The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-11 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The House of Commons has determined, as we sup-
posed it would, in the case of the accusation against
the Irish Members. It has agreed to a Committee
of Inquiry. Every one must have observed that
for some days past the general inclination through-
out society was, if possible, to get rid of this pain-
ful, embarrassing, and most unprofitable question.
Its total irrelevancy to the important public business
for which Parliament has been called together, the
distressing and even disgraceful inquisitions into the
intercourse of private life which might accompany
its progress, and still more the vague and unsatis-
factory nature of its positive results, have each and
ail presented themselves to the minds of those who
were superior to the indulgence of personal curio-
sity or vindictiveness, as so many arguments which
rendered it imperative on the House of Commons
to quash—if to quash it should still be practicable—
so offensive and dangerous an investigation. An
attempt was made last night, by a motion of Sir
Francis Burdett, to substitute the order of the
day for Mr. O'Connell's proposition of a Committee,
and Mr. Stanley, who spoke soon afterwards, gave
vent to his repugnance against the latter course in
strong and earnest language. In one observation,
however, of the Right Hon. Gentleman, neither
Sir Robert Peel, who followed him, nor the majo•
rity of the House, appeared much disposed to con-
cur. Mr. Stanley wished (if we understood him
correctly) to establish, that the only charge which
affected Mr. Sheil was that contained in the words
of Lord Althorp, viz., "that the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had uttered sentiments out of Parlia-
ment, or words to that effect, at variance with his
votes and speeches in it.," Now, if such were the
whole of the case, we can imagine nothing more
utterly frivolous and silly than the attempt to found
upon it a charge, or ever► an imputation, seriously
discreditable to any Member of Parliament, except,
indeed, the thin-skinned delicacy of the Member
himself, who could think it necessary to force
an examination into its truth or falsehood. No, as
was stated by Sir Robert Peel, and as had been pre-
viously argued by Mr. O'Connell, the grave charge
against Mr. Shell was that brought forward by the
Learned Member for Hull—not that in mere pri-
vate conversation Mr. Shell had expressed himself
in this or that manner, hut that he had made or
rent a communication to the Government, or to some
member of it, urging the enactment of a measure
which in public he had violently opposed. It would
be the grossest injustice to Mr. Shell to attach his
solemn denial of the charge against him to the mere
fact imputed by Lord Althorp—namely, his having
" conversed" upon the subject in a spirit at va-
riance with his votes; because we maintain that
even in the present advanced stage of the question,
such a fact might be proved by incontestible evi-
dence, without in any sensible degree affecting Mr.
Shell's political or personal honour. To do that
it will be indispensable to show, not that Lord
Althorp's belief, but that Mr. Hill's (far graver)
accusation, was well founded. It is on the lat-
ter that the whole inquiry will turn, and un-
less that be fully brought home to Mr. Sheil, we
conceive that he must stand acquitted of everything
but some careless levity of expression, against
which no man's reputation, or that of hardly one in
ten thousand, would be entirely unassailable. The
House felt clearly that Mr. Shell had a right to the
fullest examination, of which a charge so strange,
disjointed, and we really believe altogether unexam-
pled, was susceptible ; and that feeling was forcibly
displayed by the division of 192 to 54 against giving
the " go-by" to Mr. O'Connell's motion. What
will come of it is quite another question. Can it
lead to any good 2 Mr. Stanley recommended a
protest concurrent with the institution of the Com-
mittee; but can any protest be so strong or binding
against the resort to such a vicious and perilous
precedent for the future guidance of the House as
to insure that it shall never be followed ? We
must confess that the waste of time already occa-
sioned through this unbecoming, because obviously
personal, question, affords but a sorry prospect to
the country of the judgment and vigour with
which its real business is likely to be henceforth
carried on. However, a lesson has been received
that may be turned to profit. The Speaker, even
the most experienced and practised Speaker, must
not be invariably relied upon in critical cases, or the
reins of all other men's understandings surrendered
implicitly to that high officer. There ere, we dare
say, fifty Members in the House of Commons who
saw clearly at the first moment, that the question
ought then to be stopped, but who remained in-
active in deference to the Speaker, hoping that the
Right Hon. Gentleman would interpose, until the
time had passed when he or they could have done
so with effect and with propriety. At the same
time it must be confessed, that the Speaker could
not reasonably have anticipated such an answer
from Lord Althorp as his Lordship thought himself
bound to give to the question of Mr. O'Connell.
We trust, however, that as Mr. Hill stands pledged,
no further delay will be permitted to impede the
resumption of what is more properly the public
business.—Times.

Our hope that the time for reflection which has
been afforded to Members, might not be without
effect in enabling them to see the folly of entering
on an inquiry to ascertain the degree of Mr. Shed's
political consistency, and that the motion of Mr.
O'Connell would be negatived, has bten disap-
pointed. We are inclined to believe that a ma-
jority of Members entered the House last night
with an inclination to proceed no further in
the business ; but the turn which the discussion
took overthrew their resolves, and an inquiry has
been wanted. After a few observations from Mr.
Sheil, claiming a fair trial, but leaving the form of
the investigation to the House, Mr. Stanley
wished to have the precise nature and extent
of the inquiry distinctly understood ; because,
said the Right Honourable Gentleman, " the
question, I understand, is this—with reference
to the Honourable and Learned Gentleman
(Mr. Sheil) there is this statement made, and
this statement only—that out of the House, on the
subject of the Coercion Bill, he has held language
at variance with the language he held within the
House.—(hear.) I wish, therefore, before the
House is called upon to come to any decision, to
know whether the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
so understands the extent of the statement, and
whether upon that statement, that he has held out
of the House its conversation language different
from that which he held in the House with refer-
ence to the Coercion Bill, he rests his denial, and
asks the House, for the sake of his vindication, to
enter upon the inquiry." Mr. O'Connell here in-
terposed, and prescribed silence to Mr. Sheil. He
had, during the interval, been enabled to discover,
which he did not do before," that there is an infinite
difference between the statement which the Noble
Lord (Althorp) had made, and the statement which
the Hon. and Learned Member for Hull had declared
himself ready to support I.y evidence;" and he appear-
ed to regret that he had accepted the Noble Lord for
Mr. Hill, and that he had made a retraction and
apology to the latter. As the part of the speech of
-Mr. O'Connell on this point is exceedingly cha-
racteristic, we shall allow him to speak for himself :
" I now perceive that no two things can be more
distinct and different. I confess, in the hurry of the
first occasion, I perhaps naturally, and certainly un•
deservedly, confounded both to a great extent. I
mixed that which is a real and serious crime with
that regarding ,A bleb I think it would be difficult to
show it would be becoming in the House to insti-
tute an inquiry, if it had not proceeded from the
lips of one of his Majesty's Ministers, using the
term responsibility when he volunteered an answer

to a question I did not put. I shall show presently
that he did volunteer it, and that it was not led to
by what fell from me. The strongest proof that such
was my impression is, that I really thought he adopted
and sanctioned and justified the Hon. Member for
Hull. I will not retract what I said under that impres-
sion." Mr.O'Connell now insists that Mr. Hill's state-
ment shall be proved to the letter—that it shall be

proved not merely that Mr. Sheil held different
',pinions on the subject of the Coercion Bill in pri-
vate from those he expressed in public, but that he
made a distinct communication to Minister, urging
theni privately to do that which he had contended
against in the House with all his energies. " I
give (said Mr. O'Connell) the Hon. Member for
Hull the fullest latitude he can desire (with respect
ro the term Minister): he may extend it to every
body in office; nay, more—to every regular Minis-
terial supporter—to everybody belonging to the
Ministerial party or phalanx, for I wish to use as
unobjectionable a word as I can." Mr. O'Connell,
whom no one ever charged with being deficient in
cunning, expended much sarcasm against the sup-
posed revealers of private conversations,with the view,
we suppose, of causing it to be believed that he did all
he could to prevent any gentleman from coming for-
ward to state instances of Mr. Sheil's holding a diffe-
rent language in private from what he uttered in pub-
lic, and thus, while he indicated his own belief that
Mr. Sheil was a reluctant opponent of the Coercion
Bill, obtaining credit for a wish to hazard everything
to rescue the Honourable and Learned Member for
Tipperary. To do Mr. O'Connell justice, he
worked up this part of his speech with some skill.
" Was it (he asked) such a conversation as, among
gentlemen, is within the sacred guard of silence ?
(Cheers.) Was it necessary to caution the hearer
with, " Do not say this ;" or was it such a matter
as no man would think of repeating ? Was it re-
peated by a man who, if he were to swear it, would
riot be believed, because the moral tarnish of re-
tailing it would lead to the inevitable suspicion that
he who could repeat would not scruple to in-
vent ? Is there not a tribunal of honour in
the breast of every man opposed to such
practices ?" This tirade, and the reference to the
recent courtmartial was altogether good acting. Mr.
O'Connell, after a warm eulogium on his Hon. and
Learned Friend Mr. Shell, between whom and him-
self there is, as all the world knows, the most
fervent affection and regard, concluded with claim-
ing from Mr. Hill the performance of his promise
on a former night, when he said that he was ready
with his proofs, and put in the Examiner news-
paper, and read a list of the names of Members he
proposed should form the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Hill made an excellent speech. It is so much
the habit of Mr. O'Connell to make assertions and
to retract them, when he finds it inconvenient to
persist—to re-assert what he had retracted on a
fresh prospect of advantage, that it has become a
second nature with him to be guided by no other
principle than the convenience of the moment; and,
indeed, he does not seem to be aware that there is
anything wrong in thus shifting his ground continu-
ally. He has, indeed, stated, in print that he is the
most consistent of public men. It never occurred to
him, no doubt, that there was any harm in withdraw-
ing the retraction he had given to Mr. Hill when
he found it in his way. But Mr. Hill did not con-
fine himself to the retraction, but exhibited Mr.
O'Connell's gross inconsistency from first to last in
the business :—" Was the Hon. Member prepared
to impugn his (Mr. Hill's) veracity, or did he
merely accuse him of want of caution ? There
were two distinct propositions to be considered.
He wanted to know his starting place, what he had
to meet, and what to defend. The Hon. Member,
in his two letters, wherein he let loose the press of
Ireland upon him—(Hear, hear, hear)—had charged
him with having fabricated the whole statement.
He (Mr. Hill) wished to know whether he did fa-
bricate that statement, or any part of it; and whe-
ther he could prove that he had acted in truth or in
error ? As he obtained no reply, he would proceed
with his case as regarded himself personally. The
Hon. and Learned Member in his letter said, 'This
man fabricated this statement.' Now he (Mr. Hill)
would like to know how the Hon. and Learned
Member had found out that the statement was a
fabrication of his.—(Hear, hear ) Where was his
evidence of the fabrication ?—(Hear, hear.) He
would further ask the Hon. and Learned Member,
accomplished as he was in casuistry, to point out
the difference between him who asserted that which
he cannot know to be true, and him who asserts
that which be knows to be false.—(Hear.) How
did the Hon. Member know that he fabricated it ?"
But this was only of a piece of Mr. O'Connell's
conduct throughout the whole affair : he showed
that he took up and laid down charges with the
most reckless indifference to their truth. " The
fictions (he said) with which the Hon. and Learned
Member had set out were so monstrous that he
knew they would answer themselves; they were of
so perishable a nature, that they would not stand
the least test.—(Hear, hear.) If he wished them
to bear the least inspection, be must put a little
more of the alloy of truth in their composition.
The charges were as fleeting as their retractation."
He concluded with seconding the motion, declaring
" that nothing could give him more pleasure than
that the fullest investigation should be made into
the matter." In the course of his speech he ob-
served, that— . .

" He was now ready to say, as he was in a situation in
which his motives could no longer be misconstrued, that he
deeply deplored, whether he was right or wrong as to the facts,
that he had made the statement.—(Hear.) He had no oppor-
tunity before of making that declaration, because, on the first
occasion he had been spoken of in terms of abuse, of defiance,
and of insult; as long as that conduct was resorted to, he felt
he could not make the slightest concession.—(Hear,hear.) He
now, however, had no reason to conceal that he regretted it, as
it had given pain to himself and caused pain and uneasiness and
trouble to others." _ .

Sir Robert Peel made a speech quite in cha-
racter. As Mr. Shell is now on his trial, we shall
leave the matter where it is. It is greatly to be
regretted, however, that the matter should have at
all been brought before the House. We have al-
ways borne willing testimony to the high talents of
Mr. Sheil ; but instances of former indiscretion are
mentioned, which lead to the fear that he may not
come out of the inquiry uninjured.—ilforn. Chron.
The reformed House of Commons yesterday de-
voted another entire day to the solution of the very
important question to the country at large, of
" Who is the traitor ?" The real business of the
day commenced with the discussion of this topic,
and fatigued, no doubt, and exhausted with the
labour required in order to come to a decision on a
matter of such paramount importance, the reformed
House of Commons retired to rest, when it had
partly effected this herculean task. This done,
" orders of the day" were forgotten—" notices of
motions" were undreamt of—and " wearied nature
sought at last repose." The disingenuous and
tricky conduct of the Government throughout the
entire of this matter, is worthy of remark. For
some days back the treasury press has been busily
employed in endeavouring to mystify this question.
" What did it signify that the House should
be convinced of the rascality of one of its
Members ?" " What step was the House to take
when it had arrived at this tremendous conviction ?"
Let us in our turn be allowed to ask what did all
this unwillingness of the Government to allow a
Member of the House of Commons to vindicate his
title to the character of an honest man, mean ?
What was the cause of all this soreness ? Was it
commiseration for Mr. Shell and Mr. Hill, or was it
consideration for Lord Althorp and " the invisible
Gentleman ?" Why was Mr. Stanley an augur ?
and why was Colonel Evans a bore ? and why was
Sir Francis Burdett the two instruments combined?
Above all, how did Lord Ebrington come to suffer
Sir Francis Burdett to play his characters, and
to undertake the part of " Independent Member"
coming to the assistance of the Government in
their quondary ? Was it by " special desire,"
or upon a short notice, " Lord Ebrington
being suddenly taken ill," that Sir F. Burdett
took Lord Ebrington's place last night ? We are
unable to form a judgment on these points--but
the Government, in compliance with the sense of
the House of Commons, very unequivocally mani-
fested, at last unwillingly consented, and a Com-
mittee has been appointed to investigate the mat-
ter. There can be no doubt thee, in common jus-
tice to Mr. Sheil, the House were bound to come
• to this decision. Had Lord Althorp suffered the
subject to remain as it stood when it originally came

under the notice of Parliament, Mr. Shell having
once solemnly denied the charge made against him,
the matter might have there terminated—the va-
luable time of the House might have been saved—
and the character of his Majesty's Chancellor
of the Exchequer and leader of the House of
Commons, for discretion, might have stood
somewhat higher in the eyes of the coun-
try than, we fear, it at present does. It was,
in fact, Lord Althorp's having taken upon himself
to reiterate (as it were) the charge against Mr.
Shell which has made the charge now adopted one
only of bare justice to Mr. Shell. We confess we
lay under the impression that Lord Althorp had
more than he could well do on his hands, consider-
ing the notice he had given of his intentions for
Friday next. We thought he had quite occupation
enough prepared for him in opening a Budget with-
out also opening a battery—and though we give
him full credit for the manliness and straightfor-
wardness he exhibited, having once involved him-
self in the melee—yet if there be danger in the pre-
cedent established—if there be loss of character
and loss of dignity, added to loss of time, involved
in this discussion, we cannot but attribute much, if
not the whole of these misfortunes to the line taken
by Lord Althorp at the outset of this investigation.
—Morning Post.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 10.

THE ICING V. RICHARD DIONTPRIVAT AND JOHN JOSEPH

STOCK DALE.
In this caw, which was not concluded yesterday when
our Paper went to press, the Jury returned a verdict of
Guilty against both defendants.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION•HOUSE.

THE GENERAL POST-OFFICE.—A gentleman made a
communication to the LORD MAYOR, relative to the Ge-
neral Post-office, calculated to excite some surprise. He
stated that a gentleman wrote to Mr. Mackie, of New
York, on the 15th of March, 1633, for two copies of a
book containing an account of the Constitution of the
United States. Mr. Mackie wrote the following answer to
the order on the 9th of January, 1834 :—" By this oupor
tunity, the packet ship Montreal, Captain Chaplin, I send
a small parcel containing two copies of the American Con-
stitution and the Constitution of the United States, which
1 hope you will rr c ice safe. The Montreal goes to the
S•. Katharine's Docks ; and as this letter will be put in
the bag, you will know of her arrival, and you will get
the parcel by calling on board or at the luggage ware-
house." Mr. Mackie's correspondent received Mr. Mackie's
letter from the Post-office carrier on the 2Sth of January,
and the parer 1 was offered to him if he would pay the sum
of 71. ss. postage thereon. He declined agreeing to such
a proposition—told the carrier to take the parcel back
to the General Post-office, where it was his intention
to call, in• order to inquire into the grounds of so extra-
ordinary a demand, at variance as it was with the
practice of the establishment, and unrecognised by any
existing law upon the subject of general correspondence.
He did accordingly call on the morning of the 29th of
January, and saw in the Secretary's office Mr. Janes, who
referred him to the Carriers' office, from which he was
referred to the Dead Letter office, where his parcel was
exhibited to him. Again he refused to pay the enormous
sum which bad been demanded in the first instance, and
he expressed a wish to speak with Sir Francis Freeling
upon the subject, but was informed that that gentleman
was particularly engaged at the time. He then desired
that the parcel should be sent to him the next day. The
carrier accordingly called with it at the time required,
and, to the astonishment of the claimant of the books, told
him that the charge was reduced to fifteen shillings. Con-
vinced that no legal demand of the kind could be made, Le
determined to resist the reduced postage of the books, and
back they were taken again. The parcel then remained
at the Post-office, the claimant not choosing to admit the
principle that the Post-office authorities bad a right to
take parcels directed to individuals by private ships out of
such ships—parcels being no letters.
The LORD MAYOR said, lie had no doubt that Sir Fran.
cis Freeling would most readily give a satisfactory ex-
planation. There must, in his Lordship's opinion, have
been some violation of the Post-office rules, with respect to
the parcel. The manner in which parcels might be trans-
mitted, the circumstance of their being sealed or not, and
other matters relating to the form in which the trans-
mission was made, might have considerable effect upon the
Post-office authorities. At all events, Sir Francis Free-
ling would not, as might be presumed from his well-known
character, hesitate to satisfy the gentleman who considered
the demand an illegal one, upon the subject of the grounds
an which it was made.

It is expected that the parties will make a personal ap-
plication to his Lordship in a few days.

MARY LEB ONE.

Charles Brown, a young man of decent appearance,
was charged by Dr. James 13artlett, of I3entinck•street,
Edgeware-road.
Complainant about three weeks ago engaged a person as
cook, who on Saturday evening last came up into the
drawing-room, and, without having given any previous
warning, said she must go away that night. He said that
if she did she would not receive any wages, she having
agreed for a month certain ; upon which she began
screaming as loud as she could, and called out, " Charles !"
when the prisoner came running up stairs, saying that he
was the young woman's brother. Complainant desired
him to quit the house, but, tetusing to do so, he called up
his footman, with whose assistance he got the prisoner to
the street-door, where he created a great disturb inee, and
collected a mob round the house. A policeman shortly
after coming past, witness called him, and gave the pri-
soner in charge.
The prisoner, i❑ reply, said that he was informed by
his sister that she was going to leave her situation, and he
went there for the purpose of carrying away her boxes.
He was waiting in the passage while she went up stairs,
when, hearing his sister call him, he followed, upon which
the ccsuiplainant and his servant thrust him out of the
street-dour, and then gave him into custody.
Mr. RAWLINSON, without any comment, ordered the
prisoner to be immediately liberated.