« PoprzedniaDalej »
which they ought to have. In fact, they did not see how a man could subsist upon less.
The Surveyor was reprimanded for his conduct, and ordered to pay the men in future ls. a-day, and also for the time they had lost in coming to make the complaint.—Essex Herald,
THE following letter was publishes in the Morning Chronicle on Christma Day:
"Sir,-In The Times [the Bloody "Old Times] newspaper of this morn"ing, I read the following paragraph, "which I beg you to insert, along with "the comment that I have subjoined "to it :
Bravo! good, Mr. Tufnell! What pity it was that the men did not complain LAST YEAR! Ah! ..... . But let us proceed. Now, it was proved by their published scale, that the magistrates of Dorsetshire allowed 2s. 7. aCONFESSION OF THOMAS GOODMAN -COBBETT'S LECTURES. week for a working man when bread was 10d. the quartern loaf (as it is now); it was proved before a Committee of the House of Commons, on the evidence of BENETT (now a member for the county), that the magistrates of Wiltshire allowed a gallon loaf and three-pence a week to each member of a labourer's family for food and clothing; that is, at this time, 2s. Id. for each, and nothing for drink, washing or lodging, or fuel or bedding. If, then, 4s. 6d. a week to these Essex men was cruelty, what was the treatment of the labourers of Dorsetshire and Wiltshire! If 6s a week is the "lowest sum that a single man ought to have," what was the treatment of the men in these Western counties? If it was cruelly to give them a farthing less than 6s. a week, what was it to give a working man 28. 7d. when bread was at the same price? It is said that William Packman, who, as we have seen, was hanged on PENENDEN HEATH, on Christmas Eve, said to one of his old companions, who was crying: "Never mind, Dick, you'll have your belly full now." Though mere boys, these Packmans are said to have died with the greatest composure. This Essex justice is to be applauded for his conduct, and I hope his example will be followed all over the country; for that is the effectual way of putting an end to these horrible scenes, the like of which have not been beheld for ages, and, I trust, never will be beheld again. trust that all men are now convinced, with this worthy magistrate of Essex, that 68. a week is the very lowest that a single man ought to have to live upon; and if all the magistrates act on the same rule, there will once more be
The unfortunate young man, Thomas Goodman, who was convicted of setting fire to the barn of Mr. Alderton, at Battle, and sentenced to death, has made a full confession of his guilt, and attributes his untimely end to that notorious demagogue, William Cobbett, who, you may remember, delivered a public lecture at Battle some time ago, in which he told his auditors that unless the farmers would consent to pay bcller wages to their labourers, the fires which were then going on in Kent might also take place in this county, and that the boundary between the counties was but imaginary. It is a singular fact that in less than a fortnight after the delivery of this lec ture, the first fire-namely, that which broke out on the night of the 3d of November, took place in the parish of Battle; and it is still more singular, that the property destroyed on that occasion belonged to Mr. Charles Emery, landlord of the George Inn, at Battle, who had refused Cobbett the use of his principal room for the purpose of delivering his lecture. The unfortunate young man, who is only 18 years of age, confesses that he was so stirred up by the words of Cobbett, that his brain wus nearly turned; and that he was under the impression that nothing but the destruction of property by fire at night would effect that species of revolution, the necessity of which Of the eight fires which took place in the was so strongly enforced by the arch lecturer. parish of Battle, within one month, the unfortunate convict has confessed that five of them were occasioned by his own hand. The following are the words of the culprit with reference to Cobbett, as taken down this morning, in the presence of the Rev. Henry John Rush, Curate of Crowhurst, Sussex:
I, Thomas Goodman, never should af thought of douing aney sutch thing if Mr. Cobbelieve that their never would bean any fires or bett Cobet had never given aney lactures i Imob in Battle nor maney others places if he never had given aney lactures at all.'"
Now, Sir, in the first place, the reporter is A PARSON; and that is quite enough with regard to the truth of the report. In the next place, as to the pretended statement of Goodman, please to observe these facts:-1. That the
fires began in East Kent, where I have way or other, punish them if I can. But not been for years. 2. They had begun now this story of the confession is true, three whole months before I went into or it is a lie; then the poor young man West Kent; and I did not go into East (who is an orphan, and who has no soul Kent at all. 3. That I lectured at who will be permitted to visit him) has Deptford, Rochester, Maidstone, Ton-spoken truth, or has been prevailed on bridge, Battle, Eastbourne, and Lewes. to speak falsehood. If the story be a 4. The fires began in West Kent before lie, or the confession be believed to be I entered it; and there was the great false, then what a shameful thing here fire at Thompson's, near Tonbridge, the is with regard to me! And if the story night before my arrival there. 5. I of the confession be true, and the conevery-where did my best to put a stop fession be believed, will they STILL HANG not only to the fires, but to all violences THIS POOR YOUNG MAN! Let the PARSON whatsoever, by stating that it was not answer that! the fault of the farmer that the wages were low; that the cause was the weight of the taxes and tithes, which disable the farmers from paying due wages; and I exhorted the farmers to call the people together in their several parishes, to explain this matter to them, and to call upon them all to join in a petition to Parliament for a reduction of taxes and tithes; "And then," said I," they will wait with patience; they will see that your cause is their cause; they will look on you as friends; and your property and your persons will be safe; but if false pride, or any other motive, prevent you from doing this, I beseech you to place no reliance on threats, no, nor even on punishments." This was my language every-where: and, at every place, many farmers cordially shook me by the hand, and thanked me for my advice. At three places out of the seven I lodged, by invitation, at private houses; and I never, during my journey, spoke to a working man, otherwise than in public.
Permit me to take this opportunity of complaining of the unfair report published by you, of the debate in the House of Commons, on the Motion of a Mr. Trevor, which debate took place last night. Mr. Bulwer, whom I have not the honour to know, made, I am well assured, a speech of considerable length, and full of just observation, ably stated; yet, in your report, about an inch in length of column is given to Mr. Bulwer, while a full report is given of the speech of this Mr. Trevor. One would have thought, that when the Press was defended, the advocate might have had fair play, though the defence included that of my conduct! But, alas! the delusion is still to be kept up! It will be to the last moment; but that noment is not now far distant. I wish Lord Grey would now read a letter that I addressed to him in 1822. But no! They will still shut their eyes; they will still cling to their deceivers; still say," Prophesy to us smooth things, prophesy to us lies." And I must say, that, generally speaking, the London Press is amongst the greatest of those deceivers.
I have thought it right to say this, in print, as speedily as possible, in order, not to defend my conduct, but in order to show to the public the nature of the With regard to the charge of this miserable shifts to which the parsons Mr. Trevor, all the effect that it has had are driven. The story about the room at on me, has been to cause me to publish the inn at Battle having been refused a new edition of The Register of Decem me, is a sheer falsehood. I never ap-ber 11, and it will be, further, to cause plied for it, or for any other place there; me to republish it in a cheaper form. the place I had was prepared with- Strange, that I should think of exciting out my previous knowledge. In fact, the poor to revolt by making (as I have Sir, the whole story is an invention done), just at this time, the price of my from the beginning to the end; and I Register a shilling instead of sevendespise the authors of it from the bottom pence! Why, The Register now costs of my heart; but yet I will, in some nearly as much per week as Mr. Benett's
evidence allowed per week for a la- small tithes arising upon the several bouring man's subsistence !
I am, Sir,
Dec. 24, 1830.
occupations of Messrs. Samuel Barnes, Gibbs Murrell, R. G. Rudd, John Gent, Robert High, John Newman, sen., John Newman, jun., James Smith, and Thomas Middleton. I was sorry, for the sake of the poor, that some of you met at the Ferry-house in an unlawful manner, and there did hinder the pay
Your most obedient servant, WM. COBBETT. P. S. It is now 29th Dec., and I see, by the papers, that this poor orphan is "left for execution!" And was the pretended confession then believed to be true? And is he to be hanged that con-ment of my tithes; but I have no doubt fession being believed to be true? Will they hang him, if they believe what is said to have been his confession? And if that confession be a fabrication, is there not a bit of rope to be found for the fabricators? Is there no law for villains like these?
that you were misled into that dangerous conduct, and made tools of by others to serve their own selfish purposes; for I cannot believe any of the poor in Surlingham are my enemies, to whom, whether in sickness or health, I have always tried to be a friend.
"Rector and Vicar of Surlingham. "Dec. 11, 1830."
I dare say, that the "poor inhabitants of Surlingham" understood all this very well! I dare say that they saw that such a trick was to be despised; that they asked how the parson never came to make such an offer before; but, would they not ask also, why he did not give them some of the calves, lambs, wool, potatoes, turnips and corn, as well as the milk, eggs, pigs and fruit? In short, they would see, because they must see, that this was a work of spite, and not of charity.
I PERCEIVE that there is a PARSON, at a parish in Norfolk, who has been endeavouring to persuade the labourers that he is their friend, and that the farmers are their enemies. He has circulated, in a hand-bill, the following statement. Others of the par- But it is not this pitiful part of the sons have published hand-bills, calling tithes that I want to see taken away upon you to believe that the tithes are from the parsons and bishops: I want good things for you. But let me desire to see the whole taken away: the tithes, you to read the hand-bill of the Nor- the church lands and all other property folk parson. It is in the following held by the clergy in virtue of their words: "To the Poor Inhabitants of clerical functions and offices. I want Surlingham.-I have received from to see it all taken away by LAW. It some of the farmers in Surlingham, a was given to them by law; it is held by notice to gather my tithes in kind, or law; and it may be taken away by law; else to agree to take in future just what that which the law has given the law they shall please to offer. I cannot may take away, otherwise we should submit to such an unjust demand, and be living in a strange state of things. therefore I am compelled, in self- Such an important measure is, however, defence, to gather my tithe from this not to be adopted without regard to the time; and I hereby make it known to justice and necessity of it. Such a you, that on and after Monday, the measure would take property from a 20th of December, it is my intention great number of persons; it would to distribute as a gift, amongst the poor make many low who are now high; and deserving families, all the eggs, it would compel to labour for their milk, pigs, poultry and fruit, which bread many who now do nothing and yet shall in future belong to me as the live in luxury; it would compel many,
breasts of the young women to be cut off; or to cause them to be disqualified for
posed to public view, to be poked and groped about and chopped to pieces, and then to be flung to the dogs, as the carcase of Jezebel was. If laws like these were to be passed, all the world would say that they were no laws at all, and, of course, that they ought not to be regarded as precedents. But, very different is the case here, as I am now about to prove.
who now ride in coaches, not only to walk on foot, but to work in company with those whom they seem to look breeding; or, to have their bodies exupon as made for their pleasure and sport. Yet, such a measure ought not to be adopted in a hasty manner; due consideration ought to be had in the ease; it ought, before adopted, to be proved to be just and necessary; and, as I am decidedly for the measure, and would cause it to be adopted if I had the power, I look upon myself as bound to show, that it is just and necessary. Legal I know it must be allowed to be; but that which is legal may not always be just. Some have denied that it would be legal; and, therefore, the legality shall be proved first.
The whole of this property, parsons' tithes, lay tithes, college and bishops' estates, originally were held in trust by the CATHOLIC CLERGY, for certain public purposes, of which I shall Now, my friends, I have to show speak under the next head. But, in the you:-1. That it is legal, that it is reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., agreeable with the laws of our country, Elizabeth, and James I., all these tithes to take this property from the parsons and other property, both in England by act of parliament. 2. I have to and Ireland, were, by acts of parliament, show you, that it is just to do it. 3. I taken away from the Catholic clergy, have to show you that the measure is and given, some to protestant parsons, necessary to the prosperity, peace and and the rest to divers persons of the safety of the nation. And, my friends, aristocracy, who hold all this property if I prove all these to you, it will be to this day. If, then, this could be leyour bounden duty to lend your aid gally and constitutionally done, why canin causing this measure to be adopted, not the property be taken away from and to be active and zealous, too, in the present possessors by act of parlialending that aid; for, as you will by-ment? The holders contend, however, and-by see, it is, after all, the labouring that all this property, even the tithes, people who suffer most from the tithes, belong to the holders, as completely as and who, in fact, pay the whole of them any man's estate, or goods, belong to in the end. him. If this be the case, the tithes (to confine ourselves to them for the present) were unlawfully taken from the Catholic clergy; it was an act of rapine to take them from that Clergy; and will our parsons allow that their possessions are the fruits of rapine?
FIRST, then, to show you that it is agreeable to the laws of the country to take away the tithes and other property commonly called Church-property, I have only to state to you what has been done, in this respect, in former times. I shall have, further on, to speak of the origin and the intention and the former application of tithes, when I come to the justice of my proposition: at present, I shall speak merely of the legality of the thing. We know that when a law has been passed by king and parliament, that which is ordered, or allowed, by such law, is legal, in the technical sense of the word; if a nest of villains bloody enough to pass a law to put men to death for refusing to live upon potatoes; or, to cause the
But let us look at the part of the Catholic Church property that was taken away and given to the aristocracy; I mean the great tithes of many parts of the kingdom and the abbey lands and let us take, as specimens, the Duke of Devonshire's great tithes of twenty parishes in Ireland, and the Duke of Bedford's ownership of Covent Garden, which latter spot belonged to the Abbey of Westminster. If either of these were called upon to prove his title to these things (and he may be so called on by
any man if tithe be demanded of him for the one, or toll for the other), he must go back to the acts of parliament (and not very far back) in virtue of which he holds his estate. And will either of these Dukes deny, then, that these acts of parliament were lawful; will they deny, that they were agreeable to the laws and constitution of the country? will they acknowledge that they hold these estates from the effects of an act of rapine? Oh, no! They must plead the acts as good, as agreeable to the law of the land; and, if they do this, - they declare, that to take away any part of the property of the church, is a thing that may be done without any violation of the law of the land,
There is a distinction to be made between the property which was given to the aristocracy and that which was given to the Protestant parsons and bishops and colleges; and there are persons who contend that the former is now become private property; and, of course, that the Dukes of Devonshire and Bedford have to the abovementioned tithes and tolls as perfect a right as any man has to an estate that never belonged to the public, in the name of Church property. BURKE (the great apostle of the aristocracy!) says very much the contrary; for he says that the Duke of Bedford had no better claim to Woburn than he (Burke) had to his pension? However, this is a point that I leave without discussion, at present; and I sincerely hope that the conduct of the aristocracy towards the people may now be such as to let this matter remain undiscussed for
impudent; the thing is as plain as the fact of light or dark,
Lest, however, an objection should be made to the antiquity of those acts of parliament, and lest it should be said, that when the Church became Protestant, the tenure of the clergy became absolute, and untouchable even by the parliament, let us see what the parliament has done, in this way, in modern times, and even very recently. In 1713, and again in 1813, an act was passed to fix the sums that the holders of livings should give to their curates; that is to say, to compel them to give the curates certain salaries, or portions, out of the produce of the livings. This clearly shows that the livings were deemed public property, merely held in trust by the parsons and bishops; for, what would have been said, if the parliament had passed a law to compel gentlemen, farmers, tradesmen, and manufacturers, to pay their servants, journeymen, and labourers at a certain rate? This would have been to interfere with the distribution of private property, and would have been an act of tyranny; but, in the other case, it was an act of duty, because the parsons and bishops held the property in trust for public uses, and because it was for the benefit of the public, that those who did the work of the church should be suitably paid for their work.
Thus, then, the parliament took away, without any consent of the parties, part of the revenues of the incumbents, and, of course, part of what the patron, or. owner of the advowson, called his private property. But the act of 1798, only 32 years ago, was still more comBut, as to the tithes and other pro-plete, if possible; for, by that act, a perty which was handed over from the part of the houses and lands, belonging Catholic clergy to the Protestant cler- to the Church, was taken away for ever gy, that is held by the latter as it was was sold to private persons; and the held by the former; namely, in trust proceeds paid into the Exchequer by the clergy for public purposes; and, amongst the tax-money. This was. of course, as it was before taken by act called an "act for the redemption of the of parliament from one set of men, and land-tax." It first laid a perpetual tax given, in trust, to another set of men, on all house and land; it then enabled it may now be taken, and disposed of, people to redeem their land-tax; that is by act of parliament, for whatever pur- to say, to purchase back part of their poses may appear to the parliament to estates from the Government! Some be best. To deny this is really to be did it, and some did not; but, the par