The Press. — London, England, 1856-03-15 00:00:00

MARCH 15, 185 G. in Ireland. The Lichfield-house Compad drew on an enormous train of evils. The Whigs did not foresee the mischiefs that they were perpe trating when they took O'CONNELL into their confidence. They trusted to their boroughs, and organised platforms for keeping up their influence in England ; and they did not care about their Butlers, Ponsonbies, Brabazons, and Boyles being driven out of the Irish r epresentation. The Repeal conspiracy was the consequence. Enormous evils were thus produced by the infatuated recklessness of the Whigs. A taint of demagogism has been imparted to the Irish Executive, the dignity of an Irish Member has been lowered, and much was done to weaken authority generally. It is vain to dispute the fact that through the violence of O'CONNELL, connived at by the English Whigs, the sister country was brought to the verge of revolution. It was a most fortunate circumstance that the Conservative Government (including Sir ROBERT PEEL, the Earl of DERBY, and Lord ST. LEONARDS, the Chancellor of Ireland) dealt vigorously with the evil. England had been taught to dread the Repeal faction. The Conservative Ministry seized the scare crow, shook it, and exposed its imposture. That vigorous policy had been recommended many years before by Mr. BLACKBURNE (Lord DERBY'S Irish Chancellor). The published memoirs of Lord CLONCCRRY prove that if Mr. BLACKBURNE'S advice had been taken at he first, Ireland would have been delivered rom an age of agitation and all its evils. Recollecting these things, it is really dis graceful that this proud empire should have been dictated to in polities by persons like SAD LEIR and his gang. Without their assistance, Lord ABERDEEN and the Duke of NEWCASTLE could not have carried out their Coalition. Re cent events have given vast interest to the his tory of that Cabinet. People stand aghast at seeing what sort of characters were the leaders and organisers of the Brass Band. It de serves now to be recorded that one distin guished Conservative statesman was then re buked for his words of prudent caution. Justice to the Earl of EGLINTOUN demands that some facts should be made known, which are far from having lost their importance. Few Viceroys ruled Ireland with more ability than Lord EOLINTOUN, and none ever attained more personal respect. Social, accessible, and generous, he was also firm and independent. He saw Ireland with his own eyes, and his departure was loudly lamented. During his rule, his Lordship had many opportunities of becoming acquainted with the characters of the public men of that country, and in a memorable instance his Lordship took the exact gauge of one of them. When Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH was made Solici tor-General, in 1833, the Earl of EGLINTOUN took occasion to observe that, " It is certainly " a most lamentable result that the appoint ment of the honourable and learned gentle " man (Mr. KEOGH) has had the effect of " making many persons in Ireland doubt whe " ther it is the intention of the Government " rightly and fairly to carry out the law." We take these words as they are given in Hansard (third series, vol. 127, p. 1,362, et supra). For having used them his Lordship was attacked by the Duke of NEWCASTLE, and he was also taunted for having described Mr. KEOGH'S appointment as " not a reputable one." It is deeply interesting to observe how the words of Lord EGLINTOUN were sought to be overruled. There are some new facts in relation to this matter which deserve special attention. The Duke of NEWCASTLE acted on that occasion as what the Premier would call " hottleholder" to Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH. His Grace stated that, so far from not being a "reputable" appointment, Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH was a Queen's Counsel at the Irish Bar, and owed that honourable distinction to the interference of Chief Justice LEVROY. flow have the Sadleirite journals acted to Chief Justice Lefroy ! Statements of an exaggerated character were put into the Dublin prints owned and managed by the chiefs of the Brass Band. Those paragraphs commented on the ago and infirmities of the Chief Justice. It was proclaimed that he was vr lr 7u C t ilerf . 1. MARCH 15, 1856. in Ireland. The Lichfield-house Com on an enormous train of evils. The ' not foresee the tnischiefs that they w truing when they took O'CONNELL confidence. They trusted to their and organised platforms for keeping influence in England ; and they di( about their Butlers, Ponsonbies, E and Boyles being driven out of r epresentation. The Repeal consp the consequence. Enormous evils produced by the infatuated reckl( the Whigs. A taint of demagogisrc imparted to the Irish Executive, ti of an Irish Member has been low much was done to weaken authority It is vain to dispute the fact that th violence of O'CONNELL, connived English Whigs, the sister country WE to the verge of revolution. It was a most fortunate eircums• the Conservative Government (inc: ROBERT PEEL, the Earl of DERBY, ST. LEONARDS, the Chancellor of Irel vigorously with the evil. England taught to dread the Repeal facti. Conservative Ministry seized ti crow, shook it, and exposed its i That vigorous policy had been rece many years before by Mr. BLACKBU. DERBY'S Irish Chancellor). The memoirs of Lord CLONCORRY prof Mr. BLACKBURNE'S advice had heel he first, Ireland would have been rom an age of agitation and all its Recollecting these things, it is I graceful that this proud empire sly been dictated to in politics by person LF.IR and his gang. Without their Lord ABERDEEN and the Duke of / could not have carried out their Coali cent events have given vast interest tory of that Cabinet. People stand seeing what sort of characters were t and organisers of the Brass Band serves now to be recorded that e guished Conservative statesman wm buked for his words of pruden . Justice to the Earl of EGLINTOUN that some facts should be made kno are far from having lost their impor Few Viceroys ruled Ireland v ability than Lord EGLINTOUN, and attained more personal respect accessible, and generous, he was als independent. He saw Ireland wit: eyes, and his departure was loudly During his rule, his Lordship : opportunities of becoming acquai the characters of the public m( country, and in a memorable ins Lordship took the exact gauge them. When Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH was m tor-General, in 1833, the Earl of took occasion to observe that, " It i " a most lamentable result that tb ' ment of the honourable and lean " man (Mr. KEOGH) has had th " making many persons in Ireland I " ther it is the intention of the G " rightly and fairly to carry out We take these words as they an Hansard (third series, vol. 127, supra). For having used them his was attacked by the Duke of and he was also taunted for having Mr. KEOGH'S appointment as " not fl one." It is deeply interesting to ok the words of Lord EGLINTOUN were be overruled. There are some n( relation to this matter which dese attention. The Duke of NEWCASTLE actec occasion as what the Premier " bottleholder" to Mr. WILLIA: His Grace stated that, so far from a " reputable " appointment, Mr KEOGH was a Queen's Counsel a Bar, and owed that honourable dis the interference of Chief Justic How &lye the Sadleirite journal Chief Justice Lefroy ! Statemet exaggerated character were put Dublin prints owned and manag chiefs of the Brass Band. Those commented on the ago and infirm Chief Justice. It was proclaimed I THE PRESS. eighty-five (in place of eighty-two), and it was attempted, also, that other Judges should be written—qtf. This could scarcely have been meant for the convenience of either of the Messrs. SADLEIR, or of the Messrs. SCULLY, or of Mr. ROBERT KEATING, or of Mr. EDMUND O'FLAHERTY (though no lawyer, yet a noted conveyancer), or of Mr. STONOR, who had never been allowed by the Duke of NEWCASTLE to grow old upon the bench. Sir JOHN SHELLEY made his motion on Thursday, the 14th of February. We think that a high-minded man, if under obligation to Mr. LEFROY, might have attended in his place, and defended him from the newspaper attacks. Mr. KEOGH, however, might plead that official business called him elsewhere. Be it so. The right honourable gentleman " (he is a Privy Councillor), was possibly preparing the case against the accused murderers of Miss HINDS. Let the excuse stand for what it is worth. There was a time, however, when an Attorney- General of the Irish Bar would seek fur every legitimate occasion of scouting the notion that he could participate directly or indirectly in an attempt to jostle himself on the Bench; and we must say that the Clown and the cause of justice would have lost nothing, if the prosecution of Miss HIND'S murderers had been intrusted to any colleague of the Attor ney-General. "Accidentally or otherwise," said Judge TORRENS, "or by overlaying the case with "unnecessary evidence," the country has been put to the expense of a special commission, and the trial has been procrastinated. Let us, however, proceed. When Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH learned that Lord EGLINTOUN had disparaged his appoint men►t, a story was told to the Duke of NEW CASTLE (who had always been Mr. KEOGH'S " patron ") that Lord NAAS had tendered office to Mr. KEOGH. Our readers will recollect that Lord NAAS had been Chief Secretary of Ire land under Lord EGLINTOUN. The statement was peremptorily contradicted. Lord NAAS not only denied it, but added that he could not possibly have done so without being authorised by his superiors, and that neither Lord DERBY nor Lord FouxToun had ever given him any such power. Mr. KEOGH, a practised browbeater, made several asseverations on the subject ; and, as evidence on the point, he re ferred to a conversation which Lord NAAS had held with him on that special point. It was in a railway carriage, going from Kingstown to Dublin, that Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH, according to his story, had been offered office by the Tories ! The tale seemed most improbable, but Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH produced some tem porary effect by saying that a third gen tleman was in the carriage at the time, and that he had written to Ireland to ascertain his impression. A letter was then produced deposing ex actly to the sort of facts which Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH wanted against Lord NAAS. Who was the writer of that letter! Who was the conve nient witness of Mr. KEOGH' It was none other than his " confidential" friend, the scoundrel EDMUND OTLAHERTY, who even then (June, 1853) was hammering hard (with other assistants) at "his impressions" in the great forgery-factory established by some of the Brass Band ! Time will tell whether there were " sleeping partners" in the infamous concern. It was not until June, 1854, that EDMUND OTLAHERTY was found out. In June, 1853, he was on the eve of his appointment to an Income-tax Commissionership. But other things, also, were not known about him when his testimony was called against Lord NAAS. It was not then known that with Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH'S approval EDMUND OTLAHERTY had asked money for Mr. KEOGH from the Pcelites, and had got a hundred guineas from Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT. The statement of Mr. KEOGH, supported by OTLAHERTT, produced some effect. The Duke of !NEWCASTLE again and again taunted Lord EGLINTOTIN with his having gs sailed the appointment of Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH. Thus provoked, Lord EOLINTOUN did not either lose his temper or withdraw his words. His Lord ship called the attent ion of the House of Peers to the grave charges brought forward by the Marquis of WEsTmEAtrit against Mr. KEOGH on the 7th and 17th of June, 1853. They were to the point of a ferociously violent Epeech, " and something more," having been made by Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH when canvassing in West meath for Captain MAGAN in 1852. Several persons of the highest respectabi lity came forward to declare that they heard Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH, in 1852, employ the following language at Moate, in Westmeath, when denouncing the Conservative candidate, Sir RICHARD LEVINCIE:—" Boys, the days are " now long, and the nights are short. In the " winter the nights will be far shorter. Then " let it be remembered who voted for Sir " RICHARD LEVINGE." And other versions were :—" Let them take care of themselves " who will dare to vote for LEVINGE." Two magistrates of the county had heard Mr. KEOGH use these words. Their names were RICHARD RANDALL, and GODFREY LEVINGE, Esquires. The rector of the parish, and some Members of the Society of Friends, had also heard Mr. KEOGH use them. The charge was specific, and Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH denied the words. Who would suppose that a gentleman, a Queen's Counsel, "to whom Lord Derby's own " party had offered office," could use such lan guage? The thing was manifestly absurd. Pooh ! " Besides," continued the Duke of NEWCASTLE, " I have a letter to read to your Lordships, " from a gentleman who was also present, and " says he did not hear Mr. KEOGH use those " words." His Grace then produced a letter, addressed to Mr. KEOGH, and commencing "My dear Sir." It was written by " a bosom friend" of Mr. KEOGH, but that fact was veiled over by the adroit use of the word " Sir." That solitary letter only stated that the writer did not hear the words, and that he had spoken to several persons who had not heard them. But Lord EOLINTOUN returned to the accusa tion; and after Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH'S denial of the words, his Lordship read another letter from a magistrate of mark and station, ARTHUR BROWNE, Esq., who reiterated the first charge, and who offered to produce twenty persons to substantiate it Mr. KEOGH, however, con trived to get off; and nothing aided him so much as the effect produced by EDMUND O . FLAHERTY'S letter. Since then, strange discoveries have been made in various quarters ; and one after ano ther the organisers of the Brass Band, EDMUND O'FLAHERTY, and JOHN SADLEIR, and JAMES SADLEIR, and their allies, like Mr. STONOR, are gradually being unearthed. Mr. KEOGH'S appointment was "reputable" in 1853, because Mr. Baron LEFROY, in 1850, had recommended him for a silk gown. And Mr. LEFROY is now one of the judges vilified in the Sadleirite journals ! Then it was " proved" (!) that Lord DERBY had tendered place to Mr. KEOGH, because EDMUND O'FLAHERTY heard all about it in a railway carriage! But O'FLA HERTY is now a fugitive from justice. Mr. KEOGH could not have made such speeches as were alleged against him, because he was an eminent Irish barrister, but it was not then (June, 1853) known that he had employed EDMUND O'FLAHERTY to Solicit money from the Peelites for this bright ornament of the Irish Bar ! Nor could it have been anticipated that after having got the money from the Peelites he would finally go off to the Whigs, and decline to follow the example of Mr. BREWSTER, who seceded with his connection ! And, now, justice to the Earl of EcitiN TWIN requires that we should quote his non-retractation of the words used by his Lordship. Lord EGLINTOUN disclaimed making any charges against the private conduct of Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH, but with quiet emphasis the Noble Earl said : I have been attacked by the noble due (Newcastle); and I have been subject to attack elsewhere, for having used the expression that the appointment of Mr. Keogn was one of the kasi reputable acts of the present Govern ment. I have no desire to shrink from the responaibiliti , of having made that stalement.—Haosard's Debates. Third series. Vol 1.28. June 17th, 1853. Let us observe, also, what the Earl of DEBBY said on that occasion : I am ready to may that upon the supposition that such language was used by Mr. Keogh as that now ant 'tinted to him, and with the knflokdge of the general course pursued by Mr. Keogh durint the last summer (1852), I concur with my noble friend (the Earl of Eglintonn) in thinking that the appointment of Mr Keogh was a most urtfortsulats sew on the part of her Majesty's Government. is