The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-28 00:00:00

PETITION FROM CHICHESTER.

Mr. HUME rose to p4sent a Petition relative to the conduct
. . .
of the Magistrates of Chichester.

. .
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER spoke to
order, and objected to a Petition being presented, after the
regular business of the day had been entered upon.
,Mr. HUME explained, that this Petition had been delayed
by various circumstances, and hoped to be allowed to prey ent it.
He proceeded to state its contents, It came from an individual
of the name of George Seymour, who complained that he had
applied in vain to certain Magistrates of Chichester to obtain a
licence for opening a free public.house in that city. He had
been refused, as he believed, through the influence of certain
Brewers who were connected with the Corporation, and were
interested in keeping up the monopoly they at present enjoyed.
Mr. C. BURRELL offered himself .to the attention of the
House, having some knowledge of the facts. The Petitioner
was anxious to have a licence to open a public-house at Chi-
chester. The Magistrates had refused, on account.of the great
number already established in the city and without the wa115...-.
Tke Petitioner had proved himself anxious to obtain one
through the influence of the Duke of Richmond, if he could
have obtained it, and had thus shewn that he was not unwilling
to gain his object in what- he (sir C. Burrell) deemed an im-
proper manner.

Mr. H USK ISSON said it was clear that they only objected
to licence a new house, because so many were already este.
blished.

Mr.-HUME, from the manner in which this Petition had
been met, was quite satisfied that the facts set forth in it were
true. He denied that excessive drinking was encouraged by
the number of public-houses established in any place. For
proof of this, he referred to parts of Scotland, where every
second house was a public-house, but which were not remark•
able ibr the intoxication of the inhabitants.
MAGISTRATES' COAIII I TMENTS.

Mr. HUME rose - and said, on a former occasion he had
moved for a Iteturn of the number of persons committed to.
gaol by the Magistrates of England, and in the present Trio.•
tion which he was about introducing. to the House, he should
move for the names of those Alagistrates. It was.well known
that some Magistrates in the country were considered commit,
tng Magistrates, from their being instrumental in sending
many to prison. There were 152 individuals committed -by
one Gentleman, .out of.. which number only 66, bills were
found. Another Magistrate in the county of Surrey had cofu-
flatted 139 persons to take their. trial, but no more than 48 bills
were found.--.[lt was here intimated across'the table by Mr.
Secretary Peel, that the Honourable Member was incorrect ;
the returns included the number of persons who were commit-
ted by summary process as well as those who were committed
for trial.]--The Hon. Member then proceeded to remark on the
mode of prison-tiiicipline, and complained of that practised—.
The House, he thought, was not aware of the evils connected
with prison-discipline. He had known instances of individuals
who had been committed, and who were afterwards; acquitted,
halo-' so contaminated 'by a residence in jail with so Many
wretched characters, that when they were liberated they came
out prepared for every vice. It was a melancholy pictured to
hold up, but unfortunately it watt a faithful ,one. Many sup-
posed that crimes were decreasing in this country ; he bad
himself entertained that opinion; but having recently :ob-
tained a document -from the office. of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, the Under. Secretary of Sate, he was convinced that
opinion was erroneous. From tire statement in question, it
appeared on a comnarison of the two periods, each including
seven years, that there was a considerable iacrease in crime.—
The lion. 3lember here alluded to several instances in Which
it appeared there had been a great disparity between the num-
ber of commitments for trial, and the number of bills foubd,
This practice led to much mischief, as many persons came out
of prison reac!y for the commission of crime, who, when they
entered it, were either innocent altogether, or at least ',were
far from legal guilt. - Out of 47,000 committed for trial in 'six
years up to 1816, no less, than 27,090 had been acquitted as not
prosecuted by trial. The general average of convictions was
not more than thirty-nine in the hundred. Unless the Molise
had the returns shewing. the. names of the committing Magi-
strates, it would be impossible to ascertain who were the per:
that had thus sent their fellow-subjects to prison without a
due examination of the evidence. In Scotland, he shorild'ob-
serve, the comparative number of convictions was 'much
greater than those in England ; taking the convictions against
the commitments. In conclusion, he moved for a return of the
number.of persons committed in all the gaols in England and
Wales, between the years 1822 and 1823, distinguishing the
commitments for trial from those in execution, and shewing the
names of the Committing Magistrates, and a return for the
same period, shewing the numbers convicted anti acquitted ;
distinguishing, in the acquittals, those which took place on
trial from those which took place on account of the Bills being"
I ignored by the Grand Juries, anti those which took place for
want of evidence being offered for the prosecution before the
' Grand Juries. •
.t •
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that when he first came dOwn for
the House, he was not aware of the-terms of the motion about
to be made by the Honourable Gentleman. Ile conceived that
the Ilonourable Gentleman had merely intended to ask for a
return more perfect than the last in detail, thouglitit shimld be
the same in
.principle. The Hon. Gentleman,..in support- of his
present motion, had argued upon the commitments as they ap-
peared in the Returns from the Police Offices and
,from the
Magistrates of the county of Middlesex ; but any such argu-
ment so founded must obviously be fallacious, as these Returns
did not distinguish the commitments for trial from 11}0s9 in exe-
cution, in . cases wherein the Magistrate had a stirnwitry juris,
dbisp Ivitp9w,ratisoilimbepotsus.ieb:
diction. The. disproportion between the commitmellti apei con-
victions, as the Returns now stood, was undoubtedly errone.
ous ; . but it appeared so in consequence .of the terns' the'
motion formedy made by the Hon. IVleniber, which produced
those Returns, and which did not call for a distinction between,
the twbkinds of commitments.
to draw any-conclusion on the .
el;thgeef%;e toyeglrogeT.Vll:ecipal
was
iti ember moved for Ce
fact. necessary to be known . n on
rtarn re-
the former occasion the Hon.
, generally he (Mr.
commitments and convictions,. P.)
.thought the Ron.
' Al ember had made out a prima acre case for the returns, and.
turns, and mentioned
did not therefore offt.a.
and always should f':P'"siti"'
opposition to the motion. ,
theA tv
presentast t
any
Yede He (Mr.
..because
P.) was particularly in(
dischs,ged the duties of the office without art Y.. ionsiders' tiono
he had always drawn, Y ou draw, 'a. distinction
between„ stipendary magistrates' and those Gentleman who
but that of public duty—( Hear, hear !) and the. remarks then
nuth.aaattiir.oetnho.e_rye
made by the Hon. Member applied particularly Co the com-
mitments by Police Magistrates. He. (Mr. P.)' could not
give his assent to the present motion.;„ bu`t liehad no objec-
tion to consent to a motion for amending the resent return,'
or to give the Hon. Member every informaifoPn in 'his power
in order to his getting a correct return. The Hon. Gentletnan
heholdappe hopedaarneya theftoa ifair
returnsdinnlfi°t
over which he (Mr,. P.) had the honour to preside to with-
( hivi%eiasirb.r
engotthlelt,Ehi dispositionoaus sseentbeoidnrt_thlleiirnn- i:oe;
in this assertion. He repeated that he would give the Hon.
Member every information -he wished; bat he would.not.con