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

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