prefaced his motion on the subject of persons imprisoned for Contempts of Court, by stating that there were five or six and thirty persons so imprisoned, who had been in gaol for various periods, some for so long a time as 26 years. One, a person of the name of Willes, imprisoned for 16 years for a contempt of the court of chancery, had for the last two or three years been insane. His allowance was exceedingly limited, and he was confined in a very small, and necessarily unhealthy apartment. Another, of the name of Williams, had been confined above 26 years. His memory had been so much injured by his long imprisonment, that he scarcely recollected the circumstances of his own case. He was obliged to support himself on an allowance of 3s. 6d. a week! There was another case of an assignee of a bankrupt, who, without any fault of his, had been sent by the lord Chancellor to the insolvent court, by which he was again referred to chancery, and thus bandied about, he had neglected, in consequence of the misinformation of his solicitor, to put in an answer to a bill filed against him, for which contempt he had now been imprisoned between two and three years. Many other cases existed of extreme hardship, and in order to put the House in possession of them, he moved, "That there be laid before this House, a return of all persons confined in the prison of the Fleet, or elsewhere, under processes issuing out of the court of chancery or exchequer, for contempts, with copies of the commitments, and specifying the names of the solicitors employed by the plaintiffs and defendants in the respective causes, and the nature of the contempt."

confirmed the statements of the hon. gentleman, and stated that the lord chancellor was very solicitous to grant the persons so confined, relief, but could not, without a compliance on their part with the necessary and legal forms. It was his learned friend's intention to institute an immediate and strict inquiry into all the circumstances of the different cases, and, if possible to find out some remedy for the evil. These unfortunate persons had frequently suffered, in consequence of the shameful neglect of their solicitors; but it was due to his noble and learned friend to say, that there was nothing in his power which he was not anxiously desirous to do in their behalf.

The motion was agreed to.

presented a Petition, complaining of the conduct of Mr. Justice Fletcher. To him it appeared the petitioner had just cause for complaint, and he thought it desirable, that in such cases that House should make persons who were in authority feel that a power existed above theirs, which would not brook oppression or injustice in the exercise of their functions. The petition was then read. It set forth that the petitioner, the rev, J. Galbraith, a magistrate of Ballinasloe, in the county of Galway, had last year committed a man, and also a woman with whom he lived in criminal intercourse, charged with a cruel murder, which had been committed a short time before. They were committed for trial with the approbation of Mr. Justice Day, and in the course of the summer discoveries of great importance had been made, all tending to inculpate the parties. The petitioner complained of the manner in which he had been treated on the trial by Mr. Justice Fletcher, who had taken occasion to say, "he never knew any good to come of such committals." The prisoners were however convicted on the clearest evidence, and executed on the following Wednesday. The petitioner ventured to assure the House, that but for his exertions it was not likely these criminals would have been brought to justice.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

in rising to submit to the House a motion concerning the magistracy of Ireland, took occasion to observe, that there were persons in that country very desirous of recommending themselves by their violent proceedings against those whom they considered disturbers of the public peace, At present he intended to confine himself to the case of Mr. Hamilton, curate of Roscrea, who had been appointed one of the magistrates of Tipperary, though he did not possess one acre of property in the county. The hon. gentleman then entered into a long statement. The purport of it was, that Mr. Hamilton, informed of the existence of treasonable associations, and of a conspiracy against his life, had sent a person to inquire into the truth of it, and acting on his report, had stuffed and placed in his drawing-room a figure to represent himself, which had been fired at, the pistols having been furnished by the person in Mr. Hamilton's confidence. In consequence of this outrage, fourteen persons had been dragged out of their beds at midnight, carried a distance of forty miles, and thrown into gaol, where they must have remained three months before they could be brought to trial, had not a special commission been issued on the occasion. These fourteen persons, when brought to trial, had been acquitted. The jury—one of the most respectable he had ever seen impannelled in that part of the empire, were quite satisfied that the prisoners were innocent. The prosecutors then became the accused, but the bill was thrown out by the grand jury, or, in the opinion of many they would have been cast on being brought to trial. He concluded by moving, "That there should be laid before the House, copies of the correspondence between the Irish government and the rev, J. Hamilton, curate of Roscrea, and magistrate for the county of Tipperary."

observed, that he had no interest in misstating any thing concerning this matter. There was much disorder in Tipperary in November, and 40 magistrates applied to government to put six baronies under the act. There then was committed the atrocious murder of Mr. Baker, a magistrate generally much esteemed, but obnoxious to some for his activity in trying to restore tranquillity. Shortly afterward a conspiracy, as it was understood, was formed against Mr. Hamilton. Government did not give full credit to the information they had received from one man. Mr. Hamilton had procured assistance, and placed a figure in a room of his house dressed up like himself. The conspirators came, and fired a shot at it, upon which Mr. H.'s party seized fourteen of them, who were sent to legal trial. One of the party confessed his guilt voluntarily; but they all escaped. Government disapproved of Mr. H.'s proceeding, and had always avoided any measure to lead people into the commission of crimes. A witness on the trial guilty of prevarication was indicted, but the grand jury ignored the bill. He (Mr. P.) had communicated with the lord chancellor of Ireland on Mr. Hamilton's ease, but his lordship said he did not wish to act in the case without official information. The apprehension of assassination, it appeared, was strong on the mind of Mr. Hamilton, who was in indifferent health, and had felt much alarmed. In all other respects he appeared to have been an active and useful magistrate; which excited dislike to him among the lower orders. He should certainly object to the production of the correspondence, and could not conceive any precedent more fatal to the peace of Ireland than to encourage inquiries of this nature without a proper foundation.

observed, that what had passed during the last hour, must be sufficient to convince every member of the necessity of probing the question to the bottom. He thought that when such state- ments as had been made relative to the conduct of one of the judges, were suffered to go uncontradicted, and such a charge as the present made against a magistrate, which even the statement of the last speaker did not refute; when these were considered, they would show that all was not right in the mode of administering justice in the sister island. He could not approve of the conduct of the lord chancellor Manners, who had required so much information on the subject before he decided. He would wish to know, whether the chancellor exercised the same prudence in every complaint of a magistrate which came before him? He would be glad to know, whether in every complaint against a magistrate which was substantiated, it was the practice of the chancellor not to decide until an inquiry had been made into the general conduct of such magistrate?

defended the conduct of the lord chancellor of Ireland. In having sought for every information before he decided on this subject, he did that which was his duty.

, alluding to the petition against Mr. Justice Fletcher, observed that he had in his possession a letter from that judge which would fully repel the charge contained in that petition, but he did not wish to read it as he did not choose to prevent the petition of any individual from being read.

did not regret that the present motion was brought forward, at the same time he did not feel himself called upon to support it.

in reply, observed that after what had passed he should not press his motion.—The motion was then withdrawn.

rose to present a petition from a Mr. O'Hanlan, a most respectable man who had practised at the Irish bar, but who retired from his profession, and went to reside at Newry, in 1796. Of the excellency of his character there could be no doubt, from a certificate which he held in his hand, signed by 230 of the most respectable inhabitants in and near Newry. Mr. O'Hanlan stated in his petition that he had been appointed a magistrate, from which office he had been removed without any just cause. That in a short time after he received a letter from the lord chancellor, acknowledging that he had been unjustly put out of the commission of the peace, and reinstating him. That he continued from that time to hold the commission of the peace until the present year, when he was again deprived of it. The petition also stated, that his being favourable to the claims of the Roman Catholics was the only reason assigned for his dismissal from the magistracy, and it added, that in a conversation which he had with the attorney-general of Ireland, he (the attorney-general) stated, that any one who supported the Catholic claims, whether with or without a veto, were endeavouring to subvert the constitution, and to introduce French jacobinism. The petitioner also described the attoney-general as having given his opinion strongly in favour of the Orange system. This was also, as the petition stated, the opinion of lord chancellor Manners, who had declared, that Orange societies were perfectly legal, and that a magistrate being an Orangeman, might with propriety sit on the bench to judge persons accused of being Orangemen. Such were the facts stated by Mr. O'Hanlan. If they were true, it was clear that the at-attorney general, and lord chancellor of Ireland, held opinions, which, if not discountenanced by the government, would lead to the worst consequences. Mr. O'Hanlan stated, that he was put out of the commission of the peace, not for being of any party, but because he wished to be of no party. Mr. Brougham commented on the right which the chancellor had to expunge the name of any magistrate from the commission, which right, he contended, should only be exercised where a just ground existed. He then moved that the petition be read.

adverted to the extraordinary circumstance of his being twice called on in the course of the same evening to answer to charges against the lord chancellor of Ireland; in the one case for not striking a magistrate out of the commission, and in the other for an opposite line of conduct. He would shortly state the facts of the present case, and then leave the House to judge whether my lord chancellor Manners had acted with propriety or not. The petitioner had lately been a magistrate of the counties of Armagh and Down. In consequence of a representation to the lord chancellor, some time in 1808, he was removed from the commission. The lord chancellor, however, having afterwards investigated the case more fully, admitted that in removing Mr. O'Hanlan, he had acted unjustly, and he in consequence re-instated him. He would ask if this fact was not alone a sufficient proof that the person who acted in this manly way, could not be swayed by motives of political partiality. The manner in which the lord chancellor acted was best explained in a letter from him to the marquis of Downshire, in answer to that which he had received from the marquis, accompanying Mr. O'Hanlan's memorial. It was there stated, that a complaint had been preferred by the chairman of the county of Down against Mr. O'Hanlan a short time before, and that in the opinion of the assistant barrister of the county of Down, his conduct was such that he ought then to have been removed from the magistracy. Instead of removing him, however, he had merely cautioned him not to follow a line of conduct, which made it impossible for any gentleman to act with him in the magistracy. In February last a memorial was transmitted to the lord chancellor by the bench of magistrates of the county of Down against Mr. O'Hanlan. A charge had been exhibited against a soldier for having assaulted a gentleman in the neighbourhood of Newry, and out of a bench of twelve magistrates and the assistant barrister, eleven with the assistant barrister voted for the conviction of the soldier, Mr. O'Hanlan alone differing from all his brother magistrates, against whom he delivered a most intemperate speech from the bench. After this they presented a memorial praying for his removal. It was signed by sixteen magistrates; and at the head of them was the assistant barrister Mr. Dawson, a different gentleman from the one who joined in the former complaint. It stated that Mr. O'Hanlan was in the habit of attacking his brother magistrates with language of a most unbecoming description—that at every trial for rioting he had constantly acted as the warm advocate of one party, and the opponent of the other; and that he had frequently delivered such sentiments as were calculated to excite the lower orders to turbulence and disrespect to the laws. He held in his hands a letter from the lord chancellor, stating, that he did not proceed to remove Mr. O'Hanlan, till he had had the opinion of baron M'Lellan in favour of that measure. These were the grounds on which he had acted. It had been asserted, that pre- vious to such removal, an inquiry ought to have taken place into the conduct of Mr. O'Hanlan. But he would here appeal to a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Ponsonby) who formerly filled the same office, whether in proceeding to reform the magistracy of two counties he adopted such a line of conduct?

said, he was personally acquainted with fourteen out of the sixteen magistrates who had signed the memorial, and knew all of them to be men of reputable characters. They had often been called upon when that part of the country was in a disturbed state, to put themselves at the head of the military; and he never knew an instance when Mr. O'Hanlan had made his appearance on such an occasion. He had heard a character of that gentleman, which he did not think fit to state to the House.

said, that Armagh and Down were divided between Orangemen on one side, and Catholics on the other. While such an animosity subsisted, it was not surprising that a bench of magistrates, entertaining particular political opinions, should express themselves unfavourably against an individual magistrate entertaining different political sentiments. Against these 16 magistrates, the House had the opinion of 243 most respectable persons in Newry, approving Mr. O'Hanlan's conduct.

thought the conversation ascribed to the attorney-general and lord chancellor could only be the creation of a perverted imagination. He had always understood that lord Manners had so conducted himself, as to win the hearts of all parties in Ireland.

said, whatever opinion might be entertained respecting the probability or improbability of the grievance complained of in the petition, that was no reason for rejecting a petition conceived in decent and respectful language. This would be giving a power to majorities of the House over petitions altogether unconstitutional. He had not heard the statement of his hon. and learned friend, but he was sure that he would not state it as his opinion that a magistrate ought not to be dismissed without such an inquiry into his conduct as took place in a court of justice. The power vested in the lord chancellor to appoint or remove magistrates, was, like other powers, to be exercised on responsibility: but such an exercise was different from a legal inquiry. The persons most interested in the character of the noble and learned persons, ought to vote for the petition lying on the table. The right hon. gentleman's statement fell short of what was expected from him, with regard to the cause of the dismissal. He should like to see a more satisfactory explanation of the causes of Mr. O'Hanlan's removal, showing that he was not dismissed entirely on account of his political sentiments. If he was dismissed on account of his outrageous conduct on the bench, he thought this proceeding against him was not strong enough. He should like to know if any of the 16 magistrates who signed the memorial, entertained the same political sentiments with Mr. O'Hanlan.

said, that the present case seemed to him to be an additional fact in support of his opinion, that while Orange societies were countenanced in Ireland, that country could never be at peace. Any magistrate who did not approve of them, became obnoxious to his brother magistrates. It should be the unremitting endeavour of the Irish government to put down all distinctions of parties which kept open the wounds which had bled so much.

said, he had heard more of the division of Ireland in that House than any where else, and observed that outrages had been committed in the neighbourhood alluded to, not connected with party disputes.

said, that he thought some of the allegations in the petition were very improbable. Certainly the petitioner had a right to come to the House with a statement of his case. But he could say, that while he had the honour of holding the great seal of Ireland, he had never thought himself bound to state the specific reason for removing a magistrate There were many cases in which he had found himself bound to remove magistrates, in which, if he had been asked to state his reason, he would have refused.

replied, and contended, that no one had ventured to say that he disbelieved the assertions contained in the petition. The only weapon used against it was ridicule.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.