The following most interesting collection of important facts has been forwarded to me by a South-country Farmer, who is indignant at the idea that the Northerns should be duped into the belief that "the New Poor Law works well in the South." My kind friend is a man of the greatest respectability and influence. He is a Tory of the old school, and mourns over the selfdegradation of those nobles who are content to rob the poor for the purpose of reducing the rates. He is grieved when Lords and Commons assert that which they know to be false-viz. "The New Poor Law works well in the South." I wish I could, this week, have inserted his communication entire— that is, however, impossible. If I can find room next week, I will conclude his statement.-R.O.

THE WORKING OF THE NEW POOR LAW IN THE SOUTH. To Mr. Richard Oastler.-SIR,

The Altar, the Throne, and the Cottage. While our nobles are amusing themselves as follows, the Dukes of Richmond, Rutland, &c. as Poor Law Guardians-Sir James Graham as Head Gaoler-the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon as Head Watch and Clock-maker-the Duke of Argyle as head of a Society for Emigration-the Duke of Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, Lords Abinger, Brougham, &c. trumpeting forth the boons and benefits the poor have received, and still do receive, from the practice of the New Poor Law-and the Earl of Stradbrooke threatening to weigh the paupers in and out of the workhouse,-the people are naked and starving, and driven to such extremes, that the officers are declared to be in danger of being murdered.' Well may the Morning Herald say, 'The poor hate the rich, and the rich fear the poor.' Readers, see the following, and judge for yourselves. Thousands of such cases may be found.

Sir Robert Peel said- If it should be found that guardians were acting on the principle described by Mr. Wakley, viz. let us employ not the test, but the torture, to induce the poor to accept lower wages, then he should wish to see the authority of the Poor Law Commissioners established as a tribunal, to which the poor man may appeal with full confidence that his interest may be protected.'

Lord Abinger, at Lancaster, said, 'Labour is and ought to be protected, &c. And I believe the law of England is so framed, that if any oppression takes place upon the labourer, the law furnishes a remedy.'

Lord Brougham said, 'The New Poor Law was a safe and effectual remedy, restoring to industry its due reward,' &c.

Whenever the New Poor Law is complained of in the North, the Triumvirate and all the host point to the southern counties, where they regard their experiments with triumph, as complete and satisfactory. See a few specimens from the southern counties, and draw your own conclusions.

'Fourteen men, some of the leaders of about fifty who stole bread from two bakers' shops in Cannon Street, were charged at the Mansion House with walking into the shops and taking the bread, and dividing it among the others in the street. They all declared they were in a starving condition, and many of the others followed, and wished to be taken with them to the station-house, to prevent being starved-not to perish in the street,' &c.-Morning Herald, Jan. 13, 1842.

Ten vagrants were enveloped in rugs and placed before the aldermen at Guildhall, charged with entering the East London Union in rags and tatters, shirtless and shoeless, the night before, and during the night tore up their tatters to ribbons, and were found in the morning stark naked!" -Ibid. March 2, 1842.

From that time to this it is impossible to say how many have been reduced to this state of misery and wretchedness; but as proof it continues, see the following:

UNION HALL. Yesterday nine men were charged with entering the St. Olaves Union in rags and tatters the night before, and found all stark naked in the morning. The men said they all came from distant parts of the country in search of work, and their clothes had got into such a state of rags and filth, they could bear them no longer, and they destroyed them to get others."— Ibid. April 5, 1843.

UNION HALL.-Yesterday seven men were brought from St. Olaves workhouse, for destroying their clothes. Scarcely a day passes that several men are not brought up for a similar effence, which is increasing, &c. On the preceding night 75 casual paupers were admitted, and upwards of 100 more were sent away for want of room. And crowds of the same unfortunate persons besiege the door of St. George's, Bermondsey, Christchurch and other workhouses in the district, and the tumult and confusion is most unpleasant to the inhabitants.'-Times, April 6, 1848. Government, as applied to the poor, has of late years neither ruled or taught them; it has neglected their happiness, improvement, and rational freedom. Year after year the poor have been widely alienated from the rich, &c., until the poor hate the rich, and the rich fear the poor." -Editor Morning Herald, Sept. 9, 1841.

The aristocracy of England, to be respected, must be full of moral and religious truth, both understood and practised. The people see the aristocracy too much through their vices, and too little through their virtues. They fancy they are on one side of a gulf, and the nobles on the other -their generous feelings are turned by neglect to gall. The tempter interposes, a Whig, a Chartist, &c., and the people are taught to hate those whom they are disposed to admire. The fault is nt in the people-they will rely on some influence-evil if it be not good. It is in the aristo»

cracy, who disregard and fail to cherish the most natural of all connexions—that between the highest and lowest of mankind.'-Ibid. Oct. 15, 1841.

The cruel severity of our prison discipline is a natural consequence of the New Poor Law, &c. When the New Poor Law converted the relief of the pauper into something like punishment, it became necessary, to preserve the distinction between poverty and crime, to convert the punishment of the criminal into something like torture !'—Ibid. Nov. 4, 1842.

The New Poor Law has placed a screw in the hands of the master, against which it is impossible for the workman to bear up. The master, in fine, has the power of saying to the workman, you must accept such wages as I choose to give; for if you dare to refuse them, however inadequate or disproportionate to the value of your labour, the New Poor Law has enacted that you shall starve!'-Ibid. Sept. 12, 1842.

Every man in the empire feels that he is now in a worse position than he was ten years ago. The poor are half fed—the middling and trading classes are half insolvent—the higher classes are greatly embarrassed-wealth has become less generally diffused. Enormous fortunes are made by a few, a very few, at the expense of and by the suffering of the rest of the community. Every profession, trade, office, and shop is filled, yet millions are unemployed.'-Ibid, Jan. 5, 1842.

The London Police were stationed in the Blything Union-house, Suffolk, and the soldiers were sent from the barracks at Ipswich while they were separating the men from their wives in that house. The pressure without about the same time was so great, that a body of men, of some hundreds, were on their way, armed with pick-axes, erow-bars, &c., when they were met by a clergyman, whom they knew hated the Poor Law as much as they did, and they listened to him. He addressed one man in the front, and said, My honest fellow.' Honest! Sir,' said the man. They wont let us be honest!!' Other gentlemen then came up, who the poor knew disliked the law as much as they did themselves, and by good words from those whom they knew to be their friends, they went quietly home again. But for this, they would, in all probability, have pulled the house down.

SUSSEX.-Brighton.-At a meeting of more than 600 persons at the Town Hall, the Rev. J. S. M. Anderson (chaplain to the Queen Dowager) said, the question was, whether they would surrender the whole power of managing the poor to the Commissioners. He held the workhouse test as to out-door relief to be infamous and unjust,' &c. He did not like to fix the allowance to the starving point,' &c., nor to deal with the poor in masses, as masses of granite or bales of goods. Their boasted uniformity did not exist-the diet of London was not the diet of Kent, Hampshire, &c. Indeed, if the stringent clauses of the new system had been uniformly kept up. there would have been a rebellion from one end of the kingdom to the other.'-'If the law would back them, they [the orders of the Commissioners] should never be carried out there.'

Mr. P. Harvey (a guardian) said, ' He would cut his right hand off first!'

The vestry clerk said, 'He would make no charge for his law expenses if they were appealed against,' &c.

Mr. G. Dempster said, 'The vestry clerk's proposal did honour to his head and his heart. He looked upon it as a question whether they should transfer the present system, which was satisfactory to every oue concerned, to these Commissioners and their system, which had been tried and condemned by the almost unanimous voice of the kingdom!'

The resolution to oppose the Poor Law Commissioners was carried with one hand being held up only out of the 600!!-See Morning Herald, Jan. 4, 1842.

Lewes Gaol.-Four boys brought before the magistrates at Battle for disorderly conduct in the Union-house. The eldest (15) had been sent before for similar conduct, and advised the others to revolt, for the treatment in the prison was far superior to the Union-house. The magistrates at first refused to commit; but the boys said if they did not they would commit other crimes that would compel them; and they were sent to Lewes gaol for three weeks.'-Ibid. June 2, 1842.

East Bourne Union.-Captain Pechel said, that Mr. Booker had charged the guardians of this Union with moral and constructive murder. He now renewed that charge, and would stand by it.'-Ibid. April 15, 1842.

'HAMPSHIRE.-Winchester Assizes.-Upwards of 100 prisoners for trial-more than double the average number during the war; yet taxed heavily with the Rural Police.'-Ibid. March 1, 1842.

Salisbury Assizes.-119 prisoners for trial. More than was ever recollected in this county.' -Ibid. March 4, 1842.

* Monmouth Gaol-is so full, that a person who was brought there on Thursday week was refused admission till the following day.'-Ibid.

Aylesbury Gaol.-Nine females, with each a child at her breast, were at one time in this prison, with nothing but the ordinary prison diet for support of themselves and infants. And Inspector Mr. Russell found ten small cold cells, 6 or 7 feet by 3, scarcely fit for one prisoner, with three prisoners in each, and five had been at one time in where there was not room for them to lie down.'-Weekly Dispatch, Feb. 19, 1843.

'ESSEX.-Springfield Gaol.-Samuel Sampson died in one of the small cells, after being sent the second time from the Union, because from disease, and sixty years of age, he was unable to perform the work offered him. Inspectors Russell and Crawford found thirty prisoners sick more than the hospital could contain, confined to their beds in the ordinary cells. Dr. Short reports that the sickness and diseases were produced by cold, low diet, and inefficient clothing!!'-Morning Herald, Jan. 7, 1843.—[Are not these doings capital offences against the State?]

Now see proofs of increased comforts and raising the moral character of the poor.' Look at a few instances from London, Kent, Surrey, Suffolk, Sussex, Essex, besides the notorious accounts in the public papers of Hoo, Medway, Sevenoaks, Eaton, Bridgewater, and other Unionsthe horrors of which will be an eternal and everlasting disgrace to the parties supporting this most

abominable, hateful, and unchristian law. Here is proofs of the 'destitute being better provided for-when only five out of forty-two persons are sent from Greenwich to Maidstone gaol; yet no less than 108 are sent in one month from that one office!! And the London prisons crowded to suffocation, and the parish officers in danger of being murdered!!! Here is a return of 74 ablebodied labourers. Another Union makes a return of 47 able-bodied men; and again another Union These three are from made a return, about the same time, of 133 able-bodied men and women.

different parts of the country, and below the average number. And taking 74 and 47 women with the men as above, gives 125 able men and women in each house; and supposing they have only one child each able-bodied person, these able-bodied men and families cost the country at the rate of near three millions a year! as hereafter shown.

KENT.-Maidstone Gaol.-The calender is unusually heavy-119 prisoners for trial; and it is expected the trial of the late master of the Hoo Union will come on for flogging the females.”— Ibid. March 16, 1842.

'Greenwich Union,Sixteen refractory paupers sent to Maidstone gaol,'-Ibid. Oct. 21, 1843. Sutton (the master) reported to the board of guardians, that 35 had been sent to Maidstone gaol the last three days, and ten more were charged, and nine sent to Maidstone. One of the men spoke for the others, and declared he never would work in any Union-house-he would be hung first.'Ibid. Oct. 22, 1842.

Thirty-seven men and five women (42 persons) made similar declarations; and twenty-one charged before the magistrate, who committed only five to Maidstone gaol out of the forty-two, as no less than 108 had been sent there in the last month.'-Ibid. Oct. 28, 1842.

SURREY, much the same.-Eleven men at one time committed from Union Hall for refusing to break stones for a night's lodging, &c. in Newington workhouse. The men said they had only dirty straw to lay on, a bit of dry bread, and gruel that ran through them like water. Officers declared these vagrants were so numerous, they did not know what to do with them.'-Ibid. Oct. 19, 1842.

'LONDON.-Mansion House.-Gooch, the turnkey of the Giltspur Street Compter, had been a servant to the prison twenty-two years, and never before knew it to be in such a crowded state. They were compelled to put three or four men in a bed where there should be only one, and then it appeared that forty or fifty were obliged to lie upon the floor; and other prisons, as well as the Refuge in Whitecross Street, were also crowded to excess.'-Ibid. March 24, 1842.

'Guildhall.-Schole field, the turnkey,said Bridewell was so crowded, that the aldermen complained they had no means of summary punishment for the four lads then before them, for stealing bread to save them from starving; and they were obliged to send fourteen others before them to Newgate for trial. The magistrates and clerks both at the Mansion House and Guildhall declared, that the Bridewell and Compter Prisons were used as a relief to the Unions; and that the New Poor Law had crowded our prisons almost to suffocation,' &c.-Ibid. March 31, 1842.

West London Union.-Relieving officer (Mr. Miller) said, The casual poor were so numerous and so hungry, that he wondered the parish officers were not murdered! ! ! !'—Ib. Jan. 4, 1842. 'Bosmere and Croydon Union.-There are now 74 able-bodied labourers in this house. The refractory conduct of these men has excited some alarm in the breasts of the authorities. Application has been made to the chief constable of police for two constables to be stationed in the vicinity, in case of an outbreak. Yesterday the attention of the guardians of the Union was specially called to the subject, and every precaution adopted to prevent a breach of the peace.'-Ipswick Journal, Jan. 28, 1843.

Loddon and Clavering Union.-Heckingham House.-The Bury Post of the 11th and 18th instant has misrepresented some facts as to the conduct of the governor of this house, and the rigour of two ex-officio guardians in the infliction of corporeal punishment upon some of the refractory inmates,' &c.-Ibid.

Cosford Union.-Semer House.-Two clergymen proposed and seconded a motion for an increase of bread and potatoes; and it only waits the sanction of the Somerset House Commissioners to put in practice the highest scale of the neighbourhood instead of the lowest, as it has been,' &c. -Ibid. March 11, 1843.

'Beccles Gaol.-Suffolk Union Workhouses.-Although the public hear nothing whatever of the complaints of the paupers confined in union workhouses in this county, yet it appears a strong feeling of discontent exists among them, both male and female occasionally breaking out in acts of violence-unfortunately, the only form of expression which these incarcerated creatures are capable of giving of their discontent and desire of relief. This dissatisfied feeling has most strongly shown itself in Shipmeadow House. No less than 26 paupers, twenty-three men and three women, (some for making a noise, and calling the master improper names-some for entering a ward or yard not appropriated to them-some for demolishing a wall and windows-one for breaking a broom-handle, and some for taking provisions out of the trays) were committed to Beccles gaol, where they say they have better food, and more of it, than in the house. The guardians were summoned. One rich farmer would not go, or be a screw-driver to the Commissioners any longer.'-Suffolk Chronicle, March 4 and 11, 1843.

Hoxne Union House.-Six men were committed to the county gaol for refusing to workSamuel Bush for sixteen days; William Flint seventeen days; George Taylor eighteen days; William Warren nineteen days; Samuel Sillett twenty days; and James Beaumont twenty-one days.'-Ibid.

These six men had to go twenty miles from the prison to their homes-one every day, as if intended to add a solitary walk to the other punishment.'

(To be continued.)

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

THE

FLEET PAPERS.

LONDON:

W. J. CLEAVER, 80, BAKER STREET,

PORTMAN SQUARE;

AND

JOHN PAVEY, 47, HOLYWELL STREET, STRAND.

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.

Mr. OLLIVIER is thanked for a copy of the pamphlet entitled," Manufacturing Districts."
A. Z., Knaresbro'.—No, indeed: the old miser was too wise in his generation to leave his
nephew a farthing.
A HUDDERSFIELD FRIEND.- Mr. OASTLER'S opinion is that Dr. CROLY's pamphlet, "England,
the Fortress of Christianity," should be read by every Englishman. At this moment it is
all-important.

The following letter is LORD COTTENHAM'S reply, in acknowledgment of the letter of thanks from the parties enjoying the "purchased liberty of the Rules of the Queen's Bench," for his Lordship's services in bringing a Bill into the House of Lords for its continuation; which Bill was passed unanimously by the Lords, but rejected by the Home Secretary! now Head Gaoler of the Queen's Prison. Proh! Pudor!

"LORD COTTENHAM presents his compliments to CAPTAIN GOULD, and has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the communication transmitted by him, and dated the 23rd insta t. "LORD COTTENHAM has had much pleasure in forwarding a measure which he thought justice required, and requests CAPTAIN GOULD will have the goodness to express to the parties to this communication LORD COTTENHAM's sense of the sentiments it contains.

To CAPTAIN GOULD, Junior United Service Club.--27th May, 1843."

Where is the Constitution? The Lords passed the Bill unanimously; the
Commons pass it to a second reading; and the Home Secretary arrests its
progress!-thus asserting and using a power greater than the two Houses!
Again, I ask, where is the Constitution? And where is the head of the Home
Secretary?-R O.

A HARD CASE.

There is no greater mistake than to suppose that justice is not withheld from the poor. There anxious to meet a jury, but, because he is poor, he can is in this prison a poor gentleman, who neither force his prosecutor to bring him to trial, nor obtain his release from prison on bail. He is, in fact, the prisoner of his enemy, confined under the warrant of a Judge, during the pleasure of his prosecutor!

People outside assume, because a Judge has said so, that, "If any man hath wrong or injury done to him by his imprisonment, we [the Judges] have the power to release him."

That the words of this emphatic declaration of LORD HYDE were true when that great and wise Judge used them, there can be no doubt; but how far they are carried out in practice at the present day, will be seen from the following case.

Last January an indictment was preferred before the grand jury sitting in the Court of Queen's' Bench at Westminster Hall against Mr. T. for alleged perjury, stated to have been committed in an affidavit which he swore on the 11th day of that month; and "a true bill" was returned on Saturday the 28th of January. About four hours afterwards. the prosecutor obtained a Bench warrant under the hand and seal of the Chief Justice, for Mr. T.'s apprehension, and he was next morning (being Sunday) taken into custody by a police constable, and conveyed to a station-house, where he remained until the following day; and at three o'clock of that day (Monday, the 30th of January) he was taken before a Judge at chambers, and committed to prison for want of bail.

Mr. T, although a member of a highly respectable family, was unable to procure bail, and he determined patiently to remain in prison until the following term. when, from the prosecutor's declaration that "no time should be lost in bringing him to trial," he expected to be brought up to plead and take his trial.

Easter Term arrived, and lasted from the 19th day of April to the day of May; but the pro

1

secutor took no proceeding to bring the case forward. Vacation intervened, and then Trinity Term arrived; still nothing was done by the prosecutor.

Mr. T. wearied out by waiting, and with the prospect before him of the long vacation, at last wrote to the prosecutor, stating "his readiness to go to trial, and asking prosecutor whether he meant to go on in that term." Prosecutor replied that "he would take immediate steps to bring Mr. T. up to plead." On the 8th of June Mr. T, was brought into Court, and pleaded "not guilty"; and then moved the Court to bind the prosecutor over to prosecute, and to let him (Mr. T.) out of custody, either on his own recognizance, or upon giving such bail as he could procure. He urged upon the Court's consideration the long time he had remained in prison without trial and conviction of a jury-his perfect readiness at all times, since his imprisonment, to go to trial, and his unceasing anxiety for an opportunity to establish his entire freedom from guilt, and his innocence of the crime charged against him, and referred to the Act of Parliament (48 Geo. 3rd. c. 58.) under the authority of which the warrant had been granted upon which he had been apprehended; and which Act directs, that in case a defendant charged by indictment for any offence (not being treason or felony) shall neglect or refuse to give bail for his appearance, the Judge shall commit him to prison, there to remain until he shall give bail, or shall be discharged by order of the said Court in term time, or of one of the Judges in vacation;" which Act, he maintained, gave the Judge power to discharge him, and particularly in a case like the present, where the prosecutor had so long neglected to bring the case to trial. He also maintained that the Judges of the Queen's Bench could, in the exercise of that power which they enjoyed at common law, as well as by the above and other Statutes, admit him to bail in such sum only as he could procure; for the Act of William and Mary declares it to be an offence against the liberty of the subject to demand exces. sive bail, being in effect a denial of bail altogether. The learned Judge, however, in very humane language, informed Mr. T. he could not compel his prosecutor to go on, and that he had himself to blame for his long imprisonment, for he might have given bail long ago, and recommended him to apply to a Judge at chambers with the best bail he could obtain. So that a poor man in prison is presumed to be in his own custody, when he cannot obtain bail, and his prosecutor refuses 10 bring him to trial.

As I have already stated, Mr. T. is unable to procure bail, and he remains in prison, without trial and conviction. This, under circumstances even of clear guilt, is a hardship, because imprisonment before trial is seldom taken into account in apportioning punishment after conviction; but, in the present case, if it be true that the accused is prepared to establish, by the clearest and most unimpeachable evidence, his innocence, it amounts to a great practical cruelty to the individual. It is hardly possible to account for the seeming difference which exists in the administration of criminal law at the Central Criminal Court from that in practice in the Queen's Bench, the highest Court of criminal justice in England. Few persons have any knowledge of that difference. At the Central Criminal Court, prisoners who are not tried and convicted or acquitted, are discharged by proclamation at the end of each Sessions; and had Mr. T. been indicted in that Court, and committed to Newgate in January last, he must have been tried or discharged before the expiration of five weeks. He has now been imprisoned five months, owing to the difference of practice in the Queen's Bench; and under no circumstances can he now be brought to trial before November; so that the practice of the Court of Queen's Bench is a premium on persecution. It is impossible to say whether, when the prosecutor preferred his indictment in the Queen's Bench, he contemplated the possibility of the accused being kept so long in prison without a conviction; but it is a fact, that cannot be denied, that if the prosecutor had waited from the Saturday when he procured a true bill" against Mr. T. in the Queen's Bench, until the following Monday morning, a period of less than forty-eight hours, he might have indieted him at at the Central Criminal Court; and in that case, as I have above shown, Mr. T. must have been long ago brought to trial. Surely the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench will no longer allow themselves to remain the instruments of injustice for the gratification of malice!

It is cruel in the extreme to charge a man with such a grave offence as that of perjury (which is not less dangerous to the welfare of society than it is detestable in its nature,) and not allow him to prove his innocence. Some men (and it is not by any means an impossible supposition) possess such weak minds, and dread the anxiety of delay and attendant misery of imprisonment so much, that rather than be confined for an indefinite period, they would plead guilty, though such plea were a manifest falsehood, in order, at a distant period, to be able to reckon with certainty on their restoration to liberty; for the law takes no trouble, in such cases, to ascertain the truth of the accused's plea it only concerns itself with a prisoner's guilt. If he be innocent, and thinks proper to say otherwise, the law will presume he is guilty, however mpossible it may appear that he could have committed the crime imputed to him. The danger arising from such a proceeding, to the interests of third parties, is too obvious to require more than a passing remark.

It is true, and it is all that can be said in excuse for the grievance in question, that an innocent man, if wrongfully accused, may, upon the acquittal of a jury, maintain an action for a malicious prosecution; but that is a remedy accessible only to a rich man. A poor man would look with horror at the prospect of litigating a suit at law, There are few men who have ever embarked in such an enterprise, that have not regretted their folly, for a verdict is not always a gain—it is often a loss to the successful party, and the entire ruin of his opponent.

In a case like the present, it becomes a subject for the serious consideration of those interested in such matters, how far it may not be possible to subdue a man's spirit into a false acknowledg ment of guilt, and thereby inflict an irreparable injury upon the administration of justice.

In this particular case, perhaps some guarantee against such a calamity may be found in the character of Mr. T., whose free, and apparently candid communications, induce the belief that when he protests his innocence, he is prepared to prove it; and those who abhor tyranny for tyranny's sake, will, doubtless, not withhold their sympathy from him.

We know that he contrives to support himself on the prison allowance, with the aid of some trifling gifts of a few shillings from spmpathizing friends; and his wife, who is an accomplished and amable woman, shares bis captivity,