of importing either live cattle or salt provisions from foreign countries, secures to the graziers of Great Britain, the monopoly of the home market for butchers' meat. The high duties on the importation of corn, which, in times of moderate plenty, amount to a prohibition, give a like advantage to the growers of that commodity. The prohibition of the importation of foreign woollens is equally favourable to the woollen manufactures. The silk manufacture, although altogether employed upon foreign materials, has lately obtained the same advantage. The linen manufacture has not yet obtained it, but is making great strides towards it. Many other sorts of manufactures have, in the same manner, obtained in Great Britain, either altogether, or very nearly, a monopoly against their countrymen. The variety of goods, of which the importation into Great Britan is prohibited, either absolutely, or under certain circumstances, greatly exceeds what can easily be suspected by those who are not well acquainted with the laws of the customs.

"That this monopoly of the home market frequently gives great encouragement to that particular species of industry which enjoys it, and frequently turns towards that employment a greater share of both the labour and stock of the society than would otherwise have gone to it, cannot be doubted. But whether it tends either to increase the general industry of the society, or to give it the most advantageous direction is not, perhaps, altogether so evident.'

Now, Sir, in the particular and important passage which I have just quoted, where the vital principle of all commercial action is treated of, you will observe that Adam Smith has most distinctly and fully admitted that advantage,-ADVANTAGE accrues to those who are connected with certain employments, both agricultural and manufacturing, by reason of restriction being put upon importation. Let us consider then, in what degree the advantage here admitted, extends in a national point of view. The writer has included the general agricultural capital of the community under the head of receiving great advantage by means of the regulation alluded to; and I find, by a pamphlet lately published by you, on the subject of the Corn Laws, you state, p. 16, with reference to the national agriculture, that nearly half the population of the empire are directly and indirectly dependent upon it for employment, and the means of subsistence;' thus it will follow, according to the reasoning of Adam Smith, that the restrictive principle of commerce operates, even in this one direction alone, most advantageously for nearly half the population of the empire. But besides this, he proceeds also to carry on his principle of advantage, for he ennumerates the woollen manufacture, the silk manufacture, and others, as receiving benefit from it, and he has also argued that other manufacturers would derive advantage, if a similar regulation were extended to them. Thus he has admitted the most extensive applicability of his principle of advantage, and stated it so broadly and fully, as to make it evident, that in accordance with his own argument, all we have to do, to secure the prosperity of the whole community, is to see that the principle be applied generally and equally.

Although the policy which I have just referred to, prevailed in his mind to the extent which I have now shown, yet it appears that he was not inclined to follow up the doctrine to its legitimate conclusions. From some inexplicable motive he was induced to halt between the two systems, the restrictive and the free. But now, Sir, I entreat of you to mark particularly the lame manner in which he hobbled over the free system, having no solid foundation to rest on. Having admitted the beneficial power of the restrictive principle to the extent before noticed, he then says of it, whether it tends either to increase the general industry of the society, or to give it the most advantageous direction, is not, perhaps, altogether so evident.' By these words you will perceive that the greater weight of evidence is admitted to be on the side of the regulating principle, for an advantageous operation is assigned to it with regard to several important and particular instances; and the only exception he has been able to make against its advantageous operation in a general point of view, is conveyed by the words, it is not, perhaps, altogether so evident.' Thus the citation of facts, and the reasoning upon them, are all on one side, while on the other, there is merely weak assertion, and even this is full of doubt, as is evinced by the introduction of the two important and disqualifying words perhaps and altogether.' The writer, however, felt it to be necessary to invent some more plausible excuse for deserting his own solid argument, consequently, I find that a little further onward, he attempts to concentrate in one paragraph, a meaning calculated to induce the reader to go over with him to the free principle. It is as follows:- Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society.' Now this paragraph requires the nost attentive and serious consideration to be bestowed upon it, for it constitutes the premises on which the whole system of free trade depends, and it involves a question of no less magnitude than the rise and fall of empires, the physical well-being or misery of mankind. The author of it has endeavoured to create the belief that practice, originating in self-love, necessarily eventuates in social advantage, a dogina in direct contradiction to all the beneficent laws of moral and social action enjoined on mankind by Jesus Christ. The duty of the writer, at this all-important part of his argument, was that of establishing a perfect law of social action. By entering on the great discussion, he undertook to do all in his power to accomplish this, and he went so far towards it, as to approach very near to a definition of this law, but here he felt, that if he continued in the direction he was then advancing, he would have to propound and to maintain a truth which was not agreeable to the selfish nature of man, therefore, it was that he deserted it, and preferred pandering to popular appetite, by asserting a principle which is at variance with our Religion and our constant experience. Oh! that the fallen nature of man should render it necessary for us to discuss these subjects, and that too, when it is acknowledged that a gracious and beneficent Creator has provided a sufficiency of all things, and above all, has given us the light of his own spirit to guide us in the use of them. But for the present, I must leave off commenting on these deeply interesting questions. "I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, "WILLIAM ATKINSON."

No. 16, Doughty Street, December 27, 1841.

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

THE

FLEET PAPERS.

LONDON: PUBLISHED BY

JOHN PAVEY, 47, HOLYWELL STREET, STRAND,

AND

BENJAMIN STEILL, 20, PATERNOSTER ROW.

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 paving the way to universal Ruin, Anarchy, and Despotism.

NOTICE TO CORRESPONDENTS.

RICHARD METCALF, Keighley.-His obliging communication is duly received. Mr. Oastler has long been convinced, that direct taxes on property are not only more just than the present system, but that such a system of direct taxation is the only sure way to obtain a cheap Government.

VOLUME FIRST

OF

THE FLEET

PAPERS

May be had of the Publishers, in

FIFTY-TWO NUMBERS, AT 2d. EACH,

OR

THIRTEEN PARTS, AT 9d. EACH. PAVEY, 47, HOLYWELL STREET, STRAND, AND STEILL, 20, PATERNOSTER Row.

Mr. PAVEY is supplied with Tile-pages, which, on application, will be given to those who wish to bind the volume.

"MR. OASTLER'S FLEET PAPERS.—It is gratifying to find that these excellent Papers. which strive so honestly and effectually to popularize constitutional principles, continue to enjoy a most extensive circulation amongst all sorts and conditions of men, but more especially the working men of the manufacturing districts. They are principally intended, as their preface informs us, '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.' So much the more important, then, that the principles they must needs inculcate should be instilled into the minds of the working classes. The clergy and the aristocracy cannot do too much to promote the reading of such a publication: both duty and interest are concerned in their doing so."-Hull Times, Dec. 28, 1841.

"The FLEET PAPERS.-We have received from Mr. Oastler an impression of the number, of the Fleet Papers which will be published to-morrow. In this publication, Mr. Oastler proves, from the most incontrovertible evidence, that in 1834, when there was distress enough to melt hearts of stone, the Leaguers showed no sympathy with the starving victims of manufacturing oppression; but because this distress had not reached themselves, they chose to represent the manufacturing operatives as prosperous and happy. At that period, Mr. Oastler showed, before a committee of the House of Commons, the real state of things; and in the paper before us he re-publishes his evidence. His testimony gave rise to a controversy, and was proved to be true. Mr. Oastler then proceeds as follows: * "-Liverpool Standard, Dec. 31, 1841.

"The FLEET PAPERS.-We are glad to see that Richard Oastler has taken up his vigorous pen against the Anti-Corn-Law conspirators. The new year's number of the Fleet Papers is a nervous and manly onslaught on Cobden & Co., from which we regret that our space only permits us to make one extract. We feel sure that our agricultural readers will purchase the original, and we would hope that manufacturers may be induced to read and profit by the whole paper." -Wakefield Journal, Dec. 31, 1841.

KENSINGTON NEW POOR LAW UNION.

"To Mr. Oastler, Fleet Prison.

"DEAR SIR,-As you are so kind as to take so much interest in the affairs of our Union, I propose from time to time to send you a few short notices of the working of the New Poor Law here, which I hope you will find space for in the fly-leaf of the Fleet Papers. As a sample of the manner in which this monstrous system of duplicity and tyranny is carried out, in an enlightened neighbourhood, in the immediate vicinity of the metropolis, and nearly within sight of one of Her Majesty's palaces, they may prove extensively useful. It may well be asked, If these things are done in the green leaf, what may we expect in the dry; so I beg gentlemen to ask themselves, If these things are done within two miles of the seat of Government, what may we not believe of what has been, and is now going on in the country.

"On a subject of this nature, I would feign write in an orderly manner; but a man must have the cold, calculating obduracy of the three inquisitors of Somerset House.-a man must be moved by the same principles as the three automaton engines of oppression, Messrs. Lewis, Lefevre, and Nicholls, men whom I cannot believe to have any hearts-to put his hand to paper in a methodical style. These men bury their faculties, and drown their sentiments, and confound those they address, with heaps and clouds of statistics and of numerical calculations, three tons of which, I am told, are now to be sold as waste paper. Oh! when will Englishmen come to their senses! But the cry of want and of anguish pierces through, above this load of studied confusion, and the horrible spectres of bodies, laid before coroner's juries, wasted, and with their bellies actually almost touching the backbone from starvation, present themselves before one, on every page of their lying documents and deductions. I say lying, Sir, because they pretend to prove and to show reform, whereas, in reality, they show nothing but duplicity, craft, ruin, and rebellion.

"We, Sir, who are men of benevolent feelings and no judgment '-thank God I am called one of these-we, Sir, must not suffer this cry to be smothered, but we must echo it from Berwickupon-Tweed to the Land's End, till tenor and contra-tenor take up their parts, and it is supported by the thorough bass of a powerful and independent population.

Attending only to my feelings, and unable to wait, to give you or your readers an account of Kensington and its population, &c., I will at once communicate to you one of the most affecting and touching instances of the cruel and disastrous operations of the New Poor Law in our union-of the cruel and dreadful effects of that reckless act of the British legislature, in confiding to the hands of Messrs. Lewis, Lefevre, and Nicholls, the making of laws for all England; in leaving it to the judgment of these three men, whom the Queen delighteth to honour,' to form the monstrous unions they have throughout the country. The case appeared in the public papers.

"A policeman found a little child exposed on Maida Hill, at Paddington. As Paddington belongs to this immense union, he was compelled to take it for shelter to Kensington workhouse. He had to make his way through Hyde Park-the night was foggy, and the weather was inclement, and the policeman had difficulty to find his way. When he arrived at Kensington, the child was just alive-in three hours it was a corpse! What a fearful and awful picture is here. The officer of justice turned into a minister of charity. He that was set to watch against thieves and robbers, employed in the character of a pastor, or of a parent-bearing a deserted child in his bosom, and devoting his time and labour to obtain relief for it; yet unable to preserve the precious charge entrusted to his care. The iron hand of justice relaxed its hold on the person of his servant, to employ him on a mission of mercy, and he found the ways of mercy so interrupted, and so negli

gently thrown up, that he failed in his mission. The very stones of the workhouse, one would think, would cry out at their misfortune-the very cielings would drop down tears, on the little corpse that was laid under them. But, oh! no, Sir; when I mentioned it, there wanted not one to say, that It was some time ago-another, that It belonged to another parish. Why, even so; and if that parish, which has a rental of 151,000., had had a workhouse of its own, this could not have occurred. Another said, It was owing to the night being foggy-that fogs were a contingency not to be provided against, not to enter into the Poor Law Commissioners' calculations in this country. (He was no Frenchman. He was, alas! an Englishman.) But if Paddington had had a workhouse, or any habitual means of affording casual relief, the fog would not have proved the harmless child's destruction. Another said, The policeman was to blame. He should have taken the CHILD to the STATION HOUSE! What, Sir, the prison then is to become the refuge of helpless and deserted innocence! The inarticulate babbling of infancy, or the artless prattling of ehildhood-of childhood in distress-is to find its welcome and its shelter in a place of arrest! The barbarity of the present system is come to this, and has so perverted the judgment even of humane men, that the scandalous and hasty improvidence and neglect of the three Poor Law Commissioners is thus to be sheltered and extenuated; the shame which attaches to their preposterous mania for enormous unions, is to be taken from them, and laid on an ignorant policeman; and the police are, in fact, to do their duty, to act for them, TO THINK FOR THEM! Why, Sir, the felon looking through the bars of his dungeon, and feeling his heart softened by, and the tears rising in his eyes, at the state of abandonment of a guiltless foundling, would judge society, would judge the Prime Minister, who defends this law, and who is called upon to advise his sovereign to sigu the warrant for his execution.

"I hope and trust, Sir, that these things will be put an end to, by restoring to such large and wealthy parishes the care of their own poor and of their own purse. By the exercise of a little common sense, and of common honesty-by banishing the crudities and cruelties of a Liberal' philosophy from the counsels and administrative departments of Her Majesty's Government, and no longer quenching the holy life of that all-providing Providence in the bosoms of our princes and authorities, of which it is written, that not a sparrow falleth to the ground. but your Father knoweth of it; and the very hairs of our heads are all numbered.' But now, Hounds are better provided for, and more thought after, than many of Her Majesty's people!

SIR,-In my last letter, I called your attention to a part of Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations,' which forms, in my estimation, the most important feature of his work. I say, most important, because it is there that he has entered upon an especial consideration of the principle of all commerce, and treated minutely of its practical working. We here find that the writer has exhibited that lamentable proof of the weakness of human judgment which we have so often occasion to deplore. I mean that of advancing facts and valid arguments on one side, and then adopting a conclusion of a nature exactly opposite. It is here too that the writer, who up to the present moment is thought by most persons to be the leading authority on the science of political economy, has introduced the moral aspect of the question, and in giving judgment in favor of the free principle of trade, has been under the necessity of arguing that selfishness is the right and beneficial incentive of social action-thus advancing a moral principle which is diametrically opposed to the spirit of our religion. As, however, it is my intention to treat of this, the highest branch of the subject, in a separate letter, I will leave it for the present, and I will now continue my argument on the physical nature of the question.

By the passage in the Wealth of Nations' to which I have alluded, I showed you, that Adam Smith has entered upon a discussion of the two opposite principles of commerce-the restrictive and the free. I proved to you that he has cited, in their separate characters, several of the most extensive productions which enter into the commerce of the country, and that he has admitted that all the persons who are interested in these productions derive great advantage by the restrictive principle being applied to them. I propose now to show you, that this argument respecting the beneficial effects of the restrictive system, was advanced by him on OTHER distinct occasions, and that he applied it so widely as to maintain its beneficial influence on the whole capital of the country. The part of his work by which I will prove this, is that wherein he has treated of the effects which the great Navigation Act produced on the commerce of Great Britain. It occurs in the 7th chapter of the 4th Book, where, speaking of the colonial trade, he says:~

"This monopoly has necessarily contributed to keep up the rate of profit in ALL the different branches of British trade higher than it naturally would have been, had all nations been allowed a free trade to the British colonies.

The monopoly of the colony trade, as it necessarily drew towards that trade a greater proportion of the capital of Great Britain than what would have gone to it of its own accord, so, by the expulsion of all foreign capitals, it necessarily reduced the whole quantity of capital employed

in that trade below what it naturally would have been in the case of a free trade. But by lessening the competition of capitals in that branch of trade, it necessarily raised the rate of profit in that branch. By lessening too the competition of British capitals in ALL other branches of trade, it necessarily raised the rate of British profit in ALL those other branches. Whatever may have been, at any particular period since the establishment of the art of navigation, the state or extent of the mercantile capital of Great Britain, the monopoly of the colony trade must, during the continuance of that state, have raised the ordinary rate of British profit higher than it otherwise would have been both in that and in ALL other branches of British trade. If, since the establishment of the art of navigation, the ordinary rate of British profit has fallen considerably, as it certainly has, it must have fallen still lower, had not the monopoly established by that act contributed to keep it up.'

"Now, Sir, any person who reads the passages above quoted with that careful consideration which the important nature of them demands, cannot fail to discern that they have the most extensive bearing upon the whole su' ject of the national interests. The writer says, that the regulation, or monopoly as he is pleased to call it, which had been anciently applied to our colonial trade, produced the effect of raising the rate of profit in ALL the different branches of British trade higher than it would naturally have been in the event of a free trade being allowed.

64

Again. He reiterates the above important admission by stating that the regulation alluded to lessened the competition of capital in that branch of trade, and thereby raised the rate of profit both in that and ALL other branches of British trade: thus showing that the beneficial result was not confined to the colonial trade itself, but was extended to every other branch of national commerce; and nothing is wanting in the admission here made to show that the principle adopted was one of a general character, its good results being participated in by all concerned in the commerce of the country. With regard to the result which is thus ascribed to the principle of regulation, namely, the increase of the general rate of profit, I maintain, that it comprehends the whole question of national prosperity; and I will now show you, that this important view of the nature of general profit has been also admitted by yourself, in the fullest manner; for in your Principles of Political Economy,' page 107, there is the following passage:

666

Capital is formed out of the excess of the produce realized by those who engage in industrious undertakings over and above the produce necessarily expended in carrying it on; it plainly follows, that the means of amassing capital will be greatest when this excess is the greatest; or, in other words, they will be the greatest where the rate of profit is the greatest. This is so obvious a proposition, as hardly to require illustration.'

"Again, page 109. Wherever profits are high, capital is rapidly augmented, and there is a comparatively rapid increase of wealth and population; but, on the other hand, wherever profits are low, the means of employing additional labour are comparatively limited, and the progress of the society rendered so much the slower. It is not, therefore, by the absolute amount of its capital, but by its power of employing that capital with advantage-a power which, in all ordinary cases, is correctly measured by the common and average rate of profil—that the capacity of any country to increase in wealth and population is to be estimated.'

"Again, page 111. 'No certain conclusion respecting the prosperity of any country can ever be drawn from the magnitude of its commerce or revenue, or from the state of its agriculture or manufactures. Every branch of industry is liable to be affected by secondary or accidental causes. They are always in a state of flux or reflux ; and some of them are frequently seen to flourish when others are very much depressed. The average rate of profit is the best barometer--the best criterion of national prosperity. A rise of profit is. speaking generally, the effect of industry having become MORE productive; and it shows that the power of the society to amass capital, and to add to its wealth and population, has been increased, and its progress accelerated: a fall of profits, on the contrary, is the effect of industry having become less productive, and shows that the power to amass capital has been diminished, and the progress of the society impeded.

* *

"If the rate of profit have become comparatively low, we may pretty confidently affirm that the condition of such a nation, however prosperous in appearance, is bad and unsound at bottom; that the plague of poverty is secretly creeping on the mass of her citizens; that the foundations of her power and greatness have been shaken; and that her decline may be anticipated, unless measures be devised for relieving the pressure on the national resources by adding to the productiveness of industry, and consequently, TO THE RATE OF PROFIT.'

"I have now proved to you, that with respect to the two principles of commerce, the regulating on the one hand, and the free on the other, Adam Smith has been under the necessity of ascribing to the regulating principle the most advantageous results to the whole community, having carried the working of the principle into the question of general profit. I have shown also, that you are under the necessity of coinciding in this view, having admitted, which indeed no person possessing any theoretical or practical acquaintance with the subject can deny, that the great end which is sought to he attained, is the realization of the greatest degree of GENERAL profit. I may appeal to the experience of every man, to have it admitted that the more we have given scope to the free or competitive system of trade, the more we have undermined the welfare of the nation, by di

minishing and destroying the general profits of commerce. If the passages which I have now quoted from your writings, and from those of Adam Smith, do not demonstrate the absolute fallacy and the ruinous tendency of free trade, I should be glad if you will inform me what can. In my next letter, I propose to corroborate my argument by adducing more evidence from Adam Smith's work, The Wealth of Nations,' and in the meantime,

"I remain, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,
"WILLIAM ATKINSON."

"No. 16, Doughty Street, Jan. 31, 1842."

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