alienated, by the belief of such a repre- | HENSON and your petition, was perfectly sentation; being fully convinced of these correct. And, that being the case, important truths, I venture to beseech judge you of the conduct of Mr. HENthe royal parties, whose names have son, who accuses Mr. O'Connell of "a been so unwarrantably brought before studied insult" offered to him. the public in the above-cited publica- I find that Mr. O'Connell has, since tion, to cause a formal contradiction that time, received Mr. HENSON, and thereof to be publicly made; I venture read your petition; that he required to beseech them to reflect on the fatal (and well he might) to have proof of consequences which have uniformly the facts before he presented a document, ensued, and especially in recent instances, inculpating, by name, so many persons, from proceedings such as are described and preferring against them charges so in this publication, and to remember, heavy; that Mr. HENSON offered to get that to be blameless, as they doubtless affidavits from NOTTINGHAM in support are, in this and all other cases of the of the charges; that Mr. O'Connell dekind, is not enough, unless they are sired him to do this without delay; also thought to be blameless; I venture that, however, up to this day Mr. to beseech them well to weigh the words O'Connell has been waiting in vain of my motto, and to consider whether, for the affidavits, though, observe, Mr. though the above-cited publication is a Henson has now been in LONDON, first tissue of falsehoods, their permitting it and last, more than two months upon to remain uncontradicted may not expose this business! My good friends, it is them, amongst the uninformed part of not for me to dictate to you as to the the people, to the imputation of acting manner in which you should spend your upon a principle such as that in my money: if I have no taste for keeping motto described; I venture to beseech an ambassador, that gives me no right them, above all things, to reflect upon to complain of the existence of that what must be the natural and inevitable taste in you; but as it was thought effect produced in the minds of the peo-worth while, when I was at NOTTINGple, if they were once to believe that HAM, that I should be consulted on the any portion of the grants made out of subject; and as I was, and am, exthe taxes, in times like the present, was expended upon objects such as those described in this poisonous publication; and lastly, as I have, in proportion to my means and my capacity, done as much as any private individual ever did in support of the throne and the reputation of the royal family, I hope it will not be thought presumptuous that I now make them a tender of my pages and my pen, for the purpose of making and promulgating that contradiction, which every truly loyal subject is so anxiously desirous to see.

TO THE

WORKING PEOPLE of NottingHAM.
London, 5th June, 1832.

tremely anxious upon the score of this petition, I now give you my decided opinion, that, if you wish your petition to succeed, you will immediately recal your ambassador from the court of the Bear and Ragged Staff, and send up, upon his ten toes, some honest weaver of plain sense in his stead.

I am your faithful friend,

and most obedient servant, WM. COBBETT.

THE HARPENDEN CASE. THIS affair will, unless the nation has lost its character for humanity, become as notorious as anything that ever engaged the attention of Englishmen. HARPENDEN is a village in HERTFORDUPON making inquiry of Mr. O'CON- SHIRE, and not far from ST, ALBAN'S. NELL I find, and I have his authority to Some time in February last, Mr. WAKsay, that everything which I, in my LEY published in The Ballot weekly Register of 26th May, have said, rela-newspaper, of which he is proprietor, tive to his conduct with regard to Mr. an account of the treatment and com

MY FRIENDS,

mittal of WILLIAM WELLS, a labourer, by one HAWKINS, a justice of the peace, residing in or near that village. This fellow, HAWKINS, applied, by SCARLETT and HOLT, for a CRIMINAL INFORMATION against Mr. WAKLEY. The rule to show cause was granted; and Mr. WAKLEY had to pay between three and four pounds before he could obtain copies of the affidavits, on which the rule was granted. He then had to pay three or four pounds more for leave to produce affidavits in his defence! On the 2nd instant he went into court himself and

Affidavits in Accusation. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN HAWKINS. "That from the month of March 1831, this deponent hath been and acted as one of the justices of the peace for the said county, and that deponent is the person mentioned as “a in the defamanew magistrate (Hawkius) Joshua Jennings aud Wm. Kingston, in the That at or about Easter, 1831, tory libel. said libel mentioned, became overseers of the poor of the same parish for the year then ensuing. That deponent has been informed, and verily believes, that some time after the said Joshua Jennings became one of such overseers of the poor as aforesaid, he attended, and stated to his Majesty's justices of the peace weekly meetings at the Court-house at St. for the county of Hertford, at one of their Alban's, in the said county, that the said

houses were then occupied by able-bodied men and their wives and families, as paupers, refused to quit and give up possession thereof, paying no rent for the same; and that they and that the same were very much dilapidated and out of repair; and that the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the same houses, according to the purpose for which parish were desirous of preparing the said they were erected, for the reception of certain poor widows of the same parish, who would very soon be ready to occupy the same houses; and that thereupon the said justices then and wardens and overseers of the poor to remove there present, authorised the said churchthe said then occupiers of the same houses therefrom, for the purpose aforesaid. That he, this deponent, was not present at the said meeting. That the said Joshua Jennings attended on the said 25th day of July at this deponent's said residence, and on oath, in the presence of the said William Wells, gave evidence before this deponent, that the Wells, for some time previous to the day of wife and five children of the said William the date of the same warrant, were resident in one of the said widows'-houses, or churchwith food and other necessaries at the expense houses, as paupers, and were entirely supplied of the said parish of Harpenden; and that the said William Wells had for some time previ ously been absent from his said wife and family of children, and that the said William

met SCARLETT and HOLT, and argued against the rule. The judges, TENTERDEN, LITTLEDALE, and TAUNTON, de-above-mentioned widows'-houses or churchferred the decision until another day; and perhaps they will have decided before this Register will go from the press. I insert here the AFFIDAVITS on both sides; first, those of HAWKINS, the justice, and of JENNINGS, the overseer; and, then, the affidavits in defence. I thought I had known enough before of the state of the labourers and their families; but here the blood runs cold indeed! Read these affidavits, my readers; read them; and then wonder, if you can, at anything that you will ever read. There are many important subjects that press forward for attention; but this thrusts all others aside! This says to us: "You are devils in human shape, if you remain unmoved by this!" I thank Mr. WAKLEY for what he has done in this case; I wish with all my heart that the case may come to A TRIAL. I wish to see SCARLETT and HOLT in the hands of Mr. WAKLEY upon this occasion. I wish to see them dealt with by a man of real talent; and here they have one. But I wish to see this thing TRIED: that is what I wish; for the result of that trial will show pre-family by work, but that he had neglected to cisely how we stand as to the laws re-do so, and that the said wife of the said Willated to the treatment of the working people. There is a treadmill, it seems, even in the little village of Harpenden! Oh! this trial would do an infinity of good; and, amongst other things, prove to all those who do not now know it, that Mr. WAKLEY is one of the very first men that ought to be chosen to fight the people's battles in Parliament.

Wells was able to maintain his said wife and

liam Wells had stated to the said Joshua Jennings, during the said absence of the said that she the said wife of the said William William Wells from his said wife and family, Wells did not know whither the said William Wells was gone. That the said William Wells being unable to make any sufficient defence victed the said William Wells of the said to the said charge, he, this deponent, conoffence, as an idle and disorderly person, according to the statute in that case made, and

against auy of the poor or helpless persons alluded to in the said several libels.”

f

delivered to the said constable a warrant of commitment under the hand and seal of this deponent, directed to the said constable and to the keeper of the said house of correction, AFFIDAVIT OF JOSHUA JENNINGS. at Hertford, in and for the said county of "That from about Easter, 1830, to about Hertford, bearing date the said 25th day of Easter, 1831, Richard Oakley and William July, commanding the said constable to con- Sygrave were the overseers of the poor of the vey to, and the said keeper to receive in his same parish of Harpenden, and that he, decustody in the said house of correction, the ponent, assisted the said Richard Oakley in said William Wells, there to be kept to hard performing the duties of his said office; and labour for the space of one calendar month. that during that period the said George JenAnd deponent at the same time, with the ap-nings, George Barber, and Peter Parrott, a probation of the said Joshua Jennings, ordered convict felon returned from transportation, the said constable to refrain from executing with their respective wives and families, and the said warrant of commitment, if in the William Stockings, were removed by the said course of a week or a fortnight then next, the overseers of the poor from the said widows'said William Wells provided for his said wife houses or church-houses, in which they were and children, whereby they might cease to be then resident as paupers, but were again adchargeable to the said parish of Harpenden, mitted to reside therein; and in the summer by occupying one of the same widows'-houses of the year 1830 the said William Wells was or church-houses as paupers, as aforesaid, also allowed to take possession of one of the and by being maintained from the public same houses with his wife and family, but funds of the same parish. That on the 19th that a short time previous to Easter, 1831, the day of August last, Joshua Jennings, as such said several above-mentioned residents in the overseer of the poor aforesaid, complained and said houses were directed by the said over. made oath to this deponent that George Jen- seers of the poor, or by this deponent on their nings, being a person able wholly to maintain behalf, to quit the same premises, which they himself and his family by work or other neglected and refused to do. Deponent means, did wilfully neglect so to do, by which Joshua Jennings further saith, that a short neglect his wife and three children had be-time after the appointment of deponent and come and then were actually chargeable to William Kingston, at or about Easter, 1831, the parish of Harpenden, contrary to the form to be overseers of the poor of the same parish of the statute in that case made; and that the for the then ensuing year, he deponent gave said Joshua Jennings also then and there in- notice to the said William Wells, George formed deponent that said George Jennings Jennings, George Barber, and Peter Parrott, had gone away and left his wife and family to remove with their respective families, from residing as paupers, and entirely maintained the said widows'-houses or church-houses, at the expense of the public parochical funds which they refused to do; and that in conseof the same parish, in one of the same wi-quence thereof deponent attended at one of dows-houses; and that the wife of the said George Jennings had informed said Joshua Jennings that she did not know where her husband then was. That deponent thereupon issued his warrant for the apprehension of the said George Jennings, to answer the said complaint, but that the said George Jennings was not brought before this deponent in pursuance of the said warrant. That on the 26th day of March last the said George Jennings was fully committed by this deponent to the common jail of the county of Hertford, charged on the oaths of John Plasom and others with having, on the 24th day of the same month, feloniously killed a wether sheep, the property of Richard Oakley, with intent to steal, and with having feloniously stolen part of the carcase thereof. That the said William Wells is the person in the said several libels mentioned by the name of Wells, and that deponent verily believes that the said George Jennings is the person in the said several libels alluded to and therein described as one other of the three poor men therein mentioned, and who is therein stated to have been incarcerated by this deponent. That he hath never issued any warrant of apprehension or commitment (except as before mentioned) against the said William Wells or the said George Jennings, or

the said weekly meetings of his Majesty's justices of the peace for the said county of Hertford, held at the Court House, at St. Alban's aforesaid, and stated that the said widows'houses or church-houses were then occupied by able-bodied men with their wives and families, who refused to quit the same premises, which were much dilapidated; and, that the then churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the same parish were desirous of, preparing the same houses according to the purpose for which they were erected, for the residence of certain poor widows of the same parish, who would soon be ready to occupy the same; and that the said justices then present thereupon authorised deponent to remove the said several persons so residing as paupers in the said widows'-bouses or churchhouses, and to appropriate the same for the reception of poor widows of the same parish; whereupon deponent afterwards, to wit, on the 19th day of May last, with the concur rence of the other churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the same parish, turned the said William Wells, George Jennings, George Barber, and Peter Parrott, then being able-bodied men not receiving relief from the said parish except by such residence in the same houses together with their respective

families, out of the same houses which were paupers in one of the said widows'-houses or much damaged, but which have been subse-church-houses, informed this deponent that quently repaired at the expense of the said the said George Jennings had left bis said parish to the amount of 60%. and upwards, and wife and family several days previously, and of which houses are now in the occupa that she did not know whither he was gone, tion of such poor widows as aforesaid. That and that she, the said Charlotte Jennings on the 23d day of June last, Charlotte the and her said family required relief from the wife of the said George Jennings, being ad- said parish of Harpenden, whereupon deponvanced in pregnancy, the said George Jen- eut authorised the said Charlotte Jennings nings, and his said wife and family, were and her said family to receive their food from again admitted into one of the said houses. the said poor-house, which they accordingly That about the middle of the month of July did. That on the 19th day of August, he, last, Mary, the wife of the said William Wells, deponent, attended before the said John Hawbeing near to her confinement, and the said kins, at Byelands aforesaid, and made comMary Wells, and her said family then residing, plaint against the said George Jennings of the as deponent hath been informed, and verily aforesaid facts, aud that the said George Jenbelieves, at Redbourn, in the said county of nings was able wholly to maintain himself and Hertford, he, this deponent, received a mes- his family by work or other means, and that sage from the said Mary Wells, as he was in-he neglected to do so, whereby his wife and formed and verily believes, stating that the said Mary Wells meant to return to Harpenden to be confined; and that the said Mary Wells accordingly brought back her said family to Harpendeu, when deponent refused to receive her, and that the said Mary Wells and her said family having for two or three nights slept in an out-house, deponent, on the 18th July last, again admitted the said Mary Wells and her said family into the said widows'-houses or church-houses, and supplied her with necessaries proper for her situation. That a short time previous to the 23d day of July last, the said Mary Wells in formed deponent that her said husband, William Wells, was absent from her, and that she did not know where he was gone to, aud that she, the said Mary Wells, and her said family of children, who were then living in one of the said widows'-houses or churchhouses as paupers, as aforesaid, had no means of subsistence, and that they required relief from the said parish, whereupon the said Mary Wells and her said family, by the authority of this deponent, received their daily food from the poor-bouse of the said parish of Harpenden. That, on the 23d day July last, deponent attended at one of the said weekly meetings of the said justices, and gave evidence to the aforesaid facts against the said William Wells, and that the said William Wells was a person able wholly to maintain his family by work or other means, and that he neglected so to do, whereby his said wife and family of children became chargeable as aforesaid, whereupon Daniel Goodson Adey, Esq., one of the said justices, issued his warrant for the apprehension of the said William Wells, in pursuance whereof the said William Wells was, on Sunday the 24th of July last, apprehended, and on the 25th July aforesaid, was taken by the constable of the same parish to Byelands aforesaid, when deponeut attended, and gave evidence on oath before the said John Hawkins of the several matters aforesaid against the said William Wells. That previous to the 19th August last, Charlotte, the wife of the said George Jennings, who was then living with her family of children as

three children became chargeable as aforesaid; whereupon the said John Hawkins issued his warrant for the apprehension of the said George Jennings; and said justices thereupon convicted said George Jennings, and said Samuel Reynolds Solly thereupon issued his warrant, bearing date said 26th day of August, for the commitment of said George Jennings to said House of Correction, in and for the said county of Hertford, and said Samuel Reynolds Solly thereupon directed that said warrant of commitment should not be executed, if within seven days then next, the said wife and family of said George Jenning, were removed from the said widows'-houses or church-houses, and ceased to be chargeable to the said parish of Harpenden. That on the said 26th day of August, said John Mico Winter and Samuel Reynolds Solly authorised the said warrant of commitment issued by said John Hawkins against said Wm. Wells to be executed forthwith. That by the direction of deponent, said two warrants of commitment against said William Wells and George Jennings respectively, were not, nor was either of them, executed, until the 27th of August last, until which time, said William Wells and George Jennings, and their respective wives and families continued to reside as paupers in said widows' or church-houses."

Affidavits for the Defence.

AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM WELLS. "That he has worked in said parish of Harpenden for several years last past, almost exclusively, at Turner's-hall, near Harpenden aforesaid. That, in the year 1830, he resided in and occupied a small cottage at Karsmangreen, belonging to a person of the name of Buun, who required deponent to leave the same, to enable him, said Mr. Bunn, to live in it himself. That when he received notice from said Mr. Bunn to leave said cottage, he, deponent, used his utmost endeavours to obtain either another cottage or lodginga in his parish of Harpenden aforesaid, but without succeeding in doing so, and there being certain houses belonging to said parish at that time vacant, he, deponent, applied to Mr. Oakley,

the then overseer, to allow him, deponent, to it as rent for the occupation of the said house. go into one of them with his wife and family, That some time in the month of May followuntil he, deponent, could procure them a place ing, he and his family being compelled to to live in. That said Mr. Oakley having re-leave the church-house, and not being able to fused to let him, deponent, and his family, go procure any place in Harpenden wherein to into one of the unoccupied parish houses, and dwell, were obliged again to live on the churchbeing obliged to leave the cottage at Karsman-green, exposed to the weather both by day and green, which he rented from Mr. Bunn, he, de- I night, and continued so for about a fortnight, ponent, and his family proceeded to the Church- during which time deponent worked daily in green at Harpenden and lodged themselves upon the public green without shelter. That when he and his wife and family, consisting of his wife and four children, took up their lodging on the Church-green aforesaid, he found in the cage on the Church-green, another family called Parrott, consisting of the husband, wife, and five children, whom deponent understood to be unable, like himself, to procure a house, a habitation, or lodgings of any description for themselves. That he and his wife and family, and the other family above named, continued on the said Church-green in the cage some time, exposed to the inclemency of the weather, but he, deponent, leaving his family in the day-time, to follow his daily labour at Turner's-hall-farm aforesaid, and returning in the evening to them on the Church-green at Harpenden aforesaid. That owing to the sufferings of his children, he told Mr. Oakley, the then overseer, that an application would be made to the bench of magistrates at St. Alban's, for an order on the overseers, to admit deponent and his family, and the other families, into the parish houses then uninhabited. That he, deponent, and said Parrott, did apply to the magistrates in petty sessions, at St. Alban's, and in the presence of Mr. Oakley, the then overseer, he, deponent, then represented to them the situation in which he, deponent, and the other parties were placed, and their inability to procure a place to reside in, when said magistrates requested said Mr, Oakley to find deponent, and said other family, lodgings. That he and his wife and family, and Parrott and his wife and family, were allowed to occupy one of the church houses, and subsequently Barber and his wife and family were allowed to live in the cage, and at that time George Jennings and his wife and family were living in the tread-wheelhouse adjoining the poor-house. That himself and family, Barber and family, and Jennings and family, continued to occupy the places aforesaid, until the said Joshua Jennings and William Kingston came into office about Easter, 1831. That some time previous to himself and his family being admitted into the church-house, his wife was allowed by the parish the sum of 2s. per week in consequence of being a cripple through an accident, which allowance had been reduced, and was at the time he, deponent, and his family, were admitted into the church-house, only 1s, per week. That in consequence of himself and family being allowed to occupy one of the church-houses as aforesaid, the said Mr. Oakley withheld the weekly allowance of ls. from his, deponent's wife, and said he should retain

a field belonging to Joshua Jennings, the overseer, who paid him for such work on the Friday evening, at the poor-house, about fourpence per pole. That having procured lodgings at Bedbourn, they went and resided there for about five weeks. That whilst he was living at Redbourn aforesaid, he was engaged in the work of hay-harvest at Mr. Wimbush's, at Whetstone, and was obliged to be absent from his wife and family from the Monday morning till Saturday night, when he invariably returned to his wife with his wages, with one exception, on which occasion he sent his wages to his wife by a fellow-labourer. That his wife being near her confinement, the landlord of the house in which she was lodging at Redbourn with her children, refused to permit them to remain there any longer, and deponent was therefore compelled to remove them to Harpenden. That, on his removing them to Harpenden aforesaid, his wife endeavoured to obtain a house or lodgings to live in, but without success, and she was therefore obliged again to lodge herself and children on the public green at Har penden aforesaid, without shelter. That his wife and family continued on the green for six days. That his wife and family removed from Redbourn to Harpenden on Tuesday, the 12th of July, but he deponent, on the Sunday evening previous, gave to his wife the whole of his then last week's earnings with the exception of 3s. 6d., which he retained for his own im mediate wants for the succeeding week. That, on the following Saturday night, or early on the Sunday morning, be went to Harpenden, where he found his wife and family without a habitation, and he, deponent, after remaining the whole of the day with his wife, about midnight on Sunday again left her, but not without first giving to her the sum of 7s. 6d., the whole of his wages for the previous week with the exception of 3s. 6d., which be retained for his own use. That he was in the habit every summer of going to hay-harvest to Henly-hill, Barnet, or Whetstone, and when the hay-harvest was over in that part of the country, he used to return to Mr. Bates, at Turner's-hall, where he, deponent, was regularly employed. That he again reached Harpenden very early on the Sunday morning, the 24th day of July, when he found his wife had been confined on the previous Monday; that he walked from Whetstone to Harpenden to see her, intending to return the same evening; that he saw her and gave her upwards of 10s. 6d., being the whole of his earnings, with the exception of a small sum of money which he retained for his own support for the