stated, that when the Bill went into a committee, he should move that its provisions be extended to houses of correction and penitentiary houses.

adverted to the necessity which existed for providing proper clergymen for penitentiary houses and houses of correction. In those places spiritual assistance was needed as much as in the county goal he, therefore, suggested the propriety of withdrawing the present Bill, for the purpose of introducing another, the provisions of which would embrace prisons of the description he had just alluded to.

said, he was not aware of the extent of duties which devolved upon clergymen attending houses of correction, and therefore the Bill he had introduced did not go to enact any thing with reference to them. As he was perfectly aware of the fatigue and labour which attended the situation of chaplain to a county goal, he had drawn up the present Bill, with a view only to that class of persons. He could not, therefore, consent to withdraw his Bill; but, in the committee, he would cheerfully agree to an extension of its provisions, as far as the necessity of the case demanded.

The Bill was then read a second time.

said, he had been requested to present two petitions to the House, the one from a person now imprisoned in Gloucester goal, the other from a man who had lately been confined there. As the Petition of John Paring, the first-mentioned person, imputed some improper conduct to a magistrate of the county of Gloucester, he thought it right that the House should be acquainted with its con- tents. The petitioner stated, that he was confined in Newgate, Gloucester, as a debtor of his Majesty; that he had become bail for a man of the name of Grey (who had assaulted Mr. Cunningham, the gaoler), who, having absconded, he became accountable for the sum mentioned in the bail-bond; the galore had taken a great dislike to him, in consequence of his having become bail for this man, and treated him with great severity that he was not confined in the same place with the debtors, but for 17 days had been placed in solitary confinement; that no person, not even the members of his family, were permitted to see him, except in the presence of one of the turnkeys; that his letters were intercepted and opened; that, being in great distress and misery, he endeavoured to apply, by letter, to a friend for the loan of 5s.; that this letter was stopped, and prevented from reaching the person to whom it was directed; that, in the last session of parliament, a petition on this subject was presented to the House of Lords; in consequence of which some inquiry was made into the facts of the case by a magistrate for the county of Gloucester; that this inquiry did not procure any relief for the petitioner, who was, on the contrary, treated with more severity than before; that his having published, in the Gloucester Newspaper, an advertisement, thanking earl Stanhope, in the name of the persons imprisoned in Gloucester gaol for his interference in their behalf in the House of Lords, which advertisement concluded with a compliment to viscount Sidmouth, was the cause of his having experienced additional severity in his confinement. Having thus stated the principal contents of the Petition, he moved, That it be now read."

observed, that several of the complaints which had been made by the petitioner were found to be, on examination, futile and ridiculous. The regulations of the gaol in question had met with the approbation of several of the justices of assize, as well as of the magistrates of the county. To give the House an opportunity of informing themselves fully on the question, he should move for the Report made to the Secretary of State for the Home department, on the subject of the Gloucester gaol.

informed the hon. baronet, that the question immediately before the House must be first disposed of.

said, he understood that Mr. Perring was detained for the amount of the prison fees, which were 1l. 12s. and wished to know why some satisfactory inquiry had not been made into the subject.

said, if he had known that his learned friend intended to present this Petition, he would have prepared himself, in order to lay before the House all the information in his power. The fact was, that, in the office to which he belonged, the business was divided between the two under secretaries of state. His colleague conducted the civil, and he attended to the military department. The House would not, therefore, be surprised, that he should be unprepared to answer immediately, since he had not received any previous notice on the subject.

did not think it was necessary to have given the right hon. gentleman any notice of his intention to present this Petition, since it merely complained of misconduct on the part of the galore, and that no relief was granted, by one of the magistrates of the county, to the person who stated that he was aggrieved.

The Petition was read, and ordered to lie on the table. Sir S. Romilly next presented the Petition from William Hudson, after which it was ordered, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, a copy of the Report made by the reverend Robert Halifax, one of the visiting magistrates of the goal of Gloucester to lord viscount Sid mouth, one of his Majesty's principal secretaries of state, on the subject of alleged abuses in the said goal, with a copy of the letter of lord viscount Sidmouth to the galore of the said goal, in consequence of such report.

presented a Petition from the lord mayor, aldermen, and livery of London, in Common-hall assembled, praying that the House would reject any measure which tended to lay a duty on the importation of corn. In laying this Petition before the House, the hon. baronet said, it appeared to him, that the effect of the vote of the preceding evening would be, to raise the price of bread beyond what it averaged during the last ten years of war. He would ask the House seriously, whether they were prepared to go to this length? He held in his hand an account, taken from the regular office, of the average price of the quartern loaf, in London, from the year 1804 to the year 1814. The average price was 14d. and a fraction. Now, assuming the average of the quarter of wheat, in England, to be 80s. the description of wheat of a quality proper to be manufactured into flour, for the consumption of London, would at least be 95s. per quarter. Indeed, from the best information he could obtain, it appeared probable that it would exceed that sum, and rise as high as 100s. But, taking it at the former sum, it would bring the price of the quarter loaf to 16d. He wished gentlemen to consider this a fair, plain statement of facts, about which there could be no controversy, since the thing was capable of perfect demonstration. By the returns of the Cocker-office for the last ten years, it appeared, that the average price of corn was 88s. 5d., of flour 91s. 5¾d. and of the quarter loaf, 14d. If the protecting price were raised to 80s., it was clear that fine grain would fetch at least 95s., and thus the price of bread would be higher than it was in the ten last years of war.

said, that 80s. being the maximum, the moment corn arrived at that price, importation would be permitted.

observed, that if the statement of the noble lord were correct, then the limitation was entirely useless.

said, that if the protecting price were fixed at an average of 80s. it was by no means improbable that fine flour would be 105s. He then proceeded to object to the present mode of striking the average. London, he conceived, to which corn was sent from all parts of the kingdom, ought to be allowed to fix its own average, and the quality, as well as the price of the grain, ought to be considered in striking that average. In the proper stage of the business, he would take the sense of the House on the mode in which the average ought to be struck, and also on the propriety of permitting London to enjoy the advantage he had already spoken of. He trusted, that some hon. member, of more weight than himself, would move for a call of the House, before this important question was finally decided.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

moved for "a return of the average prices of wheat, flour, and the quarter loaf, within the bills of mor- tality, from the year 1804 to the year 1813, both inclusive."

begged the hon. baronet to extend his motion to a period previous to that to which it was now confined; and it would also, he thought, be desirable, that the account should come down to the latest possible moment. That the House might judge what was the effect of the Act of 1804, the return ought, he conceived, to go back to the year 1791.

said, the chief object of his motion was to show, that by the measure which they adopted last night, bread would be raised to a dearer rate than the citizens of London had been accustomed to pay for it during 10 years of war. Now when they were entering on a period of peace, and when, he humbly thought, the citizens of London had a right to expect to eat their bread cheaper than in a time of warfare, that House were about to raise the price. Neither should it be forgotten, that at the present moment, many of the burdens which affected the agricultural interest were removed. The property tax, which pressed so heavily on them, was abolished; the price of labour, the price of timber, the price of iron, in short, the price of almost every thing necessary for agriculture, was reduced; and yet, at this moment, they were about to sanction a measure that would raise the price of bread in the city of London, which contained one-tenth of the population of the kingdom, to a height that it had not reached during 10 years of warfare. [Hear, hear!] If the right hon. gentleman pleased to move for other returns to support his view of the question, he was at liberty to do so; but those which he now called for, were sufficient for his purpose.—The motion was agreed to.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved, "That the House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House to consider further of the State of the Corn Laws." On the motion that the Speaker leave the chair,

said, that as the subject had been discussed at length during the preceding night, he should not at present trouble the committee; but on Tuesday next, or whatever day the report should be received, he should think it his duty, notwithstanding the decision of last night, to take the sense of the House again on the amount of the protecting price.

wished the agriculture to be protected, but not beyond the necessity of the case. He should be ready to support any proposition for a protecting price under 80s.

The House then went into the committee. On the fifth Resolution being read,

said, he believed this was the proper period for explaining his view of the manner in which the average ought to be taken. He recommended that it should be struck on wheat alone, and not on meal and flour, as well on the weight as the price; and that no wheat should be introduced into the average that was not fit to make flour.

observed, that the present was not the it proper time to offer the amendment since the committee had already agreed to a resolution, which stated, that the average should be struck, in the manner at present established by law. If, therefore, they were now to come to a resolution to alter that system, they would be contradicting the opinion already expressed. The hon. member had better; therefore, defer his amendment, until the report was brought up. The effect of his proposition, however, would evidently be, rather to keep up than to lower the average. If he only took his average from that wheat which was suitable for the manufacture of the best flour, it would be the means of always keeping the average price very high; and the interest of neither of the parties would be promoted by this alteration.

said, he would reserve his observations for another stage of the business.

The Resolutions were then agreed to, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday.