the " answer which his constituents had returned by him to Her Majesty" concerning the New Poor Law. I have yet to learn that I have injured the cause of Truth thereby.

In Vol. 1, No. 52, I had occasion to quote Mr. Stuart Wortley's observations respecting my strictures on his omission. I should not have alluded again to that subject, had I not been favoured with a letter from an editor of a West Riding Conservative paper, who was present at the Barnsley Conservative dinner, when Mr. Stuart Wortley mentioned the subject. My friend says:

I was

"Your notice of Mr. Wortley's remarks at the Barnsley dinner was excellent. present, and though Mr. Wortley spoke of you with the greatest respect, yet I did not think his attack, if so I may word it, was uncalled for. One remarkable feature was, that while every other sentiment in his speech was received with loud applause, these remarks were received with perfect silence. Not a single hear, hear,' greeted him. And when he attempted to show that the cry of 'No Poor Law' had little to do with his return, there was an incredulous smile played upon the countenance of some of his supporters, which must even have convinced Mr. W. that they thought differently to him.”

Yes, Sir, I know, (and that is the only reason why I recur to this subject,) I know, that if a mistake is made by the Conservative Government respecting the influence which the New Poor Law had in creating the inextinguishable hatred of the people of England to the Whigs, and which turned them out, then, that the continuance in office of the Conservatives will be short indeed. Am I then their enemy, because, even at the risk of their displeasure, I would hold them in office, by telling them the truth? If it be so, I must bear their hatred with the same composure that I bear yours, and also for the same crime.

It is true, that in Vol. 1, Nos. 50 and 51 of these letters, I could not withhold my censure from Sir James Graham, who, if he was reported correctly, was guilty of misrepresenting the nature and the time of "an order of the New Poor Law Commissioners," with reference to widows, and who-he, a constitutional Minister, could, in the House of Commons, talk with patience of their (the Commissioners) "relaxing the stringency" of the laws of England and could palliate and excuse the unconstitutional and arbitary conduct of officials, who had, on his own admission, "evaded to AN IMMENSE EXTENT one of the MOST ESSENTIAL provisions" in the very law which gives those persons office! Because the veneration with which I view the constitution, forced me to feel disgust at the sight of the Home Secretary thus degrading his high office, I am thought by some to be unfriendly to Sir Robert Peel and his government! If Sir Robert intends that his power shall be used to uphold the unconstitutional Hydra of Somerset House, why then, we cannot be friends, for I am as eternally opposed to that Monster, as is the Constitution of England, as is the Christian Religion.

I believe, and I think I have often proved, that the whole system of the New Poor Law, root and branch, is from beneath; I only wonder that it was ever permitted to be enrolled in the statute book of a nation called Christian, for the government of a people who would fain be considered as using their freedom under the controul of justice.

Everything about it-its imprisonment of the crimeless poor-its separation

of man and wife-its degradation of the rate-payers, by requiring them to consult the Commissioners as to the quantity, quality, and nature of relief to their poor, even to an ounce of bread, a farthing in money, and a single thread of wearing apparel-its banishing the poor from their churches and chapels-its selling the poor to slavery and death-its breaking up the homes of the peasants and artisans-its alienating the cottages and gardens of the poor-its robbing the poor of even the smallest presents of their friends its subjecting the poor to barbarous punishments-its stewing them up in pestilential, filthy, and unbearable densits negleeting the sick poor, till they absolutely rot in their beds-its hitherto unheard-of cruelties-its fiendish mockery of the fondest ties of nature its holding courts of itself to try itself; but I have no room patience to recount in how many ways it is tyrannical, oppressive, and unconstitutional; my wonder is, that Englishmen have been befooled by it so long, and that a Minister of the Crown of England should dare for one moment to palliate crimes so revolting, not only to our constitution, but our nature.

or

Well then, let it be once for all understood by you, Sir, and my readers, that no Government which is resolved to uphold that most "execrable and atrocious," that unconstitutional and un-christian enactment (although they may be dubbed Conservative), can have the support of your prisoner.

The foregoing observations will be an answer to many persons who have taken objections to some of the Fleet Papers, because I have felt it to be my duty to warn the Conservative Government and some of their friends of the danger they are in, if they turn a deaf ear to the lesson which the people of England intended to teach them, when, with unutterable scorn and contempt, they drove the Whigs from the Ministerial benches.

The following observations on the Fleet Papers, which I copy from the Chester Courant of the 28th December, 1841, demand a more lengthened notice. Before I insert them, I beg that the respectable editor of that paper will accept my thanks for the friendly and candid manner in which he has expressed himself. My answer will not, I hope, be offensive to such a monitor. I quote the whole of his observations:

"Mr. Oastler's Fleet Papers this week present us with a picture of the gloomy jail, answering to the name of the Fleet Prison; where Mr. Thornhill's victim, from time to time, gives us the benefit of his literary labours, and thus lays his former patron open to strong suspicions that he is acting under, to say the least, a mistaken feeling.

"The strictures in the Courant, on the views taken by Mr. Oastler, with respect to the government of Sir R. Peel, are borne out by others, firm in the Conservative cause. Mr. Oastler may be truly sincere, and we believe him so in his rooted antipathy to Whig dominion; for he says,— *If I thought that there was no alternative, save having back the Whigs, I should indeed despair; and would then give my country up for lost, because I should be sure, that some plausible, cunning and crafty spirit of his satanic majesty had been permitted by Almighty God, as a punishment for our sins, to be (as in the case of Ahab) a lying spirit in the mouth of the ministers of the Queen.' With these opinions (responded to by the Conservative ranks) how can our friend Mr. Oastler reconcile his unceremonious manner of impeaching Sir James Graham's opinions on the Poor Law particularly, and quoting garbled speeches of Sir R. Peel? of whom he states, that he once declared, that 'The principles of free trade were sound principles of commercial policy, known to be irrefragable.' Will Mr. Oastler refer us to the speech in Hansard? We do not remember it. And certainly this method of supporting a Conservative government by disparaging its leading members

is the most extraordinary course we are aware of. Well might a Yorkshire friend of Mr. Oastler write thus to him :-'That Mr. Oastler has done great good to the Conservatives, by teaching them the value of cultivating the friendship of the working classes, is beyond question: and that in turn, he has done equal good to the industrious classes by bringing them in beneficial contact with the middle and upper classes, is quite indisputable, I am, however, afraid that the last number of the Fleet Papers will be injurious, because its tendency is to weaken the government, which, at present, requires nursing rather than cudgelling.' There is forcible truth in this remark; and we trust Mr. Oastler is conscious of it.

“We dare not underrate Mr. Oastler's influence,—that would be warring against conviction; but we do hope, he will exert it in a way more calculated to promote the object we have in view as Conservatives; for we consider the return of the Whigs to power would be the ruin of the empire;—in which our friend Oastler agrees; and yet he is throwing the apple of discord into our own camp, by allusions, in which, after all, he is probably at fault, or misinformed. Such a course is neutralising all the good achieved by his pen; and we declare openly, that Mr. Oastler cannot better serve the cause of the Whigs, to whom he declares the bitterest aversion, than pursuing the line of policy he is now bent upon."

In the 52nd number, Vol. 1, of the Fleet Papers, I said :

"The singularity of the matter is this-the Free Trade Ministry were beaten on a Free Trade question, by an opposition, whose leader (Sir Robert Peel) had once declared, that 'The principles of Free Trade were sound principles of commercial policy, known to be irrefragable.'”

My friend calls for proof from Hansard: I have not that work here. It will be easily referred to, by those who have it, when I have furnished the authority upon which I made the declaration which has called forth his remarks. Before proceeding further in reply, you shall have my authority, from "The Speeches of the Right Honourable William Huskisson," published by John Murray, Albemarle Street, London, 1831. I quote from Vol. 2, Pages 236-7-8, of that work. If these quotations are not satisfactory, Hansard may be consulted.

"ALTERATIONS IN THE LAWS RELATING TO THE SILK TRADE, March 5th, 1824. “Mr. BARING, in presenting a petition from the silk manufacturers of London, praying that the House would not suffer any bill to pass into a law, which would repeal the prohibition on the importation of foreign wrought silk, and insisting that the removal of the said prohibition would be ruinous to their interests, said, that, after all the consideration he could give to the subject, he was of opinion that the petitioners were right. In this instance he should vote against the system of Free Trade, and trusted the ministers would abandon their intention.

"Mr. Secretary CANNING begged the House to consider, if the reasoning of the honourable member for Taunton were adopted, in what a situation all those were likely to be placed, who were desirous of introducing a liberal system of commercial policy. It should be recollected, that this liberal system had been pressed upon ministers by nearly the whole House.

"Mr. DENMAN said, that although he had no doubt that the ultimate result of the new system of commercial policy would be beneficial, a conviction of the inconvenience and hardships attendant on the change would induce him to vote against it.

“Mr. HUSKI9SON said, recollecting the inquiries that had taken place in the other House of Parliament before committees, the present could not be fairly called an attempt to legislate without due information. He protested against the assumption, that either that House or the trade had been taken by surprise.

"Mr. DAVENPORT maintained, that the proposed measure would be a damper, if not an extinguisher to the silk trade.

"Mr. ELLICE approved of the liberal system of policy, but was unwilling to commence the alteration with that branch of industry which was exposed to the greatest chance of successful competition.

"Mr. Secretary PEEL entreated the House, to consider in what light it would stand before Europe, if, after declaiming so long in favour of free trade, it did not attempt, instead of aiming at

temporary popularity, to establish soUND PRINCIPLES of commercial policy. How greatly would those principles be prejudiced, if, knowing them to be IRREFRAGABLE, Parliament, not having the courage to encounter difficulties, were to yield to the fears of the timid, or the representations of the interested."

It was the perusal of what Mr. Secretary Peel is there stated to have said, on that occasion, which led me to the conclusion, that "Sir Robert Peel once declared, that'The principles of free trade were sound principles of commercial policy, known to be irrefragable.'

If I have misrepresented Sir Robert Peel's meaning, I am sorry, and I hereby apologize. If his former sayings "disparage" him, then the question will be, Has he found out his error? and if so, Has he the fortitude to say so? or, to use his own words, "Instead of aiming at temporary popularity, has he the courage to encounter difficulties, rather than yield to the fears of the timid, or the representations of the interested."

My object is, faithfully to represent the opinions of Sir Robert Peel. I think I have proved that I am justified in associating his name with the Free Trade principle; for it can never be forgotten, that Mr. Huskisson, who was the apostle of Free Trade, held office in the same Ministry with Sir Robert; and although Mr. Huskisson did afterwards, as I have shown you in a former letter, discover and admit the erroneous nature of his policy, I am not aware that, as yet, Sir Róbert Peel has done so.

That the Ministry, of which Sir Robert Peel formed a part in 1824-26, were professedly Free Traders, may be adduced from the following facts, which I gather from "The Speeches of Mr. William Huskisson," from which work I have before quoted.

At Vol. 2, p. 466, in a debate "On the effects of the Free Trade system on the Silk Manufacture," February 24th, 1826.

Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS, M.P. for Lincoln, (now one of the Judges in the Queen's Bench,) declared, that he could not allow the existence of half a million of persons [employed or dependent on the silk manufactures] to be used as an experiment in proving the correctness of an abstract theory. If the authors of this measure, [the Free Trade alteration of the laws relating to the Silk Trade,] were so convinced of their principle, that they were prepared to make that sacrifice, in carrying it into execution, the strength of their resolution could, under present circumstances, only prove the quality of their hearts. A perfect metaphysician, as Mr. Burke had observed, exceeded the devil in point of malignity, and contempt for the welfare of mankind. He must look upon their perseverance, in this case at least, as a proof of overweening attention to the principle which they might have adopted, be the application, in experiment or result, either good or bad. Let the right honourable gentleman opposite, and his colleagues, take one admonition from him; the responsibility must, in any event, remain with them. From that responsibility, no gentleman or set of gentlemen in that House could relieve them. The House might divide it with them and lessen it; but the chief burthen must remain on their shoulders. Such was their fate, and to it they were bound by the constitution of the country, and by their acceptance of place; and answer they must to the country for the result, however great or little the discretion which had directed them."

It is undeniable, however, that on the subject of Free Trade there was, at that time, an unison of feeling and of action in the two great parties, Whig and Conservative, for a majority of 222 to 40 carried the Free Trade principle. Sir Robert Peel was then willing to take the "responsibility" of Free Trade measures

upon his own shoulders," and in reply to the above observations of Mr. Williams, Mr. Huskisson said, (Vol. 2, p. 468):

"I leave him, and his honourable friends around him, to settle among themselves the taunts, the sneers, and the sarcasms, which he has heaped upon their heads, as the friends of those principles which are involved in the present discussion.-principles which it has been their boast, that they were the first to recommend, and of which they have uniformly been the most eager advocates in this House."

Yes, Sir, the grand mistake of the Conservatives was their adoption of the new theory of commercial policy, which was " first recommended and eagerly advocated" by the Whigs. What those "principles" were, will be fully understood by the following quotations from Mr. Huskisson's speech, who, at Vol. 2, p. 471, said:

The present question, therefore, is not simply the motion before the House, but neither more nor less than, Whether a restrictive or an enlarged system of commercial policy be the best for this country?"

Mr. Huskisson (Vol. 2, p. 472) then read the petition of the merchants and traders of the city of London, which had been presented to the House of Commons in the month of May 1820; which petition, he said, "Is a document of no ordinary interest, containing sound principles laid down in the clearest language." "The House," said Mr. Huskisson, "will see how decidedly the petitioners maintain the principles upon which His Majesty's Government have acted." This "most valuable document," as Mr. Huskisson termed it, (Vol. 2, p. 473,) may be fairly styled the catechism of the Free Traders. The following sentences from that "most valuable document," (Vol. 2, pp. 472-3,) will fully explain its nature and tendency

66

That freedom from restraint is calculated to give the utmost extension to foreign trade, aad the best direction to the capital and industry of the country.

"That the maxim of buying in the cheapest market, and selling in the dearest, which regulates every merchant in his individual dealings, is strictly applicable, as the best rule for the trade of the whole nation.

"That a policy, founded on these principles, would render the commerce of the world an interchange of mutual advantages, and diffuse an increase of wealth and enjoyments among the inhabitants of each state."

A gilded bait to tempt millions to their ruin! The rest of this "most valuable document," is an argument founded entirely on the principles of Free Trade, which were most broadly asserted and maintained throughout by the petitioners. After reading that petition from beginning to end, Mr. Huskisson said, pages 475 and 477:

"It will be clear to all who have been at the trouble to attend to the very able document which 1 have just read, that it embraces all the great principles of commercial policy, upon which parliament has since legislated.

"Let it not, however, be supposed, that I offer this petition to the House, in the way of an apology for myself and right honourable colleagues, in the way of extenuation of anything which we may have done, to exeite the wrath of the honourable and learned member for Lincoln, Sir, I think now, as I have always thought, that our measures require no apology. I believe now, as 1 have always believed, that they are calculated to promote the best interests of the people. I say now, as I have always said, that those who, either by their speeches in Parliament, or the exertions of their talents out of it, have contributed to bring the people of England to look with an eye of favour on the principles recommended in this petition, have done themselves the greatest honour, and the country an essential benefit."