The Sun.
London, England, 1824-04-29 00:00:00

[MORNING cAIRONICLE.]

We have to call the attention of our readers to
a very curious document, viz. the Return of the
number of Persons committed to duo Prisons in

London, Middlesex, and Surrey, from the seve-
ral Police Offices, by the several Magistrates of
the City of London% and of the Counties of Mid-
dlesex and Surrey, in the years 1821, 182 t, and
1823, stating the numbers from each Office, the
names of the Magistrates who committed, the

number of bills found, convictions, &c. Our
readers will remember, that when Mr. Hume
moved for this return, Mr. Peel saw no objec.

tion to it, but that Mr. liolrne Sumner at once
caught the alarm, and complained of the hard-
ship of subjecting Gentlemen who gratuitously
gave their services to the country, to the obloquy
to which the disclosures in the Return might
give rise. Sympathy with the gratuitous Megis-

tracy prevailed, and a sort of compromise was
entered into, by which a certain description of
Magistrates were to be withdrawn from inquiry,
and the stipendiares were to be exhibited to the
gaze of the profane multitude. Let us be

thankful for what we have obtained. Though
Mr. liolme Sumner gained his object, the public
will be at little loss to conjecture, from the
particulars of the information received, the
nature of that which is withheld. From
what we ,have seem of Mr. Peel, we believe he
is quite above wishing to throw a veil over the
abuses of the Magistracy ; and we are embolden-
ed to hope, that the present Return will lead
,him to adopt, or to sanction, some measures cal-
culated to meet the dreadful evil which it exhi-
bits in all its hideousness.—The first division of
the Return exhibits the Committals from the dif-
ferent Police Offices to the Gaol of Newgate in
1821, t, and 5, the number of Bills found, con-
victions, &c. It is upon the whole creditable to
the parties concerned, and some of the Offices dis-
play a care which may be considered al togther ana-
nialous in Magisterial matters. In 1821 the corn-
mite's were 1908, the bills found 1661, and the con-
victions 1274. In 1882,the committals were 1940,
the hills found 1696, and the convictions 1244 ;
and in 1823 the committals were 1936, the hills
found 1692, and the convictions 1201. The
Mansion-house, and Guildhall in particular,
stand pre-eminent, the convictions amounting to
about three-fourths of the committals. But the

moment we leave Newgate, a strange state of
things presents itself to our view. For instance,
in the list for the County of Surrey, No. VI., we
find for the year 1821, under the head of L. B.
Allen, Esq., 152 commitments, and only 66
bills found ; R. J. Chambers, Esq., 139 com-
mitments, and 48 bills found ; R. Hedger, Esq.,
thirty-six commitments, and only five bills
found ; D. King, Esq., 30 commitments, and
only four bills found ; D. King, Esq. and the
Rev. A. C. Onslow, seven commitments, and not
one bill found ; Sir J. Pinhorn, Knt., 51 com-
mitments, and eight bills found. We find, for
1822, L. B. Allen, Esq., 193 commitments, 68
bills found ; R. J. Chambers, Esq., 123 commit-
ments, and 37 bills found ; M. Swabey, jun.,
Esq., 215 commitments, and 59 bills found ; Sir
J. Pinhorn, Knt., 35 commitments, and not one
bill. We find, for 1823, L. B. Allen, Esq.,
177 commitments, and eighty bills found ;
156 commitments, and
.6R4. JbilisChfoamuibider;s,MErs.q., s
wahey, jun., Esq., 213
commitments, and only 69 bills found ; R. Hed-
ger, Esq. 30 commitments, and only live bills
found Esq. 13 commitments, and not
one
e ;
bill D.
fouKing'
nd.These statements do certainly
appear very singular. What is the impression
which they will convey to the world ? What will
Europe think of our boasted regard for the liber-
ty of the subject, when they see one Magistrate
in one year committing thirty-five prisoners, with-
out a bill being found against any one of them,
and another committing 215, while bills were
only found against 5) ? When it is seen that,
in four cases out of ive, or rather five out of six,
English Magistrates commit on grounds which
do not even wear an air of probability to a
Grand Jury, tha inference which will he
drawn is, that any man may be thrown
into prison to tape his trial when it suits an ac-
cuser to subject him to that indignity--that
between the gnat body of Englishmen, and
ruin and disgisce, there is no barrier In
the tribunals if their country. To tell a
poor man that he has the double security of
a Grand and fiat Jury, when he may be torn
from his famiy and affairs, and thrown among
felons, and deified for many months in some
cases, till eider Grand or Petit Jury can have
any knowledge of his case, is a piece of the most
insulting mockery that ever was uttered. We
talk of the inclease of crime. Can we wonder
that crime increases, when we find that so little
care is taken tc prevent the innocent from being
thrown into tie places, of all others the most
likely to corrupt, and vitiate them ?