understand that a general public meeting will be held in this town in a very short time, for the purpose of concerting arrangements for the collection of the subscriptions. We need not say how heartily we concur in the object, and how sincerely we wish it success." (Extracted from the Age, January 16, 1842.) "A subscription is getting up, under the best auspices, for Richard Oastler-now locked up in the Fleet. We wish it every success, and shall aid it in every manner in our power. But this we beg leave to say, that we object to a single farthing, if it be dropped into the pocket of Mr. Thomas Thornhol. It would be too much of a good thing that this personage should have his purse replenished by the subscriptions of men, who are, in every point of view, less opulent than himself. "With respect to Oastler's Fleet Papers. we shall take another opportunity of noticing themthey are, at all events, on the right side. Is the inside of the Fleet the right side for Mr. Oastler? We should hardly think so. Why does not Mr. Oastler turn the influence of his pen to show up the abominable injustice of the present Law of Imprisonment for Debt?" LETTER XV. ON COMMERCIAL ECONOMY, "To J. R. M CULLOCH, Esq., "SIR. On commencing my examination of the writings of Malthus, I invited your attention, in the first place, to the true and complete nature of the great investigation which he undertook to conduct. I stated that this consists of TWO distinct branches, that of the principle of the increase of population on the one hand, and of the principle of the increase of the means of sustaining population on the other. "I stated, moreover, that the great object of his inquiry is that of instituting a just comparison between the rates of increase of the two subjects now mentioned, and that the soundness of his conclusions must depend upon the fact of his having succeeded in proving to demonstration the nature of BOTH these subjects. By my two preceeding letters I have proved to you the false foundation on which Malthus has based his calculations respecting the increase of population; and I now proceed to show you that he has exhibited similar infirmity of reasoning in all his attempts to elucidate the question of the means whereby population is sustained, that question being commercial economy or policy; and I will show you also that the deplorable absence of all sound argument to which I now advert, is admitted, in the fullest and most general manner, by Malthus himself. ་་ The course of argument, which he has advanced on these two subjects is contained in his Principles of Political Economy,' and his Essay on the Principle of Population;' and with regard to the first of these, I beg to press on your attention a fact which it is important to keep in view; it is this, that the edition from which I shall quote has been published since the death of the author of the work, the editor asserting that the work received the latest possible revisal from the author himself. It follows, therefore, that this volume puts us in possession of Malthus's conclusions up to the latest period, and also it affords the advantage of showing us the general STATE in which the science of Political Economy has been left by its professors to within a few years of the present time. Whether the description of the state of the science therein given be such as to raise in the mind feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, I will now request you to judge, from evidence which I proceed to adduce. "The first remarkable feature which challenges attention in the work of Malthus on Political Economy, is an acknowledgment of his inability to treat the subjects in the manner that they ought to be treated-that is, accurately. Like other weak writers to whom I have before alluded, Malthus has endeavoured to remove from himself, as well as from other writers, the charge of incompetency; and in order to effect this, he has attempted to transfer insufficiency from himself to his SUBJECT. He has told the world, with a great deal of gravity, though certainly without any profoundness, that as the science of Political Economy bears a nearer resemblance to the science of morals and politics than it does to that of mathematics, it is not to be expected that investigations will lead to CERTAIN conclusions. Now, Sir, I think you will agree with me, that this mode of commencing a scientific inquiry is nothing less than begging to have a liberal license for committing errors. The fruits of this loose mode of procedure soon show themselves in his works; for, in the second page, on endeavouring to strengthen his argument for concluding that Political Economy cannot be worked as an exact science, he adduces this reason, namely, that many men have devoted a large share of talent and attention to the study, notwithstanding which differences of opinion prevail amongst them. Now, this resolves itself into the following notable axiom-a certain number of men have tried and failed to find truth-therefore, truth does not exist, or is not to be found. A convenient axiom this for a very large, and unhappily, a very influential school of talkers, writers, and law-makers. Having thus detracted the character of the science, and made the study of it comparatively easy, by substituting speculation or conjecture for steady, careful, and profound research, Malthus then makes allusion to he efforts of those writers who constitute the school of Economists,' and to the efforts of Adam Smith; and, in the second page, the following important passage occurs:*Since the era of these distinguished writers, the subject has gradually attracted the attention of a greater number of persons, particularly during the last twenty or thirty years. All the main propositions of the science have been examined, and the events which have since occurred, tending either to illustrate or confute them, have been repeatedly discussed. The result of this examina tion and discussion seems to be, that on some very important points there are still great differences of opinion. Among these, perhaps, may be reckoned- The definitions of wealth and of productive labour-The nature and measures of value-The nature and extent of the principles of demand and supply —The origin and progress of rent-The causes which determine the wages of labour, and the profits of stock-The causes which practically retard and limit the progress of wealth-The ་ level of the precious metals in different countries-The principles of taxation, &c. On all these points, and many others among the numerous subjects which belong to Political Economy, differences have prevailed among persons whose opinions are entitled to attention. Some of these questions are, to a certain degree, theoretical; and the solution of them, though obviously necessary to the improvement of the science, might not essentially affect its practical rules; but others are of such a nature, that the determination of them one way or the other will necessarily influence the conduct both of individuals and of governments; and their correct determination, therefore, must be a matter of the highest practical importance.' "In the passage which I have just quoted, the author has enumerated many leading propositions, as being imperfectly investigated. In order that your attention may be directed as strongly as possible to the comprehensive and important character of these propositions, I will arrange them before you separately, thus: 1. The definition of wealth. 2. The definition of productive labour. 3. The nature and measures of value. 4. The nature and extent of the principles of demand and supply. 5. The origin and progress of reut. 6. The causes which determine the wages of labour. 7. The causes which determine the profits of stock. 8. The causes which practically retard and limit the progress of wealth. 9. The level of the precious metals in different countries. 10. The principles of taxation. 11. Many others. "This is the formidable catalogue which Malthus has presented to us of those branches of the science of Political Economy which he has acknowledged were not then understood, and which he has handed down for complete investigation to those who should come after him. From this number I will select four as prominently important. These are-The nature of value; The nature and extent of the principles of demand and supply; The causes which determine the wages of labour; The causes which determine the profits of stock. Now, if only these parts of the science of Political Economy be unknown. I am justified in asserting that no material part of it whatever is known; for if these several divisions be added together, almost the entire subject-matter of the science will be comprised in the aggregate thus formed. Such, then, is the character of our knowledge of this important science, which Malthus has not only admitted, but also transmitted; and yet this constitutes the foundation on which the pretentions of those who compose the modern school of Political Economy rest! Here are exhibited the confused elements of which the much vaunted liberal and enlightened philosophy' of the present age is comprised. This is the accomplishment which a leading disciple of the modern school. Lord Brougham, is content to extol as the work of adepts in political science;' and with this statesman you, Sir, have been a constant, an active, and, alas! a too successful coadjutor. "Is it not lamentable that statesmen should construct the laws of a country upon the authority of a writer who has himself admitted his ignorance, and the ignorance of all his predecessors, on the most essential principles of the science upon which he wrote ? When will our country be again favoured with the presence of men who may shed life and lustre upon her by RIGHT intellectual power, by pure love of truth, by honesty of purpose determinedly exerted? I fear we have retrograded so far, have debased ourselves so greatly, by worshipping at the shrine of a demoralizing system, which has been falsely called philosophy, that even if such men were to appear amongst us, they would neither be appreciated or known. However, we who advocate a principle opposed to yours will not yield to despondency, but, on the contrary, we will cling with renewed confidence to our hope. In my next letter, I will continue my exami nation of the argument of Malthus. NEW LEEDS JOURNAL, This day is published, the First Number of THE LEEDS CONSERVATIVE JOURNAL, a Saturday Newspaper, Price 44d. Handsomely printed on the Largest Sheet allowed to a Penny Siamp; containing all the matter commonly found in Political and Agricultural Journals; with the addition of Literary Review, Scientific Disquisition, and Light Reading for the Lovers of Amusement, Printed and Published by R. PERRING & Co., at their General Printing Office. 23, Commercial Street, Leeds, (opposite the Union Bank.) where Orders, Advertisements, and Communications are received. Orders and Advertisements will also be received by the usual News Agents and Bookseilers in Town or Country. Mr. Perring has withdrawn from the Intelligencer for reasons which will be fully related hereafter. He respectfully solicits the support of his Friends, and will en leavour to prove himself worthy of it. N.B.-Books, Pamphlets, and all the work of a well-appointed Printing Office, executed with accuracy and dispatch, in the first style of the Art, and on reasonable terms. The whole of the materials are now. Printed by Vincen! 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. NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS. Mr. Oastler has received the following note, inclosing half a crown: "Will Mr. Oastler be kind enough to take charge of two shillings and sixpence, to be equally divided between Mary Haigh (the heroic spirited child, who refused to go on her knees and beg pardon of the brutal overlooker) and her compassionate sister, who went to her in her distress?" London, May 2, 1842." Yes, he will, and also take the first opportunity of sending the gift to the deserving parties. C. M. WILLIAMS, Bristol, shall hear from Mr. Oastler. The brutal treatment of the overlooker, who, after fining, killed the poor factory girl of fifteen," does not surprise the author of the Fleet Papers. The horrors of the factory system have been so fully explored by him, that any enormity, however great, has ceased to astonish him. "ANTI-SHODDY"-Mr. Oastler had already seen a gentleman who had witnessed the purchase of a large quantity of Shoddy (here in London) by one of the Government contractors. There can be no doubt that “Anti-Shoddy" is correct, when he asserts, “Those who have got the supply of the cloth for soldiers and sailors are using a considerable quantity of Shoddy in the making of the cloth.” All information on this subject will be useful. It would be odd if the manufacturers for Government were to make honest cloth, after the license which Sir Robert Peel gave to fraud and deception, in his speech on Mr. Ferrand's motion for a Committee on Fraud and Truck. Anti-Shoddy" forgot to give his address. His former letters were sent to their destination. D. is thanked for his information about truck, fraud, distress, and wretchedness in the neighbourhood of Huddersfield. Cows dying of disease are, it seems, still used for food by the miserable hand-loom weavers. Carrion is, then, still food for Englishmen! THE FLEET PAPERS, BY RICHARD OASTLER, Are published every SATURDAY, in NUMBERS, at 2d. each; also in PARTS, containing four weekly numbers, with Ornamental Covers, at 9d. each, BY PAVEY, Holywell Street, Strand, and STEILL, Paternoster Row, London. Back Numbers and Parts are always on sale. The Fleet Papers may be had of any Bookseller in the United Kingdom. Many complaints are made that the Fleet Papers cannot be obtained in the Provinces. If persons who wish to have them WILL ORDER THEM OF THEIR REGULAR BOOKSELLERS, they will be sure to obtain them. A few copies of the first volume of the Fleet Papers may be had, at 10s. each, by applying to Mr. Oastler, in the Fleet Prison. In reply to a numerous list of kind inquirers, "How can we best serve your interest?" Mr. Oastler begs to say, by promoting the circulation of the Fleet Papers, and by procuring Advertisements for their Covers. Mr. Oastler may be allowed to add, that few better mediums for advertising can be found than the Fleet Papers; they circulate in every district, and amongst every rank. In the Palace and the Cottage, readers of the Fleet Papers are to be found. Clergymen. Landlords. and Farmers, Ministers of State, Ploughboys, Factory Children, and Weavers, patronize these little Fleeters. Charge for Advertisements as under :- 1 5 0 2 2 0 The following Petition was presented to the House of Lords by the Earl of Devon, April 12th, 1842:— "To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned persons, detained in Her Majesty's Prison of the Fleet, Showeth, "That your Petitioners view with much alarm a Bill now in progress through your Lordship's House, intituled, A Bill for consolidating the Queen's Bench, Fleet, and Marshalsea Prisons, and for regulating the Queen's Prison;' which Bill, if passed into a law, will greatly oppress and inconvenience the whole body of them. That the class of persons detained in the Fleet Prison consists, for the most part, of persons arrested on writs of capias ad satisfaciendum, and that such arrest and detention, being the voluntary act of the creditor, in availing himself of the law which invests him with the power to seize the property, or to confine the person of his debtor, and that the process of the existing law having so arrived at its final accomplishment by its detention of the person of the debtor, your Petitioners humbly submit, that to enact any new law, to subject parties to additional distress, by depriving them of the privilege of the Rules, and by other restrictions and innovations, is to expose your Petitioners to the punishment of an ex post facto law, producing a state of things not existing and not contemplated when your Petitioners became subject to the operation of the existing law. That the proposed transfer of the disposal of the persons of debtors from the jurisdiction of the legal courts to the pleasure of one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State, is a violation of the rights of the subject, inasmuch as it deprives him of the protection of the Judges of the land; and your Petitioners are under the apprehension that should the present Bill become law, it would form a precedent to empower a Secretary of State to remove the persons of debtors not only from the Fleet to the Queen's Prison, from an adjacent county to another, but for the Government functionary to remove the persons of debtors from the Queen's Prison in the county of Surrey to the Prison of York Castle, or from York Castle to the settlements at Botany Bay, as it might suit the convenience, or the pleasure, or the caprice of the Government. That the object of a debtors' prison being a cautionary detention of his person for the supposed benefit of his creditor, and not a penal connement in satisfaction of a judicial sentence, your Petitioners regard with considerable alarm the project of subjecting them to the power of a poli tical functionary, from whose pleasure there would be no appeal to a court of law, and whose superintendence of prisons has hitherto been limited to criminal prisons, coercing the persons of convicted felons; which would thereby substitute the arbitrary will of a political Secretary of State for the Constitutional construction of the laws by the Judges. "That on these, and on other grounds of objection, your Peutioners pray that they may be heard by counsel or in person against the Bill. And your Petitioners will ever pray," &c. The following document was placed in the hands of the Earl of Devon, April 20th, 1842: "IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. In the matter of the Petition of the persons detained in Her Majesty's Prison of the Fleet. The humble Petition of the above-mentioned persons, praying to be heard by counsel or in person against The Queen's Prison Bill,' having been, on the 12th day of April 1842. presented by the Right Honourable the Earl of Devon to the House of Lords, the Petitioners hope their humble Petition will be admitted and inquired into for the following, amongst other "REASONS. "First. Because the taking away from the Judges of the Common Pleas the exercise of their power established by Magna Charta, of regulating the Prison of the Fieet, and relieving all prisoners therein, in so far as concerns the Prison's regulation, is, while the Court of Common Pleas exists, repugnant to the common law of the land, and a most dangerous precedent for introducing innovations which may overturn the whole Constitution of this realm. Second, Because the transfer of such power from the Judges to a Secretary of State would be in so far a creation in him of the office of Capital Justiciary of the Aula Regis, which office, having been abolished by Magna Charia, cannot now be, either in part or in whole, re-established, without a direct violation of that Charter, which the Three Estates of England are still bound to observe. "Third, Because the right of the Petitioners to be governed only by regulations framed by the Judges is prescriptive, and this prescriptive right, part of the common law of the land, cannot be destroyed even by Parliamentary Statute, unless an Act of Paliament to abolish imprisonment for debt, not fraudently contracted, shall first have been enacted and taken effect. Fourth, Because the imprisonment of the body of a debtor upon a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum being for the sole purpose of holding the debtor in safe custody all he makes satisfaction to the creditor for the debt, costs, and damages, is incapable of aggravation in the shape of punishment, which the Queen's Prison Bill, if passed, would assuredly make imprisonment for debt, to all al present confined in the Fleet. Fifth, Because the public good being essentially interested in the protection of every individual's private rights, as modelled by the municipal law,' the rights of the persons at present contined in ne Fleet, some of which they have purchased at considerable expense, are sacred and inviolable, and should, as such, be proiected against all enactments not caused by public necessity, to which cause The Queen's Prison Bull cannot be assigned. "Sixth, Because the persons confined in the Fleet having, at a considerable expense, been removed thither under the sanction of the present laws, (in order, among other reasons, the better to consult their professional advisers. who, from the contiguity of the Prison to the Offices, Inns, and Courts of Law, and Judges' Chambers, have ready and convenient access to the Petitioners, which thereby enables them the better to arrange their affairs, and to make the satisfaction necessary to their discharge,) would, by a removal to the Queen's Prison, be deprived not only of their outlay of money, but of such necessary assistance of their solicitors, who could not attend the Petitioners if removed to a more remote Prison, unless at a much greater expense than the Petitioners now sustain. "Seventh, Because, by the law of England, a man cannot suffer more punishment than the law assigns, but he may suffer less: whereas, should the Petitioners be removed from the Fleet to the Queen's Prison, their present confinement (not intended by law to be a punishment) would, by their removal to a remote Prison, be actually changed to a state of punishment, and that by an ex post facto law. "Eighth, Because the abolishment of the right of the Rules will, in many cases, be detrimental not only to the interest of the Petitioners, but also to their creditors; inasmuch as the Rules afford facilities (as they were intended to do) to effect mutual arrangements between debtors and creditors. "Ninth, Because the compulsory herding together in one room a plurality of men, must be attended with gross violations of decency and may be productive of gross immorality." The following Memorial was sent to the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, April 27th, 1842: To the Right Honourable Sir Nicholas Conyngham Tindal. Knight, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and to the rest of the Judges of that Court. "The humble Memorial of the undersigned persons, confined in Her Majesty's Prison of the Fleet, Showeth, That a Bill, called The Queen's Prison Bill,' was lately brought into Parliament by the Right Honourable Sir James Graham, the Home Secretary of State, for the purpose, amongst other things, of abolishing the Fleet Prison, transferring the prisoners therein to the Queen's Bench Prison, and of depriving your Lordships of all future power of making any regulations for the government of the Prison to which your Memorialists, as prisoners of the Fleet, were to be transferred, and therein confined; thereby abrogating the wholesome power which has existed in and been exercised by your Lordships for upwards of these last eight hundred years. That such Bill having been passed by the House of Commons, and read a first time in the House of Lords, your Memorialists became justly alarmed at the progress thereof, and thereupon, on the 12th day of April instant, addressed a humble Petition to their Lordships, containing certain objections to the said Bill, and praying their Lordships to allow your Memorialists to be heard by counsel or in person against it. That afterwards, the second reading of the said Bill having been ordered for the 25th of April instant, your Memorialists furnished the Right Honourable the Earl of Devon, who had presented your Memorialists' said Petition, with their argument against the said Bill, set forth in the following Reasons:— [Here the foregoing Reasons were inserted.] "Your Memorialists had well hoped that such their Reasons would have induced the House of Lords to suspend the furthering the said Bill till their Lordships had made inquiry into the validity of your Memorialists' objections; instead of which, their Lordships, on the said 25th of April instant. read the said Bill a second time, went into committee thereon, and the Bill will speedily be passed by their Lordships into a law, to the great distress and inconvenience of your Memorialists, unless the enactment thereof shall now be stayed by your Lordships. "That your Memorialists, deeming themselves to be under the immediate protection of your Lordships, as their prescriptive protectors, and conceiving that the enactment of any Act of Parliament, which would deprive them of their long-established and valued rights and privileges which they have hitherto possessed, and abolish their right to appeal, when oppressed, to your Lordships for relief, must be highly repugnant to the settled law of England, your Memorialists humbly pray your Lordships to interfere in the premises, and trust that your Lordships will see cause to stay the passing of The Queen's Prison Bill' into a law; or that should your Lordships think fit to allow the same Bill to pass, that then your Lordships may be pleased, in behalf of your Memorialists, to have inserted in such Bill a clause, securing every person at present confined in Her Majesty's Prison of the Fleet against being removed thence to the Queen's Prison, unless by such person's own consent. The following Memorial was presented May 5, 1842: To the Right Honourable John Singleton Baron Lord Lyndhurst, of Lyndhurst, in the county of Hants. Lord High Chancellor of England, to the Right Honourable Thomas Baron Lord Denman, of Dovedale, in the county of Derby, Lord Chief Justice of England, to the Right Honourable Henry Baron Lord Langdale. Keeper of H. M. Rolls and Records of the High Court of Chancery, to the Right Honourable Sir Nicholas Conyngham Tindal, Knight, Lord Chief Justice of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas, and to the Right Honourable |