The Press.
London, England, 1856-03-22 00:00:00

266

" the City." He had the stamp of Downing-
street affixed to his pretensions. Ministerial
approbation was given to his character. Who
could suspect the faithful ally and confederate
of men so high in public life as the Duke of
NEWCASTLE, the Earl of ABERDEEN, and Sir
JAMES GRAHAM? When made Lord of the
Treasury, so great was the prestige of SAD-
LEIR'S name, thus accredited by great official
persons, that two English gentlemen gave hiw
the manipulation of One hundred and fifty
thousand pounds to trade upon for them.
Their case, and that of many more besides, is
painfully familiar to us in all its dreadful de-
tkils, which ere long will be made public to the

world.
But the folly shown in taking Mr. WILLIAM
ICEouu as Solicitor-General for Ireland was
even still more egregious, and redounds still
more to the discredit of his patrons. We
shall refer to patent and public facts iu that
"Right Honourable" Gentleman's career which
will convict his " patrons " of having acted
with extraordinary rashness.

1. It is a singular fact in the career of
Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH that almost every step he
has taken has always been attended with
questions of some personal odium. The first
occasion on which he was brought before the
Irish public was in the spring of 1838. His
entry into notoriety was certainly most in-
auspicious. It was upon a motion as to
whether he should not be turned out of the
College Historical Society for having used
most scandalous language in its public debates.
The language was, indeed, most shocking, and
we have an attested copy of it before us as we
write. The question as to whether he should
be expelled was discussed in public, before a
vast crowd of " strangers," nut mem It-I.s ot
that society, which was then " extern," and
met in an hotel. Mr. KEOGH appealed
to the mercy of the Society, and implored
them not to brand him for life and blast his
prospects at the outset of his career. More
than half of the society were averse to grant-
ing his prayer; but, owing to the vacillation
or excessive amiability of the mover, the
notice was withdrawn, and Mr. KEOGH es-
caped.

2. When he made his first elaborate Parlia-
mentary effort on the 21st July, 1848, to attract
attention, it is most remarkable that the debate
should have turned on the character of Mr.
KEOGH himself. The discussion is reported in
Hansard (third series, vol. 100, p. 189), but in
the Times and Daily News reports there are
other speeches, bearing severely on Mr.
KEOGH, which are ommitted in Hansard. The
gist of the remarks which fell from several
members is fairly stated when We say, that
they spoke of him as one who had better cre•
dentials for having acted as auxiliary-general
to a JOHN SADLEIR, than as Attm ney-General
to Queen VictornA. Sir GEORGE GREY sneered
and scoffed at Mr. KEOGH—then a " Conserva-
tive Catholic"—in a most peculiar manner.
" The Government (Lord J. RUSSELL'S) had
" failed to recognise the services of the Honour-
" able Gentleman"; and again Sir GEORGE
GREY said :—" Pending the petition presented
"against the return of the Honourable Mem-
" ber, he had not given her Majesty's Govern-
" meat any reason to suppose that they would
" find him an opponent, provided the petitions
" were witlulrawn" There was a volume of
inuendo in that taunt ; but these matters shall
be more amply elucidated by us on another
day.

3. But in the meanwhile we must direct
attention to the fact that Mr. KEOGH'S career
has hitherto escaped, what we shall call a
condign scrutiny. A great delusion prevails
about the " Right Honourable " Gentleman.
It is supposed by many that of the charges
brought against him in 1853 he was
acquitted by the Breach of Privileges Com-
mittee. Now, the fact is that he was not then
even put upon his trial as to the gravest of all
the charges preferred against him. Here is
what the Committee said on that head. "It
" appeared to the Committee that the charge
." resolved itself into an impeachment of the
" public and political conduct of the Honour-
able Member referred to, matters upon which
" they do not consider it their duty to offer
4.4. their opinions to the House."