having moved the second reading of this bill,

opposed the motion. He was, he said, instructed to state, by the mayor and corporation of Ball), that they did not object to the principle of the measure, but that as the guardians of the interests of their fellow citizens, it appeared to them that as there was much difference of opinion with respect to the merits of the Gas Light, as there was no necessity for the immediate adoption of the invention in Bath, and as improvements were every day making in the preparation and management of the gas itself, it would be better to wait the result of those improvements than to take a hasty step of which they might afterwards repent. It had been said by the friends of the bill, that it was the universal wish of the inhabitants of Bath, that it should be carried. The fact was, however, that a great majority of the owners of property in Bath were adverse to it. The promoters of the measure were shareholders, and other interested persons. The corporation, on the contrary, had no interest in it, but were actuated solely by their zeal for the prosperity of the city. He pledged himself, that whenever it should appear to be the real wish of the majority of householders, and other inhabitants of Bath, to have the gas introduced, the mayor and corporation would not only consent to its introduction, but aid it by every means in their power. There was one clause of the bill to which he wished the attention of the House to be particularly directed, as it clearly manifested the contrariety of opinion which existed on the subject in Bath; he meant the clause by which the property of one of the principal land owners in Bath, earl Manvers, was exempted from the operation of the bill. Another great land owner at Bath, lady Rivers, objected to the bill. If this bill for the partial lighting of Bath, were agreed to, the whole city might be injured, should it prove a nuisance rather than a benefit. He had been one of the warmest advocates of the gas light himself. No man could observe its beauty, and reflect on its economy, without being so; but within the last two days, he had heard some circumstances which rather shook his opinion. If there was any one place in the kingdom in which it was to be expected that the gas would be in the best state, it was the spot on which they were, as it was naturally the interest of the contractors to take care that it should appear to advantage under the observation of the members of the legislature. He happened lately, however, to be in company with a gentleman who resided in the immediate vicinity of that House, and who declared, that frequently for days, and sometimes for weeks, the smell of the gas was abominable. He had also been told by another gentleman at Chelsea that having been at the expence of fitting up his whole House with gas lights, he had found the effluvia so intolerably offensive, and so injurious to the health of his children, that he had been compelled to have the apparatus removed. On all these grounds, he moved, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day three months.

maintained, that if the corporation of Bath had no objection to the principle of the bill, it ought to be allowed to go into the committee, in which its various details might be fully discussed. There had been petitions from two or three thousand inhabitants of Bath in favour of the measure. The fact was, that the corporation of Bath wished to undertake the job themselves, conceiving that it would be profitable. They had already the superintendence of the Water, the Assembly Rooms, &c. and it would be too much to add thereto that of the Gas Lights.

observed, that a more respectable body of gentlemen could not exist than the members of the Bath Gas Light Company. He should therefore contribute every thing in his power, to carry their wishes into effect.

observed, that the clause respecting earl Manvers was copied from the corporation bill. He had had a communication with the corporation of Bath, on the subject of the proposed measure, and although he had offered to guard the interests of that corporation in the bill, by every practicable provision, he was not listened to, but was told that they would depend on the strength of noses in the House of Commons.

opposed the second reading of the bill.

thought the only question for the House to decide was, in whose hands the supply of the city should be placed. As for the corporation, he feared they were a set of gentlemen who moved about business much too slowly in their fur gowns, to expect they would effect any thing that required energy or spirit. He felt a preference for the other parties, as being more competent and efficient, and should, therefore, support the bill, at least until it was brought into a committee.

wished the bill to go into a committee, and expressed his intention, when it got there, to draw the attention of the committee to the prices charged by the Gas Light Companies. For lamps for which they formerly charged 25s. a-year, their present demand was four, five, or six pounds. For parish lamps, which they formerly charged at half a farthing a piece, they now charged three farthings.

hoped the bill would be permitted to go into a committee, when, if its regulations appeared beneficial, the House would do well to forward it through its remaining stages. The House then divided: For the Amendment, 38; Against it, 79.—The bill was then read a second time.

presented at the bar of the House a Petition from the lord mayor, aldermen, and commons of the city of London, in common council assembled; setting forth, "That the Petitioners, holding in veneration the sacred principles of freedom upon which the British constitution is founded, have witnessed with the deepest concern the frequent and dangerous innovations which, upon unfounded alarms and pretences, have of late years been made thereon, more particularly by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, and other restrictions upon the liberty of the subject, during the last session of parliament; the petitioners remind the House that the Habeas Corpus act was passed at a period remarkable above all others for plots and alarms, that it conferred no new right, but was intended as a barrier for the liberty of the subject in consequence of the frequent arbitrary and illegal arrests and imprisonments, upon charges of sedition and treason, by the corrupt and tyrannical ministers of those days; they sub- mit to the House, that if this great bulwark of personal security is to be suspended whenever the people labour under heavy grievances, and the misconduct of ministers has impelled them to lay their complaints before parliament, or at the foot of the throne, instead of inquiring into and redressing them, this boasted right is become a dead letter, its whole efficacy is lost, and it had better at once be struck out of the Statute book than be suffered to remain only as a sad and mortifying memorial of what Englishmen formerly enjoyed; that the petitioners did, in the last session of parliament, implore the House not to assent to any proposition for depriving the people of that essential part of the constitution, the Habeas Corpus act, no precedent whatever existing of such a measure having been resorted to at a period of profound peace; they deprecated the precipitancy with which measures of such vital interest were hurried through parliament; they complained then, and they complain now, that they were founded upon the reports of secret committees, upon which were some of the ministers of the Crown, and upon ex-parle evidence alone, selected by those ministers, without even farther investigation after those reports had been contradicted in some of their most material parts, and had been offered to be disproved at the bar of the House; that since the passing of the said act, the petitioners have viewed with indignation and horror the vindictive cruelty with which ministers have exercised the powers intrusted to them; numerous individuals have been torn from their wives and families, dragged into distant prisons, where they have been immured, heavily ironed, for months together, and afterwards released without being brought to trial, or even knowing the charges against them, although repeatedly demanding to be brought before the legal tribunals of the country; the petitioners cannot sufficiently express their abhorrence at the employment of infamous and abandoned wretches in the capacity of spies and informers, the hired agents of government, who, it appears, have been traversing the country, and, wherever distress and misery had engendered discontent and irritation, these inhuman wretches have, by the basest artifices and falsehoods, endeavoured to excite simple and deluded men into acts of outrage and treason, and in the instances where convictions have taken place, the petitioners feel convinced, from what has transpired, that the unhappy and deluded individuals were the victims of these abandoned agents; that, notwithstanding the solemnity with which the magnitude and atrocity of the treasons in Scotland were said-to exist, the petitioners can find no record of any conviction for the crimes alleged, although the most disgraceful tampering with a witness appears to have taken place in order to procure such conviction; that in the metropolis, after the greatest prejudice had been excited by ministers against an individual, and after vindictively persisting in putting him on his trial the third time, not content with the previous acquittal of two successive juries, during which trials attempts were made to deprive him of the only means of defence by which he could establish his innocence, ministers experienced equal disgrace and discomfiture; and the petitioners cannot refrain from expressing to the House their conviction that those prosecutions were net undertaken for the protection of religion, but for political objects, and that had the publications been in favour of ministers, or in ridicule of their opponents, they would not have excited the attention of the government, unless, as in other cases, to reward the authors; that, while these acts of severity and oppression have been pursued with unrelenting rigour, although the sufferings of the people have been unexampled, and the numbers of their petitions without precedent, their grievances have neither been redressed nor their complaints inquired into; and the petitioners believe that the groundless alarms excited by ministers were solely for the purpose of stifling complaints and protecting abuses; the petitioners have looked with anxiety to the recent proceedings of the House; the Commons House of parliament has been represented by the best authorities as the great inquest of the kingdom, to search into all the oppressions and injustices of the king's ministers; it is long since the petitioners have seen this important and necessary function exercised, but they entertained the most sanguine hopes that the House, after the unexampled difficulties and privations the people had endured, aggravated as they have been by the arbitrary and oppressive acts of the ministers, would at length have instituted the most serious and rigid inquiry into the multiplied oppressions and injustices of the king's ministers; the petitioners cannot conceal from the House that they look with no confidence to any' report that the committees of secrecy now sitting may make, the said committees appearing to be composed for the greater part of placemen, and those very ministers whose conduct is the subject of investigation; that a committee thus formed is at variance with every established principle of civil or criminal jurisprudence, and cannot satisfy the justice and expectation of the country; the petitioners therefore humbly pray the House to institute an immediate, impartial, and rigid inquiry into the conduct of ministers, under the late suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, and that the whole proceedings connected therewith may be referred to such committee as shall be composed of such members only of the House as hold neither places or pensions under the Crown; and they farther pray, that the House will not render the vaunted responsibility of ministers a mere name, by passing a bill of indemnity, and preclude those who have been the victims of oppression and persecution from the means of appeal to the laws of the country."

said, he wished to offer a few observations to the House with regard to the nature of the bill. The principle of it was exactly the same as that of the bill which he had brought in in 1815; and he hoped, for the sake of those unhappy children for whose protection it was intended, that he should succeed in his object. When he brought in a bill for regulating the labour of apprentices in cotton mills, in 1802, he told the House that he was an advocate of free labour. He was still an advocate of free labour, and he wished that that principle should not be infringed on. He could not think that little children, who had not a will of their own, could be called free labourers. They were either under the control of a master or a parent. He hoped the House would take these children under their protection. If ever there was a case which deserved the attention of every member of the House, the present was that case. He well knew that many factories were conducted in the most reputable manner; but, at the same time, he knew that there were other factories conducted very differently. There were many poor children in every part of the kingdom whom there was no way of protecting but by act of parliament. He hoped the same course which was adopted three years ago would be adopted now—that the second reading would be agreed to, and the clauses of the bill filled up in a committee; and plenty of time would be allowed for circulating the bill up and down the country. He pledged himself that no future proceeding should take place till after the holidays, and that therefore no person should be taken by surprise. In the bill brought in in 1815, the age at which children might be employed was fixed at ten. He now proposed the age of nine years, and that the powers of the act should terminate when the child reached the age of sixteen, and could be considered a free agent. He, therefore, now recommended that children employed in cotton factories, should, from nine to sixteen, be under the protection of parliament, and before nine that they should not be admitted; that they should be employed in working eleven hours, which, with l½ hours for meals, made in the whole 12-½ hours. It was his intention, if possible, to prevent the recurrence of such a misfortune as that which had lately taken place-he alluded to the fourteen poor children who were lately burnt in the night in a cotton factory. He knew that the iniquitous practice of working children at a time when their masters were in bed too often took place. He was ashamed to own that he had himself been concerned where that proceeding had been suffered; but he hoped the House would interfere, and prevent it for the future. It was his wish to have no night-work at all in the factories. The hon. baronet concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time.

did not rise to make a professed opposition to the motion of the hon. baronet, because he had stated that the bill might lie over, the blanks be filled up, and the whole country have proper notice of what was going forward. In one part of the bill he agreed with the hon, baronet, namely, in that part which limited the ages of the children employed in the manufactories. If there was any abuse with regard to the age, it certainly called for the attention of the House. There was one thing which ought to be observed: in former times a great part of the manufactories had been conducted upon streams of water, but lately the in- troduction of steam had removed many of them into remote parts of the country. But still a number were upon streams. The bill was calculated to give a great superiority and advantage to those factories that were carried on by steam. They could, in fact, do as they liked; they could work eleven or twelve, or whatever number of hours they chose. But it was not so with those upon streams. There were many of those that could not work except when the water suited them; and if they were limited to the hours prescribed by the bill, they would be rendered useless, which was a very strong fact for the consideration of the House. The real grounds of the bill, it should be observed, did not arise out of any of the proceedings of 1816, but, in a great measure, upon other evidence. But he would say, that whatever evidence was brought up in the pockets of certain individuals from the country, when that evidence fell upon the characters of people not present, it was hard that they could not be heard in their own defence. That method of taking evidence was a kind of underhand mode of proceeding. He by no means alluded to any part of the conduct of the hon. baronet; he was speaking of the impropriety of the production of that kind of evidence. It was such evidence as he was not at all partial to. He should not oppose the bill in its present stage, as the hon, baronet had professed his intention of giving ample time for consideration.

commented on the proceedings which had been resorted to in order to get signatures to the petition which had lately been presented by the hon. baronet from the persons employed in the cotton factories. He entered into some of the particulars of the evidence taken by the committee, which went to prove, that persons were employed at an earlier age, and for longer hours, in weaving, than in the cotton factories. On what principle could they interfere with free labour in cotton factories, and not at the same time regulate the age at which children could be employed in weaving, and the number of hours which they should work? To prove the unhealthy nature of the employment in cotton factories, the matron of the fever ward of the Manchester infirmary had been examined, who stated, that the number of persons employed in such factories, brought to the fever ward, was disproportionately great. He was convinced, at the time this evidence was delivered, that the statement was incorrect. In order to obtain correct information on the subject, he had had reference to the books of the infirmary, and he found that the whole number of persons, at a certain period, was 180, and that of this number only 19 were from the cotton factories. In July, 1817, the whole number of persons in the Manchester infirmary, amounted to 370; of that number, 55 only were from the cotton factories. Now, the number of persons in Manchester, engaged in the cotton factories, amounted to 24,000, while the population was between ninety and a hundred thousand. There was, therefore, the most complete evidence of the superior health of the persons engaged in the cotton factories, to that of the other inhabitants. He referred to a report from the poorhouse of Preston from 1815 to 1816, to show how little burdensome this class of manufacturers in general was to the country. The whole number of persons in the workhouse exceeded 600; and of these, there was not one person who had ever been employed in any cotton factory. With respect to the factory with which he was concerned, they had a sick fund of their own; but when the working people saw disease and misery around them, they, of their own accord, and without the least excitement from others, contributed 24l. from their sick fund to the Manchester infirmary, and 24l. to a fund for the poor of that town. With respect to the healthiness of the employment, he would state the opinions of two medical gentlemen in Manchester, of the first eminence, Dr. Home and Dr. Henry. The hon, gentleman then read a letter from Dr. Henry. In that letter Dr. Henry stated, that if any disease was proportionally more frequent than any other in cotton factories, it was pulmonary consumption; persons between the ages of 15 and 45, employed in such factories, were more subject to consumption than persons in many other employments; but, on the other hand, he would decidedly say, that chronic rheumatism, a most severe disease, was very frequent there, and which often disqualified, for a great length of time, persons afflicted with it from labour, was much less common among persons engaged in cotton factories, than among dyers, bleachers, and weavers. Dr. Henry thought, however, that the temperature of some of the rooms was higher than was consistent with health; but if the temperature could be reduced to 65 or 60, there was no reason why a well-regulated factory should not be as healthy as an ordinary apartment. Dr. Home had told him (Mr. Philips), that he had not the slightest doubt of the superior health of the persons engaged in cotton factories, compared with persons in other manufactories. If they regulated labour in cotton factories, did they think that other manufacturers would be quiet? In well-conducted factories few or no children were taken under nine—an employer would not wish to have them at an earlier age. He wished gentlemen to pause before they interfered with such an important manufacture. They ought to know, that the yarn spun in this country was much more than sufficient for our domestic use. On this subject there was the greatest jealousy abroad; and there had also been an application last session for a duty on the exportation of cotton yarn. On the continent the hours of working were fully as long as in this country, and unlimited. The language of the continental manufacturers was, "if your legislature only limit the hours of labour, or lay a duty on the exportation of yarn, that is all we ask. If your legislature would limit your hours, while ours are left unlimited, and impose an export duty on yarn, a greater effect would be produced by these measures in our favour, than by all the measures which our own governments could take." The hon. baronet was less acquainted now with Lancashire than he had once been. He did not know, perhaps, the difficulty there was in employing free labourers, from the facility with which they could combine. What would be the consequence of aft attempt to regulate labour? Would it not be to spread Luddism through the whole country? There was much more danger from this spirit in good than in bad times. He did not object to the limitation of the age at which children could be employed; but in consequence of the improvements in machinery, persons of more advanced age were required than formerly. Night-work could not he carried on to advantage. It might have been advantageous when the manufacture was confined to few hands; but since the general diffusion of the manufacture, the profits were too small to admit of the expense of night-work. For these reasons, he felt it his duty to oppose the second reading of the bill.

said, that he was a member of the committee appointed to inquire into this subject in the year 1816, and he thought that the legislature ought not to interfere without the most serious deliberation. He did not wish to give any opinion on the question in its present state; but he trusted that the House would not proceed with any indiscreet haste. If the bill was founded on the report of the committee, it might be desirable to hear the opinions of the different members who had attended most closely to the investigation of this matter; if it was founded oft the petition which had been recently presented, it might be proper to inquire into the truth of its allegations, with a view to ascertain whether the petitioners might not have asked for the adoption of a measure which would be more injurious than beneficial to their interests.

said, that the wish of the author of the bill was, to avoid for the present, the discussion Of it; and to postpone the consideration till it had been committed, and the blanks filled up. Until that period arrived, it was difficult to judge of its nature or effects. Besides those who approved of the whole of the bill, some agreed to that part which fixed the mini-mum of age, and some to the prohibition of night work; from those he hoped in the present stage it would meet With no opposition. When it had been committed and the blanks had been filled up, it was proposed to print it, and circulate it, to collect the sense of the manufactures on the subject. He knew there were also some who opposed any regulation oft the subject, as a matter unfit for legislation. But if it was unfit for legislation, it could hardly be said to be unfit to be entertained. It was objected with a show of plausibility, that it was improper to interfere with free labour; but from the age of the children, and from the situation of the factories, their labour could hardly be said to be free. The masters of the c6t-ton mills fixed the same hours of labour for all the persons employed, and a child could not say, that he would not work nine hours; he must work the ordinary number of hours, or not at all. He was satisfied that a number of mills were well managed, but he repeated, that it was for those which were improperly managed, that legislation was meant. The noble lord had said, that the bill was founded not on the evidence before the committee, but on evidence of a private nature, which was kept in the pocket of the mover of the bill, and which reflected on individuals. He was induced to state what this infor- 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 in-durance; 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 inspected 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 management of these factories.

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

§

advocate for employing children of a very young age; but it had been his misfortune (for so he must consider it), to be a member of a committee who were appointed to visit the gaols of this city, and he saw in them, children often 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 hoursof employment were generally longer 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.

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.

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. He should certainly support the bill. The bill was read a second time, and committed, the report received, and ordered to be taken into consideration on the 6th of April.

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 Chats-worth, 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 to study the interests of the people, its constituents."

also presented a Petition from RichardLee, of Holmeforth; setting forth, "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; add 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 three-shilling 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 avowed 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 be 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 the at 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."