander in the Commons and the Lords, to hunt me down, and then annihilate my influence. Thus did they hope to silence one with whom they feared openly to contend. As I told you, so it was-my name did run between the Whigs and their wits. I have already explained to you how the Cabinet disgraced itself in the House of Commons; you must now follow them to the Upper House, and there witness what was never so clearly exhibited before-the self-degradation, the Ministerial suicide of the first Minister of the Queen of England. On the 4th of February, 1840, there was a debate in the House of Lords, when the Chief (knowing already what his Subs had been doing in the Commons) vented his spleen against me, even in that Honse, after the following fashion. He thought, no doubt, after all the little curs had had their snarl, it was but fair that the great Palace dog should have his howl at Oastler. It is a fact, Sir,-the head of the Government, to whom I had freely, and frankly, and constantly, and faithfully reported all my proceedings, instead of indicting me and sending me before a jury, contented himself by making the following official declaration respecting me, and then left me at large! No wonder that, in a few short months, so mean a man was driven from the counsels of the Queen! These are Lord Melbourne's words: "Mr. Oastler considered the 'grinding oppression,' as he called it, of the existing Poor Laws, a good ground for resisting all lawful authority.” Lord Melbourne never recovered that blow! I had aimed many at him and his Government-I had sometimes given tliem a home thrust; but it was reserved for the Premier, through me, to give himself the mortal stab! Had his Lordship spoken the truth-had I, indeed, been "resisting all lawful authority," or advising others to do so, his duty was plain-not to talk about it in the House of Lords, but to place me before a jury of my countrymen; and, if they believed that I was guilty, then my deserved doom was transportation. The Noble, the Prime Minister, knew that he was slandering-that the last hope of the expiring Whigs was in annihilating me!-Truth alone sustained me in that hour! Never was a man in such a case before. I had no home-you had banished me. My exertions to fulfil your lack of duty in Yorkshire had impoverished me-I was a mere destitute wanderer, with whom the Government of England dared not to contend; and when they resolved on slander, they wounded but themselves. So omnipotent, Sir, is truth. How I thank the Morning Chronicle for reminding me of that fact-of those days. The recollection of that victory sustains me here in prospect of another. Well, surrounded with difficulties as I was at that time, through your persecution, still, so confident was I of the justice of my cause, that I resolved to do by the Chief as I had done by his Subs--dare him to the proof of what he had said -to trial, in any way as best might suit him, and thus test him to his word. From the Times of the 6th of February, 1840, I copy the letter which I addressed to the Whig Prime Minister, in reply to the false accusation which he made against me in the House of Lords : TO THE RIGHT HON. LORD MELBOURNE, HER MAJESTY'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF STATE. "My Lord, Truth is a virtue without which no man can be respected. Truth is a quality, devoid of which a statesman becomes a traitor to his Sovereign. "I perceive, my Lord, that my name is not unknown to you; it is familiar in the Cabinet as 'household words.' And methinks, notwithstanding the apparent ignorance of Her Majesty's Ministers, my principles are as well known to them as my name. Why not, then, my Lord, speak the truth? It is impossible that you can be ignorant of my opinions and proceedings. I have regularly transmitted an account thereof to Her Majesty's Government "It cannot be considered presumptuous in me to claim a fair trial, somewhere, from the Government of Her Majesty. The notice which I have been thought worthy of by your Lordship and three of your colleagues, and your most talented and influential opponent, Sir Robert Peel, entitles me, without the possible charge of impertinence from any quarter, to require a fair, full, and impartial inquiry into my saying and doings. Let it be before a jury of Englishmen, or at the bar of either House, or, if you will, before the Cabinet. If you have lost any of the papers which 1 have sent to the Government, my Lord, I will willingly refurnish them. I ask no assistance, either from the Tory party or from the bar: in any court which you may select I will meet you, (on the sole condition that the proceedings shall be published.) and defend all that I have said and done. "Can I speak plainer, my Lord? Under the circumstances can an Englishman make a more reasonable request? "I deny the whole of the official Ministerial charges. I am convinced that if my principles were known, they would be cherished by every Englishmen. My heart tells me that I love my country, that I revere the church, that I honour the Queen, and that I never gave utterance to one word in derogation of any of them. "It is strange, my Lord, that Ministers, who are proud of the support of my old neighbour, 'the Organ of the Dissenters in the House of Commons,' Mr. * M.P. for Leeds, should now be so angry with me, and behind my back call me such very hard names. I have seen your friend Mr. in Leeds, marching under the banner,' We will pay no more taxes!' another, with King William in petticoats, and his Queen in breeches,' the latter thrashing her Royal husband * I prefer that that person's name should not appear in the Fleet Papers.-R.O. with a birch rod, the Crowu falling from the head of His Majesty, and the sceptre dropping from his hand! Yes, my Lord, I have seen your friend Mr. following such banners; and a Royal Executioner with black crape and a bloody axe! the poles of the banners being surmounted with pikes, and red caps of liberty! All this I have seen in my native town; nay, more, after speeches of the most diabolical and treasonable nature, I have heard Mr. jun. (the son of your Lordship's friend) propose, in an assembly which he said amounted to 60,000 men, 'three groans for the Queen of England.' Your friend was standing by, but uttered no word of dissent. my Lord; but I have neither seen nor heard that Mr. has I have seen and heard all this, been reproved by Ministers. Oh! no; he is their bosom friend, whilst I, who have steadily opposed all this treason, am represented to the Commons and the Lords by Her Majesty's Ministers as an assassin,' 'incendiary,' and 'a resister of all legal authority.' My Lord, this is not as it should be. I claim at your hands a clear stage. I ask no favour. I willingly admit that I have told the people 'not to pay the taxes imposed by the Poor Law Commissioners, but quietly allow the law to take them-just as the Quakers act with respect to the church-rates.' I am proud again to inform your Lordship, that I have told the people, that no Commissioners' rule or order has power to dissolve or interrupt the marriage contract; that that union is, by the laws of God, of nature, of the land, and of the heart, in defiance of all that the Poor Law Commissioners can do, until death us do part.' Yes, my Lord, I have told the people this truth; and I have exhorted them to stand by it to the death, as I will. "I cannot close this letter without remarking, that I think it is very unmanly, to say the least of it, for Her Majesty's Ministers thus to defame me in their high seats in Parliament, when they know that every word will be printed in all the newspapers, and that I am expected every day to stand before a strange London jury, at the suit of my rich and powerful prosecutor, Thomas Thornhill, Esq. It is not fair, my Lord, thus to prejudice the jury against me. "I have the honour to remain, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient servant, "No. 8, Rawstorne Street, Brompton, Middlesex, Feb. 5, 1840. "RICHARD OASTLER. "P.S.-Mr. Wood, one of the candidates, now the member for Southwark, who knows nothing whatever about me, volunteered (if the Morning Chronicle does not misrepresent him) the following most atrocious falsehoods about me. On the day of nomination, from the hustings, the Morning Chronicle says, that Mr. Wood uttered the following most horrible falsehoods respecting me. I copy it word for word, as follows:-' He would read to them the expressions of one of Mr. Walter's friends. He then read a passage from a speech of Mr. Oastler, in which he swore, that if sent to a Poor Law bastile for one night, he would shoot the governor; if he failed in that, he would then set the place on fire; and if he failed in both, he would stab his wife to the heart, and then do the same to himself.' It is really true, if the Morning Chronicle is worthy of credit, when reporting the speeches of its friends, that Mr. Wood invented all this scheme of murder, fire, and suicide, and then told the electors of Southwark that I had said so, and actually made them believe that he was reading it from a speech of Mr. Oastler.' By such means Mr. Wood now represents Southwark in Parliament. As was natural, the people, believing him, were incensed against me; and I have a letter this very day from one of Mr. Wood's friends, abusing me most voluptuously, and telling me, 'You were lucky in escaping being tarred and feathered in Southwark. It was resolved on, but you could not be found when all was ready.' I honour the people of Southwark for this proof that they are men. Were I the man which Mr. Wood represented me to be, 'tarring and feathering' would be too lenient a punishment. I believe I shall shortly have an opportunity of talking with the men of Southwark. I shall be glad to meet the gentleman to whom I have alluded, my informant, Mr. J. Wilson, Union Street, Southwark, and if he really loves the working classes, he and I shall not long be angry with each other. He will find, that in believing Mr. Wood, he has entirely misconceived me. Excuse me, my Lord; I thought 1 would tell you how well Mr. Wood has acted the part of Ministerial lackey in defamation.-R.Q." Lord Melbourne, the Prime Minister of the Queen of England, gave the best proof that he was conscious of the falseness of the charge which he had brought against me in the House of Lords, and which he had instructed his Subs to make against me in the House of Commons, by refusing me the opportunity of meeting |