The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY El/JENA/NG, JUNE 18, 1853.

also two other persons, Davis and Blake, and that
they were ready to prcve that they were spoken;
by Mr. Keogh. He had also a certificate signed
by several most respectable persons living in and '
near Monte, and who were present at the meet-
ing., expressing their readiness to come forward and
give evidence on their oath to the same effect. But
had the Government really desired to ascertain
whether the charge originated in truth or calumny, they
need not have done more than apply to Sir D. Mac-
gregor, the head of the police, who must have known of
the matter, inasmuch as there was, as he (the Marquis
of Westmeath) was informed, a constable at the meet-
ing, who took down the words, and no doubt his report
was on the table of the Lord-Lieutenant. And if that were
so, ho would ask how could his Excellency sanction Mr.
Keogh being employed as an officer of the Crown in
carrying out prosecutions against persons who might be
mixed up in those infamous and bloody conspiracies
against life and property, by which the country had been
so long disgraced. He was anxious to say nothing
against that hon. and learned gentleman that could not
be fully borne out by the most indisputable evidence.
Their lordships would recollect that at the time when
this speech was made at Moate, the hoe. and learned
gentleman was himself a candidate for the representa-
tion of Athlone, and there, it appeared, he made a
speech, in which he addressed to his constitutents words
of a similar character. On the day of the declaration of
the poll, according to the statement of two most respect-
able English gentlemen, who happened to be there on
their own business, it appeared that the hon. and learned
gentleman, addressing his constituents, said, "summer
is almost over, then comes autumn, when the days will
be shorter and the nights longer, and after that will
come winter, when the nights are long and dark, and
then woe to him who votes against his Church." That
these words, or words to a similar effect, were used by
the hon. and learned gentleman, those two English gen-
tlemen were ready to come forward and prove on oath,
and that a Roman Catholic clergyman who was on the
hustings at the time, said in his hearing, if it was not
for the bayonets you (referring to the candidate who
opposed Mr. Keogh) should never leave this town alive.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE—Who said that?
The Marquis of WESTMEATH—ARoman Catholic
priest on the hustings. This was all capable of proof,
and if their lordships would give him the opportunity,
he would prove it. It would be seen that in both oases
the words used were almost the same as the pan words
used by the ribbonmen, and there could be but little
doubt that the hon. and learned gentleman was cog-
nisant of the pass words, and their effect upon the
audience he addressed. [The noble lord here read the
ribbonmen's pass words as quoted by him on Friday
last, and reported in The Sun of Saturday.] Nov,
the hon. and learned gentleman could have had no
excuse for being at Moate. He was not connected by
property with the county of Westmeath, and Moate was
six miles from the place for which he was himself a can-
didate. He could not conceive what grounds the noble
duke could advance against his motion. The issue was
, this—Were they in Ireland to have Queen Victoria, a
"Captain Rock, the death's head and cross-bones, or the
act of union ? Let them have a clear and explicit de-
claration of how Ireland was to be governed for the

future.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE would direct his answer
explicitly to the noble lord's motion ; the more so as it
was quite unnecessary for him to enter into any defence
of the hon. and learned gentleman, whose conduct the
noble marquis had called in question. (Oh, and
cheers.) He could assure noble lords opposite that if
it were necessary to defend the public or private cha-
racter of that hon. and learned gentleman who held
office under the Government to which he had the honour
to belong, despite the taunts of the noble marquis, he
would not fail to perform his duty towards him, and
say what he believed to be the truth in regard to him.
But he was saved the trouble, because the noble
lord whose name was mentioned the other night, and
who was a member of the late Government (Lord
Naas), had borne his testimony to the character
of the honourable and learned gentleman, and
the right honourable gentleman who was the leader
of the Opposition party in the House of Com-
mons, and the most distinguished ornament of the Derby
Government—(" Oh," and cheers)—had stated, most ex-
plicitly and distinctly, that he saw no reason why an
offer of office under the late Government should not have
been made to him, and expressed his high opinion, not
merely of the personal character, but of the ability of
that hon. and learned gentleman. (Hear, hear.) He
complained that the noble marquis, having received
from the hon. and learned gentleman, through a friend
of his, a direct denial of the charge, nevertheless brought
it forward without notice, and without giving the hon.
and learned gentleman the opportunity of communicating
with any friend in that house to answer for him. Was
that honourable or English conduct ? And now, having
by some means or other raked up certain evidence, he
had avoided giving notice of his intention to propose
this motion until it was too late for Mr. Keogh to send
to Athlone to bring forward counter evidence to meet it.
Was this fair ? (Hear, hear.) But more than this.
When the noble marquis made the accusation the hon.
and learned gentleman applied to him for the names of
the three magistrates on whose authority it was brought
forward. But the noble marquis, while admitting that
the demand was a fair one, refused to comply with it at
present—(" no, no," from the Marquis of Westmeath)—
and up to this time he had not furnished the hon. and
learned gentleman with the names. No doubt the noble
marquis, by taking this ungenerous and unfair course,
hoped to obtain some party triumph, and to retaliate
by lowering in the estimation of his countrymen the
man who had inflicted serious damage upon the noble
marquis's political influence in Westmeath. (Hear,
hear.) The noble marquis had said there was much ex-
citement at Moate, in consequence of Mr. Keogh having
promised to go there, but the fact was there was no
promise given to go to Moate, or any previous intention
of going there. Mr. Keogh was at Athlone on the
business of his election, and was asked by a friend to
take a drive with him in his " drag" into the country.
He consented, and they drove on to Moate. They pro-
ceeded to a small house, where there was a committee-
room in the interest of Captain Magan, one of the can-
didates for the county, and it being stated by somebody
that Mr. Keogh was amongst the company, he was
called upon to speak, and he did address the people for
some four or five minutes. But there was no premedi-
tated meeting, nor any reporters. With regard to what
was said by Mr. Keogh, in addition to that hon. and
learned gentleman's recent explicit denial that he ever
used the words imputed to him, or any words of similar
import, he had a letter from a gentleman who, having
heard of the accusation brought forward by the noble
marquis, had thought it right to address Mr. Keogh on
the subject. This letter had been forwarded to him by
Mr. Keogh a few minutes before he came into the house
with the following note :
"My dear Duke of Newcastle,—You will perceive by
Mr. M‘Nevin's letter, which I have taken the liberty of
forwarding to your grace, that his recollection agrees with
mine as to the transaction at Moato. Mr. M`Nevin was
beside me, and had the opportunity of hearing all I said.
At the same time I wish to state, that at the time referred
to I took a most active part in opposing, not only in
Westmeath (in which the principal part of the borough I
represent is situated), but in several other counties, the
candidates In favour of Lord Derby's Government. I did
my utmost to defeat those candidates, and frequently de-
livered speeches at different places with that object. That
made at Moate was without any preparation or pre-
meditation. It was delivered, after stepping from the top
of a coach, to a multitude who collected round the house
in which I was, and who loudly called for me. It did
not occupy five minutes, and was not reported so as to
enable me to refer to it. I have no recollection what-
ever of using any language even similar to that attri-
buted to me, but my memory may fail me as to the pre-
cise words used in the heat and excitement of election
occurrences, and I trust, therefore, rather to the evidence
of friends who were present, and the inherent improba-
bility of my expressing sentiments which I never enter-
tained, rather than to my own recollection. As to my
intending to suggest, either by word or gesture, the use of
violence to any one, I can most firmly assert that nothing
was further from my mind, and such a purpose was as
averse to all my feelings as at variance with the policy and
measures I adopted.—Believe me, my dear Duke of New-
castle, your most faithful and obedient,
" WILLIAM ICEoGH."
Mr. M‘Nevin was a highly respectable solicitor of Dub-
lin, and was known to some members of that house.
This was his letter :
" Dublin, 8, Middle Gardner-street, June 14.
" My dear Sir,—Having heard the speech you delivered.
at Moate duriug tho election of 1852, to which Lord West-
meath has recently alluded in the House of Lords, I have
not the slightest doubt but you never made use of the im-
proper language attributed to you, or anything that could
bear that or any similar interpretation. I certainly heard
every sentence you uttered clearly and distinctly, and if my
testimony upon oath be of any value you may command
it. I have spoken to several persons who were present,
and they all concur with me that it is impossible that any
such language could have been used by you without
attracting their pointed attention.—Yours very faithfully,
R. C. M'NEVIN.—The Solicitor-General for Ireland, M.P."
A letter of this kind from a gentleman whose character
was unimpeachable, might fairly be set against the
statements made by the noble marquis on authority
which he had afforded no opportunity of testing.
Mr. Keogh had assured him that neither at Moate
nor elsewhere had he ever used words that could
even be tortured into such meaning as inciting to
riot or disturbance. But why was the accusation
brought forward now ? Why had it been delayed till
this moment ? He said the other night the noble mar-
quis was the Lord-Lieutenant of Westmeath, and ought
to have brought the fact of such a speech having been
uttered, if it had been uttered, under the notice of the
Government at the time ; but he was not then aware that
the noble marquis was on the continent at the time. The
noble marquis was, however, represented by a Vice-
Lieutenant, Colonel Greville, yet no statement was made
to him. Neither of those magistrates came forward, as it
was their sworn duty to have done, had the statement
they now made been true, to inform Colonel Greville
of what they had heard. (Hear, hear.) That fact
alone was sufficient to throw discredit on their testi-
mony. But was there no other circumstance of BUB.
pieion as to the trustworthiness of this evidence ? It
appeared that persons of diametrically opposite views,
and disagreeing with him in politics, had, nevertheless,
combined with him in the attempt to throw obloquy
on Al!-. Keogh, and, if possible, exclude him from a
seat in Parliament. When Mr. Keogh was returned
for Athlone, a petition was presented against his
return by Mr. Lawes, the opposing candidate, which
lie found had been prosecuted with a zeal worthy of
a desperate cause, and took other steps which
showed plainly that he would not shrink from bring-
ing forward an accusation like this to serve his
own purpose. Mr. Lawes was present during the
whole of the election at Athlone, and knew what
passed, and was it probable that he would have
failed to bring the speech which the a•Ve marquis had
refused to bring under the notice • the committee
on the election petitions, to prove that intimidation had
been exercised, had it ever been spoken of ? But there

was a second petition against the hon. and learned gen-
tleman—the petition of the Messrs. Norton. That peti-
tion was so worded as to embrace every possible case
that could vitiate an election. Intimidation was one of
those charges, but nothing was said of the speech in
question. That petition was withdrawn but not by com-
promise, as Mr. Keogh compelled the petitioning parties
to pay him 1001. costs. The noble earl (Eglinton) had
said on a former evening that the case was different be-
tween Mr. Keogh, a private individual, and Mr. Keogh,
Solicitor-General for Ireland ; but then it should be re-
collected that Mr. Keogh was a Queen's counsel—a posi-
tion more prominent in Ireland than it even was in this
country, from the manner in which such promotions
were made. Mr. Keogh had attained that position at
the bar, not from any political influence, but because
when wearing a stuff gown he led his circuit, while coun-
sel in silk gowns were sitting idle by his side. That
eminent judge, Chief Justice Lefroy, had recommended
him for the promotion on account of the straight-
forward way in which he had filled the position of public
prosecutor. Now, with respect to this transaction, he
(the Duke of Newcastle) placed the noble earl the
late Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on the horns of a
dilemma—either the statement was made to him at
the time and he thought it too absurd for notice, or
believing it he had neglected taking the proper steps
for the punishment of Mr. Keogh, because, let him
tell their lordships, if the subject had been brought
before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and sub-
stantiated, his lordship would have felt it his
duty to deprive Mr. Keogh of his silk gown.
Expressions of an exaggerated nature were often im-
puted by political partisans in times of political ferment.
Mr. Delmege was accused of going out with the soldiers
in the Sis-mile-bridge affair, putting a pistol to a man's
head, and saying, " You had your election the other day
in Limerick, we'll have ours now or blood for it." Why
did not noble lords opposite condemn Mr. Delmege for
these words ? Because they did not believe them. But
such charges were common in times of contested elec-
tions, and no doubt might be collected in hundreds.
But the words quoted against Mr. Keogh were of the
most childish description, and would never have been
thought worthy of notice except for the purpose of dam-
aging her Majesty's Government. He thought he had
now nearly disposed of the question, but the noble earl
the late Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, had intimated the
possession of an affidavit, and he would ask the noble
earl to explain what that affidavit was, and when he
had received it. If the noble earl had held over that
affidavit without giving Mr. Keogh an opportunity of
rebutting it, then it was a most unfair proceeding to-
wards that gentleman. He (the Duke of Newcastle)
wished he could second this motion, for which no man
was more anxious than his hon. and learned friend the
Solicitor-General for Ireland, but he did not think it
would be becoming their lordships, on such information
as had been brought forward by the noble marquis, to
go into the inquiry demanded. He felt bound, there-
fore, to say "no" to the motion, although he felt that
no investigation could detract one tittle from the repu-
tation of the hon. and learned gentleman, or detract
from that high position which his conduct in another
matter had secured for him. Let the noble marquis
bring forward a regular attack upon the Government,
and they would not shrink from investigation, but
they would not be dragged into an inquiry so
absurd as that now demanded. They had a right
to stand on their own character, and he felt that the cha-
racter of the Government might fairly defy such attacks
as that which had been brought forward by the noble
marquis. He would say more—he would say that the
private character and individual conduct, not merely
of members of the Cabinet, but of all those who occu-
pied official positions in connection with it, might fairly
challenge the noble marquis's attack, and that it would
be sufficient to shield them not only from the polished
darts of the noble earl, but from the miserable rusty bolts
which might be drawn from the battered quiver of the
noble marquis.
Lord BROUGHAM rose and endeavoured to obtain
a hearing, but there being a general call for Lord Eg-
linton, the noble and learned lord gave way ; and
The Earl of EGLINTON appealed to the house
whether he had taken any unfair advantage of the hon.
and learned gentleman who was the subject of this dis-
cussion, or whether he had infused any acrimony into
it further than stating he had a certain affidavit in his
possession ? So far from seeking to collect materials
against the honourable and learned gentleman, he had
not done so now, nor on any other occasion whatever.
(Hear, hear.) He had been attacked by the noble duke
on a former occasion, and had been the subject of
attack in another place, for having used the expression
that " Mr. Keogh's was the least reputable of the pre-
sent appointments." He had no desire to shrink from
that assertion in the sense in which it was made, which
had no refeTence whatever to Mr. Keogh's private cha-
racter, or anything else respecting that gentleman, ex-
cept the words which had been attributed to him.
And if, as he had reason to think was possible, if
not probable, Mr. Keogh had been guilty of using the
words attributed to him, then he said the appointment
of such a man to the high and responsible situation of
Solicitor-General would have been not only the least
reputable act of the present Government, but of any
that had ever existed in this country. The noble duke
had asked him why, in his position as Lord-Lieutenant
of Ireland, he had not taken notice of the affidavit. He
would tell the noble duke why he had not done so. He
had before observed, that to have taken notice of all the
violent speeches made at the contested elections in Ire-
land would have given full employment to the law ad-
visers of the Crown. Mr. Keogh's speech was only one
amongst a large number which had been brought under
his notice, and when he first saw it, he certainly did not
expect that the speaker would be her Majesty's Solicitor-
General, but certainly there was not one which had been
brought under his notice which seemed to convey so
plain an incentive to assassination. When such reports
came before him the custom was to send them to the
law officers for investigation or prosecution. That was
the course he had pursued on every occasion. Ho could
not swear that he had adopted it in this particular case,
but in as far as his memory served him, it formed no
exception to the general rule. His belief was that he
had referred it to the law officers, and had been advised
by them not to proceed with the case. (Hear, hear.)
A. short time after the general election he had received,
among many other representations respecting Mr.
Keogh, the affidavit which he held in his hand, and at
the time he received it he was told that it was a case the
disclosure of which would place the lives of the persons
who had sworn it in a dangerous position, but he felt
now that at any risk he was bound to read it to the
house. It was as follows :
"I, James Burke—(a cry of "Oh, oh !" from some
noble lord near, or some individual standing below the
bar)-'-do solemnly and sincerely declare I was in the town
of Moate on or about the 14th of July, when a large
number of persons were assembled to hear an ad-
dress from Mr. Keogh, the present member for
Athlone ; but upon that occasion I heard that
gentleman utter these words from the window of the
house of one who resides in the town of Moate :—` It is
now summer, and the nights are short, but autumn will
soon come round and the nights will be long, and the win-
ter will arrive at last, when the nights will be very long ;
and those who vote for Sir R. Levinge must take care of
themselves. I further tell you, men and women, to be in
Athlone at two o'clock on the election day ; and that the
men bring their shillelaghs and use them.' I make this
solemn declaration, conscientiously believing tho same to be
true.—JASIES BURKE.—Subscribed before me the 14th of
September, 1852.— ARTHUR BROWNE, a Justice of the said
Town."
On the previous morning he had, in addition, received
the following letter from Mr. Brown, the magistrate be-
fore whom the affidavit was sworn :
" 10, .Newcommon-terrace, Dublin, June 14,1853.
"My Lord,—l am to apologise for this intrusion. The
necessity will, I trust, justify the liberty I now assume in
presuming to address you. My attention has been drawn
to the late debate in the House of Lords, in which your
lordship took a conspicuous part ; and, as Mr. Keogh has
had the temerity to assert that he did not use the words
imputed to him, and as a controversy may arise thereon, I
wish (as the magistrate who took the declaration of James
Thula), to satisfy you that every word in that declaration
is true, and that at least 20 gentlemenof independence and
station (among whom the rector of Moate—the Rev. Mr.
Hopkins) are ready and willing to support the truth of
that deposition by their evidence on oath. The gentlemen
in question were present on the occasion, heard the words
so delivered, and there can be no more doubt of their utter-
ance than of any other truth which cannot be disputed.
The fact was, the whole neighbourhood was excited by the
atrocity of the language used on that occasion by the Sohci-
tor-General. I am further to observe,that beingtho local ma-
' gistrateliving in Moate, 1 felt it my duty to inquire most mi-
nutelyinto the whole matterwith a view of submitting it to the
executive, as I did hope the party using such expressions
would aot be allowed to do so with impunity. lam fur-
ther to add that your lordship is at perfect liberty to use
this letter in any mode you may deem fitting ; if, indeed,
the letter of so humble an individual may be considered of
any consequence or weight.—l hav?,tAhenhnionuoßurßtßoobweNyE.our
lordship's obedient servant,
" The Right Hon. the Earl of Eglinton."
The accusation was that the gentleman who was now
Solicitor-General for Ireland had at the last general
election used words which had the effect of recommend.
ing assassination. One word more. In begging their
lordships to go into committee on this question, he
would remind them that this was no anonymous slander,
no vague newspaper report, but was supported by affida-
vits, by magistrates, and by the rector of Moate—wit-
nesses that, if there was truth in man, ought to be
deemed worthy of credence. He did not wish to pre-
judge Mr. Keogh, nor had he any wish to find him
guilty, for he (Lord Eglinton) was not a bitter opponent
of the present Government nor of any man in the world.
(Hear, hear.) But he wished to have the question fairly
sifted, and if the charge should be disproved before a
committee of the House of Lords, no man would shake
Mr. Keogh more heartily by the hand than himself.
The Earl of ABERDEEN had only a few words to
say on this subject. As being the person principally
concerned in this disreputable appointment, lie felt
called upon to assert that lie did not feel that any
such character belonged to the act. If, indeed, it was his
most disreputable appointment, then, indeed, he felt
that he had reason to be satisfied with the composi-
tion of his whole Government. The noble earl
(Eglinton) had made a most extraordinary accusation
against his own course of conduct. He admitted
Caving received a declaration affirming the sedition al-
ieued by the noble marquis, that he had referred it to the
law officers, and that the latter had informed him there
was no case. Of course, he was bound to believe what
the noble earl believed, but the noble earl drew a great
distinction between Mr. Keogh as an individual and Mr.
Keogh as Solicitor-General. He (the Earl of Aberdeen)
did not admit that distinction as sufficient to exonerate
the noble earl, because Mr. Keogh as Queen's counsel
was just as deserving of reprobation, if guilty, as Mr.
Keogh as Solicitor-General. Even if he (the Earl of
Aberdeen) believed, which he did not, the accusation
against Mr. Keogh, after the statement made by his
noble friend, corroborated by witnesses above all excep-
tion—if lie did believe it that house was not the place
for its investigation. Were they to appoint a select
committee to inquire into a case of sedition ? (Hear,

hear.) They were the judges as well as the accusers in
this case, as it might be brought before them in the last
resort. He had really thought when the noble marquis
made the motion that he was not serious, but used it
merely as a means of attacking the Government. The
noble marquis never could have expected their lordships
seriously to entertain such a proposition ; at all events,
he (the Earl of Aberdeen) protested against it as utterly
unbecoming the functions and dignity of the house. The
occurrence he looked upon to be one of the most trum
pery description ; but even if serious, that was not the
place for its investigation.
Lord BROUGHAM said he put Mr. Keogh's guilt or
innocence entirely out of the question. The evidence
might be on one side or the other, or might be conflict-
ing, but that house was not the place for its investiga-
tion. They were a court of criminal law, and when all
other courts of criminal law had decided in a case, there
was an appeal to their lordships' supreme court. Were
they, then, the proper parties? Was that the proper
place to inquire whether a certain individual had broken
the law of the country ? Whether an offence had been
committed by this gentleman in his capacity as a law
officer of the Crown, in his private capacity, or both,
because the hon. and learned gentleman was just as
much an officer of the Crown through being a Queen's
Counsel as Solicitor-General for Ireland? But be that
as it might, whether it was in a private capacity or in a
mixed capacity that the hon. and learned member was
now charged, it did not matter. He was charged with
sedition, at least it was either sedition or nothing at all,
and being charged with that grave and serious offence,
what were their lordships called upon to do ? Why to
act as a grand jury, and though nobody preferred the
bill, and although they were a court of the last resort,
they were to decide on the very case which in all proba-
bility might again come before them on appeal. Un-
doubtedly their lordships had the power of inquiring
into the propriety of a particular appointment, but, at
the same time, if the principal ground of that inquiry
pointed a charge of a criminal nature against any indi-
vidual, he thought common discretion, as well as consti-
tutional principle, ought to warn their lordships against
entering upon any such inquiry. Therefore, he said,
without at all disputing the facts in this case, there were
reasons here why their lordships should abstain from ap-
pointing this committee, and he for one should certainly
vote against the motion. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of DERBY was exceedingly obliged to his
noble and learned friend for the exposition which he had
just given them of the law ; and although the noble and
learned lord had raised a technical obj ection to the motion,
he was not sorry that the noble lord had interposed be-
tween the fewobservations which he felt called upon to ad-
dress to their lordships. He must say, however, that in the
course of all his Parliamentary experience he never heard a
case, insignificant as it was represented to be, so mystified
as this had been by the noble duke and the noble earl
opposite. The charge in the first instance, their lordships
should vemember, was not against Mr. Keogh personally,
but against the Government for the selection they had
made under special circumstances of the hon. and learned
gentleman to fill the office of Solicitor-General for Ire-
land. In point of fact, the mention of Mr. Keogh's
name by the noble marquis was purely incidental to the
main point of his inquiry, whether, with regard to the
due and impartial administration of justice in Ireland,
the Government had exercised a wise or proper discre-
tion in selecting the hon. and learned gentleman for the
high legal office which he at present filled, when the hon.
and learned gentleman was stated to have used expres-
sions which, if they were used, he thought their lordships
would consider to constitute a serious obstacle to the
performance of the duties of Solicitor-General for Ire-
land by the hon. and learned gentleman. His noble
friend having thus incidentally introduced the name of
Mr. Keogh, and mentioned the words which were attri-
buted to that hon. and learned gentleman, another noble
friend of his (Lord Eglinton) characterised the hon. and
learned gentleman's appointment as the least reputable
which the existing Government had made, and thereupon
the noble duke opposite thought it incumbent upon him
to state that he was able to refute that expression by the
simple statement that Mr. Keogh was offered an appoint-
ment by the predecessors of the Government, which he
had upon the best authority, viz., the authority of the
hon. and learned gentleman himself. Now upon that issue
was joined not in their lordships' house, but in the other
house of Parliament, and the question was raised there,
whether such an offer had or had not been made to the
hon. and learned gentleman ; and then came another
collateral issue, namely, whether his noble friend the
late Lord-Lieutenant, having received an affidavit
setting forth the character of the words attributed to
the hon. and learned gentleman, pursued a right
course in dealing with it as he had done ; and then
came the last issue which was raised by his noble and
learned friend who last addressed their lordships, namely,
that this ,question was not one which their lordships
ought to take up. Now, to deal first of all with the
point of fact involved in the first issue, their lordships
had the assertion of the hon. and learned gentleman
himself that no offer of office ever was made to him by
the late Government ; but still, notwithstanding that
admission, it was necessary that he should say a few
words upon this point. In the first place he begged to
say, then, that he had not the honour of a personal ac-
quaintance with Mr. Keogh, nor had he ever spoken to
him in his life. He had no knowledge of Mr. Keogh's
private or personal character, and until yesterday even-
ing when the hon. and learned gentleman was pointed
out to him, he did not believe he had ever seen the hon.
and learned gentleman ; but supposing that Mr. Keogh
used the language attributed to him, and looking at the
course which the hon. and learned gentleman pinioned all
last summer, he concurred with his noble friend in think-
ing that his appointment was the least reputable. And
although he had never made any offer, or ever thought
of making the hon. and learned gentleman offer of office,
yet there would have been an important difference be-
tween his offering the hon. and learned gentleman office
in February, 1852, and the hon. and learned gentleman
accepting office under the present Administration. The
honourable and learned gentleman thought strongly
upon the question of the Roman Catholic Church, and
looking at the course which he had taken with re-
ference to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill it was some-
what strange to find the honourable and learned gentle-
man acting in office under the noble and learned lord
who was the author of that measure. He admitted
fully the talents and ability of the hon. and learned gen-
tleman, but the differences of opinion which subsisted
between him and the hon. and learned gentleman would
have precluded any offer of office being made to him
with his knowledge or authority. The noble duke,
however, opposite, had triumphantly referred to the dis-
cussion which took place last evening in another place,
and seemed to conceive that the matter of Mr. Keogh's
character, which had never been brought in question at
all, had been perfectly set at rest by the course of pro-
ceeding which was then taken. Now, he must say,
from what he had seen of the proceedings elsewhere,
that he had collected a very different impression from
them to that which the noble duke appeared to enter-
tain ; for, so far from the statement being borne out,
that an offer of office was made to the hon. and learned
gentleman, the proceedings tended to show just the
contrary, and whatever difference of opinion there might
be upon the meaning of the words used in a conversa-
tion which took place between the hon. and learned
gentleman and a noble lord, or as to the intentions of
the one and the understanding of the other, it was
pretty clear that what the noble duke asserted on a
former occasion—namely, that an offer of office was
made to the hon. and learned gentleman—was not cor-
rect. But if any such offer had been made to Mr.
Keogh it would have been perfectly reconcileable with
the expression made use of by his noble friend, because
an appointment which might have been quite reputable
in February, 1852, might not be so in December, 1852.
He did not mean to say that the appointment was dis-
creditable on account of the personal character of the
honourable and learned gentleman, but he said it was
discreditable to the Government on account of the
position which, during the whole course of the summer,
and while the contested elections were going on, Mr.
Keogh thought proper to plate himself in. Mr. Keogh,
in the undoubted exercise of his own right, thought
it incumbent upon him to make himself, from one
end of Ireland to the other, the representative and agent
of what was called the " Catholic Defence Association,"
and in that character he passed from borough to borough,
and from county' to county, lending his active services
to those Roman Catholic priests who were banded to-
gether to secure the return of their own nominees to
Parliament. It had been proved elsewhere, and very
likely their lordships' attention would be called to it
hereafter, that the conduct and interference of the priest-
hood, with some few exceptions, had been absolutely
inconsistent with anything like freedom of election ; and
of that body Mr. Keogh constituted himself the accre-
dited agent, and became a constant instrument in car-
rying out-their views and intentions. It was in that
character that Mr. Keogh made use of the language
attributed to him, both in Westmeath and at his elec-
tion in Athlone, and he (Lord Derby) must say, that
taking that language and comparing it with the honour-
able and learned gentleman's previous course of conduct,
it did seem to him to render him a most unfit person to
be selected for the office of Solicitor-General for Ireland
by any person who had the slightest respect for the
principles of civil and religious liberty. The question
which their lordships had to decide then was not whe-
ther Mr. Keogh had been guilty of criminal charges,
but whether the Government in appointing him to the
office of Solicitor-General had made a selection which was
likely to produce an unfavourable impression upon the
minds of the people of Ireland, and induce an impression
that offences against the law, if committed by parties
under certain political influences, would be lightly dealt
with. (Hear.) But the question had been raised by
the noble duke opposite as to whether the hon. and
learned gentleman did use this language ; and the
noble duke, quoting the authority of Mr. Keogh's own
private solicitor, who it was said stood by him at the
time the speech in question was delivered, declared that
the hon. and learned gentleman did not use these ex-
pressions. Their lordships, however, could hardly place
that single authority against the affidavit which had
been read to them, and the testimony of numerous gen-
tlemen of station and character who, although they did
not all agree in the precise expressions used, yet con-
cured in the idea which the language conveyed. Some-
thing had been said about his noble friend the late Lord-
Lieutenant not acting upon the affidavit while in office,
but it was perfectly consistent that though no charge of
a criminal nature could have been substantiated against
Mr. Keogh, the language was such that it would have
been perfectly impossible for the Government to pass it
by had the hon. and learned gentleman held office under
them, but still more impossible that they conld have
afterwards have appointed him to any office, but more
especially an office in connection with the administration
of the law. (Hear, hear.) In moving for this committee,
it was, perhaps, to be regretted that the noble marquis
had characterised the language as seditious, because it
did seem to give some colour to the argument of the
noble and learned lord opposite, that as the charge par-
took of a criminal aspect, that house was :lot a fitting or
competent tribunal to inquire into it in the first instance.

But the noble and learned lord admitted that there
were cases where, although a criminal charge might he
involved in it, yet, as it bore upon the general public
character of the Government, their lordships would be
perfectly justified in inquiring into it. Well, then he had
no hesitation in declaring that this was such a case; there
was no wish or desire to subject Mr. Keogh to a criminal
prosecution, or to inquire into the nature of his per-
sonal or political character. The object of the inquiry
was to enable the house to ascertain whether the Go-
vernment had exercised due precaution in selecting the
persons who were to be entrusted with the administra-
tion of the law. The question was not the criminality
of Mr. Keogh, but whether the Government had exer-
cised due and proper discretion in his appointment, and
since he believed that a prima fade case had been made
out for inquiry, he thought an inquiry ought to take
place ; but if the argument of the noble and learned
lord was to prevail, and if the Government and the
learned gentleman himself were satisfied to leave this
question in its present position, after the statement
which had been made, and after the discussion which
had taken place there and elsewhere, he would venture
to advise the noble marquis to remain contented with
having made the charge and shown that he was ready
with evidence to prove it, and leave to the Government
and the hon. and learned gentleman himself the respon-
sibility of having shrunk from the investigation to which
he had challenged them. (Hear, hear.)
Lord CAMPBELL opposed the motion, but in con-
sequence of the noise arising from the peers leaving the
house, the noble and learned lord's observations were
inaudible in the gallery.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE wanted to know
how the noble earl, the late Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland,
became possessed of a document to which he had re-
ferred? (Hear, hear.) A document in the possession of
a Minister of the Crown ought not to be referred to
without being produced, as he had stated on another
occasion, the other night. The Lord-Lieutenant of Ire-
land had quitted Ireland, carrying with him an official
document affecting the character of a man in a high
position—a Queen's counsel—who could act as a ma-
gistrate in any county in Ireland. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of EGLINTON said it was not an official
document—it was given to him by a private individual,
and it was not sent to him as Lord-Lieutenant ; and he
must also tell the noble marquis that he wat not a Mi-
nister of the Crown. .

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said the noble
earl had said that he had submitted the matter to the
law officers of the Crown.
The Earl of EGLINTON said he had distinctly stated
that he believed he submitted the case of Mr. Keogh to
the law officers of the Crown • but he never said :hat he
had submitted the affidavit, because he had never done
so. He submitted Mr. Keogh's case, as he did all cases
of violent language to the law officers of the Crown--but
the affidavit was never out of his possession.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE could not under-
stand the difference between the position of the noble
earl, as Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and his private ca-
pacity in such a matter—he could not separate the two
positions. The affidavit was given to the noble earl by
the political opponents of Mr. Ke.gh. He put it in his
pocket, took it out of the country, and nearly a year
afterwards produced it, without the party most interested
knowing that such a document was in existence. tHear,
hear.) It was assumed by the noble earl who spoke
last (the Earl of Derby) that Mr. Keogh's speech was
very notorious. He had not, however, seen it in a
single newspaper, neither had one been produced con-
taining a report of the speech which it was said hun-
dreds of persons were ready to verify. Reporters who
took down speeches in shorthand were generally very
accurate, and it was certainly extraordinary, if
the speech was as notorious as it was pretended to be,
that no newspaper containing it had been produced. It
was a fact which could not be denied, that the Catholic
constituencies of Ireland elected the men of their choice,
although it had been said that coercion and undue in-
fluence had been used. Had not the electors of West-
meath, Athlone, and Clare elected the men of their
choice ? He believed a great deal of coercion had been
used, and he regretted it ; but was it confined to one
party ? (Hear, hear.) Far from it. Every landlord who
coerced his tenant interfered with the freedom of elec-
tion, and was open to the same charge. (Hear, hear.)
The charge against Mr. Keogh was assumed to be of a
grave character, and yet not one word was said about
this affidavit until the 17th June. No man had a right
to keep evidence in his pocket against a public man so
long ; it was only now produced for a party purpose—
(hear, hear)—and that without notice to the individual
most interested in it. That was not a fair way to
attack a man, and he was glad to hear that the noble
marquis had agreed to withdraw his motion. (Hear.)
The Marquis of WESTMEATH replied. If these
ribbon conspiracies were mere nonsense, as it had been
said they were, why did the present Government prose-
cute parties for similar offences in Liverpool ? He was
confident that nothing which he had said had been
denied, and he was prepared to prove all that he had
asserted ; but, after the recommendation of his noble
friend, lie should consent to withdraw his motion.

The motion was then withdrawn.
The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad,
journed at a quarter past nine o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
OCEAN PENNY POSTAGE.

Mr. ADDERLEY asked Mr. Milner Gibson whether
he intended bringing on the motion of which he had
given notice for next Tuesday, for a select committee on
the subject of an ocean penny postage ?
Mr. M. GIBSON said, if ho found that the motion
stood no chance of coming on on Tuesday, he would
postpone it until another day. His desire was to move
the appointment of a select committee, to inquire into
the foreign and colonial postage, but he had ascertained
that the Government objected to that, on the ground
that it would interfere with plans of their own, and in
consequence of the lateness of the session. He had since
reconsidered the matter, but he had not yet decided on
the precise terms of the resolution. He would, how-
ever, before the end of the session, submit to the con-
sideration of the house a motion on the subject, in some
form or other.

In reply to Mr. ADDERLEY,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
objections which he entertained to a select committee,
related wholly to the question of time, and to the bear-
ing it would have on measures which were actually in pro-
gress, in reference to the reduction of postages to the
colonies, and to the adoption of some uniform system.

•
an affirmation when he entertained conscientious objec-
tions to the taking of an oath, and he wished to know
whether Government intended this Session to bring in a
bill to put that recommendation in force ?
Lord J. RUSSELL was unable to answer the -ques-
tion at present, but perhaps the hon. and learned gentle-
man would repeat the question next week.
METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Lord D. STUART said he had moved for certain re-
turns connected with the Metropolitan Police, and of
tim number of orders that had been given for opening
letters at the Post-office, but they were not yet' forth-
coming. How was this ?

Lord PALMERSTON said the first return was ready,
so fro as the Metropolitan Police was concerned, but the
order included the City Police, and as those returns had
not yet been received, the return could not be made up.

METROPOLITAN GRAVEYARDS.
Mr. C. BERKELEY said he perceived by the Ga-
rettc that no less than 106 of the Metropolitan grave-
yards had been closed by order of the Home-office, and
be wished, therefore, to ask the noble lord at the, head
of this department if he could state how many new
burial-grounds had been provided to replace those which
were already closed ? (Hear.)
Lord PALM ERSTON said his honourable friend had
correctly stated the number of grave-yards which had
been closed by order in council. There were other
grave ;yards nckav under examination, and probably the
rest of them would be closed at no distant period.
(Hear, hear.) The act of last year gave the Secretary
of State power to close graveyards in accordance
with the requirements of the Public Health Act,
but the act of Parliament did not vest in the
Secretary of State any power or authority to
provide new graveyards for those which were closed.
He happened, however, to know that several of the
parishes were making arrangements for new places of
interment : and he also knew that, besides the
great cemetery at Woking, there was a bill
now passing through Parliament, which had
passed this house, and was now under discussion in
the House of Lords, for providing another cemetery
within a certain distance of the metropolis. (Hear.)
ADVERTISEMENT DUTY.
Mr. M. GIBSON wished to know what business it
was proposed to take on Monday, in the event of the
committee on the succession duty being disposed of to-
ninht
. _ _

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, in
the event of the Succession Duty Bill being got through
to-night, or early on Monday evening, he should move
immediately afterwards resolutions relating to receipt
and other stamps ; and when they were disposed of he
should propose to take the resolutions relating to the
duty on advertisements and the stamp upon newspapers,
but these latter would not be taken after ten o'clock,
(Hear, hear.)
The motion that the house, at its rising, do adjourn
until Monday was then agreed to.

SUCCESSION DUTIES BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill.
On clause 7,
Sir F. KELLY begged to put two cases to the Claancel-
lor of the Exchequer. The first referred to the former part
of the clause, whereby the succession duty accrued in every
case where there was any engagement, secret trust, ar- '
rangement capable of being legally enforced. Now, sup-
pose a father gave a sum of money, say 100,0001., to his
son during his lifetime, but where a written document
existed by which the son was to pay his father back an an-
nuity of 3,0001., but which was not of a nature capable of
being enforced by a court of law, would the tax be pay-
able ? The second case referred to the latter part e)f the
clause, by which the tax was also chargeable in any case
where there was any engagement or arrangement -with a
fraudulent intent to defeat the act. Now, suppose tl sat in
the instance he had just put there was no written docu-
ment, but that the father had given the son the money out
and out, relying on his honour to pay him the annuity,
would the tax accrue also in that case? He felt certain
that the clause would lead to much litigation, and that
years would elapse before the courts of last resort had de-
cided the meaning of the statute.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that
if, in the first instance supposed, the document was :not of
a character capable of being enforced in a court of Lew or
equity, the tax would not accrue under the former part of
the clause. With respect to the latter part, his answer
would depend upon the specialties of each case ; but when-
ever the proper court was convinced that there had been
any attempt at fraudulent evasion, it would enforce the
tax. As for what the hon. and learned member had said
about the litigation likely to ensue, that did not much im-
press him, because in matters of much less difficulty years
had elap ed before a sufficient code of precedents hid. been
formed to establish precisely what the law was.
Sir F. KELLY suggested the actual insertion c f the
words, " capable of being enforced by a court of le,w or
equity," which would render the meaning of the f inner
part of the clause perfectly clear. As for the latter part,
he did not think the right hon. gentleman's answer at all
satisfactory. He wished to know what would constitute
fraud within the meaning of the clause ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would assent to the in-
troduction of the words, though ho thought they would be
mere surplusage. Where property was given absolutely,
although there might be an honourable understanding or
moral engagement between the parties, it would not come
within the meaning of the bill ; but where, although the
property was given out and out, the son, for instance, gave
back to his father by another deed, and from other sources,
an equivalent, then, although either deed, taken by itself,
would not come within the province of the law, yet tho
two, when taken together, would amount to proof of a
fraudulent attempt at evasion.
Mr. VANSITTART moved the omission of the latter
part of the clause, because if it were allowed to stand
hardly any family arrangements could be made without a
lawsuit staring the parties in the face.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER protested
against the notion that family arrangements would be
generally obnoxious. to an enactment against fraudulent
evasions. If the charge, however, was true, the parties
ought to have lawsuits staring them in the face. (Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY, Sir J. TROLLOPE, and other members,
supported the omission of the words, on the ground that
the clause would be sufficient without theM.
Mr. AIALINS further enforced that view, by saying that
no case could be conceived that did not fall within one or
other of the two categories which had been specified by
the Solicitor-General.
In answer to Mr. DRUMMOND.
Tho SOLICITOR-GENERAL offered to substitute the
words "court of law or equity" for " court of competent
jurisdiction." There would bo no difficulty in either
understanding or applying that portion of the enactment ;
but it, was impossible, without some such general provisions,
to meet all the varieties of fraud which human ingenuity
could devise. lie had no doubt the learned gentleman
opposite could devise one hundred such cases. (Laughter.)
The power complained of had existed for years with regard
to the legacy duty ; it would not be administered by any
other than the judges of the land, and, therefore, need be
the subject of no alarm.
Mr. MULLINGS supported the amendment.
Mr. 11. BAILLIE said a memorial had been sent up
from the writers to the signet in Edinburgh complaining
that they could not understand the act owing to the strange
law terms which it contained, and expressing the opinion
that it could never be enforced in Scotland. (Hear.)
The LORD-ADVOCATE said he haul gone through the
act carefully, and thought the addition of not more than a
dozen words was necessary to render. it applicable to Scot-
land. He feared the learned body from whom that report
had issued had not paid proper attention to the act.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said it was necessary that some
definition should be given of the word " fraudulent," as
used in the bill. Was it meant to be merely declaratory
of the law as it stood, or was it the creation of a new
offence ? If the former, he doubted whether the Govern-
ment had any right to stigmatise as fraudulent arrange-
ments made to evade this tax, which would be most oppres-
sive. The highest authorities in the land had differed on
this point ; he, therefore, disputed the right of the Govern-
ment to declare such matters to be fraudulent. To the
other alternative he objected more strongly, that of creat-
ing a now offence. It was most unwise for the legislature
to do anything which might shock the moral feelings of the
people, by calling that fraud which they had not hitherto
considered so.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged to
assure the right hon. gentleman that the moral feeling of
the country was not in the smallest danger of being
shocked and annoyed in any way. (Hoar.) This Matter
had nothing to do with moral feeling, or either side of the
alternative which the right hon. baronet had put. He said
it was either a declaratory enactment or the creation of a
new offence. It was neither the one nor the other. It said
nothing about the meaning of fraud, nothing about what
should constitute fraud. It used language perfectly well
known to the law. (Hear.) It left that language to be
construed as it had been heretofore, in carrying out the
law; and if three judges out of four in Westminster-hall,
or
as
om fraudulent any
nototahefr number,raud had
pcol es
ictl dmtandaet
fsourc such
hae dpiisiprpo
purpose
istei on
of
evading the legacy duty, those three out of four would
be just as free to declare that the arrangements made
under this act were not fraudulent in order to evade
the succession duty. They did not touch in the slight-
est degree the meaning of the term, but merely left it
to be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction whe-
ther an arrangement was fraudulent or not. They pro-
ceeded upon the principle of law and reason, and where
those terms applied, there it would be declared that the
party was liable to the succession duty.
Mr. T. EGERTON said they should remember that
they were dealing in this bill with the whole of the landed
property in the country. It might take a long series of
years to establish a number of legal decisions on
lithese
points ; and in the meantime every successor won
court to
subject, to have his case brought before a
be
deter-
mine whether his succession was fraudulent or not. (Hear.)
Then the crown paid no costs. (Hear, hear.) The public
knew something of that from the customs cases. He hoped
the right hon. gentleman would consent to strike out the
words.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said ho
could not do so. There was no fear that any family
arrangement made for honourable purposes would be de-
clared fraudulent by any court. If the word " fraudulent"
were left out, it would make the question much wider, and
give greater scope for litigation.
Mr. MALINS said that no case had been suggested to
which those words would apply ; and the committee had a
right to assume that there was no such case, and that the
words were unnecessary. The only case which could occur
was the same as had arisen under the legacy duty, that of
a man making himself merely tenant for life of his own
property, in order to evade the duty payable on his death,
and this was sufficiently provided for.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL defended the clause as it
tresmireTz:EL t numerous.
stood, and said that the conceivable cases of fraud were ex-
Y 1
hoped the house would not so stultify
itself, that the country would not know what was the in-
tention of the Legislature.
Sir C. WOOD said that no one who wished the revenue
to be fairly collected could object to the clause. No doubt
there might be family arrangements of a bone fide and
honourable character ; but it was admitted on the other
side that great ingenuity would be called into play to
evade the duty. This being the case, ought there not to
be some provision to meet it ?
Mr. W.ALTER, said he wished to ask whether an ar-
rangement which had the effect of evading the duty was
to he considered fraudulent on that account ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that in the first
place a disposition which did de facto evade the duty did
not, on that account alone, become fraudulent ; secondly,
an
act,
far dispositionth at re
amadeson alone,wi
with the
becomeexpress
fraudulent;
but a dis-
positionemaate to avadeethe .ci=ty, =Lust e/t,:),t,tenYlesel with
some other circumstances, by virtue of whim. it might bo
said to have been made fraudulently. Accordingly, the
words employed in this clause were, not that the court