HC Deb 15 February 1819 vol 39 c436

On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,

Mr. Ommaney

made two objections to it. The first was that the laws as they stood at present gave the climbing boys sufficient protection; and the second, that the machinery which was proposed to be substituted for them was not found to succeed.

Mr. Bennet

said, that if the hon. member had devoted an hour of his time to reading the reports of the committees which had investigated the matter, be would have found a complete and satisfactory answer to his objections. The answer to the first might be found in the evidence of the masters themselves, who had all admitted that the laws were not sufficient for the protection of the children. His answer to the second objection would be, that that could not be called a failure in the machinery which succeeded in 990 cases out of 1000.

The bill was then read a second time.