expressed his surprise and regret to hear of the observations which he understood an hon. gentleman had thought proper to make yesterday with respect to the King's-bench prison, and upon which he felt it due to justice to put to that gentleman some questions, especially as he was assured that the hon. gentleman's observations were unfounded. Before that hon. gentleman undertook to assert, that no improvement had taken place in the conduct of the King's-bench prison, and that no proceeding had been taken in con- sequence of the report of the committee of that House upon the subject, he apprehended that it was the duty of the hon. gentleman to have correctly informed himself respecting the fact, as indeed it was the duty of every man to collect accurate information before he ventured to accuse another. If the hon. gentleman had inquired, he would have found, that the report alluded to was under the consideration of the judges of the court of King's-bench, and that since the report was made, many important improvements had taken place in the management of the prison. For instance, the principal ground of complaint in the report referred to what were called indulgencies, namely, the permission of prisoners wives and children to sleep in the prison. This had been removed, by which no less than 280 persons were excluded. None were now allowed to remain in the prison, as he was assured, one woman only excepted, who was the attendant of a sick prisoner. As to the means of accommodation which the prison afforded, it contained 192 rooms, and the number of prisoners at present was about 500. Then, with regard to drainage, to which the report of the committee objected, measures had been taken to obviate that objection; the surveyor of the board of works having been to examine how the evil was to be remedied, and that remedy would be applied with all practicable expedition. Another complaint of the committee was, that the marshal of the King's-bench held three offices, while the care of the prison alone was sufficient to occupy his attention, and therefore two of those offices had been since given to other persons. The objection also of the committee as to the difficulty of some prisoners in finding accommodation immediately upon their committal, the marshal was taking measures to guard against in future. The marshal could not, it was obvious, enlarge the apartments of the prison, but the measures he was adopting promised to avert the recurrence of any inconvenience in future, as to the accommodation of prisoners upon their committal; but the difficulty of making such provision, the House would feel, when informed that no less than 307 prisoners had been committed to the King's-bench within the last term, 63 of whom were committed in one day. With respect to the complaint of the committee as to the prevalence of drunkenness, he understood that such an offence was punishable by the rules of the prison, and that it very rarely occurred, particularly of late. Then as to the want of medical attendance, to which the committee had referred, he had the satisfaction to state, that medical aid was gratuitously supplied by the marshal to all prisoners who could not afford to provide it for themselves, and that so far from any peculiar mortality prevailing in the prison, the average of deaths within the walls of the King's-bench had been for years considerably less than that usually found among the same number of persons out of prison. Under these circumstances, of the accuracy of which he was assured by Mr. Slatington, who was one of the members of the committee, he felt himself warranted in stating, that the assertion of the hon. gentleman was unfounded, namely, that no improvement had taken place in the King's-bench prison since the report of the committee. He had farther to state, that when Mr. Slatington last visited the King's-bench prison, and had all the rooms thrown open to him, to ask every prisoner whether he had any cause of complaint, he was uniformly answered in the negative. After this, he appealed to the House whether the hon. gentleman's animadversions upon the conduct of that prison were justifiable, and he would ask the hon. gentleman upon what information he thought proper to ground such animadversions? Reverting to the report of the committee, he felt he had shown that the principal grounds of complaint in that report were already remedied by the act of the marshal himself, and whatever grievance remained would, he was satisfied, be completely done away by the judges of the King's-bench, who had the report under their consideration.

said, that he did not make the observations alluded to by the hon. gentleman without due inquiry. What he stated was that no great substantial improvement had taken place in the King's-bench prison since the report of the crinite of which he had the honour to be a member, and that statement he now repeated. Ilea did not say, that no improvement whatever had been made in the conduct of the prison, but the great objection which the committee felt and expressed, related to the manner in which the marshal was remunerated, namely, by extracting hundreds a-year from the poor prisoners through tickets for rooms &c. and that objection still remained. In this respect no alteration whatever was made. With respect to the disposition of the judges to attend to the report of a committee of that House, that might be judged of from this fact,—that although the report of the committee of 1792 respecting the abuses of the prison under consideration was laid before the judges of the King's-bench, the succession of judges since that day had so scandalously neglected their duty, that that report was never acted upon—that no proceeding whatever was taken in consequence of its suggestions. As to the state of the King's-bench prison, he could assert from personal observation, that he never examined any part of that prison without witnessing scenes shocking to humanity—that its general condition was quite unique—that, in fact, nothing like its abuses was to be found in any prison in modern Europe. It did not therefore become the hon. gentleman, for various reasons, to come forward and make any attack upon those gentlemen who undertook the performance of a public duty merely from a regard to humanity.

replied, that he had made the observations which had just fallen from him, in consequence of the hon. gentleman's having used the expression that no improvement had been made in the state of the prison, knowing, as he did that very great improvements had taken place, he could not but believe that the hon. gentleman had not made the inquiry he ought to have done. As to the marshal's salary, the judges had no control in the appointment of it; and of the three offices held by him, two had been given to other persons.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill "to regulate the Sale of Farming Stock and Crops taken in execution." He said that by the common law, the sheriff; under a writ of execution, did not merely take the corn thrashed out, but he also was empowered to take corn in the sheaf, hay, and straw. Now, this was directly contrary to the provision so generally inserted in leases, that the hay and straw derived from the farm should be spent on it; besides which, the lesson's right under this provision attached on the property long before the creditor could have any claim against it. It was true that the landlord might perhaps gain some redress in equity by filing a bill for an injunction; but besides that this was neither pleasant nor economical, it was a remedy that generally came too late. He therefore proposed to prevent the sheriff selling hay and straw under the writ of execution, where a provision was contained in the lease that such articles should be consumed on the premises, by introducing a bill to regulate the sale of farming-stock in executions.—Leave was given to bring in the bill.

asked, whether it was the intention of ministers to act upon the resolution of the House of Commons, on the 31st of May, 1810, with respect to the place held by the late earl of Buckinghamshire, in which place that resolution recommended a new regulation upon the expiration of the vested interest?

said, that he was not prepared to answer the hon. member's question, but that he would inform himself upon the subject.

stated, that if it was the intention of ministers to discard the recorded resolution of the House, he would take the earliest opportunity of submitting a motion upon the subject.

expressed a hope, that ministers would not, in defiance of a resolution of the House, attempt to make any new grant of an office, the profits of which were so large, while the duties were insignificant.

observed, that according to the third report of the finance committee, it appeared that the office alluded to was vested in lord Buckinghamshire, with reversion to the two sons of the earl of Hardwick.

stated, that the two sons of the earl of Hardwick to whom the report alluded, were now no more, and therefore, he concluded, that the place under consideration was quite vacant.

The 10th resolution of the 31st of May 1810, was then read, viz. "resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that the office of clerk of the Crown and prothonotary of the court of King's-bench in Ireland, the office of clerk of the common pleas in the court of Exchequer in Ireland, and prothonotary of the common pleas in Ireland, should after the expiration of the interests now vested in possession or reversion in the same, be regulated; and that the emoluments of the same, beyond the amount of such salary as may be provided for such offices respectively, be applied to the discharge of the salaries of the judges or other officers in the establishment of such courts respectively; and the surplus, if any, be carried to the consolidated fund of Ireland." On the proposition of Mr. Banks, the 11th resolution was also read, via, resolved, "that it is the opinion of this committee, that a bill or bills be brought in, to carry into effect such of the said resolutions as may require to be provided for by parliament."

asked, whether, if there was not any existing or vested interest in the place under consideration, it was the intention of ministers to make any new grant of that place?

said, that he was at present unable to give the hon. gentleman any answer, but that he would inquire.

observed, that from the Report of the finance committee of 1808, there was a vested interest in the place alluded to only on the part of lord Buckinghamshire and the two sons of lord Hardwick. Now if any new grant of the place had been made, it must have taken place either between the years 1808 and 1810 or since that period in defiance of the resolution of that House.

said, he was certain that no grant of this place had been made since 1812, nor he believed since 1810.

asked the right hon. gentleman, whether, if all vested interest in the place were expired, it was his intention to bring forward a bill in conformity with the resolution of the House?

replied, that he had formed no intention on the subject, as he was not indeed aware of the death of the Earl of Buckinghamshire until he had that night entered the House.