The Sun.
London, England, 1831-02-11 00:00:00

WILTS COUNTY GAOL.

Mr. HUNT, in pursuance of notice, rose to move for
a copy of the regulations of the County Gaol of Wilt-
shire, at Fisherton, in order to ascertain whether it was
the rule as well as the practice, for persons charged with
crimes to see their attorneys only in the presence of the
gaoler or turnkey ; and farther, to ascertain whether it
was a fact that a certain confession, drawn by a prisoner
of the name of Lush, sentenced to death, had or had not
been placed in the hands of the gaoler? The Hon. Mem-
ber referred to what had been said upon this subject on
Mond ,y night, and to the doubts that had been thrown
upon his statement by the Under-Secretary for the Home
Department, as well as by the Attorney-General. Ile
was prepared to prove the truth of all he had asserted,
and with this purpose he moved for these documents,
which he believed Government would not resist, in order
that, if such an objectionable practice existed, it might be
instantly remedied. If the paper were refused, he would
procure affidavits from every attorney in Salisbury to
establish, that they were not allowed to receive instruc-
tions from prisoners for their defence, without the pre-
sence of the gaoler or turnkey. While addressing the
House, he might advert to a sort of indirect charge of
spurious humanity made against himself; be certainly
could not charge the House generally with any such sen-
sitiveness, whether real or spurious, and day after day the
Members listened to the most affecting complaints in pe-
titions of the distresses and sufferings of the people, with-
out the slightest indication of condolence or sympathy.
Perhaps this want of feeling might, in part, arise from
the innumerable representations of this kind made to it of
late, and the callousness of its feelings could not be more
clearly indicated than by the laugh with which it met
the statement of the Hon. Member for Middlesex—that
he was so hoarse and in so much pain that he was not
able to address the House. He wished that the people of
England should know with what coldness and indiffe-
rence their representations of distress were received. He
concluded by moving for the papers he required.
Mr. WARBURTON attributed the apparent inattention
of the house to petitions to the vast mass of business of the
kind brought before it, which rendered it impossible for
every Member to deliver his sentiments on presenting a
petition. He recommended that, as in the Congress of the

United States, a Committee should he appointed to classiiy
petitions, so that as each class was brought forward, the
Members interested in them should address the House.
Mr. G. LAMB thought that a brief statement of facts
would show the Hon. Member (Mt. Hunt) that the papers
he wished 'for were unnecessary. In consequence of a pe-
tition on the subject, which the Hon. Gentleman bad pre-
sented at the Home Office, inquiries had beer► set on foot,
and he (Mr. G. Lamb) had received from Lord Radnor—
a Magistrate not deficient, as would be allowed on all
hands, either in humanity or in love of justice--a letter
upon the subject, and transmitted (as we understood the
Hon. Member to say) a copy of the regulations of the
county gaol at Fisherton. Hence, it appeared, that
there was a rule that no written communication should
be made by prisoners unless they were first seen by the
gaoler; and confessions were not excvted, lest they
should be made the cover for communications of a
different kind. It was quite true that a turnkey was
present when Lush saw his attorney, Mr. Seymour,
and that the paper given to the latter, which had been
previously drawn up by a fellow-prisoner, was carried by
the turnkey to the gaoler, who having cast his eyes over it
returned it by the turnkey in a few minutes. Of this docu-
ment no use had been made upon the trials, as he (Mr.
Lamb) learnt from a letter "he had received from the
Learned Gentleman who had conducted them. It was
quite true that, in the county gaol of Wiltshire, the prac-
tice did prevail of allowing prisoners to communicate with
their legal advisers only in the presence of third persons;
but he (Mr. Lamb) admitted at once that it was wrong,
and that it ought to be remedied. In other well-regulated
gaols—at Lincoln, for instance—it was provided that pri-
soners should see their attorneys without the interposition
of third persons; and he was well pleased that it should go
forth to the country that persons confined on criminal
charges, in any part of the kingdom, had a right to con-
sult with their legal advisers alone.
Mr. NORTH called upon all the lawyers in the House to
censure the practice of requiring turnkeys or gaolers to be
present during the communication of prisoners with their
attorneys.
Mr. TWISS believed that at Fisherton gaol the mal-
practice had arisen from a misconstruction of the rule laid
down by the visiting Magistrate.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL concurred that it was
a great abuse ; and hoped that hereafter it would net exist
in the county gaol of Wilts, or any other.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said, that in the great metro-
politan prisons it did not prevail. He had visited all the
prisons of the country, and could say that in many the re-
gulation prevailed, that prisoners should not see their at-
torneys without the presence of the gaoler or his deputy.
Sir T. BARING denied that it applied to the gaol of
which be was a visiting Magistrate.
Mr. Alderman WOOD added, that he could name a
considerable number of prisons in which the regulation
existed.

Sir C. WETHERELL doubted whether the Hon. Al-
derman was correct, notwithstanding he was one qui
mores hominum multorum vidit et urbes. At all events,
it was quite clear that the practice was against right and
justice.

- Lord NUGENT said, that such was not the case in the
gaol, with the regulations of which he was acquainted.
Mr. W. WHITMORE thought that any confidential
and professional communications between an attorney and
his client, a prisoner, ought not to be subject to inspec-
tion by a gaoler.
Mr. G. LAMB concurred readily in this proposition :
oral and written communications between a prisoner and
his legal adviser ought to be free from all inspection by
third persons.

Mr: DICKENSON observed that no such rule pre-
vailed in Somersetshire.

Mr. HUNT rose to reply. It had been said that the
Noble Lord was a visiting Magistrate of the gaol in ques-
tion ; but that proved nothing with respect to his know-
ledge of the gaol, for nobody knew less of gaols than did
visiting Magistrates. He was perfectly satisfied that Lord
Radnor would be the last man in the country to sanction
any improper practices, were he once made aware of their
existence. By the Bill which was introduced by the
Right Hon. Baronet, the then Secretary for the Home
Department, no regulation could become the law of gaols
unless it received the sanction and was signed by the going
Judge of Assize, having been previously agreed to at a full
bench of Magistrates. That law was agreed to by the
Legislature at the time he (Mr. H.) was locked up in pri-
son, and was one which certainly would be likely to pre-
vent nmany abuses that had previously existed. The Hon.
Member for Somerset was one of the visiting Magistrates
of the gaol where he was confined ; but was it therefore
to be inferred that that Hon. Gentleman was aware of all
the oppressions there practised upon him, or of any of
the sufferings of the other prisoners? It was a matter
of notoriety in all country gaols, that the moment the
visiting Magistrate rode into the town the whole prison be-
came the scene of general bustle and activity—what with
covering up this and hiding that, changing one thing and
removing another, the prison would in te❑ minutes put
on an appearance as totally different from its general
aspect, as any two things could possibly be.—(A laugh,
and cries of " Hear, heir.") No ; the fact was, that no
visiting Magistrate bad the means of making himself ac-
quainted with the real state of the prison from any obser-
vations of his own. In his own case, he was deprived of
the advice of his professional adviser ; at least he was re-
fused admission ; his family were kept from him ; the me-
dical man who had been in the habit of attending him was
refused access, for the purpose of performing on his eye.
The Bill, however, of the Right Hon. Baronet, had this
beneficial effect—that without great omission and neglect,
injury could not be done to prisoners. With respect to
the matter now under consideration, he had to state further,
that the paper in question had been in the hands of the
gaoler for three days. That fact, he trusted, would afford
the visiting Magistrates a lesson, and he hoped that they
would profit by it. Of many of those topics he was en-
abled to speak with something of authority ; for he had
himself been confined, and knew the doings of prisons by
experience. However, as the purpose for which he brought
forward his motion was in a great measure answered, be
should not then, from any feeling of vanity, press the
matter further.

Mr. G. LAMB explained. He did not say that Lord
Radnor was one of the visiting Magistrates ; he merely
said, that the matter had been referred to him, and that
he undertook to investigate it.
Mr. BENETT also explained, and the motion was then
withdrawn.