Huggins' reply to this was diabolically insolent. "For Answer thereto, My Lords, the Deputy Warden saith, That scarcely a Prisoner hath died on the Masters-Side, that was not largely indebted to him; and therefore, possibly, he might have used endeavours to get what part of the Money was due to him, as he could fairly from the Deceased's Relations." But the Cup of his iniquities was rapidly filling. He made one Thomas Bambridge "_A Newgate Sollicitor, and a Person of abandon'd Credit_" (as the petition in the case of Mr. Mackphreadris describes him) his deputy warden, and then, things came to a climax. As we have seen, Parliament took cognizance of the scandal, and issued a Commission to inquire into the matter, and their first sitting was on Feb. 25, 1729. Their report was presented to Parliament on March 20th of the same year--so that no time was lost in looking into the evils complained of. It recites that Huggins by a gift of £5,000 to Lord Clarendon "did by his interest, obtain a grant of the said office (_i.e._, _Warden of the Fleet_) for his own and his son's life. "That it appeared to the Committee, That in the Year 1725, one Mr. Arne, an Upholder, was carried into a Stable, which stood where the strong room on the Master's side now is, and was there confined (being a place of cold restraint) till he died, and that he was in good state of health before he was confined to that room." Huggins growing old, sold his interest in the Wardenship of the Fleet, and his Son's reversion therein, to Bambridge and Cuthbert, for the sum he had originally given for the place; and then Bambridge, being his own master, went somewhat ahead, and the Committee found that he connived at escapes, sent his prisoners to Spunging-houses, or private prisons, not so long ago done away with, where they were well, or badly treated, according to the money at their disposal. And we read of one shocking case, which can best be given in the very words of the Report. "That these houses were further used by the said Bambridge, as a terror for extorting money from the prisoners, who, on security given, have the liberty of the rules; of which Mr. Robert Castell was an unhappy instance, a man born to a competent estate, but being unfortunately plunged into debt, was thrown into prison: he was first sent (according to custom) to Corbett's,[111] from whence he, by presents to Bambridge, redeemed himself, and, giving security obtained the liberty of the rules; notwithstanding which he had frequently presents, as they are called, exacted from him by Bambridge, and was menaced, on refusal, to be sent back to Corbett's again.