measures. Still, there was no attempt to evade the responsibility of these Free Trade I think then, Sir, I have proved, that nothing can be clearer, than that, in 1824-26, Sir Robert Peel and his ministerial colleagues were decidedly in favour of the principles of Free Trade. And I cannot avoid again expressing my feelings, by remarking, "The singularity of the matter is this-the Free Trade Ministry were beaten on a Free Trade question, by an opposition, whose leader (Sir Robert Peel) had once declared, that The principles of Free Trade were sound principles of commercial policy, known to be irrefragable."" True, it was, after all, acknowledged to be only an experiment; and if it shall now be found that Sir Robert Peel, as well as Mr. Huskisson, was afterwards convinced of the error and danger of those very principles, no man will rejoice more than myself. I have said, that it was only an experiment. My proof is in the following extract from a speech of Mr. Huskisson, on a debate on a "Revision of the Corn Laws," April 25, 1825, Vol. 2, p. 400: "We had done a great deal already to promote the freedom of trade; but everything could not be done at once. We had allowed the importation of wool, of iron, and of various articles which had formerly been prohibited; and the effect of that measure had been to produce a large importation of prohibited articles. Some difficulty might arise, if we proceeded too far in such a system; and it was, therefore, prudent to wait awhile where we now were, to see whether such difficulty would arise; and if it did arise, how it was to be obviated." Had the system of Free Trade been safe and good, there could have been no need for these doubts and fears regarding its effects. That, in Mr. Huskisson's opinion, this experiment of Free Trade was a failure, I have already demonstrated to you, in No. 25, Vol. 1, of the Fleet Papers. To that letter I now refer you. There can be no need that I should here repeat the proofs which I then advanced. The following argument in favour of the protective system shall not, however, be dispensed with. On June 17, 1825, on the "Customs consolidation Bill," Vol. 2, pp. 430-1, Mr. Huskisson said: "There are several circumstances connected with this particular manufacture [linen] that were necessary to be taken into consideration. In Ireland, for instance, it was conducted by manual Jabour alone he might say, without the intervention of any machinery. In respect of linen, therefore, it might be described as a competition between labour and labour, that must subsist between those that are made at home and those which are manufactured abroad. But again, with regard to Ireland, the interests of which country every honourable gentlemen must look to with peculiar anxiety and favour, it was to be observed, that a great change was effecting in her linen manufacture, for machinery was now rapidly introducing itself into that branch of her trade, and a great proportion of capital was coming gradually into circulation in that country; and had the foreign manufacture been admitted at the lower duty which he had proposed, [viz. an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent.,] it was feared that many impediments might have opposed themselves to the progress of the improving commerce; the consequence of which would probably have been, that, losing its present advantages, the Irish linen trade might never have been able to meet its foreign competitors [here we have a direet admission that the free trade principle is ruinous in its effects, where the competition is carried on between labour and labour]; that this manufacture would not only not have arrived upon any favourable terms in other markets, but might have been lost to Ireland altogether. [Mr. Huskisson here admits, that the only plan to save a trade which is the product of labour from ruin, and to insure its prosperity, is to protect it against foreign competition. By this admission, the whole theory of Free Trade is destroyed.] The committee must see the difficulty in which any person must stand who was in his situation. If, in the calculation of a certain revenue, upon his own "shoulders," and in reply to the above observations of Mr. Williams, Mr. Huskisson said, (Vol. 2, p. 468): "I leave him, and his honourable friends around him, to settle among themselves the taunts, the sneers, and the sarcasms, which he has heaped upon their heads, as the friends of those principles which are involved in the present discussion.-principles which it has been their boast, that they were the first to recommend, and of which they have uniformly been the most eager advocates in this House." Yes, Sir, the grand mistake of the Conservatives was their adoption of the new theory of commercial policy, which was "first recommended and eagerly advocated" by the Whigs. What those "principles" were, will be fully understood by the following quotations from Mr. Huskisson's speech, who, at Vol. 2, p. 471, said: "The present question, therefore, is not simply the motion before the House, but neither more nor less than, Whether a restrictive or an enlarged system of commercial policy be the best for this country?" Mr. Huskisson (Vol. 2, p. 472) then read the petition of the merchants and traders of the city of London, which had been presented to the House of Commons in the month of May 1820; which petition, he said, "Is a document of no ordinary interest, containing sound principles laid down in the clearest language." "The House," said Mr. Huskisson," will see how decidedly the petitioners maintain the principles upon which His Majesty's Government have acted." This "most valuable document," as Mr. Huskisson termed it, (Vol. 2, p. 473,) may be fairly styled the catechism of the Free Traders. The following sentences from that "most valuable document," (Vol. 2, pp. 472-3,) will fully explain its nature and tendency : "That freedom from restraint is calculated to give the utmost extension to foreign trade, aad the best direction to the capital and industry of the country. “That the maxim of buying in the cheapest market, and selling in the dearest, which regulates every merchant in his individual dealings, is strictly applicable, as the best rule for the trade of the whole nation. "That a policy, founded on these principles, would render the commerce of the world an interchange of mutual advantages, and diffuse an increase of wealth and enjoyments among the inhabitants of each state." A gilded bait to tempt millions to their ruin! The rest of this "most valuable document," is an argument founded entirely on the principles of Free Trade, which were most broadly asserted and maintained throughout by the petitioners. After reading that petition from beginning to end, Mr. Huskisson said, pages 475 and 477: It will be clear to all who have been at the trouble to attend to the very able document which I have just read, that it embraces all the great principles of commercial policy, upon which parliament has since legislated. "Let it not, however, be supposed, that I offer this petition to the House, in the way of an apology for myself and right honourable colleagues, in the way of extenuation of anything which we may have done, to excite the wrath of the honourable and learned member for Lincoln, Sir, I think now, as I have always thought, that our measures require no apology. I believe now, as 1 have always believed, that they are calculated to promote the best interests of the people. I say now, as I have always said, that those who, either by their speeches in Parliament, or the exertions of their talents out of it, have contributed to bring the people of England to look with an eye of favour on the principles recommended in this petition, have done themselves the greatest honour, and the country an essential benefit." measures. Still, there was no attempt to evade the responsibility of these Free Trade I think then, Sir, I have proved, that nothing can be clearer, than that, in 1824-26, Sir Robert Peel and his ministerial colleagues were decidedly in favour of the principles of Free Trade. And I cannot avoid again expressing my feelings, by remarking, "The singularity of the matter is this-the Free Trade Ministry were beaten on a Free Trade question, by an opposition, whose leader (Sir Robert Peel) had once declared, that'The principles of Free Trade were sound principles of commercial policy, known to be irrefragable.'" True, it was, after all, acknowledged to be only an experiment; and if it shall now be found that Sir Robert Peel, as well as Mr. Huskisson, was afterwards convinced of the error and danger of those very principles, no man will rejoice more than myself. I have said, that it was only an experiment. My proof is in the following extract from a speech of Mr. Huskisson, on a debate on a "Revision of the Corn Laws," April 25, 1825, Vol. 2, p. 400: "We had done a great deal already to promote the freedom of trade; but everything could not be done at once. We had allowed the importation of wool, of iron, and of various articles which had formerly been prohibited; and the effect of that measure had been to produce a large importation of prohibited articles. Some difficulty might arise, if we proceeded too far in such a system; and it was, therefore, prudent to wait awhile where we now were, to see whether such difficulty would arise; and if it did arise, how it was to be obviated." Had the system of Free Trade been safe and good, there could have been no need for these doubts and fears regarding its effects. That, in Mr. Huskisson's opinion, this experiment of Free Trade was a failure, I have already demonstrated to you, in No. 25, Vol. 1, of the Fleet Papers. To that letter I now refer you. There can be no need that I should here repeat the proofs which I then advanced. The following argument in favour of the protective system shall not, however, be dispensed with. On June 17, 1825, on the "Customs consolidation Bill," Vol. 2, pp. 430-1, Mr. Huskisson said:— “There are several circumstances connected with this particular manufacture [linen] that were necessary to be taken into consideration. In Ireland, for instance, it was conducted by manual Jabour alone he might say, without the intervention of any machinery. In respect of linen, therefore, it might be described as a competition between labour and labour, that must subsist between those that are made at home and those which are manufactured abroad. But again, with regard to Ireland, the interests of which country every honourable gentlemen must look to with peculiar anxiety and favour, it was to be observed, that a great change was effecting in her linen manufacture, for machinery was now rapidly introducing itself into that branch of her trade, and a great proportion of capital was coming gradually into circulation in that country; and had the foreign manufacture been admitted at the lower duty which he had proposed, [viz. an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent.,] it was feared that many impediments might have opposed themselves to the progress of the improving commerce; the consequence of which would probably have been, that, losing its present advantages, the Irish linen trade might never have been able to meet its foreign competitors [here we have a direet admission that the free trade principle is ruinous in its effects, where the competition is carried on between labour and labour]; that this manufacture would not only not have arrived upon any favourable terms in other markets, but might have been lost to Ireland altogether. [Mr. Huskisson here admits, that the only plan to save a trade which is the product of labour from ruin, and to insure its prosperity, is to protect it against foreign competition. By this admission, the whole theory of Free Trade is destroyed.] The committee must see the difficulty in which any person must stand who was in his situation. If, in the calculation of a certain revenue, a slight error happened to be committed in the original statement, and the produce was discovered to be proportionably affected or altered, nothing in the world could be more easy than to correct such an error; and the public service would be sensible of little or no inconvenience from the occurrence of such a mistake. But if, in the apportionment of duties, or the regulations of trade, wherein the interests of so many thousands were involved, such errors should happen to creep into ths measures of Government, the country would long have to brood over the serious consequences that must ensue. It seemed to him, however, that by the adoption of a scale of duties on linens, to be lowered in the course of eight years from their present amount to the point he had formerly fixed, the committee would not be discouraging the capital now engaged in that branch of our national industry, but would be enabling the home manufacturer to rival, in a short period, the foreign in the foreign market.”—[A singular method of “rendering the commerce of the world an interchange of mutual advantages!" More, on that point, hereafter.] The conclusion of this paragraph is all important, to those who think that by favouring Free Trade, the condition of the working classes will be improved. Mr. Huskisson had, in the former part of the foregoing paragraph, asserted the necessity of protection, as it respected labour, for the purpose of nursing the trade in linens, and thereby encouraging capital to find its way to that branch of manufacture. Having done so, he then reverted to the system of Free Trade, and hoped (hoped-a mere experiment after all) "to enable the home manufacturer to rival in a short period the foreigner in the foreign markets!" In plain terms, as soon as sufficient "capital is engaged" in the manufacture, then he "hoped" to secure a fair remuneration to that capital, by an "interchange of mutual advantages" which would ruin the foreign manufacturers ! So that by the principle of Free Trade, home and foreign labour must be sacrificed to the grasping and competitive spirit of "sound enlightened commercial policy." And when the value of labour is thus destroyed, capital, as is now the case, must feed on itself! The large capitals must eat up the small ones. To a plain man like myself, it seems, that if protection were required (and Mr. Huskisson admits it,) for the benefit of home labour and small capitals, against foreign labour and large capitals, so is it necessary, that labour and small capitals, both home and foreign, should be protected against the power of the millionnaires, or the world might soon become a desert. I had written a few more pages on this subject-space forbids their insertion. Next week they shall be yours. I am, your Prisoner, RICHARD OASTLER. P.S.-To continue my "Rent-Roll:" June 12th.-A brother prisoner's wife added to my "window-garden" stock. 13th.-Fitz Roy Kelly, Esq., Q.C., brought me six bottles of wine; and such wine as would have done honour to a royal cellar. I could say much about my feelings when that gentleman visited me, but, I refrain. 14th.-Mr. Silverwood gave me half-a-crown. 16th.-Albert Davy, Esq., American Consul, presented me with 57. More, when space admits.-R.O. Printed by Vincent Torras & Co., 7, Palace Row, New Road, London. "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. 8. LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1842. THOMAS THORNHILL, Esq. PRICE 2d. The Fleet Prison. SIR, I grant, that the details which I have been obliged to furnish, in proof of the truth of my remarks respecting Sir Robert Peel having avowed his attachment to the principles of Free Trade, are dry and wearisome but still, Sir, duty forces me to say more than I had space for in my last. The question of Free Trade is of the most grave nature-it involves the truth or falsehood of our Holy Religion, as I shall very soon have occasion to prove. If, then, I have established the fact, of which I think there can be no doubt, that Sir Robert Peel did avow those opinions which I charged upon him, and if it be true that he still holds by them, how can any person be so blinded and prejudiced by party predilections, as to suppose, that, because Sir Robert calls himself a Conservative, Free Trade measures, in his hands, will not be as ruinous to this country, as if they were adopted by the Whigs? For myself, I have no hesitation in asserting, that the danger would be less, if we must continue in the downward policy of Free Trade, to have the Whigs in office to manage their own measures. If we must, awhile longer, be cursed with "liberal and enlightened policy," surely the Whigs may fairly claim the right of patronage; and if those are still the views of Sir Robert Peel, let him honestly say so, and join the party to which every Malthusian really belongs. I repeat it, there is much more to be feared from Sir Robert Peel, if he should conduct the Government on what are called "liberal and enlightened principles," than if the Whigs were still in power. The numerous host of his followers who still adhere to the principles of the Constitution, but who, believing that Sir Robert's principles are really sound, leave him to think for them, will be much more likely to fall into the whirlpool of "liberal and enlightened " measures, under his official leadership, than if they were in opposition. What has passed at the opening of this session of Parliament, warns me, that very shortly Malthusianism and Christianity will divide the House and the people. I cannot doubt which will eventually triumph. I must not, however, wander from the subject of my last. I had proved, from the lips of Mr. Huskisson himself, (despite his Free Trade notions,) that the system of protection which is asserted by him to be required for the benefit of |