Star.
London, England, 1814-07-28 00:00:00

SURREY.

In the immediate Vicinity of Virginla Water and liViodaut
• Great Park.
To be DISPOSED OF BY PRIVATE CONTRACT, der 4
Term of Years. by Mr. ROBINS,
AN ELEGANT READY . FURNISHED
RESIDENCE, dr'ig'itfully si stated in th centred a
Farm of about Two iinildred and Fifty Acres..a excellent repair;
consisting of ten principal lle.l•chitubere auJ i)res ing Roane;
Library, Drawing-room, B eal!ast Parlaur, and ta. big-room. et
good dimensions; Servants' Apartments, and su cal I. avian:ord
and detached Offices; excellent Kitchen 1/4;arilsn, Orchard, and
Pleasure Uroimils. With this eligible Re.idence muy b. nad a
small quantity of Land adjoining; or, if rem. r • , a Farm of
about Our Hundred Acres of Arabic and At. a. •w Lauds is
eery high cultiva lot., with about W or do Acres of rim&
Oroand; and the tiijeenlent of various Miamians well utocked
wilt Game and rt.l. Ponds. I here are en .netre aul oeau.i.
ful View. of the surrounding Country, and • • W ate
runs throws!' tile E....te; s coats Wlth'• b.e. Md. Of 14 al%
sia from Vt'in.l.or, tut of London.
A smck of aac, le. t (.14 Wines ovybr tak.2 tair valusti.u.
T. be viewed, b) I ickets, w ads, witb Particular., may Me
bad el 44. Mahar, Wfirwiab-strect, 11014toksguar.v.

'T

P4RI.I4I.ItIENTARr PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 27.

In the cause of the Lord Advocate of Scotland v. M,Kentle,
the Judgment et the Court below was garotte' as to certain
tights at presentation.
In the causes of Smith v. Robertson, Laurie v. Laurie, and
Smyth v. saunders, the Judgments of the Court below were
aisrntt.(l.
In t t.e canses of hlountoorris v. White, and Baker v. Merger,
the .1041,,nleors of the Courts Mow were rtver-eci.
In thr cause of Frazer v. Chishnime, the Judgment of the
Court below was reversed, bat it was deferred till to-morrow to
fit the terms of the Judgment.
lodgment in the cause of Blake v. Vesie was deferred to the
llrßt eanse-day after the recess.
The Royal Ascent was given by comtrission to the Loan and
Loan Amendment Bills, the High 'treason and Corruption et
Blood the Stamp Duties and Thames Police Bills.
The Earl of SHATTESSURY, and the Marquis of HeavroaDs
with the Loan CHANCIMLEIR, were the Commissioners.
Several Petitions were presented against the Slave Trade.
Lord BROWNLOW -presented a Petition • from several Far-
mers . complaining of the want of encourzgentent to grew corn.
Mr. Him., from the Treasury, presented an Account of the
Achttions to the National Debt, during the last LB years, and
l'i.pers from the Conindssioaers of Northern Light-hou,es.
'the Agent General's Bill, the Silk Handkerchief Bill, the
Hackney-coach Bill, the Scotch University Paper Bill, and the
Gunpowder Carriage Bill, were each read a third time.
Mr. BROGDEN, and other. Members, brought hum the COM.
MODS the Clergy Farming Bill, the Vote of Credit, the Ship
Letter and Local Militia ;idle, which were severally read a
lint time.

GLOUEnTER GAM.
The order of day having been read, for taking
ito consideration the Petitions complaining of ill treat.
went on the part of the Keeper of Gloucester Gail-r'
• Fad STANHOPE moved that Mr. Mbgg be
called to the Bar.
Mr. SAMUEL Mora was then called to the bar,
and examined by Earl STANHOPE. He stated that
he was an Attorney at Law, at Gloucester; that he
had two clientsowned .I—Perrin and J. Yeates, con.
fined in Gloucester Prison ; previously to the last
Assizes he had applied at the gaol to see Mr.Yeates,
and had been refused, principally by Mr. Cunning.
ham, the gaoler. Mr. Yeates bad been formerly an
attorney at law, and was defendant in a cause at the
Gloucester Assizes, in which a verdict had been
given against him. Mr. Yeates had since declared
that he had lost his cause because he had not bad a
private conversation with witness. On the 18th of
June last witness applied to see J. Perrin, who was
also his client, and was refused by the gaoler.—
About this time a letter was delivered to witness by
Mr. Yeates ; as witness was taking the letter out of
the prison, he was asked by Cunningham, the gaoler,
what letter it was ? witness answered, it was a letter
from Mr. Yeates to him (witness) ;—Cunningham
asked witness to let him see it ? witness gave it him,
but bade him open it at his peril. Cunningham how.
ever took the letter, and broke the seal, read it, and
took a copy of it. On the 18th of the present month
witness had had a conversation with Cunningham
relative to a lettei sent from Lord Sidmouth, and
asked him whether he had not received a letter from
Lord Sidmonth, saying, that opening letters from
the prisoners was illegal ? Cunningham answered,
°whether I have or have not, I shall do as 1 please."
.—Since the 18th of the present month witness bad
again applied to be admitted to his client, but he
had received as an answer from-Simmons, the clerk
to the gaoler, that he had received no such authority
from Mr. Cunningham;
Earl STANHOPE having no other question to put,
and no other Peer offering himself, the witness was'
crdered to withdraw.
Earl STANHOPE then said, that he had proved
all which he had wished to prove, and he should
leave it to the consideration of their Lordships, whe-
ther, as such strong facts had been proved, a Cons.'
mittee should be appointed to consider of the case, or
whether another, course of proceeding, • which he
thought best, and for which there were many prece.
dents, should be adopted, namely, to order the King's
Attorney-General to prosecute the Gaoler.
Lord SIDMOUTH began by remarking, that the
letter from himself mentioned in the Evidence was
sent by him, not to the gaoler, but to the Chairman
of the Court of the Quarter Sessions, in whom the
power of corm-outing the gaoler resided. He had
stated in that letter, that the opening of letters ad,
dressed to the prisoners was unlawful, and that the
prisoners should have free communication with their
legal advisers. Such, he believed, was the general
practice, and he should have much doubted, it it had
not been stated on oath, that any person who had
presented himself in the character of a legal adviser,
had been refused admission to a prisoner. There
might be extreme cases where it nii&ht be proper to
open letters of prisoners, but they should be extreme;
'and he could scarcely conceive any thing that could
authorise such a proceeding in the case of a person
confined for debt, or for fines due to the Crown. In
persons committed or imprisoned for felony, the case
might be in some degree different. The existence of
the practices asserted by the witness had been denied
by very respectable persons, of whom he t Lord Sid-
mouth) had enquired on the subject. As to theCorn-
mitne of Enquiry mentioned by the Noble Earl
(14:anhope) he should not object to it.
tarl S FAN HOPE was glad that the Noble Yts.
count had acted so properly on the occasion, by in-
forming the Magistrates of the illegality of the pro.
ceedings complained of; but it was only an aggra-
vation ci the case (if it could be aggravated) that*
general attorneys were admitted tA their clients in
rte gaol in question—because it followed, that not
only there was a bad rule, but that it was partially
tamed up : for it had been stated at the Bar, on
that in a particular case an attorney bad been
refused adattanee, and the evidence had been deli
vered in so unexceptionable a manner, that no Peer
had even thcught ht to croseexamine the witness.—
He should proceed with a motion for inquiry, if the
Noble Viscount (Sid:mouth) did not pledge himself
to make an inquiry, and proceed, if ME tracts turned
ee.; :but as they appeared at preseut from the evidence, to
take such proper measures as were in -the power of
Government; fur it would not be proper that people
a this country should be left under lock and key to
be so tormented.
Lord SIDMOUTH seated, that whether or no the
Noble Earl proceeded to move for a Committee, lee
should feel it I.is duty to inquire into the circum-
stances of the case, which had been quite differently
represented to him by the Magistrates,- win, had sta-
ted, that access bad never been denied to legal ad.
visors. He had also a letter in his pocket Iron, one
pf the Petitioners to the House, who had represented

\c,

tills matter quite differently from that In which he
had stated it in his Petition.
Earl STANHOPE said, that if it turned out that
abuses had prevailed, he hoped that the Noble Vis-
count would proceed not very smoothly against the
offenders. What information the Noble Viscount
had received from these Magistrates and others was
not worth one nib of a straw in opposition to the evi-
dence taken at the bar. The Magistrates might have
heard and believed that no obstacle had been thrown
in the way of the admission of the legal advisers of
the prisoners, but a case had been fully proved at the
bar to the contrary. He should leave to the respon-
sibility of the Noble Viscount the further considera-
tion of this important subject.
Lord HOLLAND said evidence was of great im-
portance, and thought it should be printed.
The evidence was accordinglyordered to be printed.