propose will include a complete review of all the articles of the tariff, and a general alteration of the duties. I speak now generally;' but there are some articles to which these observations do not apply, as I will explain hereafter.

66

"The general principle on which we proceed is, first, the removal of prohibition in every case, and the relaxation of duties of a prohibitory character. Secondly, the reduction of duties, to a very considerable amount, on raw materials used in manufactures. In some cases we shall propose to retain a merely nominal duty, rather for the purpose of enabling the Government to obtain statistical information than as an object of revenue; and in no case, or scarcely any, do we propose to levy a duty of more than five per cent. upon raw articles used in manufactures. Upon articles partially manufactured we propose to make a considerable reduction of duty. We propose, speaking generally, that the duty upon articles partially manufactured should not exceed twelve per cent. With respect to the duty on manufactured articles, we propose, again speaking generally, that the maximum duty should not exceed twenty per cent. in any case."

It is clear, then, that, for some reason or other, Sir Robert Peel has, at length, resolved to challenge all "that embarrassment, confusion, and distress," which, on the 3rd of April, 1840,"he would not consent to hazard, by establishing, at the expense of what is practically good, that which MAY BE theoretically correct." How strangely inconsistent is Sir Robert Peel with himself!

It will be my business to discover, if I can, the course of reasoning which was adopted by the Premier for changing his sentiments. If he has satisfactorily proved the folly of his former opinions, I shall have no hesitation in adopting his new ones; but if it should turn out that he has abandoned the system which has produced so much practical good, merely in deference to "public feeling and opinion," I must refuse to withdraw, with such a leader, from "the light of the Constitution."

Dragging the produce of foreign countries into competition (in our own markets) with the produce of our own industry, seems to me the most likely way to impoverish the people.

I am well aware that the principles of Free Trade demand the abandonment of prohibition, and also of all protective duties, but I have yet to learn that the "power and greatness" of this country can be maintained without "protection."

In the absence of the most convincing reasons, "I will not consent to put to hazard enormous interests, for the purpose of substituting an untried principle for one under which our power and greatness have been established."

If, however, I find that arguments are produced by Sir Robert Peel in 1842, sufficiently convincing to confute Sir Robert Peel in 1840, why, then, I shall not hesitate to acknowledge, that hitherto I have been in error.

I am, your Prisoner,

RICHARD OASTLER.

P.S.-I am glad, at length, to find a little space for the continuation of my "Rent-Roll."

Aug. 23. A brother prisoner, who had been the medical attendant of Kings, made me share the bounty of his friends, and gave me a lemon

tart.

24. A flower-pot and plant were brought to me by the wife of a French

officer of cavalry.

25.-Mr. Cleave added to my garden stock.

Aug. 26. My kind Yorkshire friend, Mrs. Frith, sent me a bottle of the same Madeira which I used to relish so much at her house, and a loaf

of "home-baked bread."

29. Mr. Eaves again, replenished my tobacco-box.

Sept. 1.-My very kind friend, Sir George Sinclair, Bart., sent me one dozen bottles of old Port.

3-Mr. Cleave sent me three books and a beautiful plant.

4.-A dear young friend (Oxford Street) sent me a handsome tray-stand, worked by herself, and such a sweet letter!

6.-Again my friend Cleave called, and brought me a quantity of grapes.

A constant friend, a barrister, sent me four bottles of prime homebrewed ale.

7.-Kind Mr. Marrian brought me a quantity of ginger-bread nuts.

8. Somebody sent me a large hamper, containing game and grapes.

My unknown friend, Mr. C. P. Baucks, near Bewdley, sent me a sovereign.

9.—And so did a Nottingham friend.

10." My child," the daughter of a Suffolk clergyman, came with a present of grapes.

11. Her brother left me a sovereign.

12.-Again did my friend Eaves replenish my tobacco-box.

13-Mr. Moody, of Southwark, brought me a basket of most excellent apples, of his own growing.

Mr. Maywood presented me with his portrait.

18.-Once more did Cleave treat me with a basket of grapes.

27.-Mr. Ferrand, M.P., brought me a brace of moor game.

My dear friend, (since then he has gone from this scene of trial to his glorious reward,) Mr. Thurnall, gave me a leash of partridges.

28. My old friend, Mr. William Beckett, M.P. for Leeds, gave me a

sovereign.

The true and faithful Pitkethley, of Huddersfield, sent me five pounds, the gift of a friend whom he would not name.

30.—Rev. J. C. Boddington, of Great Horton, insisted on my taking his sovereign.

My dear young friends, the children of my own Parson Bull, sent me some nice cakes, made by themselves.

Mr. Twells, of Birmingham, brought me a seed-cake.

Oct. 2.-An unknown friend sent me one pound of tea.

Lord George

brought me grapes and other fruits.

8. Mr. Stott, of Huddersfield, gave me ten shillings with a hearty good

will.

9.-Mr. William Walker, Bradford, put a five pound note into my hand so kindly. I wish you had seen and heard him, and felt his friendly

squeeze.

I will tell you of more when I have room.-R.O.

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

Being Letters to

THOMAS THORNHILL, Esq.,

Of Riddlesworth, in the County of Norfolk;

FROM

RICHARD OASTLER,

His Prisoner in the Fleet.

WITH OCCASIONAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM FRIENDS.

“The Altar, the Throne, and the Cottage."-"Property has its duties, as well as its rights." "The Husbandman that laboureth, must be first partaker of the fruits."

"He shall judge the poor of the people, He shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the Oppressor."

VOL. II.-No. 24.

PRICE 2d.

LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 11, 1842.

The Fleet Prison.

THOMAS THORNHILL, Esq.

SIR," I can easily conceive," says Malthus, in his 4th book, "I can easily conceive that this country, wITH A PROPER DIRECTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRY, might, in the course of some centuries, contain two or three times its present population, and yet EVERY MAN in the kingdom be MUCH BETTER fed and clothed than he is at present."

What, then, ought to be the object of the Government? To lead "the national industry into the proper direction?" or to impoverish ourselves by the wanton waste of our resources, and to expend a large portion of our wealth in forcing a famished people to be submissive?

A wise man cannot hesitate in answering these questions. It must, then, follow, that the great question which requires solution is-By what means can "the national industry be properly directed?" How important the question, and how very simple the answer. It is none other than to enable the people, by their talents and industry, to become the customers of each other, (which result can only be accomplished by protecting each in the developement of his own art or craft,) and then to regulate the operations of the whole, so as to prevent competition, by accommodating the supply to the demand. Thus at all times insuring to labour, skill, and capital their just reward; and all this without injury to any one; for the command is, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, and Love worketh no ill to his neighbour, therefore Love is the fulfilling of the Law." How different is the Truth of God to the error which is promulgated by the devotees of Free Trade, who assert, "That the employer of labour is to avail himself of all circumstances by which he can reduce the value of labour"-" To give capital a fair remuneration, the price of labour must be kept down"-and "National good can only be obtained at the expense of injury to individuals." How crooked are the mazes of man--how straight and sure is the path of God! Where, then, is the difficulty? Nowhere, but in the selfishness of man!

It was by adopting the principles of Truth, (which are those of the British Constitution,) that this country was raised to "the power and greatness" of which, but two years ago, Sir Robert Peel so justly boasted. The consequence of abandoning those constitutional principles, and, in their stead, adopting the loose.

vagaries of the Free Trade wiseacres, has been, as Sir Robert Peel admits, the present misery and wretchedness of our skilful and industrious population.

You will perceive, Sir, that the principle which I have just laid down is in direct opposition to that of the competitive, or Free Trade school of Philosophy, which teaches, contrary to Scripture, reason, and fact, "that EACH, in steadily pursuing his own aggrandizement, is following that precise line of conduct which is most for the PUBLIC advantage." The result of a partial developement of this latter principle has already verified the prediction of the Premier's venerated father, by proving, that under its operation, our boasted science, skill, and industry, "instead of being a blessing to the nation, have been converted into the bitterest curse." Whereas, under the true system of legislation-that of regulation and protection-the Premier himself has acknowledged, that this country had acquired both "power and greatness," such as no nation," considering its population, had EVER possessed."

Notwithstanding his father's most solemn caution, in defiance of his own convictions, and of the facts stated by himself, Sir Robert Peel has, as I have shown you in my last letter, resolved to "put to hazard' our enormous interests" -he has determined to brave all that "embarrassment, confusion, and distress" which he has predicted will be the consequence of " establishing, at the expense of what IS practically good, that which MAY BE theoretically correct." With this admitted danger before his eyes, the Statesman of the age ventures upon this current of misery!

The Premier resolved upon this tremendous" hazard" without even the hope of restoring national prosperity thereby. He pronounced all hope from legislative enactments to be vain, left "natural causes" to repair all his blunders, and expected that the genial breezes of spring would invigorate and re-animate our enormous interests." These are his words, spoken in the House of Commons, February 9, 1842. After he had been "discouraging the too sanguine hope that any extent of legislative interference could exempt us from the occasional recurrence of distress," the Premier said

"I do entertain a confident hope and belief that we may still look forward to the revival, by the operation of NATURAL causes, of our commercial and manufacturing prosperity."

The expectation of the Premier was vain. Spring refused to smile on his hope or his Tariff, and on the 6th of May he said :

"I regret, that I cannot express any very sanguine expectations with respect to a revival of trade. I am bound to say, that the arrival of spring has disappointed the anticipations I had formed; for my impression had been that this season would have been accompanied by more cheering indications of prosperity than have yet appeared."

Still, Sir Robert Peel continued his downward course; forsaking "the light of the Constitution," he resolved to wander in the labyrinths of Philosophy,whither I am bound to follow him; regretting, as I trace the slippery path, that the evil spirit of the age should have at last succeeded (by fomenting jealousies, and setting interest against interest, and class against class) in creating an anti-social spirit and feeling in many persons, to which the Conservative Prime Minister feels himself bound to yield, even against his father's advice, the argument of facts, and the force of his own declared convictions!

But before I enter further into the examination of Sir Robert Peel's Tariff, in order that my remarks thereon may be better understood, I must run the risk of wearying you with a dry and tedious argument upon what is "the proper direction of the national industry?" Having solved that question, I shall be able to put a few facts together-facts which are admitted by Sir Robert Peel, and then, from the principle asserted by myself, and the facts and admissions of Sir Robert Peel, I hope to be able to demonstrate the wisdom or folly of the new Tariff.

Well, then, can any one deny, that the first results of industry ought to be the sustenance of the industrious? I am not now speaking of the poor and indigent, I refer to the actively industrious sons of toil. Can any one, of any creed and party, be so foolish as to question that they have a right to expect that plenty (in every state of society, and under any form of Government) ought to be their reward?

Almighty God has declared, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground." If there should arise any doubt as to the order in which the distribution of the fruits of industry shall take place, the inspired Apostle has removed that doubt, for he has thus promulgated the decision of infinite Wisdom and Justice on that point:-"The husbandman that laboureth MUST BE FIRST partaker of the fruits."

Away, then, with all cavilling and disputing about the RIGHT of the industrious to food, raiment, and shelter. Let all those who believe that a rich man has a right, by every means in his power, to force the value of labour down for his own aggrandizement, or who impiously assert, that "the employer of labour is to avail himself of all circumstances by which he can reduce the value of labour"-let all such persons, I say, at once confess that they reject the wisdom of the True God, and that their self-love, their " inextinguishable and illimitable passion for gain," has forced them to abandon the Oracles of God, and to reject the restraint which, for the protection of the labourers and the security of society, is therein imposed on their avarice. Let it, I repeat, be, from henceforward, distinctly understood, that every system which resists the controul and restraint which are necessary to secure the "daily bread" of the industrious, is not of God, but that it is contrary to his positive command. Let not men who thus, for "their own aggrandizement," refuse the RIGHT of the labourers, and resolve, at all hazards, "to buy in the cheapest market," and who profess" that freedom from restraint is calculated to give the best direction to the capital and industry of the country"-let not such men any longer practise deceit upon the people, by pretending that they are Christians, and Philanthropists, and I know not what.

There is no mistake about the matter with God. The wide world is given to man for his sustenance-his industry is the sole condition demanded for his maintenance; and every scheme which is contrived to rob the labourer of that reward, nay, every system which does not, in its arrangement, incorporate such restraint upon the passion for gain" which is required for the security and protection of labour, is not, cannot be of God, and must, consequently, be opposed by every true believer in His most Holy Word.