Last night, in the House of Peers, the Marquis of
WESTMEATH re- newed his accusations against Mr. Keogh ; supporting them, in a long speech, by documents, and urging them with acrimony. The gist of his Last night, in the House of Peers, the Marquis of WESTMEATH re- newed his accusations against Mr. Keogh ; supporting them, in a long speech, by documents, and urging them with acrimony. The gist of his statement is, that at Moate, last summer, Mr. Keogh made a speech, the substance of which he repeated at Athlone, indirectly inciting the people to take vengeance of those who voted for Sir Richard Levinge, the op- ponent of Captain Magan. He read to the House the statements of two magistates, and four "respectable persons." One version of the words imputed to Mr. Keogh is as follows- 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."
Lord Westmeath moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject of seditious language alleged to have been used by the Solicitor- General for Ireland.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE met the motion with the most decided oppo- sition. He also defended Mr. Keogh ; referring to the handsome testi- mony given in another place by Mr. Disraeli-" 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." After that testimony, he hoped they would hear no more of the " disreputable appointment." He charged Lord Westmeath with having unfairly brought forward the subject, having his own evidence ready, but giving the gentleman he at- tacked no time to collect counter-evidence. Nevertheless, Mr. Keogh had furnished him with a plain statement and corroborative testimony. He declares that he only spoke at Moate for five minutes ; that he did not use the language imputed to him, nor did he ever recommend vio- lence : it was never in his thoughts. In this he was supported by the testimony of a gentleman who was with him at the time-Mr. M'Nevin. The Duke of Newcastle also placed the Lord-Lieutenant of the time in the dilemma of either not having believed the charge, or of having be- lieved it and taken no steps.
The Earl of Entaratnir stated, that the words imputed to Mr. Keogh had been submitted to him ; he thinks he applied to the Law-officers of the Crown, but was not advised to proceed with it. He brought forward and read an affidavit, declaring that Mr. Keogh used the language im- puted to him.
The Earl of ABERDEEN pointed out, and Lord BROUGHAM set forth with greater distinctness, that as there was a conflict of evidence, their Lord- ships, being the highest court of criminal appeal, could not properly enter into the inquiry, and so discharge the functions of the Grand Jury of Westmeath.
The Earl of DERBY said, that objection was of a technical kind. The objections to the selection of Mr. Keogh were drawn from his whole ca- reer; and he certainly must repeat that his was an "unfortunate appoint- ment." Setting aside the word "seditious" in the motion, he thought the case was one that the House might inquire into. However, as Mr. Keogh and Ministers seemed satisfied, he would leave on them the re- sponsibility of shrinking from the investigation. The Marquis of Crawnre&nnz pointedly inquired how Lord Eglinton had become the depository of a state document ? Lord Enuorrox said he had received it in his " private capacity." Lord CLANRICARDE demurred to this distinction : if he had been cognizant of high treason, could he have said, " Oh, I only know it in my private capacity " ? Lord WESTMEATH withdrew his motion ; congratulating himself on his unshaken statement.
The House of Commons went into Committee on the Succession-duty Bill, taking it up at the point, clause 7, where progress had been reported. There was considerable opposition, technical discussion, and putting of imaginary cases ; but there was only one division, which was carried by the customary Ministerial majority. The bill was advanced as far as clause 19.
On the motion for the third reading of the Excise-duties on Spirits mBill:oriMtyr.acimoNinoi:hyin,gcforloomne314Kntoolx,8. LordrdG jm,ouiTR,uanssdp.ra.fraacect:onedofthtleime Irish Members-some of them, as Mr. GLADSTONE was driven to observe, whose garb betokened recent convivial occupations-opposed the motion by moving the adjournment of the House four times in succession ; the
of factiously trying to make a minority overrule the majority, and was for yielding ; but Mr. GLADSTONE stood firm, and said the minority must yield. The bill was accordingly read a third time, but not passed.
There were endless "rows" in both Committees ; two of them notice- able. Sir JOHN PAEDIGTON charged Mr. Gladstone with misrepresenting the Opposition in saying that they regarded the extension of the duty to real and settled property as "robbery" and in certain cases "plunder" : what Sir John had said only applied to a part of the bill. Whereupon, with great effect, Mr. GLADSTONE quoted the speech of Lord Galway, who had called the bill "iniquitous," a " downright robbery." In the Committee on the Excise Bill, besides the constant retorts, sneers, and angry expressions at the conduct of the minority in keeping the House sitting so long, Captain MAGAN could not refrain from alluding to the Keogh affair ; charging the man who made the affidavit relied on by Lord Eglinton with being "one of the greatest malefactors that ever lived " ; impugning the veracity of the Magistrate who backed him; and calling Sir Richard Le- vinge an old woman. Fortunately, Captain Megan was not followed. The House did not rise until half-past three o'clock.
Mr. COBDEN had previously moved that on its rising the House do ad- journ till Monday next; which made the opportunity of lodging a complaint that in the Burmese correspondence only extracts from the most important documents were given ; that they had been garbled; and that he never had met with anybody who could tell him who is responsible for these papers. Mr. BAILLIE thought Mr. Cobden ought to have given the late President of the Board of Control notice that he intended to make the complaint. Sir CHARLES WOOD said, the despatches on the subject of the Burmese war were prepared at the Board of Control, and that the President was re- sponsible for them-not himself in this instance, but the late President, Mr. Herries.
Another Burmese complaint was made by Mr. BRIGHT. He said that the mortality of the troops in Burmah from sickness has been shocking- 400 have been lost by one regiment, and two other regiments are described in private letters as reduced to skeletons. Although not fond of soldier- ing, he held that the lives of soldiers are as valuable as those of civilians. What is this war about, and what do we expect to gain by it, are ques- tions he could not help asking ? Sir CHARLES Wool, could not answer them ; but he was sorry to say there had been considerable mortality among the troops in Burmah-notably at Prome.
Previous page
