APPOINTMENT OF MR. KEOGH—CHARGE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.

HL Deb 17 June 1853 vol 128 cc334-77

The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH

My Lords, the subject of the Motion which I shall have to make to your Lordships was brought incidentally before you on Friday last. It is necessary for me to say that on Monday there appeared in a public print—which I believe I am not wrong in stating to be under the influence and guidance of a noble person high in the Government — an article of very great abuse on me, for having undertaken to bring this matter under your Lordships' notice. I can afford to treat all that with the most supreme contempt; but, my Lords, there was accompanying it an inuendo, an insinuation, that I had been put forward by the noble Earl late at the head of Her Majesty's Government, to bring the matter before your Lordships. Now, I have no reason to suppose, that if that noble Earl had any sentiments on the matter, he would have put me forward particularly to state them; but the fact is, that no human being was acquainted with my intention until I had written to my noble Friend who is sitting beside me (the Earl of Glengall), sending him a copy of my Motion, which could not be entered on the Minutes, because I had not yet taken the oaths. Neither the noble Earl, nor any person connected with his Government, was acquainted with my intention on this subject, until I had come over to this country, and was prepared to go on with it. The issue involved in the Motion now on your Lordships' table is a very serious one. On Friday last, when the subject was mentioned here, the noble Duke, whom I see opposite, the Minister for the Colonies, thought fit to go to the bar, shortly after which he returned to his place, and, as a Minister of the Crown, he gave me, across the table, a distinct denial of the charges which I had brought against the Solicitor General for Ireland. My Lords, I will not make any apology for having done so. I do not think I need; because I am not so stupid, nor so dishonest, as that if a man come into the county where I reside and hold Her Majesty's Commission, and if he use such language to the lower orders of the people as I am prepared to state to your Lordships, on proof wholly irresistible, he did—as having done that, it was not to be expected that, as an honest man, I should be aware of it, and not take notice of it. The noble Duke also introduced into that discussion a collateral issue, quite beside and having nothing whatsoever to do with the main question. It struck me at the time, and since then I am perfectly certain, that the noble Duke did that to call away the attention of your Lordships from that which is the specific matter of my Motion, and to give rise to events which have "passed, but with which I have nothing whatsoever to do. I entreat of your Lordships not on the present occasion to allow yourselves to be led away from this subject by anything extraneous, which may be introduced by the noble Duke to the House. It has nothing whatsoever to do with it, whether Lord Derby, or any noble Lord connected with his Administration, offered to the present Solicitor General the office of Master of the Horse, or beater of the silver drum, or any other appointment; because the words and language charged to Mr. Keogh took place at a period long subsequent to the formation of the late Government. Now, my Lords, the noble Duke was also pleased to meet me, as well with this denial as with an attempt at mirth, in speaking of an "Irish fact." I do not myself think it is very good taste to indulge in national taunts and sarcasms. The Scotch, I know, do not approve of them; they say they are pointed weapons, and had better not be used. I do not know in what sense the Irishmen among us may have understood the pleasantry of the noble Duke; for myself, I can only say, that had I not been withheld by considerations which I think always ought to restrain the Members of your Lordships' House, I should certainly have made at the time such a response to the jeers of the noble Duke as would not have been agreeable either to himself or to his friends opposite. My Lords, the noble Duke will be treated to-night, not only to an Irish fact, but to an Imperial fact. With these preliminary observations I shall now proceed, my Lords, to state the evidence upon which I made the charge against the hon. and learned Gentleman— a charge which I am ready to sustain—if your Lordships will grant me the Committee for which I ask, and which I am prepared to prove at the risk of being content to lay my head upon the block. My Lords, I think it will be as well to submit the evidence to you in the same shape in which it was brought before myself. I hold in my hand the depositions of magistrates who heard the words uttered by the hon. and learned Gentleman at Moate, and who are willing to come forward and prove those words upon oath. My Lords, one series of them were uttered in the town at Moate, which is a Quarter Sessions town, at which the polling for the county of Westmeath took place, about six miles from the borough of Athlone. The hon. and learned Gentleman's presence in Moate was promised by the candidate for the county of Westmeath some days before he arrived; and the day on which he did arrive was the day of the nomination for the town of Athlone, for which the hon. and learned Gentleman was himself a candidate. He came to Moate avowedly as the friend of Captain Magan, one of the candidates for the county of Westmeath, and his arrival naturally collected a great many people of all classes together. Some of the magistrates of the neighbourhood, many gentlemen who were not magistrates, and a great crowd of other persons, assembled in the streets to hear the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was an open-air meeting, and the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed the assemblage from a window. The first document I will read to your Lordships is an extract from a letter which I have received from a magistrate who was present, and who says he is ready and willing—nay, anxious—to come forward and depose upon oath to the words used by the hon. and learned Gentleman upon that occasion. Indeed, I may here state to your Lordships that the universal feeling in the county is one of anxiety to disclose the whole truth, and to place the words of Mr. Keogh beyond dispute or cavil. It is unnecessary to inform your Lordships that language of the kind I am now about to quote, when used at the time of an election, in such a country as Ireland, when the greatest excitement prevails, and by such a master of his art as the hon. and learned Gentleman, cannot fail to create alarm and uneasiness in the minds of all peaceable and well-disposed persons. In point of fact, the words uttered by the hon. and learned Gentleman did excite much alarm, and the natural consequence is, that I now find a general wish prevailing to come forward and give testimony in this case. The unfortunate state of Ireland is such, that when a transaction of this nature occurs, it is usual for those who are qualified to give evidence to say, "I would rather not come forward and give my testimony in public, and I would prefer if you could induce somebody else, who knows as much as I do of the facts, to give you the information you require." My Lords, in this case it has been different. No sooner did it become known in the county of Westmeath that the matter was about to be brought before your Lordships' House, than many respectable persons—I think with great good sense—satisfied that words such as those uttered by Mr. Keogh at Moate, ought to be taken notice of in the proper place—voluntarily expressed their willingness to declare all they knew respecting the matter upon which your Lordships are now to exercise your judgments. The first version of the words uttered by Mr. Keogh is as follows:— ' Boys, summer is fine weather, the days are long and the nights short, after comes autumn, the days getting shorter and the nights longe and colder; then comes dreary winter, with its short cold days, and nights long and dark; and recollect, hoys, whoever votes for Levinge will surely feel the effects of them.' This is a correct report. I heard it myself. These words, I entreat your Lordships to remember, were reported to me by a magistrate of the county of Westmeath, who himself heard them delivered by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Another magistrate, who was also present, and heard the speech, writes me to this effect:— In reply to your queries about Mr. Keogh's speech at a meeting in the street of Moate, delivered to a large assemblage of people, previous to the day of election, I was one, and not ten yards from the learned Gentleman, when he made use of the following words:—' Boys, we are now in the midst of a delightful summer, when the days are long and the nights short. Next comes autumn, when the days and nights are nearly of an equal length; but next comes dreary winter, when the days are short and the nights long; and woe be to those during those long nights who vote for Sir Richard Levinge at the present election.' The Rev. John Hopkins, George Daly, and one of the Mr. Fetherstons—I think it was James, of Tubber—were all standing with me at the time, and are quite ready to swear to these words having been delivered by Mr. Keogh. Let your Lordships recollect that the documents I have now read were written by two magistrates.

The DUKE of NEWCASTLE

Will the noble Marquess mention the names of those two magistrates?

The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH

If the noble Duke asks me, and wishes it, I will; their names are Richard Randall and Godfrey Levinge. The next communication with which I will trouble your Lordships, is from the minister of the parish in which the hon. and learned Gentleman delivered his speech. It runs in the following terms:— I am not a little surprised how Mr. Keogh could deny what he said here the day he addressed the mob in favour of Mr. Magan. I was present, and heard what he said, as also George Daly, Theobald Fetherston, and James Burke, who all remember as well as I do what his words were. He said, 'This, boys, is summer, when the nights are short; the autumn will come soon, when the nights will be longer; but the winter will then come, when the nights will be long, and then let those take care of themselves who will dare to vote for Levinge.' He appeared to say this with much significance, and we all understood him as recommending the mob to take vengeance in the long winter nights. Now, in addition to all this, I hold in my hand the statement of other persons not magistrates, who were present when the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed the crowd at Moate. They are respectable—most respectable—people of the town of Moate, two of them being members of the Society of Friends. They say— We, the undersigned, residing in or near the town of Moate, in the county of Westmeath, certify that William Keogh, Esq., the present Solicitor General of Ireland, made use of the following words when addressing a large crowd in the streets of said town, from the window of Mr. Magan's committee room:—' Boys, this is summer, and the nights are the shortest; the autumn is coming, when they will be longer. After that comes the winter, when they will be at the longest; and then will be the time to mark the man that votes for Sir Richard Levinge.' (Signed)"GEORGE DALY. W. O'CLIBBORN. WILLIAM RUSSELL. Moate, June 14." JOHN HOPKINS. Such, my Lords, are the statements made to me by two magistrates, of the county of Westmeath, the minister of the parish in which the words in question were spoken, and a number of the respectable inhabitants of Moate, including two members of the Society of Friends. Now, my Lords, if the Government had been at all at a loss for accurate information, and if they had really wished to ascertain whether the representations I have made were true or counterfeit, they had nothing more to do than apply to their own officer, Sir Duncan Macgregor, the head of the police force in Ireland, who regularly receives from all parts of the country reports of the most minute description with regard to such scenes as that which took place at Moate during the last general election. With respect to this case, it is remarkable that the constable at Moate was seen taking down the language uttered by the hon. and learned Gentleman; and I have no more doubt, my Lords, that the report of that constable may be found on the table of the Lord Lieutenant, if he likes to look for it, than that I have now the use of my right hand. The reports received from all parts of the country by Sir Duncan Macgregor are regularly sent up to the Castle, and that being so, I want to know how his Excellency, who I am sure would not venture to say upon oath—I do not think he would say without an oath—that he was ignorant, until I repeated them, of the words uttered by Mr. Keogh, can justify his having selected that hon. and learned Gentleman to be the second Law Minister of the Crown in Ireland, who would be entrusted with the management of prosecutions against those poor, deluded, miserable creatures who may happen to be entrapped into a detestable and bloody conspiracy against the peace, property, and lives of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland? Now, my Lords, I think if the noble Duke is not satisfied with the evidence I have adduced in support of my charge against the hon. and learned Gentleman, he must be very hard of faith. But I will now give the noble Duke, as I promised at the outset, an English fact. The hon. and learned Gentleman—against whom I am sorry to be obliged to appear, because no one likes the office of public accuser, and in this House noble Lords are so well aware of the decorum that ought to be observed, and the example that ought to be set, that one must always be cautious not to say anything of which every tittle cannot be proved—the hon. and learned Gentleman was a candidate for the borough of Athlone at the last election, and I am informed that he uttered the same words and expressed the same sentiments to his constituents at that place which he uttered and expressed to the mob in the town of Moate. Two English gentlemen resident in London, most respectable men in every way, happened to be staying in Athlone at the time of the election, and here are the words uttered by the hon. and learned Gentleman at that place in their presence:—"Summer is nearly over, and autumn at hand, and after will come the long dark nights of winter, when woe be to the man who votes against his Church." And now, my Lords, let me direct your attention for a moment to a little of the fruit of this kind of language. At the Athlone election, a Roman Catholic clergyman on the hustings said to one of the English gentlemen to whom I have alluded, who were both friendly to the defeated candidate, and who are ready to confirm all they had said upon oath, if your Lordships will give me an opportunity of bringing them forward—"If it were not for the bayonets, you should never leave this town alive."

The DUKE of NEWCASTLE

Who said that?

The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH

A Roman Catholic priest on the hustings. Mind, this is not mere assertion. The words are capable of substantive proof, and I pledge my word as an humble Member of your Lordships' House, if you give me an opportunity, I will prove them. It is now for your Lordships to judge whether or not Her Majesty's Government has acted wisely in appointing the hon. and learned Gentleman Solicitor General for Ireland, and whether, considering that the Ribbon papers which were seized in Liverpool in the month of January last are the same, or almost the same, in substance, language, and spirit, as the words and sentiments uttered by Mr. Keogh at Moate and Athlone, any dispassionate person can hesitate for a moment in believing that the hon. and learned Gentleman betrayed a suspicious familiarity with the cant and passwords of an illegal and seditious conspiracy. The following paper was discovered among other Ribbon documents at Liverpool, last January, and has become the subject-matter of judicial investigation:— Summer is approaching. Short days are gone. Friendship will flourish. Yes, when the days will get long. Be quiet, my friend. Yes, I mean to be so. May freedom rule by land and sea, and death call him who would betray! My Lords, this is the substance of the matter which I was anxious to bring before your Lordships. I do not see what excuse the hon. and learned Gentleman can offer for his conduct at Moate. He cannot offer the excuse that he was at Moate in the prosecution of his own affairs. He is not connected by property with the county of Westmeath, and at Moate he was only known as the friend of Mr. Magan. He was under no necessity to go there, and, therefore, my Lords, I am at a loss to know upon what ground the noble Duke can possibly stand up to defend the hon. and learned Gentleman, and oppose the Motion which it is now my duty to propose. My Lords, the question comes to this issue —are we in Ireland to have Her Majesty Queen Victoria as our Sovereign, or Captain Rock? Is the Union to be repealed, or are we to have the Act of Settlement as the rule by which the country is to exist? What I have stated to your Lordships is not a matter to which statesmen in these days can shut their eyes, in the belief that it will not come to a dangerous issue, but it is one, on the contrary, which demands earnest and prompt attention. If Her Majesty's Government are not able to defend the conduct of their Irish Solicitor General, I hope they will at least explain to your Lordships why it is that the Lord Lieutenant, with a full knowledge of the facts I have mentioned, has neglected to deal with the subject, and has thrown upon me— who, thank God, am not connected with the Government—the task of bringing it before your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move— That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the subject of Seditious Language alleged to have been used by Her Majesty's Solicitor General for Ireland, at Moate, in the county of Westmeath, and at Athlone, in the month of July last.

The DUKE of NEWCASTLE

I can assure your Lordships that I do not require the warning of the noble Marquess to abstain from any extraneous matter in making a reply to the accusation which he has now, for the second time, brought before your Lordships' House. My answer to the noble Marquess shall be distinct, explicit, and confined to the Motion which he has made; and I do this the more readily because I consider it is needless for me to refer to that part of the debate the other night which took place towards its close, and to which the noble Marquess has alluded, apparently not quite liking the subject after the discussion which occurred in another place. ["Oh, oh!"] I repeat that I do not think it is necessary for me to refer to that debate, and, challenged as I am by those exclamations, I will give the reasons why. If it were necessary to defend the character—the public and private character—of an hon. and learned Gentleman, who holds an office in the Government to which I belong, I would not, despite the taunts of the noble Earl and the noble Marquess, fail to perform my duty to him, and to stand up and declare what I believe to be the truth with regard to him. But I am saved that trouble, because the noble Lord (Lord Naas) whose name was referred to in debate the other night, has already stood up in his place in Parliament, and declared what he thinks of the public and private character of my hon. and learned Friend; and because the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary at War (Mr. Beresford) has expressed similar opinions, and has stated that at any rate the late Government had a most friendly feeling towards the hon. and learned Gentleman. More than that, I am saved this trouble, because another right hon. Gentleman, a Colleague of the noble Earl, the leader of his party in the House of Commons, and one of the most distinguished ornaments of his Government— [The Earl of MAIMES-BURY: Hear, hear!] The noble Earl seems surprised that I should say one of the most distinguished ornaments of the late Government. It is true that I differ from that right hon. Gentleman upon many questions of importance; I disapprove of a great deal of what he has both done and said; but, nevertheless, I am not so foolish, or so blinded by party feeling as not to be ready to acknowledge his talent and ability, and to say that he was one of the most distinguished ornaments of the late Government. But, my Lords, what I was about to say was, that the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons (Mr. Disraeli) has stood up in his place, and, in the most handsome and explicit manner, stated that whatever indiscretions might have been committed by any one, he saw no reason why the offer of office should not have been made to my hon. and learned Friend, and expressed his high opinion, not merely of the ability, but of the public and private character of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I repeat, therefore, that I consider it is unnecessary for me to advert to what was said the other night; and I sincerely hope, after the testimony which has been borne by the Colleagues of the noble Earl to the character as well as ability of my hon. and learned Friend, we are not going to hear again of the "disreputable" character of the appointment of one to whose position and reputation the Colleagues of the noble Earl in another place have borne such ready and hearty testimony. My Lords, before referring to the accusations brought forward by the noble Marquess, I must again complain of the unfair manner in which a man, whose status in this country must depend entirely upon his character, has been assailed, and of the improper way in which the noble Marquess has brought forward his charges. The other night the noble Marquess introduced those charges upon a Motion on a totally different subject, without any previous warning to any noble Lord in this House, and without any intimation to the hon. and learned Gentleman of his intention to arraign his conduct before your Lordships—

The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH

The noble Duke is in error. I did give notice to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I intended to bring this subject before your Lordships.

The DUKE of NEWCASTLE

I am quite content to accept the correction of the noble Marquess; and perhaps the noble Marquess, having put me right on this point, will have the kindness to resume his seat. [The Earl of DERBY: Order, order!] I assure the noble Earl that I did not mean to offend him, but it is the noble Marquess who is out of order by remaining standing whilst I am speaking. Perhaps the noble Earl is chagrined at the badness of his case. Well, I am not in the slightest degree astonished at the vehemence exhibited by noble Lords opposite. For my own part, I am perfectly ready to discuss the subject with calmness; but, nevertheless, I am not prepared to acquit the noble Marquess of unfairness; for although I am bound to admit, because he says it, that he gave notice to the hon. and learned Gentleman of his intention to make a statement respecting him, I was under the impression that he heard of it from a friend and not from the noble Marquess. With this, moreover, I charged the noble Marquess before, and I repeat it now, that that friend conveyed to the noble Marquess a distinct denial of the charge he was about to make:—nevertheless he did bring forward his charges in his place in Parliament without intimation to any friend of the hon. and learned Gentleman in this House, and that, too, upon a Motion which had reference to an entirely different subject. Was that fair—was that English—conduct worthy of the position of the noble Marquess in this House? But what has the noble Marquess done since? He has hastened, as soon after the debate which took place the other night as possible, to write over to Ireland, and to instruct his friends and agents there to ransack the whole country for these proofs, as he calls them, of what occurred at Moate and Athlone at the time of the last general election; but he never intimated to any noble Lord in this House, or to the hon. and learned Gentleman himself that he was about to adopt that course—

The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH

I gave notice of the Motion which I have proposed this evening.

The DUKE of NEWCASTLE

The noble Marquess did not give notice of his Motion until Tuesday last, and this is Friday, so that it has been utterly impossible for the hon. and learned Gentleman, or for any of his friends, to send over to Athlone and Moate to obtain such evidence as they might be able to procure, to refute the accusations which the noble Marquess has brought forward. Is that fair? But, more than this, when my hon. and learned Friend heard that the noble Marquess intended to make a statement regarding him to your Lordships, he sent one of his friends to the noble Marquess to ascertain what was the nature of the charges he proposed to bring against him; in order that he might be enabled to supply some Member of this House with such facts as might be necessary for the vindication of his character. That was represented to the noble Marquess to be a very reasonable request, and what was his reply? "Why," said the noble Marquess in effect, "it is a very fair request, indeed, and I will take it into consideration, but in the meantime I cannot comply with it."

The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH

No, no!

The DUKE of NEWCASTLE

The noble Marquess believed it to be a very fair demand, but he would not accede to it.

The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH

I deny it.

The DUKE of NEWCASTLE

Why, the noble Marquess has all along refused to give the names of his witnesses either to the hon. and learned Gentleman or to any of his friends; and it was only when I put the question across the table a few minutes ago that I was able to ascertain the names of the two magistrates who profess to have heard the speech of my hon. and learned Friend at Moate last summer. Was that fair dealing? The noble Marquess, no doubt, expects to obtain some party advantage, to inflict some disgrace upon the Government, to lessen the triumph which the hon. and learned Gentleman achieved in the House of Commons last night, and perhaps to do him some harm in the estimation of his countrymen—all because he has probably inflicted serious damage on the political influence and interests of the noble Marquess in the county of Westmeath. How has the noble Marquess endeavoured to substantiate his accusations? He has produced, indeed, a number of irrefragable proofs, as he calls them, and has once more read to us the speech which my hon. and learned Friend is alleged to have delivered in the town of Moate. He has stated that the promise of the arrival of the hon. and learned Gentleman in Moate had the effect of causing a large crowd of people to assemble, and immense excitement and commotion in the town, which was one reason why so much attention was paid to his words. Now it happens that the hon. and learned Gentleman, though he did not anticipate the statement which the noble Marquess has made, can prove by the testimony of at least two honourable gentlemen, that the account given by the noble Marquess of the circumstances under which the meeting at Moate was held, is not accurate. So far from his arrival in Moate having been promised, and a great assembly of people collected in consequence to hear his speech in the open air, it appears that, on the summer afternoon in question, a friend of Mr. Keogh happened to be in Athlone, with "a drag" and four horses, driven by himself, and he insisted upon the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was then engaged in his election, taking a drive with him into the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman consented to do so, and accordingly his friend drove him off in the direction of Moate; but so little thought had he of staying away from Athlone, that he caused an empty car to follow the drag, with the view of bringing him back when he considered he had proceeded far enough from the town. The two friends rode together as far as Moate, about six miles from Athlone, and drove up to a small house—I do not know whether it was a public-house or not, but I suppose it was —the head quarters of the committee of Captain Magan, who was then standing as a candidate for the county of Westmeath. The hon. and learned Gentleman was, of course, warmly welcomed by his friends, and he was no sooner observed arriving in the town than a number of people assembled in the principal, indeed I believe the only, street, which, I am told, is about three times as wide as Regent Street, and is, in fact, a wide open road, and requested him to address a few observations to them. Under these circumstances, without premeditation or preparation of any kind—without reporters, and without any of those adjuncts which the noble Marquess conjured up the other night— the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed the crowd in a speech of not more than five minutes' duration, simply in order to gratify the people who wished to hear him speak. Now, I think this plain statement of the fact at once manifests the animus of the perversion of the case which the noble Marquess has thought proper to lay before your Lordships. The noble Marquess has brought forward what he calls irrefragable proofs of his case. One statement, at all events, until both have been examined, is as good as another; and I am able to meet that made by the noble Marquess with a letter which a gentleman, having heard the allegations advanced by the noble Marquess against the hon. and learned Gentleman, addressed to him, being fully acquainted with the real facts of the matter. But before I proceed further, I had better read a letter which I have received from the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. It runs as follows:— My dear Duke of Newcastle—You will per ceive by Mr. Macnevin's letter, which I have taken the liberty of forwarding to your Grace, that his recollection agrees with mine as to the transactions at Moate. Mr. Macnevin 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 delivered speeches at different places with that object. That made at Moate was without any preparation or premeditation. 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 mo to refer to it. I have no recollection whatever of using any language even similar to that attributed to me; but my memory may fail me as to the precise 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 improbability of my expressing sentiments which I never entertained, 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 Newcastle, your most faithful and obedient, "WILLIAM KEOGH.

The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH

Who is this Mr. Macnevin? I never heard of him in my life before.

The DUKE of NEWCASTLE

The noble Marquess says he never heard of Mr. Macnevin in his life. That may be; but although the noble Marquess is acquainted with a great many distinguished Irishmen, it is not at all improbable that Mr. Macnevin may be a very respectable man, and yet not be known to the noble Marquess. Mr. Macnevin, I understand, is a highly respectable solicitor in the city of Dublin, and belongs to a county family which I have no doubt is known and esteemed by a noble Marquess whom I see below. [The Marquess of CLANRICARDE: Hear, hear!] The noble Marquess assents, so I need say no more about the respectability of Mr. Macnevin, though I may mention that he is not the election agent, but the private friend, and, I believe, private solicitor of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Here is the letter which he addressed to him after reading the speech delivered by the noble Marquess on Friday last:— Dublin, 8, Middle Gardner Street, June 14. My dear Sir—Having heard the speech you delivered at Moate during the election of 18S2, to which Lord Westmeath has recently alluded in the House of Lords, I have not the slightest doubt but you never made use of the improper 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. MACNEVIN. The Solicitor General for Ireland, M.P. Now, my Lords, I say that a letter written in that spirit and in that manner by a gentleman whose character is unimpeachable, may fairly be set against the statements which the noble Marquess has brought forward, without giving us an opportunity of testing their validity in any way whatever. Now, my Lords, the noble Marquess has said that the speech delivered by Mr. Keogh at Moate was repeated at Athlone. He has dealt cautiously with that part of the case; and no wonder, for the hon. and learned Gentleman has assured me that, although in consequence of his having addressed the electors, and occasionally the non-electors, of Athlone, three, four, or five times during the day, it is utterly impossible for him to attempt to remember all the words he uttered at the election, or even the language he held on any particular occasion, yet he is prepared to state that he never used any words which could fairly be construed as an incentive to riot or disturbance, much less to murder. But, my Lords, why has this accusation been brought forward now? Why have we not heard of it till this moment? On Friday night I stated that the noble Marquess, who is the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Westmeath should have brought this charge before the late Government. I was not aware at that time that the noble Marquess, although the Lord Lieutenant of Westmeath, was absent on the Continent during the last general election; and that he was then represented by the Vice-Lieutenant of the county. That Vice-Lieutenant was Colonel Greville, one of the Members for the county; and it is curious enough that Colonel Greville, although Vice Lieutenant under the noble Marquess, and representing him in the county, never heard a syllable of the proceedings at Moate. No statements were made to him by magistrates, whose bounden and solemn duty it was to have reported to Colonel Greville at the time the words imputed to Mr. Keogh, if they really were used. Now, I say that fact alone does throw the greatest possible discredit upon the testimony of these magistrates. They were guilty of a gros3 neglect of duty in not making a representation to the Vice-Lieutenant at the time, and in keeping secret what they knew until it became a matter of political convenience and advantage to the noble Marquess. To my mind that fact tends rather to weaken than to strengthen the credibility of the magistrates in this case, and entitles us to view their statements with suspicion, except in so far as they may be fully borne out by the facts. But there is an inherent improbability in all the statements which the noble Marquess has produced before your Lordships. The hon. and learned Gentleman is disliked for his ability and the way he has evinced it, by those who concur in the political views of the noble Marquess, and has consequently been, for a considerable time past, what I may call a marked man. Joined with those friends of the noble Marquess are a body of men in Ireland of diametrically opposite opinions, whose faith, both in religion and in politics, utterly disagrees with that of the noble Marquess; but, nevertheless, they have combined together to throw every kind of obloquy upon the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to exclude him and others from their seats in Parliament. Well, my Lords, the hon. and learned Gentleman having been returned for Athlone, was petitioned against; and I believe that the petition of Mr. Lawes, the opposing candidate to Mr. Keogh, referred to by the noble Marquess, was prosecuted with a zeal—I will use no other word—worthy of the best of causes. Your Lordships may be aware that Mr. Lawes went even the length of having the hon. and learned Gentleman arrested under a false judgment. I mention this to show the animus of Mr. Lawes, and to let your Lordships see that he is not one of those tenderhearted gentlemen who would do anything rather than injure the reputation or wound the feelings of other people; but that, on the contrary, he is a man who would be likely to embrace every opportunity, with a view to serve his own purpose, of dam- aging the character of his successful rival. Mr. Lawes, moreover, was present during the whole of the election at Athlone, and having such means of knowing everything which occurred, is it probable that he would fail to bring forward an accusation of this kind to the Committee, if there was any foundation for it, as a proof of the intimidation with which Mr. Keogh conducted his election? Yet Mr. Lawes did not even hint at such a charge. But there was a second petition presented against the return of the hon. and learned: Gentleman by the Messrs. Norton, and that petition was framed with singular ingenuity, so as to hit every possible case that might be brought against the return. Now, did Messrs. Norton bring forward this charge, now made by the noble Marquess,! with the view of getting this election declared null and void? Nothing of the kind; and that there was nothing of the kind alleged by Mr. Norton, I confidently submit as another strong evidence against the noble Marquess's case. I know what the noble Marquess is going to say—that petition was not prosecuted. It was withdrawn; but was it withdrawn by a compromise on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman? No, my Lords; my hon. and learned Friend was not afraid of meeting any charge; and he gave notice to the agents that if they chose to withdraw the petition, the charges of which he was anxious to meet, he would not allow it to be J withdrawn by any species of compromise, but would take care to make them pay the costs; and he has received 100l. costs from the gentlemen who refused to prosecute that petition. Now, I think such facts are the strongest corroborations of the improbability of these newly-found charges. The noble Earl opposite (the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland), in answering the observations I made the other night, said that my taunt fell harmless to the ground, when I said that he, as Lord Lieutenant, ought to have taken the case up, if it was brought before him, because Mr. Keogh was a private individual at that time, whereas now he was Solicitor General, and that he was not called upon to investigate words uttered by private individuals, for if he had done so he would have had a great deal of business of that description to attend to. I readily admit that assertion. But I must be allowed to say that Mr. Keogh was not, in the sense in which the noble Earl used the words, a private individual. I say that when Mr. Keogh is stated to have made that speech, he held a position which made him differ materially from a private individual, and that the Lord Lieutenant was bound to take notice of any accusation that might be brought against him. Mr. Keogh was then, as he is now, a Queen's Counsel; and that position, honourable as it is in this country, is still higher in Ireland; and for this reason — that the manner of promoting to the rank of Queen's Counsel differs somewhat from the mode of promotion in this country. How did Mr. Keogh obtain the silk gown? Why, in deference to the position he occupied at the bar, and not by any solicitation on his own part:— because he, whilst sitting in a stuff gown, was busily engaged in the causes of his circuit, whilst many other learned Gentlemen in silk were sitting briefless by his side. And who recommended him to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for that important and honourable distinction? An hon. and learned Gentleman occupying a distinguished position on the bench in Ireland—a man with whom, years ago, I had the honour of sitting in the other House of Parliament— a man whom, whatever I may think of his political opinions, I must consider a man not only of great learning, of great amiability, but of great experience in every station of life. It was Chief Justice Lefroy who recommended Mr. Keogh to that honourable distinction, as a mark of his own esteem, and of the estimation in which Mr. Keogh was held in the profession, not merely as a lawyer and a gentleman, but also as one of the most straightforward and honourable public prosecutors whom he had ever met with, in the performance of those onerous and, in Ireland, responsible and most painful duties. I say, upon authority, that no accusation of this kind was brought before the Vice Lieutenant of the county of Westmeath, who occupied that position until two months ago, when the noble Marquess opposite returned to this country. I do not know whether any statement was made to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland or not. But I place the noble Earl on the horns of this dilemma: Either that statement was made to him, and although Mr. Keogh was not a private individual, but holding the important position of Queen's Counsel, he thought fit to pass it over, as one of those foolish and childish accusations which are often brought by opponents at contested elections—either he treated it in that way—and if he did so treat it, I think he treated it rightly—or, believing it, he neglected to take the step which in that case he ought to have done, namely, to have the accusation investigated, with the view of punishing Mr. Keogh for the offence with which he was charged. Now mark what the accusation is. The charge brought by the noble Marquess, involves nothing less than one of sedition; and assuredly if the noble Earl did believe it, it was his duty to have taken the matter energetically in hand; and if only half that has been reported to have been said could have been substantiated, I will add the expression of my belief, that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, on his part, had Mr. Keogh been brought under his notice as guilty of such misconduct, would at once have felt it to be his duty to strip the silk gown from Mr. Keogh's back. I need not remind your Lordships that this is by no means the first occasion on which accusations of this kind have been brought against persons mixed up with contested elections in Ireland. I need not go further for a proof of this than to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Cardigan), whose name is next on the list of Motions. I do not know whether he intends to bring forward his Motion with reference to the Six-mile Bridge affair or not; but I merely refer to his notice of Motion for the purpose of asking—what is the accusation there? Have you not an accusation against a magistrate concurring in opinions with the noble Lord opposite —- a magistrate who accompanied the soldiers in that unfortunate affair? What is the charge made against that magistrate? Why, it is stated by numbers, who say they are ready to prove it upon oath, that he went there armed with a brace of pistols, and upon some one making a row, he took out one of the pistols and held it up to the man's head, and said, "Take care; if you make a disturbance I'll blow your brains out. You had your election, the other day, at Limerick—we'll have ours now; and if not we'll have blood for it." Why have not noble Lords already condemned Mr. Delmege for these words? For what reason have they hesitated to do so? Simply because they did not believe them to have been uttered; but suppose that the statement arose out of the heated imaginations of men engaged in a fiercely-contested election. I do not believe the words attributed to him. I have no doubt that Mr. Delmege did not utter any such threat; but it rests on the same foundation as the charge brought forward by the noble Marquess against the hon. and learned Gentleman. If I were to take the trouble to ransack the Irish newspapers, I dare say there is not a single paper during the time of an election in which I should not find that one side or the other was charged with having uttered words similar to those which are now charged against Mr. Keogh, and those which are charged against Mr. Delmege. I am not seeking to shelter Mr. Keogh by opposing this Motion. But, after all, what are the words which the noble Marquess has quoted—those extraordinary allusions to the seasons, uttered in language as childish as if it had come from the lips of an infant? I am not talking of the meaning which the noble Marquess puts upon them. That I have already discussed. But the words themselves are sufficient to betoken it as almost impossible that Mr. Keogh should ever have uttered them; and the extreme similarity of the words as given by different witnesses throws additional discredit on such probability, considering, as we all know, that there is no newspaper report of what occurred. Why is this allusion to the seasons—assuming it were even made— this notice of particular months of the year, to be tortured into sedition? Has the noble Marquess never beard of any other allusion to the seasons in the county of Westmeath? I have been assured that a friend of his, in canvassing, made a significant allusion to the coming season. I have heard of an individual, related to a Member in the other House of Parliament, who, during that election, said that the tenants upon certain estates over which he had the control must take care how they voted, for, not winter, but October was coming, and then they would have to look out for themselves. Now it would be quite possible, of course, to torture this reference to October into something of the nature of the charge devised by the noble Marquess; but in point of fact, all that Mr. Dunne meant was that if the tenants did not vote for Sir R. Levinge, October was coming, and then they should be—not murdered absolutely, but—ejected. I consider that the present charge has been brought forward by the noble Marquess for the purpose of obtaining a temporary triumph against Mr. Keogh. The noble Earl the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland said, when the subject was last before the House, that he had held or did then hold in his hand an affidavit on this subject. The noble Earl shows it me now, and as I see he is evidently about to answer me, I would beg him to explain to the House thoroughly and explicitly what that affidavit really is. I may ask him also to inform the House when it was signed, and when he received it, and how long it has been in his possession. I think that information most important, and I should be sorry if your Lordships were to proceed to a division without a knowledge of these facts. I should like to know, also, under what circumstances that affidavit was sworn. I am no lawyer myself—but I should appeal to my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, and to the other noble and learned Lords who are present, as to the character of the affidavit now in the possession of the noble Earl. If it was placed in his hands for the purpose of a judicial inquiry, and for the purpose of proving an information against Mr. Keogh, let me observe that Mr. Keogh would be, under such circumstances, placed in a position in which the meanest criminal cannot he placed, for this affidavit must have been sworn against him without any summons being issued against him, and without his being able to take any step to meet it. Is it an affidavit sworn for the purpose of grounding an information against Mr. Keogh, and being made the basis of a legal accusation? I ask if that is so? If that was the case, it was a most unfair proceeding as regards Mr. Keogh. And, further, I ask the noble Earl to explain why, having such an affidavit in his possession, those legal proceedings, for the institution of which it was sworn, have not been taken? If, on the other hand, this was a voluntary affidavit, then I turn to my noble and learned Friends, and I appeal to them whether such an affidavit is not an illegal document; and I ask how, under such circumstances, that affidavit came into possession of the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? I am afraid I have troubled your Lordships at too great length. I can only say, whatever the noble Marquess may believe, that on the part of the Government I honestly wish I could second the Motion for this inquiry; for I can tell him that no man is more anxious that the matter should be fully investigated than Mr. Keogh. But I do not think it would be becoming in your Lordships' House, upon such information as has been brought forward by the noble Marquess, and in such a manner, without the possibility of an investigation on the spot, to say you cannot yourselves bring sufficient evidence, and, therefore, we must appoint a Committee. If such a course is to be adopted, there is no innocent man against whom an accusation may not he brought for the purpose of instituting an investigation, and your time might he wholly occupied in inquiries into such charges as those which have been brought against Mr. Keogh and Mr. Delmege, to the neglect of matters connected with imperial interests—to the neglect of such subjects as that of India for example —the discussion of which all-important subject will scarcely bring together so large an assembly of your Lordships as are collected for this most miserable and paltry Motion. I cannot take that course. In justice to this noble House, I feel bound to say "No" to the Motion of the noble Marquess; and I am confident that all just and impartial men will say that I am right in the course I have taken, and that the effect of refusing investigation will not reflect one tittle on the character of my hon. and learned Friend, or detract from the high position which his honourable and straightforward conduct in reference to another matter has justly attached to him. I appeal with confidence to your Lordships' House. Let the noble Marquess or any other noble Lord bring forward any charge which in public estimation may be considered an attack on the character of the Government, calling for inquiry, and we will not shrink from any investigation which he or his friends may desire. But we will not he dragged into inquiries of such an absurd description as this. I say that we have a right to stand upon our character. I say that the character of the Government, whether with reference to their public conduct, or with reference to their political appointments— view it as you will—may fairly challenge such attacks as those which have been brought forward by the noble Marquess. But I say more. I believe that the private character and individual conduct, not merely of the Cabinet which sits on this bench, but of all those who occupy official positions under that Government, may fairly challenge the utmost efforts of enmity of the noble Marquess; and I believe we may upon the present occasion fairly shield ourselves under that character, not shrinking from investigation when investigation is fairly called for. I am confident the public will be of opinion that that shield is a safe one, whether against the polished and pointed darts of the noble Earl opposite, or against the miserable and rusty bolts from the battered quiver of the noble Marquess.

The EARL of EGLINTON

My Lords, I shall come to answer the latter part of the noble Duke's question with respect to the affidavit in a few minutes; but perhaps the noble Luke will allow me to commence the few remarks which I have to make, by asking your Lordships whether I can be fairly accused of having taken any unfair advantage of the hon. and learned Gentleman to whom this Motion refers, or whether I have displayed any degree of acrimony beyond what was necessary, in stating that I had the affidavit in question in my possession. I beg to assure the noble Duke that I have not been employed—nor do I believe that the noble Marquess has been employed—since Friday last, in collecting materials for the purpose of substantiating the present accusation against the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. I have not only not taken that course in this case, but I have never done so on any other occasion. I was attacked by the noble Duke upon a former occasion, and have been subjected to attack in another place for having used the expression, that the nomination of Mr. Keogh to office was, in my opinion, one of the least reputable acts of the present Government. I have no desire whatsoever to shrink from the responsibility of having made that assertion, and in the same sense in which I made it upon a former occasion, I again repeat it. In making that assertion, I beg to assure your Lordships that I do not intend to cast any reflection whatsoever upon Mr. Keogh's private character, or to make any reference to anything connected with that Gentleman, except the words which have been attributed to him, and which form the subject of discussion in this House. If—as I have reason to think it possible, if not probable—Mr. Keogh is guilty of having used the words which are attributed to him, then I say, that the appointment of an individual capable of having used those words to an office of high responsibility such as that of the Solicitor General for Ireland, would be not only the least reputable act of the present Government, but of any Government that ever administered the affairs of this country, It was upon those grounds only that I made use of the expression in question; and I beg again to assure your Lordships that in doing so I had no intention whatsoever of making any reference to Mr. Keogh's private character. The noble Duke has asked, why it was, that in my position, as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, I did not take notice of the affidavit which had been sent to me upon the subject now under your Lordships' notice? I will tell the noble Duke at once why it was that I took no notice of that affidavit. I intimated upon a former occasion the reasons which induced me to take that course, when I stated that if all the parties who made violent speeches during the late elections in Ireland were to be prosecuted, the Crown lawyers would have had a heavy time of it indeed. Mr. Keogh's speech was but one of a great number of a similar character which came under my notice. I certainly little expected at the time when it was brought under my notice, that the Gentleman who had given utterance to the sentiments which it contained was to be the future Solicitor General for Ireland. More than 100 reports of speeches tending to excite the mob to riot and sedition came before me while I was in Ireland; but during the whole period of my stay in that country I had no report of a speech brought to mo which, in my opinion, so distinctly recommended assassination as that of the speech said to have been delivered by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland in the town of Moate. When such reports as those to which I have referred did come before me—my noble Friend who was my predecessor in office in Ireland will bear me out as to what is the usual practice in such cases — I sent them to the law advisers of the Crown to ascertain whether they furnished proper matter for further investigation, or for the institution of criminal prosecution. That was the course which I almost invariably pursued in reference to those reports. I will not swear that I adopted that course in the particular case of Mr. Keogh; but so far as I can recollect, the mode of proceeding in that case was precisely similar to that which it was my practice to adopt in instances of a similar nature. In many instances I felt greatly disappointed when I found that the legal advisers of the Crown did not deem it advisable to recommend that legal proceedings should be instituted against parties to whom the use of very violent language had been attributed. My ardour in this respect was perhaps too great. I believe, however, that I did apply-to the law advisers of the Crown for their opinion with reference to the case of Mr. Keogh; and that that opinion was not in favour of the institution of a criminal prosecution against that Gentleman. It was a short time after the general election—I cannot tell the exact date—that I received among many other representations respecting the language attributed to Mr. Keogh, the affidavit which I now hold in my hand. At the time that I received this affidavit, I was informed that the case was one in which it was likely that if the names of the parties who signed the document were to become known, they would be placed in a very dangerous position. I confess that this information contributed in some degree—if not entirely—to induce me to take no further notice of the matter. I feel, however, that I am now bound, at any risk to the parties in question, to read the whole of the affidavit, together with the names of the individuals by whom it is signed. It is as follows: — I, James Burke, of the town of Moate, and the county of Westmeath, yeoman, do solemnly declare that I was in the town of Moate upon the 14th day of July last, when a large number of persons assembled together in that town to hear an address from Mr. Keogh. Upon that occasion I heard that Gentleman utter the following words from the window of the inn:—' It is now summer, and the nights are short; but the time will come round when the nights will be long; but the winter will at last set in, and the nights then will be very long, and let those who vote for Sir R. Levinge be upon their guard. Further I tell you, both men and women, to be at Athlone upon the election day, at twelve o'clock, with shillelaghs, and to use them.' I make this solemn declaration, solemnly believing it to be true. J. BURKE. Made and subscribed before me this 14th day of September, "ARTHUR BROWNE, Justice of Peace of said county. That paper remained in my box until Friday last, when the noble Marquess made; his statement in this House. I distinctly declare that I had no intention whatever of addressing your Lordships upon the subject before you upon that occasion; nor should I have done so if the debate had not been carried beyond its original scope. Yesterday morning, however, without any communication having been made upon my part, I received a letter from Mr. Browne, the magistrate before whom the affidavit in question was sworn to. He writes: — 10, Newcomon-terrace, Dublin, June 14, 1853. My Lord—I 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 Burton) to satisfy you that every word in that declaration is true, and that at least twenty gentlemen of 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 utterance 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 Solicitor General. I am further to observe, that, being the local magistrate living in Moate, I felt it my duty to inquire most minutely into the whole matter, with a view of submitting it to the Executive, as I did hope the party using such expressions would not be allowed to do so with impunity. I am further 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. —I have the honour to be, your Lordship's obedient servant, "ARTHUR BROWNE. The Right Hon. the Earl of Eglinton. I beg to assure your Lordships that in all that I have stated upon this and upon every other occasion in connexion with this question, I have been influenced by no feeling whatsoever of ill-will against Mr. Keogh. It will give me great pleasure to find that the accusations which have been made against that Gentleman are unfounded; but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact, that more than one witness of the highest respectability has borne testimony to the truth of that accusation, and that the circumstances of the case are, therefore, of such a nature as to demand inquiry. I ask you to consider what the real question is. The accusation made against the Solicitor General for Ireland charges him with having made use of certain expressions which—and I appeal to my predecessors in office to bear me out in what I state—in Ireland would be understood distinctly to recommend assassination. I will appeal to any man who knows Ireland, whether the ribbon watchword, couched in doggrel verse, is not of a character similar to the words attributed to Mr. Keogh? The accusation is, that the Gentleman who did use those words at the last general election has been made Her Majesty's Solicitor General for Ireland—one of the most responsible positions in which any man can be placed. The Solicitor General for Ireland, if not a Member of Parliament, is liable to be called upon to discharge the duties of a Judge upon circuit, and, in the absence of the Attorney General, must prose- cute in criminal cases—one to whom the people of Ireland ought to look up, for the just, firm, and impartial administration of the law. Under these circumstances I beg most earnestly that your Lordships will grant a Committee of Inquiry in this case. This is no mere anonymous slander—no vague rumour or report, but consists of an affidavit, of letters signed by gentlemen whose names have been given to your Lordships—three magistrates—two Quakers, and the clergyman, the rector of the parish at Moate—gentlemen who certainly, if there is truth in man, ought to have credence given to them. The noble Duke's speech was one of the most convincing I ever heard to carry out the wishes of his opponents, for I never heard any better arguments in favour of a Motion he wished to oppose. It would give me no pleasure to find Mr. Keogh guilty. I am no bitter opponent of the present Government, or I trust of any man whatever. I do not believe it is considered my character. I merely wish that this question should be fairly and honestly sifted. I do not say it in prejudice to Mr. Keogh, because he has not had time to bring as much information as he might get upon the subject; but upon our side, as far as it yet goes, the evidence is certainly preponderant. I will not take any credit to ourselves for that. Noble Lords opposite have not had time to get up their evidence, but I wish to give them time and go into the whole question, not only for the sake of those gentlemen who, to a certain degree, have placed their veracity in the hands of the noble Marquess and myself, but for the credit of the Government, and of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself; and I can only say, if these accusations are disproved before a Committee of your Lordships' House, I shall be the first man to shake the hon. and learned Gentleman by the hand, and tell him I am glad of it.

The EARL of ABERDEEN

My Lords, I will only say a few words. Being, perhaps, the person chiefly concerned in this "disreputable" appointment, I feel called upon to assert that I do feel that no such character is involved in the act. On the contrary, if this be one of the most "disreputable" appointments I have made, I think.[ought to be very well satisfied with the composition of the Government. The noble Earl opposite has made a most extraordinary statement of his course of conduct in this matter. He tells us he received an affidavit or declaration affirming the accusation brought forward by the noble Marquess, and that he referred it to the proper quarter—his law advisers—who told him there was no cause for proceeding further in the matter.

The EARL of EGLINTON

I said I believed I had referred it to the law adviser of the Crown.

The EARL of ABERDEEN

Of course I am bound to believe what the noble Earl believes. The noble Earl draws a great distinction between the position of Mr. Keogh as Her Majesty's Solicitor General for Ireland, and the condition in which he stood when the noble Earl received the declaration. But I do not think the distinction is such as to exonerate the noble Earl from fulfilling his duty on that occasion; for Mr. Keogh as a Queen's Counsel, would deserve the reprehension and reprobation of the noble Earl as much as if he were Solicitor General. Even if I believed— which I do not believe-—the accusation brought against Mr. Keogh—for, after the statement of my noble Friend near me, corroborated as to the words delivered by Mr. Keogh by a witness above all exception, standing by his side, and ready to attest it upon oath—I do not believe this accusation; but even if I did believe it, I should say that this House was not the fit place for coming to a proper decision on the matter. We are asked to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into a charge of sedition. Why, my Lords, we are judges as well as accusers in this case, and it may be brought before us in the last resort for judgment. Now, I think the proposition most preposterous. To say the truth, when the noble Marquess gave notice of the Motion, I really thought he was not in earnest, and that he only brought the matter forward as the vehicle of a speech which should constitute an attack upon Mr. Keogh or upon the Government. Having, on a former occasion, brought forward a Motion which had reference to a matter of deep importance, he introduced this attack upon Mr. Keogh without the slightest notice, without the slightest reference to the subject which he professed to bring before the House; and I thought that this was only a mode of putting himself in order for making a Motion; but I never could believe that he would expect your Lordships seriously to entertain such a proposition. At all events, I protest against such a course, as utterly unbecoming and unsuitable to the functions and the dignity of this House. The accusation is one which I consider, under the circumstances, of a trumpery character; but at all events, if it were serious, this is not the place in which it ought to be brought forward.

LORD BROUGHAM

My Lords, it is just as well we should consider what is the real objection to this Motion, which was very distinctly shadowed out by the noble Earl who has just spoken, but which, I think, is still stronger than he has made it appear. I put entirely out of view the question whether Mr. Keogh did use the words attributed to him or not. If we are to view what were probably the intentions and feelings of Mr. Keogh in using them, there may be evidence on one side— there may be evidence on the other. I will take it there is a conflict of evidence: whether that conflict is equal on either side, or whether there is a preponderance on one side or the other, in my view of the case, is wholly immaterial; because, though there is a conflict of evidence, I entirely agree with my noble Friend who spoke last that this is a Motion we ought not to entertain. Suppose it to be an inquiry which we ought properly to raise in this House, and to prosecute here, there being a conflict of evidence, I agree with the noble Earl who spoke last but one that that is a reason for going into the inquiry rather than against it. Let us consider what we are. We are a court of law—a court of criminal law—of criminal law in the last resort—a court to which all other criminal law courts are subordinate, and from every one of those courts an appeal lies to this House as the supreme court in the last resort. Then, are we the proper parties, and is this the proper place, to enter into an inquiry whether a certain individual has broken the law of the country and committed an offence, be it in his public or in his private capacity, or in both? It cannot, however, be said that, because this gentleman was not Solicitor General, but only Queen's Counsel, that therefore the offence, if any, was not committed in a public capacity The office of Queen's Counsel is a public office, though of a different kind from that of the Solicitor General, and having many duties of a Crown lawyer vested in it, and great responsibility attached to it in reference to the constitution and the law of the country. But what is the matter with which he is charged? With sedition. It is either that or nothing at all. I am rather disposed, with the noble Duke, to treat the words stated to have been used as having been careless expressions, probably exaggerated by those who heard them; but, if they were seriously spoken, and if they constituted the offence — a grave offence, I am far from denying— with which the Gentleman in question is charged, what are we now called on to do? Why, to act as a grand jury. Though nobody regularly prefers a bill before us, yet we, the court in the last resort, and who might probably have ourselves to decide on the case, are to convert ourselves into a grand jury, and put the accused party on his trial. The consequence might be this, that the report of the Committee might he in accordance with the statement of the noble Marquess, that the words were used. That, I repeat, would amount to neither more nor less than that Mr. Keogh about a year ago was guilty of sedition. Are we, then, to send that report before a grand jury, and to put Mr. Keogh on his trial? Are we to instruct the Attorney General for Ireland, or possibly the Solicitor General, Mr. Keogh himself, to file a criminal information against him, and, being the court to try him in the last resort, are we thus by anticipation to convict him? And supposing the jury were to convict the hon. Gentleman, and that the case is brought judicially before your Lordships, are we, then, calmly to consider whether our Committee was right or wrong, and to discharge the highest of all our functions, after having discharged a function of a totally different character—namely, that of the grand jury of the county of Westmeath? Do not let it be supposed that, in making these observations, I consider that no case can arise in which your Lordships, though a court of criminal justice may not properly enter upon an inquiry to which may be incidental some charge of a criminal description. I can well imagine that your Lordships, exercising your other functions as a branch of the Legislature and as advisers of the Crown, may be called on, and would in such case undoubtedly have jurisdiction, and, if I may so speak, authority to enter upon an inquiry whether an appointment made by the Executive Government was justifiable under the circumstances of the case. I say you have an undeniable right to enter on such inquiry; but I consider that the argument I have urged respecting the judicial functions of your Lordships, as well as common discrimination and constitutional principles, ought, if the ground of objection to the appointment be a charge of a criminal nature, to warn you against entering upon the inquiry. Without disputing the constitutional functions of this House as advisers of the Crown in respect to all appointments and every exercise of the prerogative, there are obvious and irrefragable reasons against this House ever, or almost ever, entering upon the investigation of a matter of such a nature as comes in conflict or collision with its judicial functions. As to the document, with respect to which an appeal has been made to me for my opinion, it was not an affidavit, but a voluntary declaration, allowed under the Duke of Richmond's Act.

The EARL of DERBY

My Lords, I am extremely obliged to my noble and learned Friend for having interposed between the House and the few observations I am about to offer, by the statement he has just made as to the grounds upon which he objects to comply with the Motion of my noble Friend; but I think that the observations he has just made show that the grounds of his objection to the Motion are rather technical than otherwise. I must say that, in the course of my Parliamentary experience, I recollect very few cases in which there were so many collateral issues successively joined to mystify and withdraw from consideration that which was the original charge made by my noble Friend. That charge was not, in the first place, a charge against Mr. Keogh personally, nor against him in any capacity, but against Her Majesty's Government for the selection of Mr. Keogh, under the circumstances, to fill the office of Solicitor General for Ireland. In point of fact, the mention of Mr. Keogh's name at all by the noble Marquess was incidental to the main point of his inquiry, which was, whether, with regard to the administration of justice in Ireland, Her Majesty's Government had pursued a course calculated to promote the impartial administration of jastice, and to inspire confidence in that country; and, in support of the view which the noble Marquess takes, that the Government were not entitled to claim this character, he put forward this appointment at a particular moment of a Gentleman, as Solicitor General, who was stated to have made use of expressions which I think the House generally agree—and, notwithstanding what the noble Duke has said, the House, I believe, will still be of opinion, if they were used by Mr. Keogh—would be a very serious objection and obstacle to the duo performance of the duties of Solicitor General of Ireland.

My noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant (the Earl of Eglinton), after the incidental mention of Mr. Keogh's name, stated that he thought this the least reputable appointment of the Government. Upon that a new issue is joined, as to the intention of the Government in the appointment of Mr. Keogh; and then the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) thought it incumbent on him to state that he was able to recriminate and retort, by saying that Her Majesty's late Government had offered office to Mr. Keogh, and that he could state upon the best authority— that of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself—that there had been an offer of office made to him on the part of the late Government. Upon that, not in this but in the other House, a new issue was joined, and a question raised as to whether such an offer had or had not been made. I will say a word or two by-and-by on that subject, to which, however, I shall not advert at more length than the noble Duke. Then comes another collateral issue, whether my noble Friend, the late Lord Lieutenant, having received an affidavit stating what was the character of these words, had pursued a right course with regard to that affidavit, or whether it was his duty to have instituted criminal proceedings against Mr. Keogh? Lastly, comes the issue joined by my noble and learned Friend, that this, which is a criminal accusation, is not a fitting matter for your Lordships' consideration. I will deal first with the question which, in fact, involves some of the other issues, as to whether my noble Friend was right in considering this as one of the least reputable appointments of the Government; and as to the counter assertion, that office had been offered to Mr. Keogh by the late Government, I will take the liberty of saying a very few words. In the first place, I beg to say that I have not the honour of a personal acquaintance with Mr. Keogh, and I am certain I never spoke to him in my life, I have no knowledge whatever of Mr. Keogh's private personal character, and I should be exceedingly sorry to say a word against it. Until the other evening, when he was pointed out to me, I had not seen him, and I do not even now know him Insight. With regard to him, although I did not use the expression of my noble Friend, that this was the least reputable appointment of the present Government, I am ready to say that, upon the supposition that such language was used by Mr. Keogh as that which is attributed to him, and with the knowledge of the notoriety of the general course pursued by Mr. Keogh during the last summer, I concur with my noble Friend In thinking that the appointment of Mr. Keogh was a most unfortunate appointment on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Nor is this inconsistent with the fact of there having been, with or without authority, any suggestion or offer made to Mr. Keogh in February, 1852, to take office under the late Administration. The fact was, that I certainly made no offer, I thought of making no offer, I knew there were so many important points of difference between Mr. Keogh and the general spirit of the Government about to be formed, that it never occurred to me to make an offer, which I concluded would have been rejected. But my confidence in that result has since been somewhat shaken; for I should certainly no less have expected that Mr. Keogh would take office under the Administration of which I was the head then, considering what took place in January, 1852, and the great vehemence with which Mr. Keogh urged his personal opposition to my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon), the then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, than I should have thought of his accepting office in a Government of which the noble Earl was a prominent Member, or with the strong feeling of Mr. Keogh, as a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I should have thought he would take office under the noble Lord the leader of the House of Commons. But the difference between the political opinions which we entertained, would, I concluded, have as much precluded him from accepting as they did me from offering office. I am far from disputing the great talent and abilities of Mr. Keogh; but on many points there were great differences of opinion between us, which precluded any offer of that kind. Mr. Keogh's repugnance to join a Government of which Lord John Russell was a Member, may have been overcome by the counteracting influence of the noble Earl at the head of the Government; and recent circumstances would certainly lead us to the belief that his confidence had not been misplaced, as the noble Earl has thought it consistent with his duty to repudiate, explain, and apologise for the language held in the House of Commons by his Colleague, who fills no office whatever with regard to the present Administration, unless that of representing in his language and his speeches in the House of Commons the views, the feelings, and the policy of Her Majesty's Government. But the noble Duke has referred to the discussion that took place last evening, in another place, and has stated that he conceives the question of Mr. Keogh's character, which, in fact, was never brought into issue at all, had been perfectly set at rest by what had taken place. I will say to the noble Duke that my impression of what has taken place is, that it has been a complete and absolute verification, admitting the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, in opposition to the statement of the noble Duke, that no offer of any office was made to him, with or without authority, at the time of the formation of the late Government; and there is not the slightest doubt, whatever inference he may have drawn from unauthorised words used in private conversation—in which, even between two honourable men, there may be a difference between the intention of the one and the understanding of the other —that this at least is clear, that, with my authority or my knowledge, or the authority or knowledge of any one authorised to make the offer, no offer of office had been made to Mr. Keogh by any one on the part of the late Government. But, if any such offer had been made, it would have been perfectly reconcilable, although such an offer might have been made to Mr. Keogh in February, 1852, that his appointment in December, 1852, as Solicitor General was a discreditable appointment to the Government that appointed him —discreditable, not on account of Mr. Keogh's personal and private character, for of that I know nothing, but discreditable on account of the position in which, during the whole course of the summer, and during the contested elections, Mr. Keogh had placed himself with reference to those elections. Mr. Keogh, in the exercise of his political views, thought it incumbent on him to make himself known, from one end of Ireland to the other, as the representative and agent of what is called the Catholic Defence Association! and in that character, from borough to borough, from county to county, Mr. Keogh lent his active services to those bodies of the Roman Catholic priesthood who, in many of the counties, as has been proved by responsible testimony, combined together, and by the exercise of their spiritual authority and influence, did all in their power, absolutely and entirely, to destroy the freedom of election, and lead the Roman Catholic voters, under the ties of religious obligations, bound hand and foot, to vote for their nominees. It has been proved, and it may be proved, that, in more than one county, there was this interference of the Roman Catholic priesthood generally, no doubt with some honourable exceptions, which, however, were exceptions, and were not the rule. They were the active body, canvassing and conducting the elections in a manner absolutely inconsistent with anything like freedom of election, or liberty of political conscience; and of that body Mr. Keogh constituted himself the avowed and accredited agent and instrument, pressing upon the various constituencies the views of these rev. gentlemen. In that character he appeared on the hustings at Westmeath, and also at his own election on the hustings at Athlone; and having travelled through Carlow, and other counties, where similar proceedings were taking place, he comes forward as the agent of what a noble Lord in another place justly characterised as a conspiracy against all civil freedom. Mr. Keogh presents himself as a candidate for Athlone, and upon the hustings makes use of language which, if it can be verified, I say, that, in conjunction with his general course of conduct, it renders him the most unfit selection, as law officer of the Crown, which could have been made by a Government professing to have the slightest respect and regard to the principles of civil and religious liberty and constitutional freedom. If to that course of proceeding these words be added, which I cannot consider, like the noble Duke, immaterial and insignificant, absurd, and not worthy of notice—if, in addition to his general course of conduct, he used words which, to the inflammable minds of the Irish population, could bear no other reasonable meaning than a general incitement and encouragement to visit, in the course of the long dark nights of winter, upon any voters, the course they might take in the conscientious exercise of their political power—whether these words can subject him to a criminal prosecution or not—that course of proceeding and that language rendered him the man the most unfit for any office, but, above all, for any office connected with the due administration of the law and the repression of disorder, That is the only view I take—not whether Mr. Keogh has been guilty of an indictable offence, but whether the Government, in selecting: Mr. Keogh for the office of Solicitor General at that time, and under the circum- stances, selected an individual whose appointment was likely to produce a favourable impression on the minds of the people as to the due administration of the law. After the memorable declaration made by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, I presume my noble Friend (the Earl of Cardigan) will not bring forward the subject of which he has given notice to-night. I am not going to argue that point now; hut when the time comes I shall say that the course pursued by the law officers of the Crown upon that occasion gives a signal corroboration to the opinion that offences which have been committed, provided they have been committed by persons who have a certain political influence, will be lightly treated. I will not consent to disconnect that which followed from the prosecution itself. The noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) may shake his head, and treat this argument with great contempt; but we have, in the first instance, language used which, in my opinion, renders the person who used it unfit for a high legal office in Ireland—and intimidation practised at elections; and then, as probably will be proved on a future day, a course of conduct is pursued by the Attorney and Solicitor General for Ireland which strongly corroborates in the public mind the impression produced by Mr. Keogh's appointment. Again, I presume it is the opinion of your Lordships that the words imputed to Mr. Keogh—if they can be brought home to him—do bear such a character, and do wear such a complexion, as materially to damage the satisfactory performance of his duty as one of the law officers of the Crown. But the question is raised—Were those words used or not? The noble Duke opposite, who spoke with considerable ardour and vehemence in the earlier part of the evening, falls foul of my noble Friend for having brought forward this question without having given due notice. Why, my Lords, on a former occasion the noble Marquess mentioned that case incidentally; and even before he did so, he communicated to the hon. and learned Gentleman his intention of making that statement and that charge which has since been submitted to your Lordships. My noble Friend was then challenged, and was then told that he was bringing forward these accusations without the shadow of proof, and that he was bringing them forward not only in the absence of the person accused, but without being able to present the shadow of a case on which to rest his assertions. My noble Friend thereupon gave notice of a Motion on this subject; and when he brings for- ward his proofs, or those statements on which he desires to go to issue, and when; he courts a fair trial and a fair investigation, then, forsooth, he is told that he has employed the interval in ransacking; Ireland, for the purpose of bringing forward that proof which, on a former occasion, the noble Duke opposite complained had not been brought forward, and the non-production of which he alleged as a ground for objecting to a previous Motion made by the noble Marquess. Now, my Lords, we do not say that Mr. Keogh made use of these expressions —we do not say we hold he has no defence to make; but this we do say, that throughout the whole course of the summer and autumn it was a matter of notoriety and general discussion that such and such language had been held by Her Majesty's present Solicitor General for Ireland previous to his election; and my noble Friend the noble Marquess, and my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Eglinton), have prepared declarations in the most solemn form, of persons who have subscribed their names, and who are ready to swear, if subjected to your Lordships' cross-examination, that such words were used, and used in their hearing, by Mr. Keogh; and then the noble Duke opposite finds it convenient to say the matter is one with respect to which there is not a shadow of a case made out, because Mr. Keogh himself denies that he made use of any such expressions. But the noble Duke brings forward the proof of Mr. M'Nevin, the private solicitor of Mr. Keogh. Now, I know no more of that gentleman than I do of Mr. Keogh himself. Well, what does he state? Why, that be was standing by, and that he did not hear Mr. Keogh use the expressions—

The DUKE of NEWCASTLE

He says he must have heard them if they were used.

The EARL of DERBY

Well, he says if he used the words he must have heard them. Then we are to take the declaration of Mr. M'Nevin, the private solicitor of Mr. Keogh, in opposition to affidavits of twenty-four or twenty-five respectable gentlemen, who are wholly unconnected with him. On two occasions they heard the same language used by Mr. Keogh, and though there may be some small discrepancy in the language of these several persons, they are just those discrepancies which are likely to happen when a number of individuals come to speak upon the particular language used in a speech; and though their words are not identically the same, they carry through them the same idea—in many respects the identical expressions—and they convey the same unmistakeable interference, intention, meaning, and course which Mr. Keogh suggested if not recommended. I will not weary your Lordships by going into the question of what course my noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was bound to take when the affidavits were placed in his hands. It is said that though the magistrates were conscious of such language being used, they made no representation to the Government at the time, but reserved their representations until the present moment. In the first place, it appears from the statement of my noble Friend, that from some quarter or other representations were made to him in the ordinary course, of the language used by Mr. Keogh; but a law officer of the Crown might very well be of opinion that, on a statement so made, there was no ground for a criminal prosecution of Mr. Keogh, and that a criminal prosecution of him at that moment, considering the position in which he stood, and the political hostility which subsisted between him and the Government, would not be a proceeding which would carry with it the general approval, while it might be interpreted into an act of political hostility. But it is perfectly consistent with the fact that there should be no charge of a criminal nature which could be substantiated against Mr. Keogh, and at the same time that Mr. Keogh's language was such that, if he had been in any degree connected with the Government, it would have been impossible for the Government to pass over such language on the part of one of their servants —still more impossible, I should have thought, that, with a knowledge of that language, whether it would subject him or not 'to a criminal prosecution, any Government could have appointed him to any office, but especially to an office connected with the administration of the law in Ireland. I confess, I regret that, in bringing forward this question, my noble Friend the noble Marquess should have inserted in the notice of his Motion words which give some colour to the arguments used by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham). I undoubtedly regret that, in moving for this Committee, he has cha- racterised the language used by the Solicitor General for Ireland as seditious language, because that does give some colour to the arguments of my noble and learned Friend, that where a judicial crime is imputed, this House is not the fit place for inquiring into the matter. But, my Lords, my noble and learned Friend himself admitted that there were cases where, though on examination, there might incidentally appear to be a substantiation of some charge of criminality against an individual; yet, in that case, if the charge bore on the character of the Government and on the public interests, and only secondarily on the individual whom it happened to involve, it would not be a sufficient answer to say the matter was in the nature of a criminal proceeding, and could not be inquired into by this House. I have no hesitation in saying that the ground on which my noble Friend brought forward this question—still less do I hesitate to say that the ground on which I am inclined to support the proposition—has no reference to the personal and political character of Mr. Keogh himself in the slightest degree. We have no desire to subject him to a criminal prosecution—we have no desire to express an opinion personally hostile to him, or hostile to anything except the dangerous tendency in Ireland of those doctrines to which he gave expression. Our object is to see that there is due precaution exercised by this House over the administration of the law and over the conduct of the Government in the selection of those persons to whom is entrusted the administration of the law. The question is not the culpability or criminality of Mr. Keogh—the question is as to the discretion exercised by the Government in appointing Mr. Keogh to that particular office; and the discretion exercised by the Government turns mainly on this fact, which we do not desire to assume, but on which we desire inquiry should be made, namely, whether Mr. Keogh did make use of the language which, by general report, and by the affidavits produced by the noble Marquess, it is said he used. When the noble Duke opposite produced Mr. M'Nevin as a witness, and said he was ready to be examined and swear to the facts detailed in his affidavit, I will tell that noble Duke that the noble Marquess desires no more. That is all that my noble Friend seeks. Those persons who make the charge, and who defend the hon. and learned Gentleman, the noble Duke and my noble Friend therefore alike desire should be brought before your Lordships' tribunal, and that the former should there on oath substantiate all their charges, which, if they are true, cast a reflection, not so much on the character of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, as on the discretion of the Government who appointed him. I have stated the view which I am disposed to take of the merits of the question brought forward by my noble Friend. I cannot agree to the proposition —setting aside the single word sedition— that this is a question which it does not concern your Lordships to inquire into, or which is not worth the consideration of your Lordships; I cannot assent to the proposition that, if these words were used, they do not disqualify Mr. Keogh for the situation of one of Her Majesty's law officers of the Crown, or, still more, for the high judicial station to which those offices generally lead. I cannot pretend to say, and I think none has said, that there is not a prima facie case at all—that, at all events, a grave case of suspicion has not been made out—that these words, notwithstanding the denial, whether made unintentionally or not, were actually made use of and substantially held by Mr. Keogh. The way in which the matter now stands before the country is this: on the one hand, there are a number of affidavits of credible witnesses, who were present and heard the words used, and who are ready to substantiate them—and they are prepared to adduce the evidence of hundreds of others, if necessary, in corroboration of their own testimony, for the words were publicly and openly used; and, on the other hand, the denial of the Solicitor General and his private solicitor, that these words were, to the best of their belief, not employed. But neither the one nor the other can speak positively on the subject; and the Solicitor General himself says he cannot answer for all the various speeches which he made at Athlone and other places; and these statements are to be set against the positive offer to substantiate before your Lordships the charge already mentioned, and which, if it can be substantiated, I am sure you will think is not unworthy your consideration. But, my Lords, if the argument of my noble and learned Friend is to prevail, and if the Government and the hon. and learned Gentleman himself are satisfied to leave the question in its present position, after the statement which has been made, and after the discussion which has taken place here and elsewhere, I will venture to tender my advice to my noble Friend the noble Marquess that he should not press his Motion, as I, for my part, am fully satisfied with his having made an offer to substantiate the charge which lie has put forward; and I am ready to leave to the Government, and to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends, the responsibility of shrinking from further investigation.

LORD CAMPBELL

was understood to say that, notwithstanding the ingenious turn which the noble Earl had given to the discussion, it was an indictment against Mr. Keogh, and their Lordships wore asked to initiate that indictment, being the Supreme Court of Appeal in all criminal matters. It was not a Motion of inquiry into the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in the appointment of Mr. Keogh; but it was for a Committee to inquire into seditious language alleged to have been used by the Solicitor General for Ireland. Suppose the Committee had been appointed, and had found that the language alleged had been used by Mr. Keogh, what would they have then done? They could not have dismissed him from Her Majesty's service, however much they might censure his proceedings. He, therefore, entirely concurred in the propriety of withdrawing the Motion.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE

wanted to know how the noble Earl the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland became the depository of official documents. It appeared that he had quitted Ireland, carrying away with him an official document reflecting on the character of a man occupying a high position under the Crown, for so a Queen's Counsel might be fairly designated, as he might, if he chose, be a magistrate in any county in Ireland.

The EARL of EGLINTON

said, he must really interrupt the noble Marquess. The document was an unofficial document; it was given to him as a private individual; it was not sent to him in the capacity of Lord Lieutenant, or as a Minister of the Crown.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE

understood the noble Earl to say, that he submitted it to the law officers of the Crown.

The EARL of EGLINTON

rose to order. He distinctly stated, he believed he submitted the case of Mr. Keogh to the law advisers of the Crown; but he never stated he submitted that affidavit to the law advisers of the Crown, because he never did so.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE

would be obliged, if the noble Earl would state what he did submit to the law advisers of the Crown.

The EARL of EGLINTON

had already stated what he believed he submitted to the law advisers of the Crown—that he submitted to them all cases in which he heard of violent language being used, and amongst them was the case of the language used by Mr. Keogh; but the affidavit which he had read to their Lordships was never out of his possession.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE

could by no exertion of his intellect conceive how the affidavit came into the possession of the noble Earl. If it were sent to him whilst he was in Ireland, it must have reached him in his official capacity; because he could not understand the noble Earl divesting himself of his official position when a man told him he had a grave accusation to bring against a Queen's Counsel. It might be as well said by a Lord Lieutenant, if charged with being cognisant of high treason, sedition, riot, or any other grave offence, that he only knew it in his private capacity. He could not possibly separate the noble Earl in Ireland into his individual capacity, and his capacity as Lord Lieutenant. It appeared that when the noble Earl was Lord Lieutenant, this declaration, affirmation, affidavit, or by whatever name it was best described, being a document of importance, was given to him, and he put it in his pocket, brought it out of the country, and nearly a year afterwards, without notice, it was made the foundation of an accusation against a person in a responsible position in the service of the Crown. He thought such a practice as that ought not to be permitted; and he desired to hear it more clearly explained. According to the noble Earl who spoke last, the speech of Mr. Keogh was very notorious, and was considered so remarkable as to be borne in mind by persons in high positions; but no one had produced a single newspaper containing any notice of it. Not that a newspaper report would be any evidence to him of the truth of the charge—but they knew that newspaper reporters did take down speeches in shorthand with considerable accuracy, even though they were speeches made in a hurry; and the production of a newspaper report would at all events have been more satisfactory than this wonderful document or information. It depended on the authority of Burke, and was supported by Mr. A. Browne, the son of the agent of Mr. Lawes, and Mr. Lawes himself, who had shown the greatest personal animosity against Mr. Keogh. It was said that Mr. Keogh had evoked a great deal of intimidation; but if that had been so, it would have been brought forward, since he was' the subject of such violent political and personal opposition. He would not enter upon the grave subject of how elections in Ireland were to be better conducted; but when the party with whom Mr. Keogh acted were spoken of as the enemies of civil freedom, he would ask, was it or was it not the fact, that the Catholic constituencies of Ireland—West-meath, Athlone, Clare, and other constituencies—did return men of their choice at the last general election? He believed very improper language was used by the priests; indeed, he was very sure of it. He regretted it exceedingly. But was there no other coercion used in Ireland— were no other parties enemies to civil freedom? He believed the answer must be in the affirmative; for he said every landlord who exercised undue coercion on his tenant upon the subject of his vote, was equally an enemy of civil freedom. If this were a great party Motion, designed for the purposes of party warfare, it might be justified; but if it were intended merely as an attack upon an individual of high legal attainments, of great power both in Parliament and the country, and one of the servants of the Queen, he did say it was unfair to keep this document concealed for nearly twelve months, and then to use it without any notice being conveyed to the person it affected. He was, therefore, gratified at hearing the noble Earl recommend the withdrawal of the Motion.

The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH

besought their Lordships to allow the bearer of the battered quiver, and the hurler of the rusty bolts, to occupy their attention for a few minutes. The other night he was taunted with bringing charges on the authority of newspaper reports, and now he was rated for not having supported the best possible authority by the corroboration of some newspaper. He really did not know how to meet the different opinions expressed. The noble Duke opposite had directed a great portion of his remarks to show that this language was all nonsense, and unworthy of notice. If that were so, he wanted to know why the present Government, in the month of January, prosecuted persons at Liverpool who used ribbon signs and tokens? It had been thrown out against him, that he had not supplied the names of the magistrates; but he would candidly admit that he did not think it safe to disclose them, and that was the only reason for his refusal. Upon the whole, considering what his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) had recommended, though he was confident not one single atom he had stated had been shaken in the slightest degree, he should follow his advice and withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

House adjourned to Tuesday nest.