AGRARIAN OFFENCES (IRELAND)— CASE OF MICHAEL DUIGAN & OTHERS. (Hansard, 12 May 1864)

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH
rose to move an Address to Her Majesty praying for a copy of the Memorial respecting the release of Michael Duigan and others, convicted of agrarian offences at Westmeath in 1862. The noble Marquess said, that these men were convicted of a very serious offence, and sentenced by Chief Justice Monahan to two years' imprisonment. When only two-thirds of their punishment had been undergone they were released by order of the Lord Lieutenant. The grand jury of Westmeath addressed a remonstrance to his Excellency, protesting against the system of pardoning offenders 357 against the public peace without previous consultation with the local magistrates, specially convened for the purpose. An uncourteous reply was returned, to the effect that the Lord Lieutenant conceived he had sufficient grounds for the course he had pursued. The men were released on the 19th of February last. On the 23rd of March a man named Thomas Welsh, living in the same neighbourhood, was attacked and wounded by a pistol shot in the open day by seven miscreants, and so severely beaten that he died two days afterwards. The fact was, that when the law was relaxed an Irish peasant thought he might with perfect impunity knock down or otherwise maltreat any person who had incurred his hatred. Other cases had also occurred in which violent outrages had been allowed to be committed with comparative impunity. The magistrates of the county of West meath felt greatly aggrieved and insulted by the course which the Irish Government had taken. He held that it was most desirable that such matters should no longer be left to the caprice of the authorities in Dublin, but should be referred to the Home Office. The Government were bound, he thought, to disclose the names of those who had deceived them in asking for the remission of punishment in the case he had referred to. He was satisfied that if the Memorial had been sent to the Home Secretary instead of to the Lord Lieutenant it would not have been attended to in the least. The noble Marquess concluded by moving— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copy of any Memorial received by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland or the Irish Government praying for the release of Michael Duigan, Patrick Duigan, and Patrick Egan, Three Prisoners confined in the County Gaol of Westmeath, convicted at the Summer Assizes of 1862 of Agrarian Offences, or any of them; and of any written Communication forwarding the same, and recommending their Enlargement to the Irish Government.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, that in the case referred to everything seemed to have been done in the most regular manner. The condemned persons were sentenced to the maximum punishment allowed by the law. A Memorial was then presented to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who, as he was informed, took all the customary steps on the occasion, consulting with the usual advisers of the Crown and communicating with the Judge; and the result was that the sentence was remitted. There 358 would be no objection to the production of the Memorial; but it would be inconvenient and injurious to the public service that a communication such as the other document moved for should be produced.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
said, the facts of the case were very simple. The county of Westmeath was the headquarters of Ribbonism, and it was difficult to procure evidence on which to convict the offenders. In this ease, however, convictions were obtained against three persons for an agrarian offence, and the Judge sentenced them to the highest penalty. The Lord Lieutenant, however, without any communication with the magistrates or grand jury of the county, remitted a part of the punishment. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) said that the Lord Lieutenant consulted with his usual advisers; but he forgot to say that these advisers were the Inspector General of Police and other gentlemen who sat on easy stools in the offices of Dublin Castle assisting in the government of disturbed districts. When the grand jury made a humble representation to the Lord Lieutenant, pointing out the grievous effect such a remission would have on public opinion in the county, all they got in answer was an official reply that his Excellency was perfectly satisfied with the grounds on which the remission had been granted. The Judges had found fault with the grand jury for the state of their county; and these gentlemen, who were obliged to submit to those rebukes, and who were made responsible for the proper administration of justice, were not consulted. It was very difficult for them to do their duty under such circumstances, and he thought the grand jury had a right to I demand on what grounds the Lord Lieutenant remitted these penalties. There were rumours afloat of a very awkward description. It was said that the person who brought this case before the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was one of the Members of Parliament for the county of Westmeath, und that improper political pressure had been resorted to to obtain the release of these men. He hoped the House would support the noble Marquess in calling for the production of the documents.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, if their Lordships thought the Government had done wrong, a Resolution condemning them ought to be brought forward.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
said, he could not assent to the doctrine laid down, by the noble Earl (Earl Granville), that if they thought the Government was to blame they had only to bring forward a Resolution. What their Lordships asked for was the means of knowing whether the Government were to blame or not. It appeared that, without any communication with the local magistrates and those who knew the state of the county, these men were released; and it was asserted, though not by his noble Friend, that political influences were brought to bear, and that communications had been received which should be considered, not of a private, but of a public nature. Consequently the noble Marquess asked that the grounds on which the memorial rested should be made known, and he could not but think that the application was most reasonable. This was not the first by many times that the present Government had systematically passed over the local magistrates, and placed their sole reliance on the information received from the police officers. Under such circumstances the peace of the country could not be effectually maintained. If the peace was to be preserved in any country, and especially in Ireland, the Government must carry along with it the gentry and magistracy, and what was wanted was that their Lordships should be satisfied that the release of these men was founded on reason and justice, and not on any local, private, confidential, or political motive. He hoped that the House would insist on the production of the papers.

LORD VAUX or HARROWDEN
said, that as their Lordships were perfectly in the dark on this matter, information should be produced for their satisfaction; but he thought that the production of the Memorial would be sufficient.

§ EARL GREY
said, he could not remember an instance of the production of such documents as those referred to in the Motion, and asked for on the ground—which was, no doubt, unfounded—that an improper communication had been made to the Government, ever being refused. He begged his noble Friend (Earl Granville) would not put the House to the trouble of a division. He should be most reluctant to vote against Her Majesty's Government on a question of this kind, but he really thought that no ground had been shown for refusing to produce the documents.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he should be 360 most unwilling to put the House to the trouble of a division; but certain remarks had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Donoughmore) which were calculated to produce an erroneous impression, and upon which he wished to say a few words. The noble Earl spoke of political influence having been brought to bear—

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
said, he had only stated that there was a rumour to that effect.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he was perfectly ignorant that any such influence had been exerted, and he believed there was no foundation whatever for any such rumour. He was not aware that the Home Secretary in this country was in the habit of communicating with the local magistracy in reference to the remission of punishment; and, if that were so, he did not see why the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should be bound to communicate with the local magistrates in Ireland on a similar occasion. At the same time, he certainly would not object to the production of the Memorial and any letters of a public nature; but he could not consent to produce confidential communications, such as might have taken place between the Irish Government and the Judges.

THE EARL OF CLANCARTY
said, that no communication, although it might be marked "private," could be considered private which covered a Memorial of the kind referred to. He trusted that no such remedy as that suggested by the noble Marquess, namely, the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, would be hastily adopted. He could not see anything more important to a country situated like Ireland than to have a man of the exalted position of Lord Lieutenant resident there to superintend the administration of the different parts of the Irish Government.

§ THE EARL OF CHICHESTER
said, that with regard to the practice in this country, it was usual for the Secretary of State, when he received a Memorial praying for a remission of punishment, to communicate with the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and to request information as to the evidence from the notes of the Judge.