The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-10 00:00:00

constituents. To be sure, there are in the
present instance two facts, one of which, if
not fully explained, and the other, if not
as, •well confirmed, might take a particular
Member of the House of Commons out of
the above favourable, or at least not un-
pardonable, cateaory. Ist, his failing directly
to interrogate Mr. Hill, as was done by other
Members ; second, his emphatic and solemn
denial of the specific charge from his place in
Parliament. But we are far from founding any
surmise disadvantageous to an Hon. and Learned
Gentleman upon either of these, taken singly,
and independent of such a sinister issue to the
inquiry as we should most unfeignedly deplore,
and, indeed, cannot anticipate. With regard to
any careless escapade in private conversation of a
passing sentiment, not meant to be divulged,
and, perhaps, not dwelt upon for half an
hour afterwards in the mind of the party ex-
pressing we agree with an Evening Con-
!ernreorary in the opinion that nothing could he so
narsh or so preposterous as the attempt to fasten
any serious stigma upon the reputation of a
Mcmber of Parliament for such an every-day
occurrence. If the whole proceeding could still
be got rid of, with due consideration for the
feelings of individuals, it would be a benefit
much to be desired ; but we confess that we
know not by what expedient to accomplish it,
and we are equally unprepared to say what step
the House of Commons can eventually take, let
the worst case that has been imagined be
brought home to the parties whom it implicates.
That House is a totally unfit theatre for the
display of such a spectacle as this : the first step
was a fake one, but it has unfortunately been
taken.— Times.

The " Irish Row" excites extraordinary in-
terest, and the more we reflect on the business.
and the consequences with which any inquiry
may be attended, the more we are disposed to
recommend caution to Members. They have
now had the interval of two or three days to
cool them, and we would fain hope that they
must, in general, be now sensible that the fur-
ther they proceed in this business, the more
siyitild they entangle themselves, and furnish food
for ridicule to the public. Mr. O'Connell has
an interest in pushing hard for an inquiry.
Having the command of the democracy of Ire-
land, he knows well that if the charge be brought
home to Mr. Sheil, he will be excluded from all
hope of being ever returned from any place in
Ireland where the Catholics possess influence,
and that the example made of one of hi 4 Tail,
will keep the rest in due subjection. But the
'great body of Members are not surely bound to
lend themselves to Mr. O'Connell's objects. We
ask them to consider coolly and dispassionately
what they are about to do. What is the real
issue of the trial " who is the Traitor ?" Mr.
Hill, the Member for Hull, inadvertently men-
tions a report that Irish Members opposing the
Coercion Bill, in private confidence made no
secret of their conviction that some measure of
political restraint was essential for the security ol
life and property in Ireland. The fact of this die-
sonance between the private opinions and the pr.
litical votes of Irish Repealers was notorious.
Mr. Hill merely alluded in public to a matter of
common private notoriety. It was equally noto-
rious that Mr. Sheil and other Irish Mem-
bers of Parliament, had too much common
sense and sagacity cordially to agree in the agi-
tation prescribed by Mr. O'Connell. It was
equally notorious that Mr. O'Connell, the arch
agitator of Ireland, kept the turnpike gates of
the popular Irish Representatives. When the
Irish close boroughs were annihilated by the
Irish Reform Bill, it was found that the price
of a seat was temporary conformity to the creed
of Mr. O'Connell. Mr. Sheil was, as every
body knows, an unwilling convert to the doc-
trine of Repeal. He had too much good sense
to be deceived into the idea that a part of the
people of Ireland could carry Repeal against
another part, backed by the whole population
of England and Scotland ; and he saw in Re-
peal agitation a fertile source of mischief, and
the possibility of a bloody issue. But Mr.
Sheil's part was so cast, that his political exis-
tence would have been annihilated by a refusal
to conform ; and he gave in his adhesion, and
even over-acted in public the part of a Repeal
advocate, in order to remove all suspicion of
his sincerity. But the inward man often seeks
indemnity for the sacrifices made to expediency,
for the disposition to free agency can never l'e
wholly overcome. Mr. Sheil, as part of the
Tail, was obliged to obey the commands of the
Head ; but the obedience, we may be sure, was
often reluctantly afforded, and the dictates of
conviction naturally burst forth when the com-
pressing power was no longer present. Mr.
Sheil was not the only Member of the Tail who
felt uneasy in his position, nor was he the only
communicant, but he was the individual pos
sessing the most talent and accomplishment.
We have stated what we believe to be the fact,
that he has sacrificed his conviction at the shrine
of ambition, having no other means to okain a
seat in the reformed Parliament. Mr. O'Con-
nell is too shrewd a man not to be fully aware
of the tenor by which he holds Mr. Sheil and
some other repealers. He perceives that Mr.
Sheil and his tribe of convenient conformists will
at a fitting future opportunity revolt, and in an-
ticipation of such a counter movement, Mr.
O'Connell is pre-determined, having used them
for his purposes, to deprive them of their powers
of injuring him hereafter. No sensible man
can mistake the design of " honest lago." But
we earnestly ask the Members of the House of
Commons where this " delicate investigation" is
to terminate ? Are there no Members of the
House of Commons, or of the present Govern-
ment, who are supporting measures in direct
opposition to their private and recorded political
opinions ? What has been the history of all
Parties—ministerial and opposition—for a cen-
tury past ? What said Mr. Hume in his blunt
honesty, two years since, when he voted for the
Russian loan ? " I will not support a factious
proposition, the intent of which is to oust a
liberal Ministry and seat a Tcry substitute."
Can the " Whippers-in" tell no secrets on the
votes of Members of Parliament ? What says
the Quarterly Review for March, 1830, as
quoted by Mr. Wakefield, on this very subject ?
" All real business is drowned in debates and reports.
It is astonishing, at the end of a ses'ion, to see how much
has been said, and yet how little material business has
been transacted. Part of this evil must be ascribed to
the state of society in our overgrown and most voluptuous
metropolis—but a much larder portion to the Members
themselves. If shoe who take the chief share in the
management of public affairs were to adopt a totally dif-
' ferent line of conduct—if they on all occasions showed
themselves more intent on what was done than on the
manner of doing it—the business of the country would
he despatched better, and, at the same time, with more
real wisdom and eloquence.
" The point, however, in which the Members of the
House of Commons have sometimes been thought to be
most deficient, is their want of independence. Though
less open to improper influence than formerly, there is
too much reason to surmise that they do not speak