of Lords and oppose the Bill, or to give his written testimony against it. The following extracts from the Earl of Stanhope's letters to myself on that subject, will be interesting at this moment :—

"December 20, 1837. Since I wrote the above, I have received your letter of the 18th inst., which I shall forward to-day with one from myself to Lord Eldon, who will be very much flattered by the value which you attach to his opinion."

"December 23, 1837. I have written also to my old friend Lord Eldon, who never mentions to me the New Poor Law without the utmost indignation and abhorrence, who expressed, when I saw him lately, great anxiety to attend the House of Lords, in order to state his opinion upon its unconstitutional principle. I hope that he will give that opinion in writing, and I would have it printed as a hand-bill or placard, and distributed in all directions; but he is, I am grieved to say, become very feeble from age and infirmity. All who know him, must entertain, as I have always done, the utmost veneration for his talents and his inflexible integrity."

I was in daily hopes of receiving from the Earl of Stanhope the written testimony of the Earl of Eldon against the New Poor Law, when the following communication from the former, dated January 19, 1838, disappointed my expectation:

"The death of my friend Lord Eldon is an irreparable loss to the cause, as well as personally to myself, to whom he showed a sincere and most affectionate attachment. I wrote to him about three weeks before, and, as I knew him to be in a state of great debility, I urged him to dictate, but not to take the trouble of writing with his own hand, his opinion on the unconstitutional nature of the New Poor Law, which I told him should be printed in a hand-bill or placard, and circulated n different districts. I sent him, at the same time, your letter, which must have pleased him extremely, and which would have induced him to execute his patriotic intention, if it had been still in his power. He was so much indisposed as to be incapable of any exertion."

Poor Lord Eldon! It was too late. Death had marked him for his own! I always think of one circumstance, in reference to the death-bed of that venc rable nobleman, with solemn satisfaction.

We had held a public meeting in Huddersfield-we had petitioned against the New Poor Law we had passed a vote of thanks to the Earl of Eldon. I was commissioned to convey the resolution of the meeting to the venerable Earl, and to ask his Lordship to present the petition to the Lords. In my letter, I expressed the pleasure which it gave me to hand his Lordship the proof, that although his opinions were now despised by his former colleagues, they were esteemed by the people of England. I told him how I rejoiced to assure him that he had lived long enough to have the gratitude of that people to whom he had' Been so much misrepresented. It gives me pleasure, even here, when I remember, that on his death-bed I was privileged to shed one enlivening beam!

The daughter of the Earl very politely answered my letter, assuring me that her venerable and revered father, although unable to write, was gratified with the proof of the approval of his principles by the people of Huddersfield; aud that if he should recover his strength, he would have much pleasure in presenting their petition against the New Poor Law Bill to the House of Lords. In two or three days he was a corpse!

The following quotation, from a letter addressed to me by Earl Stanhope, is, at this moment, while the Conservative Dictator is pressing on with the New Poor Law Bill, of very great value. Let the Dictator read it, and in it read his fall:

January 25, 1838. I had very frequent conversations with Lord Eldon on the New Poor Law; of course I cannot recollect all the expressions which he used, and which I ought not to quote unless I could state them correctly, but I remember perfectly well that he said to me, and with great energy,

"IT IS THE MOST INFAMOUS LAW THAT EVER WAS ENACTED IN ANY CHRISTIAN COUNTRY.'

"He also said, and I intend to quote these words in the House of Lords.—

66

“IF THE PARLIAMENT WILL NOT DO ITS DUTY, THE PEOPLE MUST DO THEIRS.'

"And also, as I mentioned in a former letter to you,

"NOTHING CAN BE Done till tHE COUNTRY IS READY FOR IT, WHICH IT SOON WILL BE.'"

The dying words of such a man as Eldon are esteemed as treasures by a Tory of the old school like myself, despised though they are by his former colleagues, Wellington and Peel!

But, Sir, it is not safe thus to trifle with the opinions of Eldon. It is by such sages that the rights of the rich are upheld, as well as those of the poor. Ask yourself, If we teach the people of England to laugh at the opinions of such men as Lord Eldon, how long can we retain our estates?

The Dictator may think that he leans securely on the vagaries of Lord Brougham-he will," WHEN THE PEOPLE ARE READY TO DO THEIR DUTY," find those freaks to be a broken reed. Then will the words of Eldou pierce to his inmost soul-" IF THE PARLIAMENT WILL NOT DO ITS DUTY, THE PEOPLE MUST DO THEIRS!" Then will the Dictator's authority be successfully resisted, and "THE MOST INFAMOUS LAW THAT EVER WAS ENACTED IN ANY CHRISTIAN COUNTRY" will be torn from the statute book, and trampled under foot by a conquering, forgiving, and loyal people!

Did ever one man do so much damage to a nation as this Dictator has done to England? Once he has stabbed the Constitution in its most vital part!-he has shaken the credit of the kingdom to its centre, and paralysed the commerce of the world! Now, despite the solemn warning of Lord Eldon, he is attempting to build up private property on the destruction of the rights of the poor, and, if not resisted, he will drive the " babbling" people to rid themselves of the " trash" which he is heaping upon them, and take their affairs into their own hands!

May the friends of the Constitution, of the Church, of the Throne, of the People, and of the Poor, now forget all party differences, and unite together in one holy resolution THAT THE OLD laws of this realm shall noT BE CHANGED! Now, Sir, is the time-now or never. If you do not know it, I do-hunger is maddening the people to revenge!

Next week, I will endeavour to solve the question-Has Sir Robert Peel deceived the people with respect to the New Poor Law? It will not, I think, be difficult to prove that the Conservative candidates and the Conservative press were justified in expecting from Sir Robert Peel a great change in that law.

I am, your Prisoner,

RICHARD OASTLER.

P.S.-I cannot make room for "Rent-Roll.”—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. 29.

LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 16, 1842.

PRICE 2d.

The Fleet Prison.

THOMAS THORNHILL, Esq.

SIR, What is the sure sign of the decline and fall of a nation? Is it not when her rulers have abandoned the path of virtue, and are no longer the depositories of honour? If such be the fact, and the experience of all ages affirms it to be so, ours is a fearful case.

The conduct of the Conservatives in this session of Parliament (with but few honourable exceptions) has been so disgraceful, that now, to be called a Conservative is synonymous with being a deceiver! If Sir Robert Peel has contrived to save his party from defeat in "the House," he has for ever destroyed its reputation in the country and the world. The Conservative and the Whig may now embrace each other, since truth and justice have bid them both adieu.

I rejoice to find, however, that the shameful abandonment of their pledges by many Conservatives, with respect to the New Poor Law, is likely to receive its proper reward from the hands of their betrayed constituencies. The following placard, printed in Kidderminster, proves, that in that place, at least, perfidy is about to receive its condemnation :

-

"THE D-NABLE* NEW POOR LAW BILL.

"Men of Kidderminster,

"Richard Godson, Esq., our representative, who, in addition to the above terms, saidit was a BLOODY BILL,' and ought never to have been passed,' has, during the past week, vote. with the Ministry for the accursed Bill' to be continued five years longer!!!!

He has thus deceived his supporters, insulted and outraged our poverty, and forfeited all our confidence as our servant and as a man of integrity. Electors and non-electors of Kidderminster, do your duty-call a public meeting-demand his resignation, and choose an honest man to represent you. Do your duty, or bear the brand of Slaves."

I rejoice that the hustings' declarations of Mr. Godson are thus remembered by his constituents. I hope that other deceived constituencies will follow their example, and exhibit the male factors in the infamous character which their deeds deserve. It will indeed be a glorious sight to behold the people of England

* In the original, the offensive word is printed in full, just as the Conservative candidate uttered it, when he was using the New Poor Law as a clap-trap to secure his election by deceiving the constituency.-R.O.

demonstrating to those who have betrayed them, that such treachery as theirs can no longer be endured; and that if the parliamentary leaders of the Whigs and the Conservatives have agreed to disregard all hustings' promises with reference to the New Poor Law, the constituents are not afraid to brand such dishonourable men with infamy. The sterling and unflinching honour of the masseswill thus not only make "the seats" too hot for traitors, but will prove that the people are prepared to select men of the highest honour for their representatives.

But whilst the lick-spittles are thus denounced, shall the Dictator and the leaders of the Conservative party escape with impunity? Shall those who now sit in high places, and hold the reins of Government, because the people hoped that they would oppose the New Poor Law, shall these be tolerated, while those of less importance are consigned to certain odium? An independent and nobleminded people must answer, No!

Sir Robert does not dare to deny the perfidy of his supporters; but for himself, he seeks to escape from odium, and vauntingly asserts, that none can charge him with deception. He tells "the House"

"No man who intended to state the truth could have had a right to deceive the public as to MY opinions on the New Poor Law."—" All that I could do was to state my opinion; and that I think I have done freely and explicitly. In 1834, I was opposed to the Government of the day. They brought forward the Poor Law Bill."-"I supported the Government on that question. There was a CLAMOUR raised, or attempted to be raised, against it; but I supported the late Government, notwithstanding that."—"ON EVERY OCCASION, AND ON EVERY DIVISION, I BELIEVE, I SUPPORTED THE POOR LAW BILL."

No one doubts the fact to be so. But it does so happen, that when a dissolution of Parliament was within sight, and the prospect of power was apparent, the immaculate and self-complacent Baronet did say one or two things about the Poor Law Commissioners, which were very much calculated to make his friends believe that those personages were not held in much esteem by him, and consequently, led them to suppose that Sir Robert would be the first man to curtail their power, or to remove them altogether. It seems now, however, that he was only coaxing the "clamourers," as an useful adjunet to the prospective election..

He may pretend that he would "have been ashamed to take advantage of any prejudice," and all that sort of thing, but, as it is certain that he has gained "the advantage," it is but reasonable to examine into the facts, and ascertain if those who "deceived the public as to HIS opinions" had reason to believe that "they stated the truth." The Dictator has no right to blame me for the investigation upon which I am about to enter. The man is conscious that deceit has been practised by somebody, and that he owes his present position to the success of the delusion under which the people were beclouded. He does not deny that his supporters and partizans represented him to the people as an enemy to the New Poor Law, but he would make-believe that he had never given cause for such opinion. He boldly challenges a reference to his speeches; I accept the challenge. I will not fear to meet him, and give such proof as I can muster that he vaunts dishonestly when he says—

"I should have been ashamed to take advantage of any prejudices on the subject of the Poor Laws, on the eve of a general election, for the sake of acquiring power."-" How, then, can there be any doubt about MY sentiments on this question ?”—“I trust, then, there has been nothing

in MY conduct to render any doubt in MY opinions possible. IT IS NOT MY FAULT, if persons choose to excite hopes with respect to the course I should take on the Poor Law. I can do nothing but make explicit declarations."

Such is the language of the Dictator. Thus would he now gain credit for consistency of conduct with reference to the New Poor Law. Sir, it shall be my business to answer the Dictator's appeal-to prove how it was that hopes were excited in the minds of the people that he had changed his views on the subject of the New Poor Law-how it was that his followers and supporters led the electors to imagine that Sir Robert Peel would propose the removal of the Commissioners, and make great alterations in the law itself-and how it is now impossible that he can have the credit of not being "ashamed to take advantage of any prejudice on the subject of the Poor Laws, on the eve of a general election, for the sake of acquiring power."

When you have read the proofs which I shall advance in answer to the Dictator's challenge, you will be able to judge whether or no it was " HIS fault, if persons chose to excite hopes with respect to the course HE should take on the Poor Law." As in the case of the Corn Laws and the Tariff, so now, in this present case, I will endeavour to answer the Dictator's appeal out of the mouth of Sir Robert Peel himself.

You cannot have forgotten that Lord John Russell introduced the New Poor Law to the House of Commons on the 30th of January, 1841. You are aware that that Bill was a very teasing affair to the expiring Whigs; that year after year they had evaded the question, by passing a short continuance Bill; and that during that time the Conservatives had taken much trouble to convince the people that it was essentially a Whig measure.

You know also, that year after year the Whig majorities were waning, and that their popularity had long ago departed.

During all this while, the people of England had been instructed, that if the Conservatives were restored to office, very extensive alterations would be made in the New Poor Law. It was, in reply, often urged by the people, "That Sir Robert Peel had always supported the Whigs in that measure."-" True,” was the response of his supporters, "but you know Sir Robert will yield to the universal opinion. It is not the first time that he has changed his course to please. a majority." The Tamworth Baronet silently looked on, while his supporters were thus making way for him to popular favour, and while hopes in the public mind were thus inspired. A few words from the Right Hon. Baronet were, in due time, required to cherish those hopes. When they could be most useful, they were uttered.

In 1841, it was evident that the Whigs could not long retain office-it was certain that Sir Robert Peel would be called to succeed them; that a new Parliament would be required; and that no hopes of success amongst the constituencies could be indulged in by the Conservatives, if opposition to the New Poor Law were not made their stalking-horse. All that was wanting was, that Peel should say something in the House, to enable his supporters to maintain, with an appearance of reason, that he was no longer an admirer of the New Poor Law. Accordingly, on the 8th of February, 1841, the wily Baronet, who had pre