[Footnote 1: History and Proceedings of the House of Commons, Lond. 1742, Vol. VI. p. 308.]
A few years after, his feelings of humanity were powerfully touched on finding a gentleman, whom he went to visit in the Fleet prison, loaded with irons, and otherwise cruelly used.[1] Shocked by the scenes he witnessed, he determined to expose such injustice; and, if possible, to prevent such abuse of power. With this view, he brought forward a motion in the House of Commons, "that an inquiry should be instituted into the state of the gaols in the metropolis." This met with such attention, that in February, 1728, the House of Commons assigned the subject to a Committee, of which he was chosen Chairman.[2] The investigation led to the discovery of many corrupt practices, and much oppressive treatment of the prisoners; and was followed by the enactment of measures for the correction of such shameful mismanagement and inhuman neglect in some cases, and for the prevention of severity of infliction in others.[3]
[Footnote 1: Sir William Rich, Baronet.]
[Footnote 2: Appendix IV.]
[Footnote 3: Appendix V.]
A writer, whose opinion was founded on the best means of knowledge, has declared that "the effects of this interposition have been felt ever since by the unhappy prisoners."[1]
[Footnote 1: Gentleman's Magazine for 1785, page 572.]
Oglethorpe thus became the precursor of HOWARD, the philanthropist, in the cause of humanity, as it regards the amelioration of prison discipline in general, especially the rigors of close confinement for debt or petty offences, and that among felons and convicts. The impression then made on his mind and heart, led him, afterwards, to other and more extensive and efficacious measures for the relief of poor debtors from the extortions and oppressions to which they were subjected by gaolers, and from the humiliation and distress in which they were often involved without any fault of their own, or by some conduct which deserved pity rather than punishment.
At the opening of the session of Parliament on the 12th of January, 1731, the King's speech was the subject of debate in the House of Commons. A motion was made for an address of thanks, in which they should declare their entire approbation of his Majesty's conduct, express their confidence in the wisdom of his counsels, and announce their readiness to grant the necessary supplies. There were some who opposed the motion. They did not argue against a general vote of thanks, but intimated the impropriety, and, indeed, ill tendency of expressions which implied an unquestioning approbation of the measures of the ministry. In referring to this, Smollet[1] says, "Mr. Oglethorpe, a gentleman of unblemished character, brave, generous, and humane, affirmed that many other things related more immediately to the honor and interest of the nation, than did the guarantee of the Pragmatic sanction. He said that he wished to have heard that the new works at Dunkirk had been entirely razed and destroyed; that the nation had received full and complete satisfaction for the depradation committed by the natives of Spain; that more care was taken in the disciplining of the militia, on whose valor the nation must chiefly depend in case of an invasion; and that some regard had been shown to the oppressed Protestants in Germany. He expressed his satisfaction, however, to find that the English were not so closely united to France as formerly, for he had generally observed that when two dogs were in a leash together, the stronger generally ran away with the weaker; and this, he feared, had been the case between France and Great Britain."
[Footnote 1: History of England, Book II. chap. iv. Section xxx.]