ments to so many industrious laborious families.* The means used for accomplishing so desirable an end were simply persuasion and example-persuasion to the land-owner to let a small piece of land to each poor labourer, not exceeding what he could cultivate at leisure hours, and at the farmer's rent, with a trifling addition to cover outgoings; and example in the unvarying advantages that have ever attended the operation. Agents have been readily found, willing and able to go into various counties to set forth the value of this system and increasing good by its extension. The cash thus hitherto so well laid out, amounts to 1s. for each allotment, that is, 5,000l. for 100.000 allotments; and the advantage, free from alt loss to the landlord, not less than 51. a year to the small tenant. Thus we have 500,000l. created, at this small charge, out of the otherwise waste labour of the tenants in their several small farms; and, consequently, so much to be spent or returned to the community in the purchase of food and clothing ;-thus conferring unmixed benefit on the manufacturer and general tradesman."

And again, page 108:-"Now, if we extend our views, with so good and cheering a prospect before us, what is to hinder the immediate extension of the system to all labour, agricultural and manufacturing, in like mauuer? Nothing that I know of, or can imagine, but more extended subseriptions to carry it out, and more agents to make it better known. It must always be borne in mind, that there are no failures here either in rent or produce, the average of the latter being eight times that of the farmer. To supply the estimated number of labourers in agriculture, say three millions, and of one million employed in manufacture, would require, at the very outside calculation, less than one million of acres; and then let us count the cost and the advantage, the loss in expenditure, and the gain in this increased operation of the system, displacing permanently and securely as it goes on human misery and destitution, never more to return.

The cost of 100,000 being only so many shillings, as we have seen, therefore the whole amount of four millions, minus the 100,000 already provided for, would be 199,000/-a large sum certainly, but to secure, as has been shown, a benefit beyond all other means advantageous to all the interests of the kingdom, and returning therefrom, into the public treasury of gain, the proportion of not less than twenty millions nearly in the whole, or nineteen millions and a half for the labourers not provided with allotments. Surely these are important and momentous truths. Surely no man can be found indifferent to them, or unwilling to lend a helping hand to a cause which so nearly affects all! Were the matter of doubtful or uncertain result, yet so great an apparent good could not be viewed with indifference. What are we to say, then, to that apathy, or inattention, or indifference to the welfare of our fellow creatures and fellow countrymen when the consequences are as sure as any human evidence can make them?

Had I a cause in a court of justice, and before an English jury, in which I could bring 100,000 witnesses to speak all to the same faet, should I doubt-could I doubt-could any one doubt-of the verdict? This is precisely the case here. All my witnesses are ready-the evidence is all one way; and not a single one can be found to disprove my case—the case of this admirable Society.

It is needless to make many comments, yet a few remarks may be permitted, as naturally arising from the foregoing materials. Nineteen millions only brought into existence by the labour of the parties alluded to, is a prodigious sum, and a prodigious advantage to all classes of the community. Every shilling of the money must be expended at home, at the very doors, I may say, of the parties making it. It benefits the home market annually, and it takes nothing from the foreign, but leaves it exactly as it was. It interferes with no interest injuriously-it promotes all beneficially, and most deservedly so that of the labourer, who thus is enabled to do so much for others too.

• But another view may be fairly taken of this subject, which is the increase to the revenue in the shape of taxes. It is by no means an unfair or unreasonable inference to be drawn from the premises, that every million of the allotment tenants produce one at least to the taxation in the com. modities consumed. If so, then we have an addition of four millions from that source alone, that otherwise would not have existed; and as certain too and permanent as any other whatever."

I could multiply extracts from the same source, were it necessary at present. There is enough to prove the far cheaper remedy to the rural districts of retaining, instead of removing, and thus employing the labourer, by letting him have the fair opportunity of making a subsistence for him. self from the soil, and thus uniting him more closely to his country. Better fed, he will be a better Jabourer for others. Employed in his own little farm, he will cease to be a burden to the parish. From a dependant and an outcast, he is restored to comparative ease and comfort. And why not? But I said this letter should be confined to figures and estimates. Well thus we save the 55.000 for emigration, or the 18.000 and odd for migration; and say that some cost must be incurred in the location of the 10,000 persons alluded to. At the rate aforesaid, it was only a shilling a head for each tenant; but that included at least four or five in each family. Of the 10.000, then, if only one-half of them had families, then somewhat less than 2 or 3,000 tenancies would be needed, that is. not more than say at the outside 3,000s., or 150/.!!! Were it, however, 3,0007,, the sum is not lost, as in the other instances. Quite the reverse. It is only advanced, to be returned again in pro duce, and without loss, consequently, to any one. So sure as expense shall be needed in the location of the labourer on his allotment, so sure is there a return for it equal to the advance. Is not this a mighty difference? It were a mere waste of my reader's time to argue so plain a case. The facts, the figures, the details given on all sides, leave but one conclusion to be drawn from them, and it is decisive, I am, my dear Sir,

Very sincerely yours,

J. J. BURN,

*Families recollect which may be reckoned, per capita, as the Commissioners do, at nearly half a million.

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 now 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, fortunate 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 paying the way to universal Ruin, Anarchy, and Despotism.

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.

The KEEPER of the QUEEN'S PRISON has ordered the gates of the Prison to be locked at Six o'clock in the evening. No stranger is now all owed to enter or remain after that hour. 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."

JOHN PERCEVAL, Kensington.-The Poor Law Commissioners' reply and his rejoinder next week.

THOMAS MULOCK, London.-His letter to the Prime Minister next week.

REV. J. K., Norfolk.-MR. OASTLER is anxious that the people should be educated-no person has exhibited that desire in practice more than MR. O.; but a compulsory education is tyranny. The interference of the Government with duties of parents and the clergy is unconstitutional; consequently, MR. OASTLER is decidedly opposed thereto. The duty of the Government is to prevent the avarice and covetousness of employers robbing the working class of the means and the time to pay for and obtain an education.

JACOB MACLEAN, Dublin.-It is rather too much to expect from MR. OASTLER the explanation of the causes and consequences of the present Repeal agitation; but if he must give an opinion, here it is.

O'CONNELL wants the Whigs again to be in power, for the sake of patronage. He is followed by so many hungry souls, that it were hopeless to expect to satisfy them from any private funds. He (O'CONNELL) wants no rebellion—not he.

THE PRIESTS want the supremacy of their Church-O'CONNELL cannot stop the morement without their aid. When THE POPE has sent his ultimatum, THE PRIESTS will either soothe or irritate the masses-and O'CONNELL must obey the mandate of the HOLY FATHER. As to the GOVERNMENT, in Ireland it dare not act. If it dared, then it would, simultaneously with the discharge of Repeal Magistrates have issued a proclamation against Repeal meetings; and if the people had been contumacious, dispersed them, and arrested a few ringleaders.

WELLINGTON and PEEL are cowed before the POPE-that is all.

Rebellion or submission will be awarded by Rome. So much for the Repeal agitation. its causes and consequences. Time will determine whether MR. O. is mistaken or not. To that unbiassed Umpire, Ma. O. right willingly appeals.

W.

LONDON:

J. CLEAVER, 80, BAKER STREET,

PORTMAN SQUARE;

AND

JOHN PAVEY, 47, HOLYWELL STREET, STRAND.

Is it possible that any human being can read the following without a shudder? I think not. In any nation under Heaven, save in Christian (!) England, such utter contempt for the poor would be resented. Here, it is submitted to, because we are “enlightened" Christians! Shame! Shame on Englishmen !—R.O.

NEW POOR LAW.

[Extracted from the Hampshire Advertiser, November 20th, 1841.]

"TO THE EDITOR OF THE HAMPSHIRE ADVERTISER AND PORTSMOUTH HERALD. Sir,-Having in a former letter stated my intention to publish the two cases recently investigated in the Fareham Union Poor House, I made the application (of which the following is a copy) for the attested copies of the said examinations:

"Bursledon Bridge, Oct. 29, 1841. "GENTLEMEN,-Feeling a desire to act in unison with the expressed wish of your vice-chairman, Mr. Richard Wooldridge, who has declared himself favourable to publicity in all matters relating to the treatment of the inmates of your Union House,' I beg to request attested copies of the two different examinations recently taken before your board-tbat into the treatment of Joba Hughs and that of the two boys of Weak Intellect,' under their treatment for the Itch,-with a view to their publication, and you will oblige your faithful servant,

"JOHN I. EKLESS.

"The above was sent on the board day, and the bearer ordered to wait for an answer. the reply to which was there is no answer,' and having now waited over two board days,' presume that the no answer' is all the answer I shall get; I will therefore give the public a faithful statement of the two cases from memory and notes taken on the examinations, taking especial care that the allegations are substantially correct; and should any fastidious supporter of the thing insinuate that discrepancies exist, let him come boldly forward and avow them--1 dare hira to the proof.

"First-comes the case of John Hughs, late of Porchester, who was ninety-three years of age. when taken into the Fareham Union-house, afflicted with rupture. About the middle of last August the bed on which he laid was accidentally found rotted through the covering, and of several days' accumulation found amongst the hulls' of which the bed was made; it was taken away and buried, and Henry Smith, of Southwick, (who buried the said bed,) says that 'IT STANK WORSE THAN DUNG OUT OF A PIG-STYE!' At a subsequent period an inmate of the house saw Hugh< crawl out of his bed, found it in a most filthy state, and the poor creature so sore, and the filth so congealed on him, that he could scarcely bear to be touched. A few days after this scene occurred the same man was called to assist Hughs, who had fallen out of bed, who stated, I found him between two bedsteads, on his hands and knees; maggots were crawling over his person, and the bed on which he had laid was swarming. This was on Saturday the 4th of September; he continued to get worse, the stench became almost intolerable, and on the Tuesday following, when put into a bath to be cleansed, pieces of flesh dropped from him, which one of the witnesses described as having the appearance of carrion which dogs had been gnawing'; he was put back to his bed, nortified, and died the following day, Wednesday the 8th. Whatever attention might have been paid to the unhappy man the last four or five days of his life-previous to that time no regular nurse attended him,-'tis true John Dunaway, an imbecile old man, of filthy habits, who happened ' to sleep in the same room, now and then happened' to attend him, but in what manner one of the witnesses for the defence will best describe, who said, I have known Hughs lay on his bed three days and nights, in his clothes, without getting out. The board, after hearing the evidence, decided that the officers of the house were blameless in this affair-but not unanimously, for one gentleman, a British sailor, Lieutenant G. T. M. Purvis-honour to his name!-with that humanity, The characteristic of true bravery, could not agree to that decision. This case was heard before the board, at the house, on Friday, Oct. 15th.

6

"On Friday, Oct. 29th, the case of the two boys of weak intellect' under their treatment for the Itch came on at the same board in the presence of the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, who took the evidence of the different witnesses on oath (the attested copy of which, be it remembered. I applied for in vain), and which is as follows:

6

Two boys of weak intellect were put into the probation ward' with the Itch-they were Jocked up, their food put in at a window, and not looked to for several days, until their neglected state excited the sympathy of the inmates of the house, who, having procured a key, went in company with Carter, the schoolmaster, to see what condition they were in, and found them in such a wretched state as would be too disgusting to describe; but which you might readily conceive when you read the evidence of Emery, one of the witnesses, who deposed that they never had nothing cone for eight days-I mean to say that the room was not cleaned out for that time; and that no intment was rubbed in the eight days, towards the beginning.' They were still kept in this place casually attended, (but not by any express order from any one in authority,) for, after the 'stuff' had been all used, and application made for more, none was furnished for several days; and these poor helpless creatures of weak intellect' were kept under this wretched treatment for pearly a month, left entirely to the voluntary and casual a tendance of the paupers in the house; for the master, when cross-examined by the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, reluctantly and lesitatingly admitted, I did not visit the boys every day; I visited them about—abou'—about— I've or six or seven times; I trusted entirely to the paupers to attend them; I never told the schoolr a ter to do so; I candidly state that I might have erred from a mistaken sense of duty, and I do ti erefore throw myself on the clemency of the board, and promise, if it should he looked over, that rothing of the kind shall again occur. Up to this time I was present, when the Assistant Poor Jaw Commissioner intimating that he wished to speak to the beard,' I left, and wha followed I

have collected from Mr. Rubie, the clerk to the board. and from guardians present at the exami nation, who have told me that the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner had sent up the evidence, with his report, to the Poor Law Commissioners at Somerset House, and that the master must not expect to retain his situation.

Such are the brief and correct outlines of these disgusting cases; but, shocking as they are to the common feelings of humanity-disgraceful as they are to man as a Christian, philosopher, or citizen-they fall short of the moral turpitude of certain doings in that house,' the deta Is of which are far too disgusting to meet the public ear, and are but the natural fruits of the anti-social and impious doctrines of Malthus,' of which the New Poor Law is a bastard slip-whose atheistical sophisms seem to have blunted the sympathies, and besotted the judgments, of very many of the leading men of the age-and which, by strange assumptions and the wilful perversion of established truths, have paved the way for a piece of speculative legislation, which, under the specious and hypocritical pretext of curing a great political disease and raising the moral character of the independent labourer, has inflicted, and (if not repealed) will perpetuate greater injustice and cruelty on the helpless poor than any law of ancient or modern date.

Now, Sir, could such revolting effects of inhumanity and neglect have befallen these hapless victims of this centralizing brutalizing law, had they been under the guardianship' of their ancient legitimate protectors, within the precincts of their own parish, where they would have been accessible to not only the sympathies of their relatives, neighbours, and connexions, but under the management of men who would feel a due sense of their individual responsibility; and, above all, within reach of those consoling and comforting attentions which the wisdom and piety of our forefathers had secured and made imperative on the pastors of our 'poor man's church?' In. credible! Impossible!! Let us, then, indulge the hope that our parochial clergy will bestir themselves come forward boldly and denounce this unchristian law-assert their just prerogative as legates of the skies-regain that confidence they once possessed-and thus prevent a state of things which every patriot must be anxious to avert.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Bursledon Bridge, Nov. 15th, 1841.”

"JOHN I. EKLESS."

The following remarks on the above most offensive and barbarous proceedings were written by an experienced practical surgeon.-R.O.

Having read the account of the horrible treatment of the aged pauper John Hughs, I think it is a duty on my part to offer an opinion on the cruel neglect to which the poor man was subjected, and under the effects of which he unquestionably died.

1

The public are seldom informed of the medical treatment in the hospitals of this country; and those who are misinformed, too often entertain very crude and imperfect ideas o the subject. I have spent some years in the hospitals of Scotland, I have visited many of the English ones, and it is my opinion that they are palaces compared with the filthy charnel-houses known as poor-houses, but in reality prisons, where the inexperienced, the despotic, and the ignorant, are permitted to exercise the full bent of their inclinations on the persons of the miserable poor.

I recollect several instances in hospital practice, where very aged and infirm patients were under treatment for various diseases, and the youngest student was always apprised of the danger of permitting such persons to lie in one position for any length of time. It was the duty of the nurses to turn them three or four times a day, for the purpose of preventing the fatal effects resulting from a continued pressure on one part of the body, the circulation of which would be impeded, the absorbing powers of which were weakened, and the vitality of which had ebbed to its lowest point.

When aged infirmity is neglected for twenty-four hours, or even twelve hours, the pressure excites a flickering effort in nature to urge on the blood through the parts of the body where any obstruction is felt. That effort in a few hours excites inflammation-that again produces an abscess or collection of matter. The abscess bursts, an ulcer is formed, which, widening and widening, drains the remaining strength of the patient by the discharge. Then hectic fever, mortification, and death soon terminate the struggle. I have known nurses reprimanded and discharged for their neglect of an aged patient for six hours; and yet, although the case of the poor man, according to the narrative, has been exactly such as medical experience would predict, we find a conceited and tyrannical board of guardians (Heaven save the name) giving their ignorant verdict in favour of the poor-house. Where was the surgeon of the Bastile during the examination? His conscience must have been moved, or he must be no better than a puffed up barber's apprentice.

Had a coroner's jury been summoned, and all the medical men of England and Wales summoned, they would have given it as their opinion that neglect, culpable neglect, was the cause of the poor man's death. Let us hope that hatred to his class and his poverty had not something to do with the case. Why have we coroners' juries, save to inquire into the cause of death? and in this case I could assert, upon oath, that the facts of the case being true, the old man was murdered by cruel neglect-the system of administering relief to the poor being calculated to produce such effects, and even more revolting ones.

Had such a case occurred in an hospital, I am certain not one nurse or officer would be permitted to remain in the institution, if no other power existed to do it than the expression of opinion on the part of students. Why then does not public opinion condemn and reform in this poor-house? It cannot, because the system has centralized a rulership over the poor; and the same system will hatch greater atrocities, until the sheer neglect of the people will make it as disgusting and corrupt as the body of the poor old murdered grey-haired pauper.-P. MD.

TO MR. OASTLER, THE QUEEN'S PRISON.

6, South Square, Gray's Inn, June 18, 1843. My dear Sir,-In my last letter, I endeavoured to show the great value of land, as the very best commodity whereon to employ labour for subsistence. It is perfectly clear, that without

labour you may almost as well be without land. Should not labour and land, then, be for ever united, that they may for ever supply the wants of mankind, which they well can do, as they ever have done since the Creation? No man in his right mind can doubt this, or refuse bis cordial assent to so plain and obvious a proposition. It is so plain, indeed, that it appears astonishing that the meaus for employing labour on land should ever be withheld from any one and every one able and willing to use them.

Till the earth, and subdue it," is the Divine command. "Be fruitful, and multiply," is so likewise, for by no other means is it possible to obey the injunction. Then the principle, which is what I mean to elucidate, is in a very narrow compass-its application extensive as the universe. From the smallest beginning, of the most scanty population of any country whatever, from even hundreds to thousands, and from thousands to millions, the principle is the same-the application of it the same-the sure benefit to the community the same; that is, if applied. The subsistence requisite for a hundred requires the labour of such a number of men as will supply it, and a little more, to cover contingencies. "Without a little more," says SIR J. SINCLAIR, "you will never have enough;" and truly the little over as well as the whole, can be supplied in the easist and most certain and agreeable manner. It is only a little mare labour to a little more land, and nothing else; but recollect, that nothing else will suffice. Well then we come to a point on which I apprehend no difference of opinion can exist, for there seems to be nothing to admit of any difference. It is in the application of the sound and immutable principle that men's opinions vary, and on this ground, therefore, I shall proceed to consider the matter; and if I can, so test it as to bring the truth home to the conviction of every one.

Land and labour-the one yours, the other mine. You have nothing but the land-I have nothing but the labour. Well, then, to benefit either of us, we must come to some understanding on the subject—some reasonable adjustment, whereby mutual advantage may be had, by union and Co-operation, which separately is denied to each-that is, in other words, my labour is as advantageous to you as your land, whereon to apply it, is to me. Either or both idle is utter destruction and destitution. I do not think, so far. that there can be much difference of opinion-hence the difference will begin, probably, relative to the terms on which my labour shall be applied to your land. The principle, then, may be thus settled probably-that the best mode of adjusting the return for each of us is that which will produce the most advantage to each. If you demand so much for the land that the produce will not afford me for my share a subsistence, then I am injured. If, on the contrary, too much be given to me, you are injured. It is by experience that we shall be guided in this matter; and experience will very soon come to this point, I expect that the better I shall be subsisted, the better shall I be able to increase the cultivation of the soil, and consequently. procure the more produce from it; and thus, at the same time, and by the same operation, give the larger income to you. This seems to be natural, reasonable, and attainable. The progress, then, of both from this small beginning is alike beneficial to both. It cannot, indeed, be otherwise; and this progress of labour on land should never be stopt nor impeded—it should go on with increasing population, and always be a little beyond the demand, in order to be always, and under all contingencies, equal to the demand. This observed and attended to, the Poor Laws would be so far rendered innoxious, that they would be so much reduced in practice. In other words, pauperism of able-bodied men would never exist, for they would never be idle.

Labour and land, then, must be united permanently-for ever united, to secure the invaluable blessing already stated. The world, without the union, would soon go to ruin-men must starve. How comes it. then, that there is such extreme misery and destitution in the country? Because labour and land are separated and not united. Labour waste for want of land, and land waste for want of labour. No necessity for it—no reason for it. Every argument of every kind, therefore, proves the absolute necessity of their union. If the principle stated were equivocal, unsound, or imprac ticable, the wonder might cease that these things are so under our very eyes, and yet unredressed. Why, then, is it not applied in every quarter of the country? If your land, without my labour, is comparatively useless, my labour, without your land, is utterly so, and irrecoverably so, and every day's loss of employment irreparable. If my labour did not benefit your land, reason might be given for holding it back from me. If the question of subsistence or starvation were one of equal moment, holding it back would be less astonishing; but if held back, and subsistence called for from the labour of others to subsist me be the result, can we imagine a greater piece of folly and absurdity than this selfish refusal to produce the double benefit before stated?

But has any man a title to any estate that will give him such a mischievous power? Is there any tenure of any land that enables the owner to inflict such a grievous punishment on others, and in the result also upon himself? When God gave the earth to man, and man to the earth, was it in any such condition? It is a violation of His law unquestionably. It is equally a violation of the principles that bind men together in society. It is contrary to the British Constitution to its fundamental principle and constant practice.

In my last paper, you bad evidence in abundance to show the value of the union of labour with land. Every extension of the principle is. in truth, an extension of benefit to the poor, without a penny lost to the rich, but the reverse. Every advance in population, applying more extensively, as necessity requires, the same principle, is really and truly an advance in national strength, and wealth, and happiness. Demanding for the labourer no other favour, this is so clearly his due, that it were manifest injustice to deny him the use of the land. There is no reason for it-there is great inbumanity in it-there is no loss in giving it, and the greatest possible benefit to him, arising thus from his own unaided exertions. There is a beginning here, but no assignable limit to the certain source of abundance and happiness. Let every one, then, as he has the means, apply them.

I am, my dear Sir,

Very sincerely yours,

J. J. BURN.

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