This prisoner is denied justice because he is poor. That poverty is manifest, when he is supported out of the "county money"; still, bail is demanded. Thus, English Judges are, by such Court practice," more unjust than Shylock. He only demanded his bond-the bond of allegiance is Trial or Liberty!—R.Ö.

THE WORKING OF THE NEW POOR LAW IN THE SOUTH.

(Concluded from the last number.)

"A Return, lately presented to the House of Commons, shows that no less than nine thousand three hundred and fifteen persons have been committed to prison for offences against the rules and regulations of union workhouses within the last seven years-i. e. since the amended Poor Law has been the law of the land. One great reason for the change in the former code of administering parochial relief, was said to be the demoralization produced in the character of the labouring classes, by the expectation held out that the parish was bound to supply immediate relief to all applicants. Now, imprisonment in a gaol implies the existence of crime; but if the prisons be filled, how can it be said that the effect of the law has been to effect reformation?-or if these offences be less in point of moral turpitude, is it justice that they should be visited in the same manner as those which require the severity of a gaol? It was generally understood that the discipline of the union house was intended to be irksome and painful to those who desired liberty of action; but it surely never was contemplated that the felon's gaol should have charms superior to the proferred aid of the union workhouse. And yet if we look at the large number of commitments that have taken place, it appears that the union houses are regarded by many, not merely in the light of prisons, but less comfortable. The subordinates of the workhouses are usually invested with the power of constables, and the limits of the workhouse preclude escape; yet with these hindrances, we hear of nearly ten thousand persons who took the risk of confinement in the felon's prison, as if accounting it no greater hardship to be confined in the one place than in the other. This week only we find six persons committed to Beccles Gaol on account of misbehaviour in Shipmeadow House, and this too subsequent to the commitment of others for the like offence. It has been publicly stated, and no contradiction has yet appeared, that the dietary of Shipmeadow House is below that of the gaol at Beccles. If this be the case, is it at all improbable that the discipline of the former should be infringed, to acquire the greater indulgence of the latter? To say nothing of the injustice of subjecting men accused of no crime to greater hardship than is incurred by those whose offences, proved or alleged, subject them to the rigours of a gaol, we would beg attention to the fact, that in the endeavours to reduce the poor-rate, the county-rate must be increased; and thus the benefit of diminished poor-rate will turn out to be no benefit at all. The Poor Law Commissioners have regarded their experiments as complete and satisfactory, especially in the agricultural counties; but when we find that notwithstanding Suffolk has furnished a very large proportion of those committed for offences against workhouse regulaLions, and that the commitments still continue on the same scale, it is necessary that the triumvirate should be reminded of their system of proscription, in order that they may see that its effect in reducing expenditure on the one hand leads to an increase on the other. We know that it is impossible to repeal the whole of the existing law without many and serious inconveniences; [Why ?] but there is room for effecting many improvements, which we hope will not be lost sight of, before the Act for the continuance of the law receives the sanction of Parliament."-Ipswich Journal, March 18, 1843, Editor's leading article.

The same paper gave an account of seven persons being committed to prison from union houses, as follows: Benjamin Hillen, 17 years of age; George Kirby. 20; Noah Gray, 19; John Baldry. 18; George Drew, 18; Charles Wyatt, 19, were committed to Beccles Gaol, for refusing to work in the Shipmeadow Union Workhouse, for 21 days." And the two next weeks 20 more were committed, as follows:

Twelve more paupers were committed to prison from union houses, viz. six from Bosmere and Cladon, five from Plomesgate, and one from Hoxne Union."-Ibid, March 25, 1843.

"To Beccles Gaol, from Wangford Union, Shipmeadow House-John Kirby, aged 49; Joseph Kell, 35; George Pulford, 32; Samuel Howes, 37; Robert Boash, 32; Stephen Burges, 52, for misbehaviour, 21 days' hard labour;-and committed to the County Gaol, James Mayhew, for refusing to work in Barham Union House, 21 days; and Henry Bannister, for leaving his family chargeable to the parish of Eye, two months and hard labour."—Ibid. April 1, 1843.

One of the guardians of the Wangford Union" complained of the above remarks, and said, "The cause of these late outbreaks was the inability of farmers lo employ their usual number of labourers, which caused so many more idle and dissolute characters to be sent into the workhouse;" and then he sends a copy of the "Dietary," to prove it is better than the gaol allowance, which Dietary shows the men have 6oz. of bread and 1 oz. of cheese, and women 5 oz. of bread and oz. of butter, for breakfast, and the same for supper; and 7 oz. of bread and 1oz. of cheese for dinner four days in a week, 12 oz. of suet pudding women, 14 oz, men, two days, and 12oz. meat pudding the women, and 14 oz. the men, for dinner the other day. Children in proportion to age, &c.-Ibid. March 25, 1843.

The cost of the above, at the present contract prices, will be, men, 1s. 10d. per week, women Is. 8d.; and supposing they have each one child, at Is. 6d. and 18. 4d. per week, the average cost of each person will be 1s. 7d.

Single men, under the New Poor Law, were to have every encouragement to keep single; but since it has been discovered that the large families cost such an enormous deal of money in the union houses, self-preservation, the first law of nature, makes farmers turn off the single men, and those with small families, unless they work for less wages, as they cost so much less in the work. houses than those with large families.

A single man, on being discharged lately, to make room for a man with seven children, who gmust otherwise have gone into the workhouse, at an expense of three guineas a week, rema ked

wwwANN

"Then I am to be sent into the prison workhouse, and endure the torture of all its horrors, because I have not a wife and children. Is this my reward for keeping single?" The Old Poor Law was condemned, and the New Poor Law was passed, to establish uniformity, and to do away all favouritism. Pray good Sir Robert Peel, where is the tribunal to be found for the poor to appeal to with full confidence of protection?"

An old man-of-war's man, who had fought and bled in the Dragon (74) and others, from his master's (the farmer's) “inability" to pay him, had lost his work, sold his pig. borrowed 20s., with which he went some hundreds of miles in search of work, but found none, on his return was forced into the union house, with his wife and seven children. After being in a short time, he was ordered out again, and set to work by a larger farmer, who paid a great share of the parish poor-rate, and who jeeringly asked him low he liked the workhouse. The old tar said it was a Hell upon earth,' but for one thing he had found there, which was a comfort and consolation to him, and that was, he found himself, his wife and family of nine persons, cost three guineas a week in there; and if he had only one-tenth, i, e. 5s. or 6s. a week, to help him a few weeks through the winter, he should have been content. His master was surprised, and on inquiry he found the blacksmith, who bad been overseer, had carried his union year's accounts to the schoolmaster, to see if what the old tar had told them before was correct; and they both showed the farmer their figures, which proved, that although the food the poor consumed did not cost more than 1s. 8d. or 1s. 9d. per week, yet including the maintenance of all the establishment, which is all charged in the account, the food and clothing cost 3s. 3d. each person per week, and the salaries of officers and all other expenses cost 3s. 9d. and a fraction, making together 7s. each per week for the last year. They then got the account from two other of these large workLouses, and found that, with all expenses included, they were all a fraction over 7s. each per week!!! [What a monster cheat is this New Poor Law!] The Dublin Mail says, The fact is, that neither the rich nor the poor will willingly pay a tax, out of every shilling of which 10d. goes to the staff, and only 2d. to the poor!"—Morning Herald, Nov. 26, 1842.

The above proves clearly that in these union houses 9d, out of every shilling goes to the staff, and 3d. to the poor!

I have before shown, that three of these union houses lately made a return, which showed 125 able-bodied men and women confined in them; and if each person has only one child on the average. at 7s. per week, which is 187. 4s. per year, then add the expenses of the triumvirate and the rural police, it will certainly make more than an average of 201. a year each person. "Parliamentary papers show there are 587 unions"-(see Morning Herald, May 4, 1842). Taking the above three unious as an average, there are now locked up in these Basule Union Prisons 146.750 persous, costing the country at the rate of the enormous sum of 2,935,000l. a year-in round numbers, say three millions a year!!!

Now, if a labourer, with his wife and family, is happy, content, and loyal in his cottage when labouring for 10s. per week, why should he, because his master has not the means of paying him, be sent, with his wife and children, into a prison workhouse, to be made wretched, miserable, and a rebel, and cost 63s. shillings per week, when he does not labour? We all know they have the power, but what right can any set of men have to spend 63s. per week, when 10s. would do so much better? I deny the right.

Warman, the relieving officer, before Mr, Grove, the magistrate, at the Greenwich Police Office, said, that the board had ordered him to pay married men 1d. per cwt., and single men Id., for breaking stones. The 14d, gave the man, his wife, and child 5d. a day for the three to live upon.' Well might Mr. Grove say, 'It was such conduct that drove men to commit all kinds of crimes.'"-Morning Herald, Feb. 11, 1843.

One labourer, with a family, having a trifling cough occasionally, but still able, and did earn all last year 12s. per week, is not termed an able bodied man, and is allowed food worth 2s. 6d. per week, because he is a FAVOURITE. Another labourer, so sickly he never was or ever likely to be able to earn 6s. a week, several farmers took him a few weeks each, and paid him full wages. and then called him an able-bodied man, because he should not have any out relief. And why?— because he is no FAVOURITE. Such cases as these frequently happen in parishes adjoining each

other.

Prisoners in West Riding of York from 499, in 1810, to 4,430, in 1842."-Ibid.

Now to me it appears quite certain, that if there had been no unsound Currency Bill of 1819. there would have been no New Poor Law-hence no Chartists, no riots, no such cruel tortures as there has been in prisons-such as to produce (what the Morning Herald calls) legal executionsdeaths by Justices' justice,'-alluding to the deaths of Richard Jones, Charles Bea e, and another, in the Northleach Prison. Verdict, died from ill-treatment, hard work, and want of food!

Nobles of England, arise! arise!! for Heaven's sake-for your own sake-for your country's sake-and for the sake of the 5,519,596 that petitioned against the cruel, murderous New Poor Law, and be no longer blind and deaf to the cries of the poor. Remember, when the thanks of the country were given to Nelson, Wellington, and all our greatest commanders, by sea and land, for their splendid victories, they all said the thanks were due to the officers and men under their command-in fact, to the strong arm of the sailors and soldiers, thousands of whom, who now implore your protection. have aided and assisted to make many of you what you are, and protected you and your property when you needed their assistance, Judge of their feelings, when in their agony they beg for 6s, a week to keep them content and loyal, they know 60s. is spent to torture them and make them rebels, only waiting their opportunity for vengeance. May Heaven in its mercy teach you to avoid this, and cheer those on who heartily do seek to soften the distresses, and really mean to better the condition of the poor.

แ

I am, most sincerely your well-wisher,

"TRUTH."

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

THE

FLEET PAPERS.

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.

J. TOLSON, Liverpool.-Mr. OASTLER has already been informed, on authority upon which he can depend, not only" that the fires in Liverpool were supposed to have connexion with cer-. tain hints from the Emerald Isle," but that the authorities of Liverpool had applied to the Home Secretary for his assistance, to procure a police force upon which they might rely. SIR JAMES replied," Take care of yourselves."

M. SMITH, Tadcaster, Yorkshire, informs Mr. OASTLER that many farmers belonging to the Yorkshire Yeomanry have sent in their accoutrements, saying, "Let the Government take care of itself." Are these things so?

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.

"An erroneous opinion appears to be entertained as to the proceeds of the subscription some time since set on foot for the destitute family of this highly talented and much lamented gentleman. We regret to find, that up to this time it has fallen far short of what was expected, and of what it ought to be. The whole amount paid into Coutts's bank scarcely exceeds 5007., nearly one-half of which has already been expended in fitting out the only son of the deceased as a cadet for india -an appointment which did great honour to the feelings of Lord Fitzgerald, and was, we believe, the last official act of his life. This, however, is the only thing the Conservative administration, which owes so much to Dr. Maginn as a political writer, has done for his family. The case, it is true, has received additional recommendation from the example of the few, but distinguished, personages who have so generously come forward with their contributions to the fund. We observe in the subscription-list the honoured names of the Queen Dowager, the King of Hanover, Lord Granville Somerset, Lord Francis Egerton, Lord Lowther, the Bishop of Cork, the Hon. Justice Jackson and others-names which certainly stamp the object as one especially worthy the regard of the Conservative aristocracy, for whose cause Dr. Maginn, to the end of his valuable life, so strenuously devoted all the energies of his mind. The Conservative party at large certainly owe a debt of gratitude to one who did so much for their interests, and we do hope that some worthier effort will yet be made to discharge it, by placing his exemplary widow and two daughters, still unprovided for, at least above want. It is the remark of an ancient writer, that there are some people well enough disposed to be grateful, but they cannot hit upon it without a prompter-they inust be taught to be thankful, and it is a fair step if we can but bring them to be willing, and only offer at it. How delighted should we be if this slight notice of the case in question might so operate."

Need a single word be added to induce the Conservatives to be up and stirring ?-R.O.

W.

LONDON:

J. CLEAVER, 80, BAKER STREET,

PORTMAN SQUARE;

AND

JOHN PAVEY, 47, HOLYWELL STREET, STRAND.

TO THE POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS, SOMERSET HOUSE.

Kensington, June 13, 1843. Gentlemen.-On the 17th of March I had the honour of waiting upon you at Somerset House with a deputation from the vestry of the parish of Kensington, to call your attention to a Petition about to be presented to Parliament by this parish, to facilitate the separation of this parish from the enormous and expensive Union in which you have incorporated it; and incorporated it, I fully believe, illegally, inasmuch as you have, by your orders, set aside the Local Act of this parish, exercising a despotic and unconstitutional power, superior to that of King, Lords, and Commons.

On that occasion, Gentlemen, you replied to the deputation, that you could not give them an immediate answer-that you regretted you had no Assistant Commissioner to send down to make inquiries-that you would take the matter into consideration, and let us know your determinationand that it was the first occasion of your hearing of the subject.

I observed, that you were very much mistaken-that you had already been addressed upon the subject, both by the board of guardians and by the vestry of the parish of Kensington, to each of whom you had replied. You then rejoined, that you would look over your former correspondence, and let the vestry know your determination.

Gentlemen, from that time to the end of May, the rate-payers of this parish, who have public' spirit enough to concern themselves in parochial matters, waited, with some curiosity at least, if not with some anxiety, for your reply. Judge my surprise, when on attending on Thursday, the 18.h of May, at the board of guardians, I heard a letter read, addressed to the board, in which you digressed (as your clerk had happily expressed it) most “unnecessarily" upon this subject, and twice expressed your conviction that the Union of Kensington, a rapidly increasing parish, of about 29.000 inhabitants, with Paddingion and Hammersmith, also rapidly increasing, and with Fulham, amounting in all already to nearly 80,000 souls-was not too large for the efficient discharge of the business of the board of guardians.

Your conviction! Pretty heads and hands the legislation for the paupers and rate-payers of this country is entrusted to! Your conviction! Pray, Gentlemen, what do you call a conviction, and how are your feelings of conviction produced? Is it by inquiry? or is it by some mysterious and internal effort of your superhumanly enlightened wills that you dictate to your secretary your convictions, at the same time as he acknowledged unnecessarily." Why, Sir, one of you was so ignorant of our Union, that he could not see how the railroads in progress at the commencement of the Union could have decreased our expenses at that time, whilst two weeks of spring weather after winter will clear our yard of nearly 100 stone-breakers. But, in whatever way your convictions may have been arrived at, may I ask, would it not, at least, have been hecoming to have transmitted them, when formed, according to your promise, to the rate-payers of the parish of Kensington, through the Committee appointed by their vestry, rather than to have evaded them, and to have reposed your confidence in the bosom of those worthy guardians of the surrounding parishes, who are so disinterestedly in favour of your opinions? Would not this, I ask, have been more handsome and decorous, and more consistent with what was due to the vestry of a large metropolitan parish?

Your convictions! It is idle, I know, to address men who have the boldness to devise, and the subtlety to carry out, with the greatest plausibility, the most Machiavelian schemes, and who are backed by a misguided and infatuated aristocracy, and by a House of Commons which have too little sympathy with the English nation. But, in addressing you, I hope to enlighten others, till the day of your overthrow shall arrive. Your convictions then, Gentlemen, are either the emanations of your own positive wills, or they are the result of inquiry. If they are the result of inquiry, that inquiry has been carried on behind the backs of those who appealed to you, and you deserve to have been deceived; or if you have not been deceived, and you have found all that the rate-payers of Kensington have stated in their Petition, and much more, founded on fact and true, then your convictions amount to this:-That you feel convinced that it does not signify that not more than one guardian should, at times, be present at the board of an Union of four populous parishes, to administer relief. That you feel convinced that it does not signify that the business of the board is concluded sometimes by TWO GUARDIANS, contrary to your express order that THREE guardians shall constitute a legal board. That it does not signify that the business of the Finance Committee should be transacted by or concluded by only one or two guardians. That it does not signify that House Committees should be summoned, and none, or only one guardian, attend the summons. That it does not signify that parishes should thus often be unrepresented at the board and on the Committees of the guardians. That it does not signify that the business of the board often detains gentlemen from ten o'clock A., to half-past four or five P.M.; and that the office of guardian is thus rendered so unpopular, that six candidates can scarcely be found in this parish; whereas in Chelsea, since her successful struggle with you, Gentlemen, there were thirty candidates for a board of twenty guardians. That it does not signify that relieving officers and paupers are detained from ten o'clock to four o'clock waiting to be heard, and the latter fainting from exhaustion. That it does not signify that time should be afforded to examine into the cases of paupers with patience, and to treat them with justice. That it does not signify that the rates of this parish should have been raised meanwhile from nine-pence in the pound to fifteen-pence; and that they should be increased to build a new union workhouse, for the benefit of other parishes, this parish having one of its own, sufficiently large for its own poor, by the showing of your own board of guardians. Such, Gentlemen, must be your convictions! You are, indeed, ripe for Knighthood! Certainly you are benighted enough already-unless, indeed, you are only showing your real intentions a little too early, and your meaning is, as I have often contended, that the board of guardians are a mere farce-a cloak under which to carry out securely your arbitrary and unchristian regulations.

But, Gentlemen, I have heard, that last Thursday, one of your emissaries, a mild-mannered man-a very pattern of "a sucking dove"-one of those gently persuasive swains that win, in some unaccountable manner, the hearts of our cautious, old, crusty guardians, and wind their stubborn

and recorded opinions surprisingly around their thumbs;-I have beard that one of these brood of insinuating and fascinating serpents visited the board of guardians on Thursday last, during my absence in the country. What did he there? Did he come to sibilate, by word of mouth, into the ears of our chairman, the convictions you had already so feelingly expressed in letter?—or have you, after the Irish fashion, first arrived at your convictions, and then had resort to inquiry? If there is no wisdom, at least there is some cunning, in such a proceeding, so to keep up appearI have the honour to be, Gentlemen,

ances.

Your obedient, humble servant,

JOHN PERCEVAL, Guardian of the Parish of Kensington.

TO MR. QASTLER, THE QUEEN'S PRISON.

6, South Square, Gray's Inn. June 8, 1843.

My dear Sir, Migration, Immigration, Emigration. These are ponderous words, Mr. Oastler, but not of difficult meaning. Migration, is the removal of parties from one location to another in the same country, more suitable for them, as they suppose from the rural districts to the factories, for instance; Immigration is the removal of parties from another country into this; and Emigra. tion of parties natives here to another country or the Colonies.

My readers among the operatives will not now be at a loss for the meaning of the words, which are often misapplied, however, even by those who ought to have known better. In the letter of Henry Ashworth, in the curious Return to the House of Commons recently before us, he calls the removal of families from the rural districts to the mills Emigration. He says "I know no better way to promote the Emigration of families, than the direct transmission of them to some extensive field of manufacture, allow them a temporary abode for a few days," &c. So that according to this reading, the factory is our country, and the land, the land we live in, a mere breeding-ground an appendage-a sort of conducting-pipe, for the supply of bodies to the factory. Men have odd fancies, certanly-but this by the way. My object in this letter is to take a leaf out of the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, where the subject of expenditure for the removal of the poor is stated, and the profit and loss arising from the two modes of Migration and Emigration therein stated that is, Emigration to another country, at a distance from home. I shall not dispute either the facts or the estimates, but take them as I find them, and show, after a running commentary thereon, that a much cheaper method might be adopted to effect all the assumed objects of the Report. I mean to prove this on such evidence as cannot be controverted, and to draw conclusions from the comparison, that I trust may lead to a better state of things, and a speedier termination to existing and increasing distress. This letter, then, will be confined to figures and comparisons; and in a future one it may be advisable to go to principles, and show that the laws of nature and of the God of nature are to be obeyed, not broken, and that good, unmixed with evil, is the inevitable, the invariable, the constant result of obedience.

In page 159 of the Third Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, are the following statements: It appears that the cost of emigration last year, (not Ashworth's emigration, recollect.) of 5,141 individuals, mainly to Canada, was effected at an outlay of 28,4141. Os. 7d., giving the average of 5l. 10s. 64d. per head.

Mr. Pinnock, then Agent General for Emigration, dispatched 847 emigrants to Canada and the United States, at a total outlay of 4,634/. 13s., being 51, 9s. 5d. per head. We may, therefore, reckon, as nearly as possible, 57. 10s, as the expense of each individual's emigration. The emigra tion of 10.000 persons would, therefore, cost 55,000/.

"The migration of 2,005 individuals from the county of Suffolk was effected at a total outlay for journey and fitting out of 3.6817. 14s. 14d., or 17. 16s. 8d. per head. The migration of 10.000 persons (about the extent to which migration has been carried) would, therefore, be a cost of 18,354. 3s. 4d., showing a difference in favour of migration of 36,6457. 16s. 8d.”

Now, as I have said before, it is not my intention to offer any objection to the correctness of the figures and estimates. On the contrary, I agree with them as figures and estimates; and shall proceed to the running commentary thereon. In the first place, then, there is a dead loss, in either inode of mig rating or emigrating 10.000 persons, viz. of 18.3541. 3s. 4d., or 55,000l. incurred in their removal. There is not the return of a single penny for either mode. Of this there cannot be a doubt nor two opinions.

I do not pursue the inquiry here as to the condition of the parties so removed by either method that may become the subject of future comment; but shall stop, as the Report does, at the point of removal and the comparative expenses. It is not, in my apprehension of the matter, a very conclusive argument, that the cheaper is the better remedy here; but if I can show clearly and distinctly that a still cheaper and more efficient remedy exists, and for which returns too are secured, then, beyond all question, it ought to dispose of the other two.

This infinitely cheaper and better mode is to be found in the allotment system of small portions of land, let to the labouring classes at fair rents. Having been, for many years, an active member of the Labourers Friend Society, I shall take leave to quote, from some of my own papers in the Magazine published by the Committee, such portions as bear more immediately upon the present question.

From the last volume of the said Magazine, p. 107, then it is stated, that "During the ten years existence, or thereabouts, of this excellent Society, the Committee have expended, in furthering and perfecting its objects, not less than 5,000. This expenditure has been no judiciously applied, that it has created, if I may so term it, or rather called into active operation, more than 100,000 allot

*This falls in very nearly with the statement in my former letter, and proves, consequently, the correctness of the information given to me.