advocate for employing children of a very young age; but it had been his misfortune (for so he must consider it), to bea member of a committee who were appointed to visit the gaols of this city, and he saw in them, children of ten and eleven years of age, who had been condemned for offences; whereas, if they had been employed in manufactories, they would have learnt the benefits of industry, would have been saved from the punishment of the law, and at the same time would have contributed to the support of their parents and families. He was persuaded that great prejudices existed on this subject. In the linen and woollen manufactories the mation was; he did not wish to keep it to himself, but would communicate the whole of it to any gentleman. It consisted of the result of recent inquiries of gentlemen in Manchester. One was Mr. Simmons, senior surgeon of the Manchester Dispensary, who said, he gave his opinion on the aggregate of cases which had been presented to him; and was convinced, that the hours which children laboured in the factories were too great for human indurance; that he shuddered to think of the effects of it, and that he did not think the practice would have been continued, but because the consequences were not known. The vicar of St. John's, Manchester, and another gentleman who in-hours of employment were generally longer spected the Sunday school which many of these children frequented, had also stated, that from their observations, the long hours of labour were prejudicial to the health of children. He was somewhat surprised at the levity with which the hon. gentleman had treated the petition which had been presented, while he had dwelt so much on another petition from the same place. He (Mr. Peel) was not himself inclined to dwell much on this petition, but it was satisfactory on this point, that the petitioners being the parents of the children, wished parliament to interfere on the subject. They stated, that as from their poverty they were unable to do without the labour of their children, they were compelled to submit to the hours which the masters of the factories chose to establish. It was obvious, then, that the parents themselves had no discretion or control in the business, and that the legislature alone could regulate the manage ment of these factories. Mr. Finlay was decidedly of opinion that there was no occasion for the bill. It was brought forward on evidence which had never been seen, and which those who opposed the measure had therefore no opportunity of rebutting. He had every reason to believe, that a great many of the facts would turn out to be incorrect. If the House suffered the bill to pass, they would do a great injury to the good works, which required no regulation at all, without being able to compel the bad works to adhere to those regulations, upon which all the benefits of the bill must depend. He maintained, that the limitation of the hours of labour would be so prejudicial to the cotton manufactories, as to remove to foreign countries a very considerable portion of this branch of trade. He was no § than in the cotton-factories. The latter had been much improved since 1802, and the children employed in them were better clothed, lodged, and fed. He had no objection, however, to limit the employment of children to those who were above nine or even ten years of age. The hon. member then read a statement made by an hon. member in a committee on a former occasion, tending to show that legislative interference in the manner proposed by the bill under consideration, would be rather prejudicial than otherwise; and in this opinion he fully concurred. He therefore hoped the House would proceed with great caution. Mr. Curwen said, that after the fair and candid explanation which had been given, though he had objected to the principle of the bill, he should not oppose it in the present stage. Sir F. Burdett said, he was gratified that some legislative interference was about to take place on this subject. They did not want the opinions of physicians to tell them that to make children of a tender age work so many hours was prejudicial to their health as well as to their happiness. To prove the injuriousness of such a system, it was in evidence, at the time night work existed, that the children employed on it were less unhealthy than those who worked in the day, because the former had a few hours of play, and from this circumstance their work, though at a time supposed to be so destructive to health, was found to be less injurious than such unremitting, unrelaxed exertion. should certainly support the bill. He The bill was read a second time, and committed, the report received, and ordered to be taken into consideration on the 6th of April. PETITION FROM GEORGE BRADBURY to study the interests of the people, its COMPLAINING OF THE OPERATION OF constituents." CORPUS SUSPENSION Ordered to lie on the table, and to be THE HABEAS ACT.] Mr. Bennet presented a Petition from George Bradbury; setting forth, "That the Petitioner was always a distinguished loyal man, and he never learnt that petitioning the House was contrary to strict loyalty; the petitioner begs of the House to remark, that, for the exercising this lawful privilege, a warrant was granted against him by lord Sidmouth, and he was persecuted from his home and business for six weeks, and then arrested, heavily ironed, and conveyed to London like a murderer; the petitioner knew it could be proved that the character of reform had attempted to be changed into rebellion by police plots; on the petitioner's first examination before lord Sidmouth, he desired his lordship to send his warrants for two men of the names of Lomax and Waddington from Lancashire, and he pointed out fifteen evidences in the country who could prove their wicked attempts, and desired his lordship to send for these to prove Lomax and Wadding ton's guilt, that they might be constrained to inform who employed them; his lordship excused himself by saying he knew the characters of Lomax and Waddington, these men had been employed to plot the burning of Manchester, and had got a number of men arrested on that charge to hang them: the petitioner begs to assure the House, that after his discharge in May he was applied to by Oliver and his agents to assist in leading three thousand men armed from Manchester to Chatsworth, in Derbyshire, the seat of the duke of Devonshire, to assist in a rebellion of the counties of Derby, Nottingham, and York; the petitioner rejected these attempts with disdain, and he warned the reformers to have nothing to do with these wicked men, and he desired the magistrates to stop them; the petitioner begs of the House to remark, that he afterwards offered himself as witness for the men who were hanged at Derby, to prove that Oliver had attempted to get Manchester to join them; but the petitioner could not be admitted; and he begs to assure the House, that he has suffered loss of character, ruin of business, and much personal injury; and he begs the House to show reform unnecessary, by loading with reprobation, rather than indemnifying those who have created so much misery, which will prove the House printed. PETITION OF RICHARD LEE COMPLAINING OF THE OPERATION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACT.] Mr. Bennet also presented a Petition from Richard Lee, of Holmeforth; setting forth, 66 "That the petitioner is by trade a clothier, and hath never committed any crimes against the laws of his country, being in every case a true subject of his majesty king George; that, on the 13th of June 1817, a number of men entered the petitioner's house, with one Matthew Bradley at their head, while the petitioner was at his work; and the said M. Bradley said, in a very insulting manner, to the petitioner, "You must go along with us;” the petitioner replied, Very well, but you will let me wash and clean myself first;" when the petitioner had so done, the said Matthew Bradley drew a pistol out of his pocket, and said he would blow the petitioner's brains out; they then took the petitioner to an inn near his own house, where he begged to speak to his wife respecting his affairs; but, when she came for that purpose the said Bradley said, the petitioner must go immediately to Huddersfield, as they were ready and would not wait, and that she, meaning the petitioner's wife, might follow the petitioner to Huddersfield if they had any thing to say together; to which town they dragged the petitioner, guarded by a number of horse soldiers, and lodged him in a stinking dungeon without a bed or fire, although the petitioner was wet through; that when the petitioner's wife came afterwards to see the petitioner next day to Huddersfield, at great charge and hazard, in her situation, being then unwell with a complaint in her breast, which was afterwards cut for a cancer, she was not allowed to see the petitioner at all; that on the next morning, in this uncomfortable state of mind and body, ill at ease on account of his family, he was brought some refreshment, but he could not eat; and about noon he was taken before a magistrate, Mr. B. H. Allen, who said that the petitioner was charged with high treason, and must be hanged; whereupon the petitioner said, "You make my case very black, it's time to get prepared, I think;" he replied, "Yes, it is;" about the hour of seven o'clock in the evening, the petitioner said, "Is it not dinner time?" to this Mr. Thomas Atkinson, who was present, said, "You shall have your dinner in my room, and sleep in it also;" the petitioner replied, that would be very acceptable, as he had no sleep the last night, but the said Atkinson then said, "You must make a man of yourself, and tell me all you know;" to which the petitioner replied, as the truth was, "I know nothing;" that the said B. H. Allen then called the said Atkinson aside, and said, as the petitioner could hear, "We must towser Lee again;" so, about eight o'clock, the petitioner was remanded to the dungeon again, and about ten o'clock they came and began searching him, while he was fast asleep, owing to his fatigue and want of rest; but being awoke by the search, the petitioner asked, "What are you about?" but no answer was given to him, and they returned to him a threeshilling piece they had taken from his pocket just as he awoke, and kept him in this offensive dungeon five successive nights, and would not permit his wife to speak to him during that time, nor was he allowed to see her for three weeks afterwards; that the petitioner was afterwards put into an empty room, where he remained six days without any bed or bedding, save only a handful of straw to lie upon, but no covering of any sort whatsoever but his own clothes that he had on; that on the 16th of July he was removed to Yorke Castle like a felon, and ironed, in which state he was kept during the whole of his confinement, being twenty weeks and two days, five days of which time he was obliged to live in the same place, and sleep in the same room and bed with a man charged and afterwards executed for murder, with no other allowance than that of the prison, namely, bread, and sixpence per week for nine weeks; that one Thomas Riley, confined in the same gaol with the petitioner, on a similar charge of a suspicion of high treason, no doubt in a fit of derangement of mind, brought on by his confinement, cut his thaoat in the said prison, and, on the day following, the petitioner and another prisoner whom the petitioner understood to be a convicted felon, were removed into the very same cell in which the said Riley cut his throat, while the blood of the said Riley was still lying all over the floor in a hard and congealed state, and the petitioner and the said other prisoner were compelled to clean the same out with only a mop and broom, which, not being sufficient to remove the said blood, the petitioner was obliged to scrape and take it up with his hands; that by this treatment the petitioner's affairs and health are very much injured, and to remedy things as far as he was able, he signed on the 5th of December a paper called a recognizance, although unconscious of any offence; wherefore, the petitioner's circumstances being in a ruined state, and his health declining, he is led to pray for such relief as to the wisdom of the House shall seem meet; and that the House will cause inquiry to be made into the conduct of those by whom the petitioner has been so cruelly treated, and will not pass any bill of indemnity to screen them from answering at law for such unjust treatment of the petitioner." Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, February 24. PETITION OF BENJAMIN WHITELEY COMPLAINING OF THE OPERATION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACT.] Mr. Bennet presented a Petition from Benjamin Whiteley, of Holmfirth, in the parish of Burton, and county of York, setting forth, "That the Petitioner is by trade a drawer of cloth in Holmfirth, was going to Horbury on Friday the 6th of June last, and was surrounded by armed men on the road near Thornhill Lees, and taken to the house of correction at Wakefield, where he remained three weeks in a damp cell, and had liked to have died of hunger, not being able to eat the food they presented him, and from the damps of the cell, no person being allowed to come to or see him; in the mean time his friends attended from time to time with bail for his appearance, if any thing could be laid to his charge, but they were put off from time to time, until on the 27th of June he was liberated on his paying five shillings; on the 4th of July Thomas Blythe and another person entered the House of the petitioner, and searched every drawer, closet, and cranney, and then told him he must go to London on a charge of high treason; expostulation was vain, he was hurried to Cold-bath-fields prison, where he remained four days, and was then carried before lord Sidmouth, who told him he must go to prison, and be close con- Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. came forward with a fresh demand of 34,000l. in addition to the former grant of 95,000l. The House ought not to give their consent to this additional grant, till the city showed the manner in which the former sum had been expended. The corporation of the city had been charged in their own court, by one of their most intelligent members (Mr. Waithman), with wasteful and improvident expenditure. The expense of an entertainment given by them to the liberators of Europe was stated at 24,0002. On examination, he believed it would be found nearer to 40,000l. than 24,000l. He understood that during the last thirty-seven years the corporation had expended in improvement of the public streets, &c. 45,000l., in gold boxes and swords to our naval and military officers, 7,899.[Hear! from sir William Curtis]. If the hon. baronet could show that they possessed any superfluity, then he was ready to allow that these were proper objects of their munificence. But if they expended their money on these objects, and then came forward to ask for public aid for objects which they were bound to provide for out of their own funds, then MOTION RESPECTING THE REVENUES such an expenditure was most blameable. OF THE CITY OF LONDON.] Mr. Holme They had expended for the statues of the Sumner rose to submit a motion to the king, lord Chatham, and Mr. Pitt, in gold House, for the purpose of obtaining from boxes to the dukes of Kent and Sussex, the city of London an Account of their to colonel Wardie, and other public men, Revenue for the five years ending the 31st upwards of 18,000l.-for colours to voDecember last. The application which lunteer regiments 1,6007.-in donations the city had lately made to be allowed to to public charities 23,000/-in donations raise money on the credit of the orphan to public objects connected with politics fund, or in other words to be allowed to 25,068. The whole of the sums expendtax the neighbouring counties, to defrayed on these different objects, amounted the additional sum of 34,000l. required to complete their new prison,-an object of the city of London alone-certainly justified him in calling on the corporation of that city to lay an account of their affairs before the House. The measure for which the city members now came forward, was one of a very extraordinary nature indeed. By the 52d of the king, the city of London was authorized to borrow 95,000l. on the credit of the orphan fund, for the erection of a new prison. No one doubted, at the time this sum was granted, that it was not perfectly adequate to its purpose; but the city, either from having made choice of a situation for building too limited in space, or from the prodigality with which they had gone to work, had spent this money without accomplishing their object, and they now (VOL. XXXVII.) to no less than 126,840. Now the sum required for this gaol was 130,000.; and thus, if the corporation of the city had been just before they were generous, the sums which they had so misapplied might have been sufficient to complete their prison. Every particle of this 126,000l." so spent, was a misapplication. Unfortunately, however, this was not the first misapplication.--The hon. gentleman then went into an account of the transactions which led to the grant of the duty, commonly called the Orphans' fund. He held in his hand a brief statement of the accounts of the city, annually distributed among the members of the corporation. In that statement, he observed, that the lord mayor and aldermen of the city of London, were debtors to the amount of 53,000l. to a fund of which they were the (2 Q) trustees, and which was granted to them for a certain specific object. The Bridgehouse estate was vested in them for the building and repairing London bridge when necessary. Of the funds of this estate 33,000l. and 25,000l. 3 per cent stock, now worth 20,000l. in all 53,000l. had been appropriated by the lord mayor and aldermen to other objects. So that if one or two arches of London bridge should happen to be swept away, a thing very far from improbable, they must again come to the Orphans' Fund. It was too lenient a term to call this a misapplication-it was a downright embezzlement of that fund. But this was not the only misapplication of the funds of this estate. By an ancient charter, the city of London had a jurisdiction in part of the county of Surrey, the borough of Southwark-a jurisdiction which had long been dormant. It had lately, however, been revived, for the creation of a place for decayed aldermen. This was a gross and nefarious job. Would the members for the city say, that when this jurisdiction was revived, there was any want of a fair and impartial administration of justice? The consequence was, that there were two quarter sessions and two grand juries in the county at the same time, and no person knew where his suit was going on. They had taken from the Bridgehouse estate 1,400l. a year to defray that expense. With respect to the new prison, it was impossible that any thing could be more inadequate to its purpose, or worse planned; indeed it could not be condemned in stronger terms than were made use of by members of the court of the city of London. Because they had already fooled away the 95,000l. already granted them, were they farther to be trusted with 34,000l. to be taken out of the pockets of those who were already chargeable with heavy county rates for their own objects? One of the pleas of the city was, that they were bound to maintain gaols for the county of Middlesex as well as for the city of London. But they generally told only so much of the case as suited themselves. They did not tell the House, that with this liability, various privileges and immunities were attached, to which the city adhered with great jealousy. They elected their own sheriffs, and they would not allow any of the magistrates of Middlesex to examine their prisons. By nominating to the office of sheriff persons, who they knew would not serve, they contrived to raise from the fines a considerable revenue. In one year lately they had raised in this way 9,2001. For the last four years they had raised 20,000l., on an average 5,000l. a-year. With regard to the principle, that parliament had a right to demand the production of their accounts, he did not think any objection could be raised against it; but it was the duty of the House to see that the funds had been properly applied, before they listened to an application for a new grant. He had now very briefly called their attention to the facts of this case; and should conclude with moving, "That there be laid before this House a Statement or Account of the Revenues of the city of London, as the same have been received into the chamber of the said city, for five years ending the 31st December 1817; distinguishing them under the several heads, viz. rents and quit rents, market tolls, offices, and bequests, rents received of brokers, freedoms sold, freedoms enrolments, &c. casual receipts, sheriffs fines, sales and alienation of offices, fines for leases, insurance of officers lives, interest on government securities, and sale of securities." Sir William Curtis said:-Sir; I have listened with great attention, and I must add with considerable pain, to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. The hon. member, in the course of that speech, has thought proper to charge the city of London with having been guilty of gross embezzlement; but he must excuse me, if I say that this is a gross and unwarrantable expression. The city of London has done no such thing, as I am fully prepared to prove. The hon. member insists on the right of inspecting their accounts; and they are willing to give an account that is, whenever it shall be right, in their opinion. Sir, we have maintained the gaols of London, not for ourselves alone, but for the country at large, and for the county of Middlesex in an immense degree. If, then, we are supporting prisons for other people-if we are providing for prisoners after they have been convicted-if felons and criminals are sent to us from all parts-and if, under such circumstances, our funds are found inadequate, are we not entitled to call upon this House to send us some assistance? With respect to the bill which has been lately introduced, we call on you now to fulfil and complete what you have sanctioned before. The hon. mem |