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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS—Last Evening.
AGRARIAN OUTRAGES IN IRELAND.

The Earl of DONOUG tiNIORE moved that considering
the extent to which agrarian ou rages 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 of 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 rcuwspection; and this house observes
with regret that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland orderedthe
release of Michael Dungan, Patrick Durgan, and Patrick
Egan, prisoners under sentence for an agrarian offence, con-
fined in the county gaol of Westmeath, upon grounds which
appear to be insufficient. In the county of Westmeath there
had been for some time a sort of hidden 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 iu 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
sentenced 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 t hey be-
longed. The men to whose case he was now calling atten-
tion were convicted of a gross agrarian outrage ore 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 from 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 interior grade of life, and
he (Lord Dunoughmore) should like to know whether Chief
Jae. ice Manahan, 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
uncle stood to entertai❑ very peculiar views with regard to
pueishment. And within sot days fr m its receipt these
in-n were liberaeed. He wanted to know whether Chiet
Justice Monahan was con ulted on this occasion. On neither
occasion was any local inquiry made, nor were any of the
rnegiedrat.s or grand jurors of the county consulted, a mat-
ter of which he thought they had good right to complain.
'The men h4ving been released, there was within a few days
atterwarde a renewal of agrarian outrages iu the neigh-
bourhood, Two out of three men who had been released
had previously lett the country ; and almost itnrnedatety
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 gui.ty 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 I,w in Ireland. His lordship's clemency to Rib•
bon conspirators was death to the well disposed.
Earl GRANVI LLE 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. Ho 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 LEINSTEE.,
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 DONOUGH.IIIORE then withdrew the
motion.