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

WHO IS THE TRAITOR?

(From the Temcs.)
Mr. Shell has broken silence on the charge of

double dealing brought by Mr. Hill against some
one Irish member, whom he stated to have given
his vote against the Coercion Bill, whilst he went
secretly to men in office and advised them to pass
it, as essential to the protection of life and pro-
perty in Ireland. This, we think, was the substance
of the accusation.
Mr. Hill stated that he heard the fact from re-
spectable authority, known as such to his consti-
tuents. Whether the reproach was, on the whole,
a discreet one, or directly called for in vindication
of the support rendered by Mr. Hill himself to the
principle of the Bill, is a question irrelevant to the
subject now under consideration, viz., the conduct
of the Irish democratic members sirce the charge
was made. With regard to the nature and amount
of the alleged delinquency, we consider it to be one of
those crimes which are by no means rare with men
more weak than deliberately wicked. The dread of
seeing perpetuated in the south of Ireland, through
the inefficiency of the ancient law—a system of
ferocious and cruel outrage—of bloody revenge
and universal terror—might induce very natu-
rally an honest man to wish for such a restraint
upon offenders, temporary of course and superficial,
still such an experiment as the Coercion Bill. If,
on the other hand, it should happen to be an Irish
Member of Parliament who was pondering upon
this remedy, he might be likely to ask himself,
" How will my vote in favour of it affect the safety
of my stack-yard—of my house—of my wife and
children ?" (if he had any). " How, again" (if he
were one whom the vain ambition of being a Mem-
ber of Parliament had blinded to more substantial
and noble objects)—" how," he would say, " will
my open support of this Bill, indispensable as in
my conscience I know it to be, affect the feelings
of my Radical constituents, and the chances of my
return in a future Parliament ?" The result of such
self-interrogation would be different with different
minds. The man bold and upright in conscious
truth, and aiming purely at the public good, would
either resign his seat, if he considered himself the
delegate of those who had elected him, and there-
fore not a free agent in respect of his Parliamentary
course ; or, if he held that a Member of Parliament
was no otherwise bound upon general questions
than by his own conviction of what was best for
the country, he would protect what he conceived to
be the interests of his constituents, though against
their declared inclinations, and, voting for the
Bill proposed, he would resolutely brave the

consequences.
Another class of men there are who have no
aversion to promote the public interest, provided
they obstruct not their own selfish ends. One of
these would say, " The Bill ought to pass," but
" I ought not to lose my seat by seeming to be its
advocate." Such a man would be just the person
to act as some one Irishman is represented by Mr.
Hill to have demeaned himself. He would furtively
recommend the enactment of the measure, and vote
and harangue against it openly. There would, it is
true, be neither high principle nor high moral cou-
rage in such a proceeding, but we have seen enough
of political pretension and of human weakness to
doubt whether the offence imputed by Mr. Hill be
one distinguished for its novelty.
The charge, however, made a sensation, as it is
termed, among the Irish Members of a certain
clique. Mr. O'Connell, in a roundabout and ra-
ther mitigated way, pronounced the assertion to be
" false :" why ?—because it was incredible, which
was merely begging the question. There was, how-
ever, a murmur of discontent and indignation, and
(real or assum-d) incredulity among them ; and
the question asked by every man very naturally was,
d• Who is the traitor ?" " Who can he be ?" And
the very childish demand is made that Mr. Hill
shall give up his authority. With this demand Mr.
Hill knew better than to comply, and it was the more
unnecessary because, having made the allegation he
had already taken the 'onus of it on himself. Mr.
Hill, therefore, was the mark for every Irish Member
anxious to have a satisfactory explanation. But Mr.
Hill took another step for the satisfaction of the
liberal gentlemen from Ireland. Knowing that he
had not named the culprit, unwilling that the inno-
cent should be confounded with the guilty, and
desirous that the saddle should be fixed upon the
right horse, though at the same time not inhuman
enough to expose any individual by a public an-
nouncement of his name to the frantic and inhuman
vengeance of " the finest peasantry in the world,"
Mr. Hill said very quietly, and the step was not
less manly than humane, " Gentlemen, to save you
any further wondering, guessing, or scolding, if you
will only put the question to me in private, I will
save you all sort of trouble, and tell you whom I
specially pointed at as the delinquent." The publi-
cation of these several responses of the learned gen-
tleman would then set the matter at rest.
We observe that Mr. Sheil calls upon Mr. Hill,
not privately, but in a public letter, addressed to
the Dublin Morning Register, and not to inform
him whether he (Mr. Sheil) is the party alluded
to by the Member for Hull, but to do that as a
preliminary which ought at least to be a subsequent
' part of the proceeding,—viz., to give up the name
of Mr. Hill's authority. Why, Mr. Sheil is riot,
as it appears to us, entitled to such a communica-
tion, because he has never been pointed out by
' Mr. Hill as the person upon whose private con-
sciousness of the necessity for the Coercion Bill Mr.
Hill had built as an argument justifying his own
adhesion to that measure. At present Mr. Hill
himself stands in the shoes of the individual who
gave him the information. Mr. Hill, until he
shall disclose the name of his informant, bears
the same responsibility as that informant ; and
if he still chooses to conceal the name, no one
can complain of it, because Mr. Hill is there
in propria persona. For our own parts, we think
that more has been said of this business by some of
our brethren than it by any means deserves. It is
merely because others have made so much of it, and
because this letter of the eloquent and unwise
Member for Tipperary has in some degree forced
the subject upon us, that we have now, for the first
time, troubled the public with our sentiments.
That Mr. Sheil was one whit more liable to the
imputation alluded to than any other Member of
Parliament we should be heartily sorry to suspect.
Some of his votes, and one or more of his recent
speeches, have excited in us more of sorrow than of
anger. Mr. Pease, we find in the Irish papers, has
written a letter to a gentleman in West Auckland,
which contains more trying passages for the
nerves and temper of Irish Members of Parliament
than anything
asserted by Mr. Hill. We pub-
lish the letter of this " freindly " representative
which is remarkable in many points of view :-1,
For what the worthy gentleman states to have been
the general character of the Irish Members who
supported the Bill, as compared with that of its
opponents from the same country ; 2, The unani-
mity with which his correspondents in " every part
of Ireland" called for the enactment of the measure,
as one of indispensable protection ; 3, The levity
and effrontery which he ascribes to the Irish Mem-
bers " most hostile to the Bill in the House," who,
he says, boasted how much law business and money
they had got, by taking up the trade of agitation;
4, For the declaration of Mr. Pease's motive for
voting against large meetings in Ireland, because of
the ignorance and violence of the people, and the
.evere punishments to which they were brought by
the excitement of a "fiery orator, free himself from
harm."

------
(Prom the Morning Register.)
" Long Orchard, Templemore, Dec. 15.
".Sir,-1 yesterday saw, for the first time, an observa•
tion!n the Standard, that I had not yet, explicitly and in
writing, made
Mr. Hill. The statement made by me was, as I conceive,
any statement with respect to the speech of
explicit ; and, with regard to its not having been in writing,
I followed the example of Mr. Hill, for 1 selected in a full
public meeting the same medium for the defence of my
character as that gentleman had chosen for the vindication
of his conduct in the House of Commons. I readily,