The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-01 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS—Last Evening,
ROYAL COMMISSION.

The royal assent was given by Royal Commission to the
following bills :—Countess of Elgin's Annuity—Fieh
Teinds (Scotland)—Vacating Seats (House of Commons)
—Banking Copartnership—Beer •houses (Ireland)—Chim-
ney Sweepers' Regulation—Chief Rents (Ireland)—Army
Prize (Shares of Deceased)—Falmouth Docks—West
Shropshire Mineral Railway—Sevenoaks, Maidstone,
and Tunbridge Railway—Halifax and Ovenden Junction
Railway—Pneumatic Despatch Company—Tralee Canal—
Glasgow and Paisley Joint Line Railway—Kirkcudbright
Stewartry Roads—Henley in Arden Railway—Thames
Embankment (south side)—Bristol and South Wales Union
ttailway—Bolton Gas—Bolton and St. Helen's Roads—
Zetland Roads—Port Glasgow Harbour—South London
Market—Nantwich and Market Drayton Railway—Mid
Wales Railway—Mistley Thorp and Welton Railway—
Liverpool Exchange—North Kent and Kent Water—
Aberystwith and Welsh Coast Railway—Phcenix Gas—
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas—Garstang and
Knot End Railway—Globe Telegraph Company—Severn
Valley Railway—Edinburgh and Leith Sewerage—London,
Brighton, and South Coast Railway (steamboats)—Weston
super-Mare Piet—West Shropshire Mineral Railway—
East Indian Railway Company—Solway Junction Railway.
The Royal Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor,
Viscount Sydney, and Earl St. Germans,
Their lordships adjourned during pleasure.

The LORD CHAINCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at the usual hour.
ABOLITION OF TOLL-GATES.

Lord RAVENS WORTH said a great s,cial reform had
taken effect that day, viz., the aboliton of the toll-gates in
certain districts of the metropolis. He begged to thank
her Majesty's Government for hAving serried out the recom-
mendations of the royal commission, and he concluded his
observations by asking what steps had been taken for giving
to other suburban districts of the metropolis the same free-
dom that had been conferred on the nor, h• western.

Earl GRAiNVILLE said he would make inquiry in the
proper quarter, and communicate the result of the enqui-
ries to the noble lord.

OYSTER FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES)

BILL.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved the second
reading of this bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND, Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY,
and the Earl of DONOUGHMORE cppealed to the noble
lord not to press his bill to a second reading before the
Itoyal Commission appointed to consider the subject of the
deep eea fisheries had made their report.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE c msented to with-
draw the bill, and the order for its second reading was
therefore read and discharged.
GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved the second
reading of this bill.
The motion was agreed to.
SUMMARY PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The report of amendments to this bill was brought up
and received.

VALUATION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRE-
LAND) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.

COUNTY CONSTABULARY SUPERANNUATION

BILL.

The report of amendments to this bill was brought up
and received.
CATHEDRAL AND MINOR CORPORATIONS

BILL.
This bill pissed through committee.

SERVANT'S HIRING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was withdrawn.
AGRARIAN OUTRAGES IN IRELAND.

The Earl of DONOUGHMORE moved that considering
the extent to which agrarian outrages prevail in certain
counties in Ireland, and the difficulty which exists in ob-
taining convictions for offences of this description, this
house is of opinion that the power cc the Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland to remit the whole or a portion of the sentences of
persons convicted of such crimes should be exercised with
greater care and c rcumspection ; and this house observes
with regret that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ordered the
release of Michael Dragon, Patrick Durgan, and Patrick
Egan, prisoners under sentence for an agrarian offence, con-
fined in the county gaol of WeStmAath, upon grounds which
appear to be insufficient. In the county of Westmeath there
had been for some time a sort of bidden war carried on
against the rights of property and against those who took
part in vindicating them. Several of the judges had pointed
the attention of the grand juries to the atrocious character
of the crimes perpetrated in Westmeath ; they were not sud-
den outbursts of passion, but the result of a systematic
course of outrage, resulting from the mysterious operations
of the Ribbon conspiracy. The noble earl then entered into
the details of a number of cases in order to show the cha-
racter of the agrarian crime in this county, and its connec-
tion with the Ribbon organisation ; and he also mentioned
several instances in which men who had been convicted and
sent enced to long terms of imprisonment or penal servitude
had been released by the Lord Lieutenant before the termi-
nation of their sentences, and allowed to go at large, no
doubt to enlist others in the secret society to which they be-
longed. The men to whose case he was now calling atten-
tion were convicted of a gross agrarian outrage on the pre-
mises of a man named Doolan. He believed it was said,
in justification of the course which the Lord Lieutenant
had taken in remitting a portion of their sentence, that
there was a doubt as to their identity, But, so far
was that frcm being the case, that they were identified
in the clearest manner by witnesses who saw them
distinctly and.had known them previously. The cause of
their release must, therefore, be sought elsewhere. The
truth was that the Lord Lieutenant had yielded to a memo-
rial sent to him. He had previously rejected one which
was signed by 47 people in a very inferior grade of life, and
ho (Lord Donoughmore) should like to know whether Chief
Justice Monahan, who tried these men, was then consulted,
and if so, what answer he returned. The second memorial
was signed by Mr Bury, a Presbyterian minister, who was
understood to entertain very peculiar views with regard to
punishment. And within six days from its receipt these
men were liberated. He wanted to know whether Chief
Justice Monahan was cow ulted on this occasion. On neither
occasion was any local inquiry made, nor were any of the
magistrates or grand jurors of the county consulted, a mat-
ter of which he thought they had good right to complain.
The men having been released, there was within a few days
afterwards a renewal of agrarian outrages in the neigh-
bourhood, Two out of three men who had been released
had previously left the country; and almost itnmedately
the police began to make an inquiry with reference to the
perpetrators of these crimes, the third man also disappeared
from the neighbourhood, showing clearly his guilty con-
science. This kind of conduct on the part of his Excellency
was like that of Nero, fiddling when Rome was burning.
He knew the Lord Lieutenant was a very amiable man;
but they required a man of firmness and courage to admi-
nister the law in Ireland. His lordship's clemency to Rib-
bon conspiratsirs was death to the well disposed.

Earl GRANVILLE said that this motion was one of a
most unusual character, for it asked their lordships to
interfere with the manner in which the Royal preroga-
tive was administered, and to censure strongly the per-
son who was now entrusted with the exercise of that
prerogative. He was confident that the House would
not pass such a resolution unless they were satisfied
that there had been some gross want of discretion, or some
corrupt motive, on the part of the person whose conduct
was complained of. He regretted very much the state of
Westmeath, which was no doubt very unsatisfactory; but
it really had nothing to do with the present case, which
turned entirely upon a question of identity. Although the
prisoners were identified by one witness, they were not
identified by others who were present at the same time. An
alibi was, moreover, set up, and Chief Justice Monahan in
reporting on the case, spoke of it as one of great difficulty,
and said that he did not know how he should have voted if
he had been on the jury. That being the case, he could
not think that this was an improper case for the exercise of
the royal prerogative of mercy.
After a few words from the Marquis of WESTMEATH and
the Duke of LEINSTER,
The Earl of LEITRIM made a vehement attack on the
Lord Lieutenant.

Lord CHELMSFORD said that it had not been made
out that the Lord Lieutenant had improperly exercised his
discretion in this case, and he therefore trusted that the
noble earl would withdraw the motion.
The Earl of DONO t.) GHM.ORE then withdrew the
motion.