THE FLEET PAPERS. NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS. Mr. OASTLER begs to remind his friends, that on MONDAY he is always occupied in writing ; so that on that day HE IS NOT AT HOME." M. J., London, asks if Mr. OASTLER believes that SIR JAMES GRAHAM would refuse an offer to assassinate O'CONNELL? Let WHARTON's ghost reply. MANY CORRESPONDENTS wish Mr. OASTLER to write a few pages on Irish affairs, and particularly on the Repeal question. Mr. OASTLER never writes upon subjects which he does not understand. Of the affairs of Ireland Mr. O. is little cognizant-of O'CONNELL he knows something. When Mr. O'CONNELL found that he could not enter into a profitable partnership with the Conservatives, he resolved to set up an opposition shop on his own account, his stock in trade being "Repale." The competition" of the two firms will, like other competitions, leave a bad trade for both establishments. Existing circumstances naturally arise out of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act. Mr. OASTLER has never changed his opinion on that subject. He believes that POPERY will prevail, and the STUARTS will be restored, if the principles of that Act are suffered to progress. SIR ROBERT PEEL must look forward for squalls, and so must DANIEL O'CONNELL. 6. Perhaps the following anecdote may throw a little light on Irish mysteries. I often find sound sense drop from the lips of poor men. A very poor man, a hawker, called on me while I was writing the above notice. He is an Irishman-his sons reside in the Emerald Isle-he has "Mr. O'CONNELL collects lately received a letter from one of them. His boy gave bad accounts of the country. He said •he could not find a shilling there."-" But," said the old man, plenty of them-I do not know how it is, Sir."—" Are you a friend of O'CONNELL?" I inquired. Your honour, I am a friend of my country. If he means well to Ireland, I am his friend."-"Are you a repealer?" was my next question." If repale' will be good for Ireland, I am a 'repaler,' your honour," was the Irishman's reply.-"Are you a Chartist?" "but as I lay in bed, I think of I asked.—“ I am no politician," answered the Hibernian; my country, and I doubt if Mr. O'CONNELL means well towards Ireland. I think if he meant *repale,' he would have talked more about it when his friends, the Whigs, were in office. He was very quiet about 'repale' all those years; and now, when the Tories are in power, it seems to me that he thinks more about getting them out, than getting repale' for Ireland." As I said before, poor men often utter wise sayings. Perhaps that poor Irishman's bed-thought was not far from the truth.-R.O. THE FLEET PAPERS are regularly published every SATURDAY, at 2d. each; also every four weeks, in Parts, containing four Numbers, at 9d. each. A few copies, bound in cotton, of Vols. 1 and 2 of the Fleet Papers, at 10s. each volume, may be had of the Publishers, or of Mr. Oastler, at the Queen's Prison. Charge for Advertisements as under: Seven lines and under 076 Half a page 0 10 An entire page LONDON: W. J. CLEAVER, 80, BAKER STREET, PORTMAN SQUARE; AND JOHN PAVEY, 47, HOLYWELL STREET, STRAND. NOTICES OF THE FLEET PAPERS. "The FLEET PAPERS.-THE GOVERNMENT FACTORY BILL.-Mr. Oastler, in his Fleet Papers of the current week, has given his opinion on the Bill of Sir James Graham on Factory Labour and Education. We are sure a great number of our readers will read with interest the remarks of their old friend, and we therefore make no apology for inserting the entire letter. He thus addresses the Minister:— "-Northern Star, April 29, 1843. * * The FLEET PAPERS.-The Old King' has this week come out more than ordinarily warm; and who can wonder at it? The uncalled-for severity inflicted upon the female prisoners who are entombed alive in the Queen's Prison, has aroused his sensitive mind to the quick, and has led him to read the Home Secretary a lesson before which even the hardihood of a Cumberland baronet must quail. We should not have considered that we had done Mr. Oastler justice had we overlooked this letter:- * ."-Northern Star, May 13, 1843. * 2 “The FLEET PAPERS.—But I shall now turn to another part of the subject, and leave, for the present, the victim of poverty and the Poor Laws, for the equally suffering victim of malignity and the law of imprisonment under civil process, by introducing to our readers the following passages from the last Fleet Papers of Mr. Richard Oastler. This gentleman has for some time past addressed Sir James Graham, Her Majesty's Home Secretary, upon the subject of the new regulations to be introduced into the place under his immediate supervision, called 'THE QUEEN'S PRISON.' I never trace that name with my pen but I think of strange coincidences; and I turn from the records of the past with a gloomy foreboding as to the possibilities of the future, unless Some mighty change shall intervene between the extreme limit of popular endurance and the wild recklessness of popular despair. But, however, let us see what Sir James Graham and his myrmidons have accomplished in this department of oppression and wanton cruelty. His new gaol regu Jations came into full operation, it seems, ou the 1st of May : : * "I apprehend it will not be necessary to carry these extracts to any further length: enough has been shown to exhibit of what manner of men' our rulers are made. To show the infernal atrocities that session after session are perpetrated by the instrumentality of a government, that, by the wrath of God, is at this moment the most powerful for evil, the most regardless of the principles of humanity, the most arrogant abroad, and the most cruel at home, that ever disgraced the records of life since the days of Nebuchadnezzar. The governing principle seems here to be centred in one mand, and that mind is no longer governed by reason or prudence. Our rulers are mad.”—FACT, Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, May 14, 1843. TO MR. RICHARD OASTLER, THE QUEEN'S PRISON. Leeds, May 11, 1843. Dear Sir,-Although your corporeal. or "outward man," be entombed within the portals of tyrant GRAHAM's prison-house, yet I rejoice that your noble and indomitable spirit soars above the gloom, and mingles with the heterogeneous mass which constitute the British people. When walking abroad, you, Sir, were a terror to tyrants-a scourge to evil-doers-a friend to the poor -and an advocate of the destitute and oppressed; and I, with tens of thousands of your fellow countrymen, rejoice to find that the injustice and persecution so undeservedly meted out to you, lack the power to conquer your philanthropic spirit, or cool your ardour for the common weal. Evil has hunted you like a partridge upon the mountains; but the Ruler of events has caused good to issue therefrom. Persecution is the parent of your little Fleeters, which, like thunderbolts, smite the oppressors, and carry dismay into the heart of the tyrant's camp. Your infatuated adversaries are accelerating their own overthrow by the perpetuation of your sufferings and pri vations. But let them pursue their iniquitous course-let them fill up the measure of their misdeeds, that the end may come; for they may rest assured that their course is bounded, and they cannot proceed a single step beyond the limits fixed by an all-wise and unerring God. PHAROAH and his host recklessly prosecuted their career; but there was a Red Sea: and the tyrants of modern days may take great heed, lest they be overwhelmed in "the Red Sea" which has its source in the bleeding hearts of an oppressed, insulted, perishing people. Men may din in our ears the blessings we enjoy in consequence of "our lot being cast in a civilized and Christian land;" but really, Sir, it is a mockery to the feelings of every reflecting mind, thus to talk of England, in these days of tyranny and hypocrisy. The hatred, malice, and cruelty we see around us, bespeaks our national character; and, as a people, our actions are infinitely worse than those of the most brutalized race beneath the canopy of heaven, inasmuch as they are aggravated by the means we possess of improving our minds and morals, and walking in conformity to the principles of our professed religion. Talk not of "doing unto others as we would that others should do unto us." Practical Christianity, of which that golden rule" is the sum and substance, may be said to be discarded from our land, there being but "one of a city and two of a tribe" who walk in the ways of righteousness. You know, and I know, that much contumely has been poured out upon my order-the labouring class-by those who are rich in this world's goods. We have been looked upon and treated as an inferior branch of God's creation, and are stigmatized by the purse-proud, in private and in public, by the epithet of "lower orders." For my own part, Sir, I have yet to learn that our Creator made "two orders" of men. I have read in Holy Writ, that God made man after his own image"; and I am taught to believe, from that sacred volume, that we are all the offspring of one parent head-the man whom, in the beginning, God created. But, Sir, we live in a philosophising age. Man hath found out many inventious, (some not very useful); and amongst the rest, the discovery has been made that three classes or orders of men exist in the land-the "higher," the middle," and the lower class." Now, Sir, if I believed in this doctrine, I should think myself inconsistent, were I not, when speaking of character, conduct, and usefuluess, to invert the Malthusian pyramid, though I know the "lower" order constitutes the foundation and support of the whole fabric. I will give you one instance of the virtue of the now dubbed "higher" order. The facts are communicated to me from a quarter known to yourself, and which I shall state to you in confidence. The facts I am about to state will show the blessed working of the New Poor Law, and particularly the Bastardy clauses therein, as well as the virtue! which adorns the character of some of the "HIGHER" order. They are as follow: SARAH HARDY, a native of Southwell, near Nottingham. lived as a domestic servant in the family of SPENCER PEEL, ESQ., of Frickley Hall, near Doncaster. Previous to entering on that service she had borne an irreproachable character; but whilst there, she became the victim of the unbridled and lustful passion of the above-named gentleman's son. The consequence was, the birth of an illegitimate child, now five months old. Previous to her confinement she was driven from the abode of her seducer, to seek an asylum amongst her friends; but having a step-father, who frowned upou her because of her misfortune, she had to submit to many indignities and privations, and has had to support herself and child principally from the scanty savings out of her former earnings. Promises were made by her seducer in abundance during their intimacy, he always affirming that she should be amply provided for. But the sequel has proved the amount of reliance that ought to be given to the promises of such a wretch. At two separate times he sent her money by post-office order, amounting in the whole to 4l., which he no doubt considers the price of the woman's repu tation and her future peace, and a sufficient support for herself and child. Since her accouchment, she has in vain sought an interview with her seducer, and has made repeated application at his father's mansion for that purpose; but the villain always made himself scarce. Being driven to despair, and her contracted means exhausted, she was compelled to make known her case to the parish authorities. But here, you will guess, she met with little consolation -the system has rendered the hearts of the functionaries impervious to the cry of suffering humanity. They proved to be of the same material as Job's comforters, and could do nothing for her, because she had not made previous application. They also told her, that they would not be able to get anything from Mr. PEEL. She then again made application to Frickley Hall, and begged of the domestics to give her some clue whereby she might find her seducer. Some one, more kind than the rest, told her, in confidence, that there was luggage then directed for him to the care of a Mr. HECLIS, Castle Street, Liverpool. On this she determined, with her infant in her arms, to find the man whose victim she unfortunately was. She started in quest of the monster, (I beg pardon for having just called him a man,) and walked to Wakefield, a distance of nineteen miles; there she procured a bed, and rose on Sunday morning, the 23rd of April, with 3s. 6d. in her pocket, all her worldly store. She hastened to the railway station, where she inquired the charge to Manchester? The answer was 4s.-a sum which she had not, and they would take her for no less. Two gentlemen, hearing the clerk refuse the 3s. 6d., and ascertaining that it was her ALL, immediately gave her sixpence each. Here, Sir, is an hiatus in the page of this poor woman's misfortunes. She would reach Manchester, not Liverpool, with herself, her child, sixpence, and strangers. God knows what has become of the poor creature and her bade. She was destitute, forsaken, and oppressed with mental agony-cast upon the world a defenceless wanderer, exposed to prostitution-driven to distraction. perhaps to desperation!-herself and her little innocent perhaps no more. Oh! the degeneracy of man, both in respect to his character as a member of the human family, and as a law-maker for the protection of the well-being of his fellows! Verily, we are worse than the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah; and the world need not marvel should our fate be like theirs. I am, Sir, yours, as in days past, WILLIAM RIDER. P.S.-My respects to you and Mrs. OASTLER. May you both live long and happy together, in spite of SIR JAMES GRAHAM and his idea of bursting asunder what the Almighty in his divine wisdom has joined together. I feel for the poor females in DAME GRAHAM'S Nunnery.-W. R. Dr. KAY has found an able apologist in my quizical friend BURN. The Doctor is heartily welcome to my friend's apology. Would that there were foundation for it. Then, I should willingly recant.-R.O. TO MR. RICHARD OASTLER, QUEEN'S PRISON. 6, South Square, Gray's Inn, June 3, 1843. My dear Sir. I have read with much satisfaction and edification the excellent pamphlet you lent me of Dr. Kay on the Moral and Physical condition of the Working Classes employed in the Cotton Manufacture in Manchester. This was published, I see, in 1832; and so able and powerful an appeal to the sympathy of the mill-owners could not fail, one would suppose, to produce its effects. Upon my own mind, as a mere looker-ou, I own it was demonstrative, and, in truth, unanswerable. What was then to be done, but to fall in with Dr. Kay's views and suggestions, and amend the system? Nothing; for assuredly not a motive or a fact could be found opposed to the Doctor's just and liberal views. I am inclined to think you are entirely mistaken in regard to that exemplary man; and when I give you my reasons, should they convince you of your error, you will probably embrace the very first opportunity to retract the aspersions cast on him so unmercifully and plentifully in your different Papers. To begin, then, let us clear the way a little, and see how far you and he are agreed in the endeavour to meliorate the condition of the factory labourers and children. Up to the year 1832, when the pamphlet was given to the world, for its advantage, I do not see that you differ one iota in opinion. You are both the strenuous and enlightened advocates of the poor children, and both ably set forth their claims to better treatment. It must be since that period that you have found cause 10 except to the Doctor, and for the changes that you allege to have taken place in his opinion and conduct-nay, that from being the enlightened friend and advocate of the poor children, he had, by some means, become their most active and bitterest enemy, and had taken greater pains to destroy than before he had done to protect their health and comforts. Let us see how this can be, and treat the matter coolly and dispassionately. It will bear it, and is well worthy of attention. The Doctor's pamphlet is founded on the facts contained in it, which, in truth, assume the place of arguments, and become the very best that can be used; for such facts, being thus made arguments, are not to be controverted. They are unanswerable-they are overwhelming-they are demonstrative. To say, as you do, that the Dr. Kay of 1835 was not the Dr. Kay of 1832, is founded on no other basis than that he has taken office to supply the mills with victims, as you call them, from the rural districts, and thus run counter to all his previous conduct, character, and opinions. Patience, my friend. The Doctor could not run counter to the facts and opinions he has given to the world-that is impossible-they cannot be changed-he cannot be changed as it respects them--his personal identity might as well be changed. His office only is changed. And why? As it was impossible for him and his pamphlet to be ever separated, the only remaining inference is that the mills were changed, and that under its powerful influence the system was thereby meliorated. In short, that the factory was no longer the den of destruction, but the safe and comfortable receptacle of the agricultural population drafted off to its supply. Admit this, and truly it is impossible to get on without the admission. You know whether this be true or not, and will, perhaps, inform your readers.* Then you see the Doctor's occupation was not gone-it was only altered; and the same pure and disinterested benevolence continued in another form, and a varied channel, to carry his benign principles into more extensive operation. He could with confidence go, thus armed, and in no other way, into the rural districts, as the friend of the poor, and be unhesitatingly received, and treated accordingly. Who could have more influence? Who could justly claim more implicit obedience? Who could better secure to them all the advantages of the altered system, which I have presumed that his book secured for them. This you see, Mr. Oastler, makes all the difference. And now let us proceed to some of the more obvious proofs that I am right in this reading of the Doctor's exemplary conduct. In my comment on the Return of the Poor Law Commissioners to Mr. Ferrand's motion in the last number, I see ground now for the omission noticed on this amended theory regarding Dr. Kay, and which is quite intelligible. It is simply this-that the 1,326 to whom masters, but no wages, are assigned, must doubtless have arisen from the single circumstance of their being at first so exorbitantly high, that their masters were ashamed to own them. This must, I think, have been so; as, where at the latter end of the Report the wages are given to 609 without masters, at so very low a rate, the latter were unwilling, from modesty, to have their names proclaimed. It is the same amiable feeling, you see, and harmonizes admirably with the general features of the measure and the Return. Again the 4,228 are little more than a third of the number drifted off to the happiness and contentment of the factory from the misery and destitution of the country, by their acknowledged and proved friend, the Doctor. Why is this? Why from the very same motive, and under the influence of the same philanthropy-it can be no other; and to avoid proclaiming to the world the full extent of the good he had thereby accomplished. The same modesty in the Doctor as there must have been in the mill-owners. In short, they, in this manner, “Did good by stealth, and blush to find it fame!” I discover here, and in this very plain way of meeting the matter, the same ground for the very reluctant evidence of the Poor Law Commissioners, in sending to the House of Commons, by their Under Secretary, the blind replies they did to its demand. They, too, do good by stealth, for in no other way is it hitherto manifested. I own, however, it is a little puzzling to reconcile the power of the Poor Law Commissioners with the power of Parliament. The former can make, alter, and amend laws ad libitum—not so the House of Commons, till sanctioned by both the Lords and the Queen. It seems also a littlə singular, and odd, and unaccountable, that the Legislature can give such a power to the Commissioners thus to make laws, which they, in either branch of the three estates separately, do not possess themselves. But as the power of the Commissioners must be presumed to be used, with the aid of Dr. Kay, for the benefit and good of the poor and of the community, it is, therefore, rather a subject of grateful satisfaction than of complaint that it is so, and that a vigour beyond the law is so usefully applied. You see, my friend, from what is stated, that you have been entirely mistaken as to the altered views and conduct of that most philanthropic man, Dr. Kay, who has only consented to extend his views and exertions for the poor and the factory children in a wider range and larger field of advantage. Should he not be well paid for this? Who can grudge it? It is clear that you did not know what I have stated; and now that the proofs are so very striking, you will doubtless, as I said before, do more ample justice to his extraordinary merits. Such a man is a beacon, and such an example should not be lost to posterity. See you to that. Will you excuse my treating a subject of such real solemnity and importance with apparent levity? I answer, that the shafts of ridicule sometimes enter the breast which is callous to all other impressions. May they produce reflection and amendment where they are most needed. How true is it that the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked! I am, my dear Sir, Very sincerely yours, J. J. BURN. * Sorry am I to say no such happy change has yet been effected. Some other excuse must be invented.-R.O. Printed by Vincent Torras & Co., 7, Palace Row, New Road, London. 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 fortunow 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, nate event may enable succeeding Statesmen to legislate for permanency. He 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. Mr. OASTLER begs to remind his friends, that ON MONDAY he is always occupied in writing; so that on that day HE IS NOT AT HOME." J. J. BURN's letter as soon as possible. J. PERCEVAL'S letter to Poor Law Commissioners next week, if space will admit. W. ATKINSON, Leeds. His letter on the Allotment System very shortly. A HARD CASE.-Next week. SEVERAL CORRESPONDENTS, who wish for Mr. OASTLER'S opinion “on Education," kad better read the four last numbers of the Fleet Papers carefully—then put their questions clearly and distinctly. They shall be answered. QUIZ, Dover. If it be true that "the DUKE OF WELLINGTON has ordered each Colonel to return the number of Irish soldiers in his regiment, with the view of separating them." it is true that "the Duke" has been very foolish to let "Quiz" know. To repeal the Union" in the Army, is an unwise method of confirming the national compact. X. Y. Z., Salford, probably refers to Vol. 1, Nos. 3 and 9. The person is alluded to in some other numbers, which Mr. O, has sought for in vain. A FACT WITHOUT A COMMENT. June 8, 1843.-Mr. MEADOWs, Surgeon, Southwark Bridge Road, was called in to dress a boy's head which was cut by accident. The Boy's name is Hartley-he resides at 7, String Place, Southwark Bridge Road. The surgeon dressed the wound, and demanded 2s. 6d. The boy's father had not the money-he went to a pawnbroker's, to raise the sum required. On returning with 2s. 6d. for the surgeon, the boy's head was undressed. The surgeon had left in anger, and had actually torn off the plaster dressing. LONDON: W. J. CLEAVER, 80, BAKER STREET, PORTMAN SQUARE; AND JOHN PAVEY, 47, HOLYWELL STREET, STRAND. |