The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-11 00:00:00

Iconcerned in it were sentenced to imprisonment for ten
'of twelve days, with hard labour. Now, according to
the statement which he (Lord Aberdeen) had received,
the very magistrates who passed thissentence sent to the
Lord Lieutenant, and recommended that he would remit
that portion of the sentence which inflicted the bard
labour, inasmuch as the condition of the students was
such as to incapacitate them from undergoing this pun-
ishment. That portion, therefore, of the sentence was
remitted ; and when the house considered the offence
and the youth of the parties concerned in it, he did not
think that their lordships would be inclined to find fault
with the Lord-Lieutenant. (Hear, hear.) The next
caterms
energsrmsea
sgwfeoadorsf i tnti hi,
iiaalapttrrioiospf
tollanwOcrnheo.eircni lit ;0
hepvceeayurf
ryowei nndesgraei
tfin .
sentencedt
hLmei metellver
cei c
tl kivoe,
election
wotohofvoamtrwhi
eoremieri
ees.
months. A petition numerously signed was presented
to the Lord-Lieutenant praying for a remission of
the sentences. The Lord-Lieutenant did not act
upon caprice, as the noble marquis had said, but
he heard the case through the judge by whom the
prisoners were tried, and it was only in accordance
with the recommendation of the judge that the sen-
tences were remitted. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) be-
lieved that this was the usual course upon all occasions.
Indeed, his noble friend the Lord Lieutenant had assured
him that never, under oily circumstances whatever, had
he remitted sentences except with the concurrence of the
judge by whom they were inflicted. Unless, therefore,
the house found fault with the Lord Lieutenant for lis-
tening to any petition, or indeed to the representations
of anybody, touching the remission of sentences, he (the
Earl of Aberdeen) did not know what other course could
have been taken. With reference to the case of Mr.
Kirwan, the noble earl did not think it was necessary
for him, after what had already taken place, to say
anything upon the subject. Coming back again to the
motion of the noble marquis, he bad not the slightest
objection to produce the papers referred to in the first
branch of it. With regard to the second case, he must
decline to produce the report of the learned judge upon
which the remission was founded. Such a thing had
never yet been done, because these reports were always
considered confidential in their nature. It did not, how-
ever, appear that the report of the judge would some
strictly within the motion. If it was understood that
the report was excluded, the noble earl was quite willing
to assent to the production of the papers asked for.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought that the
noble lord opposite (the Marquis of Westmeath) had been
greatly misinformed upon this matter, for he had made
several mistakes in the statement which he had made to
the house. Thus he had stated that the assault was
upon a magistrate, but such was not the fact.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH—Mr. Murphy is a
magistrate.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that it was
not so. Mr. Murphy was no doubt a most re-
spectable man ; he (Lord Clanricarde) believed him
to be a young professional man of much ability ;
but he was not a magistrate. The real facts of the
case were these. When the student, to whom refe-
rence had been made, refused to take off his hat, he was
turned out of the room, and in that proceeding Mr.
Murphy made himself very conspicuous. Upon the
following day this student, with another, met Mr.
Murphy, and his conduct of the preceding day having
been referred to, an assault on Mr. Murphy was com-
mitted. That gentleman very properly made his com-
plaint to the authorities, and the two students were sen-
tenced, not to 10 or 12 days, but to one month's
imprisonment with hard labour. When he (the Mar-
quis of Clanricarde) added that one of these students,
being rusticated, lost an entire of his academical course,
he did not think that the house would consider the
course pursued by the Lord Lieutenant was over lenient.
With the election speeches of his hon. and learned
friend, the Solicitor-General for Ireland, he, of course,
had nothing to do ; he would, however, venture to say
that the noble marquis opposite had made words spoken
during the heat of an election vastly more important
than they deserved.
The Earl of DERBY said that, after the few words
of the noble earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) he
was bound to say that, with regard to the two cases
brought forward by the noble marquis (the Marquis of
Westmeath) the statement of the noble lord was entirely
conclusive. If the facts were that in the first case the
remission took place in consequence of the representa-
tions of the magistrates trying it ; and, in the second
case, the sentence was remitted in consequence of a
reference to the learned judge who sentenced the pri-
soners, and such remission was made in accordance with
the judge's recommendation ; then he thought his noble
friend (the Marquis of Westmeath) had no sufficient
ground to ask for the production of papers. If, then,
he (the Earl of Derby) understood the noble earl at the
head of her Majesty's Government to state that these
remissions had taken place in the manner he had just
mentioned, and that they had not been made upon the
mere motion of the Lord Lieutenant himself—seeing the
inconvenience which might arise from the production
of the judge's report—he would advise the noble marquis
not to press his motion. But, although he (the Earl of
Derby) did not wish to dwell upon the question, he
must say that it seemed to him that the noble earl and
the noble marquis opposite (the Marquis of Clanricarde)
had dealt too lightly with the other part of the speech of
his noble friend (the Marquis of Westmeath) ; he meant
that portion with regard to the language imputed to the
hon. and learned gentleman who was now Solicitor-
General for Ireland. It was true that there were pro-
perly constituted tribunals for the trial of contested elect
tions, and that it was not within the duty of this house
to consider such matters. But this question was not as
to the political and moral effect upon the election of lan-
guage made use of by an hon. and talented gentleman ;
but, as to the effect of his having been selected to fill the
office of Solicitor-General by her Majesty's Government
shortly after the delivery of that language, and while it
was yet a matter of notoriety. The noble earl had said,
and he (Lord Derby) was bound to believe him, that he
knew nothing of this speech. Yet the speech was a
matter of general publicity ; in fact he believed affidavits
had been made as to the particular words uttered by the
lion. and learned member. He tthe Earl of Derby
therefore could not help wondering that the subject
should not have been brought under the notice of the
noble earl at the head of the Government at the time
when the hon. and learned gentleman who made it was
about to be appointed to the post which he then filled.
He (the Earl of Derby) was bound to give implicit credit
to the noble earl opposite when he said he knew nothing
of the speech ; but he could not refrain from again ex-
pressing his surprise at—he did not say it offensively—
the ignorance, the non-knowledge of the noble earl upon
the subject. Mr. Keogh, when the election for the
county of Westmeath was about to take place, acting on
the part of the Liberals, and being himself a candidate
for a seat, was reported to have said in public, "That the
nights were then getting short, and the days were long ;
the time was coming when the nights would be long and
the days short, and then they would know how to act
with those who might venture to vote for Sir R. Levinge
for the county of Westmeath." If he (the Earl of Derby)
were not mistaken, Mr. Keogh had recommended persons
to go into the town of Athlone armed with shillelaghs, and
to use them, if need be. This might, perhaps, be an in-
correct representation, but that some such speeches were
uttered there was no doubt. It was a most unfortunate
matter, that after such speeches as these Mr. Keogh
should be appointed to a high post connected with the
administration of justice. It had the effect of making
people doubt the sincerity of Government, and had led
to the belief that a system of partiality existed, and that
these appointments were made without a due regard to
public tranquillity.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE complained of the man-
ner in which the noble marquis (the Marquis of West-
meath) had brought forward an accusation, without no-
tice, against an hon. member of the other house of Par-
liament. He recollected when be was a member of that
house it was the custom to talk of statements which
were more than doubtful as " Irish facts," and the facts
of the noble marquis fell within that category. The
manner in which this accusation was brought forward
certainly made it appear as though the noble marquis
had brought forward his motion solely with the view of
throwing dirt upon the hon. and learned Solicitor-
General, and he must bear witness to the admirable
manner in which the noble earl (the Earl of Derby) had
improved the occasion. The noble earl had expressed
surprise that the noble lord at the head of the Govern-
ment was not aware of the speeches delivered by Mr.
Keogh. He (the Dnke of Newcastle) recollected not
very long since, when the election speeches made by Sir
F. Kelly were referred to in that house, the noble earl
opposite (the Earl of Derby) had stated that he was quite
unacquainted with what his own Solicitor-General had
said, and that he had no time to read the newspapers.
(Hear.) But he (the Duke of Newcastle) was in a posi-
tion to inform the house that these speeches were really
never uttered by Mr. Keogh. He had the authority of
Mr. Keogh's word for it, who stated that he had never
made use of any such language, and that what he did
say had been grossly perverted. He (the Duke of New-
castle) had next to charge the noble marquis opposite
with having made his accusation in a very unfair man-
ner, for he (the Duke of Newcastle) had been informed
that Mr. Keogh had, through a private friend, denied
the truth of the language imputed to him. Neverthe-
less, the noble marquis had not hesitated to come down
to the house and make the accusation, without having
the candour to say one word as to the denial of the hon.
and learned gentleman.
The Earl of EGLINTON was quite at a loss to see
the parallel between the case of Sir F. Kelly and that
of Mr. Keogh. Sir F. Kelly was the actual Solicitor-
General of the then Government, and addressed the
constituency of the place for which he sought to be re-
turned upon a question then in abeyance, which was to
be settled by the decision of the country at that very
election. Mr. Keogh, on the contrary, was a private
individual at the time he made the speech imputed to
him, and although that speech, whether delivered or
not, was a matter of notoriety, it appeared that li e was
appointed to a high and responsible situation without
the noble earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) having
the slightest idea that such sentiments had ever been
uttered. Of course he was bound to believe the noble
duke with regard to what the Solicitor-General for Ire-
land had stated, and also that Mr. Keogh meant wha t
he had said. But what did the denial amount to ? The
noble duke said that Mr. Keogh contradicted what had
been stated by the noble marquis. He (the Earl of
Eglinton) would not say that he believed the exact
prepree
words as put by the noble marquis, because he might
have transposed the words, and thunrsaden tcdihag
were
ims nwgi
magistrates
swear
tbuttr oa t. hees (
ofli e
(Hear, must
ther,
heatownr. attach)
Heh had a
some
c
ntoe
additional
theirwhat a
p td ha
s mean-roet en
for that belief in the fact that he had in his own iosion an affidavit sworn before a magistrate b a - oses.
y
whom he believed to be a respectable man, and who
was present on the occasion, ascribing
.Keogh words almost identical with those to Mr.
to him by the noble marquis. He was bound
that noble lords opposite had no kn
words; he was also bound to believeow edge person
attributed
In to believe
of the
Mr, Keogh's