The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-20 00:00:00

however, set down in writing what I have before dis-
tinctly averred. Mr. Hill is reported in have said, in a
st'eech which he has not disavowed, that an Irish Member
who had spol;e:s violently and voted against every clause in
tho Coercion Bill, wet'l't. t.';' the Ministers and told them not
to give up one jot of it, for if they ite tlt,.ire would be no
living in Ireland. This allegatio❑ is distinct arffl unequi-
vocal, and upon its faith the vote of Mr. Hill appeals tor
have been in a great measure given. If it has been ap-
plied by Mr. Hill's informant to me, it is a base falsehood.
On this positive averment (reserving to myself the right of
adopting such further steps as I may consider to be proper)
for the present I take my stand. I trust that in this stage
of the transaction (of which it is reasonable to anticipate
the development by 'the informant,' upon whom 1 call to
come forth) this assertion will be considered sufficient by
those oho conceive that at the bar of public opinion a man
is to be tried upon principles analogous to the maxims of
that law into which Mr. Hill has been selected by his
Majesty's Ministers to inquire. Placed near the highest
legal authority in the empire, and connected by his official
relation with our system of salutary judicature, Mr. Hill
must look with abhorrence upon that tribunal in which
the accused was apprised of the charge, but all knowledge
of the accuser was withheld. As the learned functionary
will be slow to suggest the reception of hearsay evidence in
those courts of British justice whose practice he has been
nominated to investigate, he will be the first to feel that
no man ought to be sentenced to the loss of character open
the authority of an anonymous whisperer, by whom, in a
moment of yielding credulity, the virtuous reluctance of a
popular representative was overcome.
" With regard to Mr. Hill's letter, I shall content my-
self with making a single observation. He has omitted to
mention that he will furnish his informant's name. 'Who
is he ? The character of Mr. Hill may stand so high at
Hull that his constituents may not think it necessary t,
ascertain whether the recollection of his informant is in
perfect coincidence with his own; but although the people
of Hull may conceive that the authority of ' an informant,'
whom I shall not call nameless, but who is as yet without
a name, is quite sufficient for the exculpation of Mr. Hill,
it is manifest that, without the disclosure of that name,
the question of treason or calumny cannot be determined.
Mr. Hill made what at Hull may be considered an ap-
proach to specification: lie said that he could refer his
hearers to a man well known and much respected at Hull.
Why does he not refer to him ? At Hull the materials
for conjecture are afforded, but beyond its precincts no
light is supplied. It is not, therefore, very unreason-
able to call on Mr. Hill for the authority on which he
not only acted in Parliament, and defended his conduct
out of it, but has been instrumental in putting the most
injurious rumours into circulation. It is to be presumed
that the informant of Mr. Hill cannot have any objection
to the disclosure. If he have, what opinion ought to be
entertained of the gentleman ' well known and respected
at Hull,' who influences one Member of Parliament by the
imputation of perfidy to another, and having endeavoured
to do the deepest detriment to a political antagonist, and
involved in embarrassment a political adherent, shrinks
from the resentment of the man be wrongs, to put forward
the man on whom he prevails, and skulks in ignominious
security behind the screen which the convenient generosity
of an accommodating confidant may induce him to supply.
Let Mr. Hill's informant announce himself, or let him
be disclosed by Mr. Hill, and I pledge myself to open an
mmedlate communication with him.
" RICHARD LALOR SHEIL."

MR. PEASE'S LETTER TO ---.0. ICELBURN, ESQ., SUR,

AEON, &C., WEST AUCKLAND.
" Southend, 4th Month 1, 1833.
" Respected Friend,—Fairly presuming from the very
respectable petition which I had the pleasure to present to
the House of Commons, that many of my worthy friends
at West Auckland and St. Helen's Auckland have felt a
lively interest in the discussions which have taken place,
and have now issued in the passing of the Irish Disturb-
ance Bill, and presuming also that some of them may
have been disappointed in my not giving the measure my
firm opposition, it seems due to them, as well as myself, to
offer to their consideration a few of those reasons which
have influenced my conduct : they will not accuse me
of more than error in judgment, as I seek favour and
affection from no man nor set of men, as the independence
of my votes proves. I trusted in the real Bill as much
as any one need do, but after much anxious thought re-
solved to write letters myself to every part of Ireland, to
ascertain the wishes and feelings of the thinking portion
of all classes, and to assure myself that an Act so out-
rageous was really called for by the circumstances of that
fine but unhappy country. Now, every one of my
answers contained expressions of the greatest anxiety for
the passing of the Bill, even in its original shape. 1
need not say bow greatly its severity has been mitigated ;
truly it is not like the same production, the monstrosity
of its birth is scarcely to be recognized in its present shape.
Well, all this has been the result of an increasing force of
representations of the friends of a reforming Ministry, who
have quietly from time to time urged upon the Govern-
ment and others those ameliorating changes—not the result
of the clamour of a fierce Opposition--one of those who
have thus secretly endeavoured to soften the Bill, I have
been still, and would have voted against military tribunals,
&c. &c., why then not ? (one or two nights I was ill and
in bed) I have spoken of letters unanimously in favour of
the Bill—again, the majority of the Irish M.P.s deci-
dedly, almost all the respectable men, were in favour of the
Bill. I believe Ireland to be fairly represented, and to
speak the majority of her representatives. Many of them
told me ' English Members (tight to vote for this Bill ; we
dare not, as our families would be murdered, our houses
pulled down, at the instigation of the agitators,'—then I
could not vote for it, and for those reasons I could not
vote against it, if the majority of my own constituents—
thinking men--wished a measure I did Lot approve, 1
should be justified in voting against it.
" Again, the most hostile to the Bill in the House
laughed and joked out of the House how much money
they had got—how much law business—by becoming
agitators ! and only deplored the Bill ruining the most
shameless of trades.
"Against large meetings I did vote, because the Irish
are ignorant and passionate, and a fiery orator, free himself
from harm, brings a multitude into severe punishment by
;; ritating them about their real and great grievances.
"Now, I shall be one to claim redress of those wrongs.
I have sat pretty regularly from 11 to 16 hours per day,
rarely never indeed till 3, and I mean to do nay duty.
" I am, very respectfully,
" J. PEASE, Jun."
[ln the above letter the copyist must hare made several
omissions, as some of the sentences are quite unintelligible.]
(From the Morning Chronicle.)
We direct the attention of our readers to the
letter of Mr. Sheil on the stale subject of the Hull
speech of Mr. M. D. Hill. Mr. Shell, in a peculiar-
and lengthy mode, has at last given a written con-
tradiction. We confess there is something ambi-
guous and curious in the way the Repealers have
dealt with this question and the individual notoriously
its subject. The pleadings have been tedious, but
Mr. Hill adopted a-manly and specific course, and
we presume that the issue is now to be tried in the
House of Commons. It seems to have been eon-,
venient to Mr. O'Connell not to turn out the bag
fox, aware that Reynard may be run and killed at
any time. No man can more admire than we do
the talents and genius of Mr. Shell ; but we confess
we are sorry to perceive that they are no longer at
his own command. Our admiration of genius ex-
torts from us the wish that Mr. O'Connell may not
take an ungenerous advantage of the success which
circumstances have given to him.
(From the Morning Post.)
Who is the traitor ? Mr. O'Connell, in a letter
dated the 14th inst., addressed to the Pilot, observes
that of the Irish Members who can properly come
within the scope of Mr. Hill's accusation there are
only six remaining who have not yet disclaimed ;
and he adds his opinion that thej may " all dis-
claim with perfect truth." The six are :
J. M. Galway, Waterford ; James Grattan, Wicklow
county ; Henry Grattan, Meath county; W. N. Macria-
mars, Clare county ; Fitzstepben French, Roscommon
county ; N. A. Vigors, Carlow borough.
" Six more disclaimers," says O'Connell, " and
Hr. Hill is overthrown."

The rumour is again confidently revived that
Mr. Byng, the Member for Middlesex, will be called to
the Upper House before the meeting of Parliament. It is
said that the recent visit of the Hon. Gentleman and his
lady to Brighton, where they were invited to the Royal
table, was connected with this subject. It is, however,
we believe, certain, that the name of Mr. Byng has been
for some time on the Ministers' list of Commoners, who
were willing or anxious to receive the peerage, and who
are said to have received an intimation not long since that
" it" (the list) had not been finished, and they would be
thought of at the proper time. Mr. Byng having no
family, the peerage (should it be created) will be entailed
on his nephew, Captain Byng, who married Lady Ape,
Paget. Mr. Byng is one of the oldest Members of the
House of Commons, having represented Middlesex in 12
successive Parliaments.