Page images
PDF
EPUB

CONSPIRACY AGAINST MR SHEIL.

MR HILL, member for Hull, during a visit to that town, some time in October last, in a harangue to his constituents, at the Cross-keys Inn, accused one, or more than one, of the Irish Members, of the most disgraceful duplicity in regard to the Coercion Bill. His speech was reported in three Hull papers, the Hull Packet (an excellent paper), the Hull Advertiser, and the Hull Rockingham, and was, within a few weeks, copied into every newspaper in Great Britain and Ireland. The three reports of the speech agreed in all that was essential-the charge being, that one or more of the Irish Members, who voted publicly against the bill, urged Ministers in secret not to abate a single atom of its severity, as otherwise no man could live in Ireland. The version of it given in the Examiner, Nov. 10, 1833, and which is embodied in the Report of the Committee of Privileges, points very directly either to Mr O'Connell or Mr Sheil; and it soon became the general belief-not that the latter gentleman was the criminal-but that he was the person meant in Mr Hill's startling accusation. The public was every day more and more confirmed in this belief by denial after denial, given in various modes, by about nine-tenths of the Members to whom the charge could refer, without a syllable on the subject issuing from tongue or pen of Mr Sheil, who had formerly been famous for other qualities than taciturnity or retention, and shewn himself prompt and forward to wither, with the fires of his written and oral eloquence, all rash assailants of his political character.

Mr Hill, finding that he had made a charge which implicated all the Irish Members who had opposed the Coercion Bill, publicly offered to let every Irish Member, who chose to ask him the question by letter, know by return of post whether or no he was the alledged delinquent. We believe a good many of them availed themselves of this very polite and generous offer, and received satisfactory answers in the negative; while other indignant patriots could

not stomach such insolence, and "repudiated the accusation through other channels, in language which he who ran might read. Mr Hill's offer, which we have facetiously called above polite and generous," and which many or most people, we remember at the time, gravely called "manly," was impu. dent in the extreme to the many who he knew were innocent, and unjust, and worse than unjust, in the extreme, to the one or two who he thought were guilty; and from first to last the part he played can now be regarded by no upright mind but with disdain and disgust. Mr Sheil from the first saw that he was "the Irish Member" accused of speaking with great violence against every part of the Bill, of voting against every clause of it, and then going to Ministers, and saying, "Don't bate one single atom of it;" and who is Mr Hill, that he should have had the audacity to dream for a moment that Mr Sheil would condescend to correspond with him by letter about an accusation, made not against his honour as a gentleman, or his honesty as a man, but charging him with being the basest of villains?

Had Mr Sheil so far forgotten himself as to write to Mr Hill, no doubt he would have got the same answer then, which he afterwards got from that fat and foolish Lord; and he would have been placed by the publication of that answer in a pleasing predicament in Tipperary. To vin dicate himself would for months have been utterly impossible; and had he become a correspondent of the very considerate Member for Hull, he would, as surely as he is now alive, have been now dead-while his murder would have been thought a sacrifice. We ask Mr Hill, in his own belief, then, if such would not have been the almost inevitable consequence of such a crime being publicly charged against Mr Sheil? But that gentleman smothered his indignation till Parliament should reassemble; and he knew that then he could vindicate himself, and cover his accusers, if not with shame, with

disgrace, proving them, one and all, to be ninnies, gossips, eavesdroppers, table-talk-retailers, tale-bearers, ornaments of the three-black-crowsschool of poetry, with imaginations that meddle not with flowers, but find their materials of fiction in a succession of small vomits.

Parliament reassembled; and on the evening of Wednesday, the 5th Feb. 1834, Lord Althorp-in reply to Mr O'Connell, who had asked him first if any such statement had been made by any Member of the Cabinet-and secondly, whether any such statement had been made to any Member of the Cabinet-answered that, for the first, he begged to state, as far as he was concerned, that no such communication had been made, and that he believed he could also answer to the same effect for his colleagues in office; and that for the second, no such statement, as far as he was aware, had been made to any Cabinet Minister. But he added, "that he had good reason to believe that more than one Honourable Member, who had not only voted but spoken violently against the Irish Coercion Act, had made use of very differ ent language in private."

There seems to have been some little doubt or uncertainty, at first, arising from the emphasis laid by Lord Althorp on the word Cabinet Ministers; but that was soon removed; Mr Hill's statement at Hull was, even at this earliest stage of the enquiry, shorn of its most malignant beams; the House must have seen at once, that the gravamen of the charge was struck out of it, and that the Irish Member," or Members, were already acquitted of one great crime-and all that remained was to ascertain-if the House chose to go into the enquiry-whether or not they were guiltless of another.

66

After some childish altercation with Mr O'Connell, Lord Althorp sat down, and remained deaf to the call of Name-name;" for the House were naturally enough impatient to know "who is the traitor?" Mr Sheil-who had been waiting for the proper time to speak-was then loudly called for-and the following conversation ensued between him and Lord Althorp.

"Mr Sheil, who was loudly called for, rose. He said that the Noble

Lord had in the previous part of the debate affirmed, that no Irish Member had actually communicated with the Cabinet-he meant an Irish Member who had spoken with warmth against the Coercion Billto urge them to pass the measure against which he meant to vote. The Noble Lord distinctly stated, that no Irish Member had communicated with the Cabinet. He should then wish to know on what authority the allegation was made. So far as the charge of communication to the Cabinet went, it was an acknowledged falsehood. He would also allude to the implied accusation, that Irish Members who voted against the Bill had absolutely urged it forward. What was the foundation for so hideous an imputation as that? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, that no intimation was ever made to the Cabinet of the nature that the present accusation would warrant. He would then ask, on what authority was the statement made, and to whom was it communicated?

-

"Lord Althorp said a statement was surely made, but he would affirm that it was not made to a Cabinet Minister. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)-He would say more, that no message to that intent was sent to the Government. But he would not say that the statement was not made to the Cabinet. From what source the information came he would not then exactly state.

"Mr Sheil said, that he would put it to the candour of the Noble Lord, as he had so studiously evaded a distinct declaration of the offender, whether he was one of those whom he heard had vehemently spoken and voted against the Bill, and at the same time declared that without the Bill there could be no tranquillity for Ireland?

"Lord Althorp-As the honourable gentleman has put the thing so directly and pointedly to me, and as he has not left me any means of evading so unpleasant a question, I must say that he is.

"Mr Sheil stepped forward to the table, and with great earnestness of manner, and in a very grave and measured tone, said- As the Noble Lord has stated that I am one, I will only in this state of the proceedings

declare in the presence of this House, -in the presence of my country and, if it be not profanation-in the presence of the living God, that the individual who furnished the information to the Government, has been guilty of the foulest, the grossest, the most malignant, and the most diabolical calumny.'

Mr Hill now rose, and said, "that he was the individual who first uttered the words which were now made the subject of so much animadversion. His attention was not drawn to them till long after they were mentioned. They were words carelessly thrown out in the heat of convivial excitement. He saw three different versions of his speech, each of which disagreed from the other. He never made any declaration that any individual who voted and spoke warmly against the Irish Bill, had urged Ministers to pass it. He merely said, that such member had expressed his opinion of its policy." But not to cumber our pages with drivel of this sort, let our readers turn to the Report of the Committee of Privileges, and there they will see all that Mr Hill said at Hull and elsewhere.

Lord Althorp would not give up his authority-but he said he had perfect confidence in it-that he believed the charge was true-and that he was willing to "take upon himself the responsibility."

Then arose a discussion on the import of the word "responsibility," as used on this occasion by so great a master of the English language as my Lord Althorp. Lord Palmerston said wisely, that "he already refused to give up the name, and said he merely took on himself the responsibility of the statement made. He did not pledge himself to the truth of the statement. How could he? Every one knew that the simple assertion of a fact on the authority of another was a very different thing from a pledge for the authenticity of that fact. It was too much to expect that every one should be thus called on to become a guarantee for the accuracy of every statement he made on the authority of one in whom he placed confidence." On this the House cried "hear! hear !" Yes, they cried hear! hear to this hubbub of despicable nonsense. But Mr Sheil was not to be imposed on by such wretched stuff-and at once

most properly said, " as the Noble Lord skulked behind this fence of his own erection, he would boldly, solemnly, and fervently declare, that the informant and the whole statement were blackened with the foulest, the most malignant, and the most dishonourable falsehood." Here the House groanedand Mr Sheil continued to expose the shameful treatment he was meeting with-and insisted on nailing on Lord Althorp's breast the" responsibility" he had chosen to take upon himself-in spite of Mr E. J. Stanley's " putting it to the honourable and learned member to consider whether he was at all likely to clear his honour from the charge by fastening the responsibility on Lord Althorp." Mr Secretary Stanley then expounded "responsibility," and averred that Lord Althorp had not meant any thing offensive-and "that he was the last man in the world to wound the character of another." His Lordship had merely meant to say "that he had heard certain statements, that he had a confidence in the person who made them, but that, as a Minister, he could not disclose the name, and therefore he himself vouched for such a statement being made!!" Could Mr Secretary Stanley for a moment believe that Mr Sheil would swallow such a nasty dose as that? But Lord Althorp himself grew sick on seeing it offered to an Irish gentleman in one loathsome cup after another, and put an end to all farther folly among the grammarians by stating his own view of the meaning of "responsibility," "a statement had been made to him in which he believed. He felt, when the question was put to him, that a declaration to that effect was likely, nay must give offence; and therefore he determined himself to vouch, that such a statement had been made,―to declare his belief in it,-and not to disclose the name of the person who had made it, but to take upon himself the responsibility. sponsibility. If offence, therefore, was taken, he was answerable for it."

In the report, a column and a half of inconceivable nonsense follows this declaration; and so dull of apprehension was the Honourable House, that on Mr O'Dwyer saying, " he understood the Noble Lord to say, that he fully believed the

statement of his informant," there were loud cries of No! No!

Mr Hill then rose, doubtless with great dignity, and, that the House might be under no mistake, observed," that every syllable of what he had stated to his constituents at Hull he had heard, he believed at the time, and he still believed."And this he said in presence of Mr Sheil, who had just sworn, in the face of Heaven, that every syllable of it was false !!!

But Mr Sheil's quarrel was with Lord Althorp, not this person; the history of man does not afford another instance of such insult; and the parties were, of course, committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms. We abhor duelling; but we abhor with a more mortal hatred, such conduct as inflicts on a man the necessity of having recourse to a challenge; and had Mr Sheil shot Lord Althorp through the head or the heart, the calumniator-humanly speak ing-would have deserved death. The Christian religion alone can instruct and inspire a man to forgive such injuries and insults as those which were heaped in full and foul measure upon Mr Sheil's head, in the highest assembly of a nation not yet supposed to consist altogether of beaten slaves.

The House then hoped that Lord Althorp would promise not to accept a challenge from Mr Sheil-and his Lordship-by the advice of his colleagues-did so; Mr Secretary Stanley saying, "in fulfilling this duty, I am bound to state that my Noble Friend has acted by the advice of his colleagues, who on no occasion would, for any consideration on earth, hint to him advice which would in the slightest degree be discreditable to his character, or would cast the slightest shade on his untarnished reputation!"

After this Mr Sheil, of course, could do nothing else but acquiesce in the amicable arrangement; for the House had relieved Lord Althorp of the "responsibility," and taken the "responsibility" upon itself; so about ten o'clock the House rose, and sat down to dinner.

We forgot to say that Mr Shaw thought the honourable member for Hull ought to make the same assurances as those which had been

made by the Noble Lord; and that the honourable member for Hull, in answer, said, "that if, in the judgment of the House, it was deemed incumbent upon him to make such concessions! though he certainly felt there was no necessity for them, yet he would, with due humility, bow to the opinion and wishes of the House." The House said nothing-but looked at Mr Hill with a significant smile. It was indeed a burlesque on Hurlythrumbo.

The House was occupied night after night with this shameful affair; but we have no room for their proceedings-suffice it to say, that Mr Sheil was subjected to a new series of insults, which he seems to have borne in a way that will bear looking back on-should his mind, in spite of disdain, ever revert to those scenes which his contemptible enemies believed were but the opening scenes of his shame, while they were the "prologue to the swelling act," of which the catastrophe involved their own utter and everlasting degradation.

The whole affair was rightly referred to a Committee of Privilegesand here is their report.

CASE OF MR SHEIL.

"Mr Grote brought up the Report of the Select Committee appointed to enquire into the charge against Mr Sheil.

"When the question was put that the Report be laid upon the table, it was followed by a general cry through the House of Read, read,' and Order, order.'

"The Report was then read, and the following is the substance of it :—

"The Committee of Privileges, to whom the matter of complaint was referred, arising out of a paragraph in the Examiner newspaper, dated Nov. 10, 1833, stated that they had agreed upon a Report, which they now submitted to the Honourable House.

"They stated, that the paragraph in question, purporting to form part of the report of a speech publicly delivered by Matthew Davenport Hill, Esq., Member of Parliament for the borough of Hull, was as follows:

"It is impossible for those not actually in the House to know all the secret machinery by which votes are

obtained. I happen to know this, (and I could appeal, if necessary, to a person well known and much respected by yourselves,) that an Irish Member, who spoke with great violence against every part of that Bill, and voted against every clause of it, went to Ministers and said, "Don't bate one single atom of that Bill, or it will be impossible for any man to live in Ireland."-"What!" said they, "this from you, who speak and vote against the Bill?"-"Yes," he replied, "that is necessary, because if I do not come into Parliament for Ireland, I must be out altogether, and that I do not choose."-(Cries of Name,' and No.') Consider for a moment, can I do it ?'-(No;' 'Yes.') -That is a point for my consideration. I have a great respect for every one here; but if every one in the room was to hold up his hand for it, I would not do it. The secret is not. my own. If he had told it to me, I would have said, " Mark, I will keep no such secret as this; I will publish it to the world." But if I name the Member, I put it in the power of the individual who made that declaration, to know the gentleman who told me.'

[ocr errors]

"The Committee then proceeded to state that, in entering on the delicate and embarrassing duty imposed upon them, they ascertained from Mr Hill that, though he could not admit the entire accuracy of the above paragraph, as a report of what he had publicly spoken at Hull, he nevertheless recollected to have publicly charged an Irish Member of Parliament with conduct similar in substance to that which the paragraph described. The Irish Member so alluded to was Richard Lalor Sheil, Esq, M.P. for the county of Tipperary; and Mr Hill stated the charge, to the best of his belief, to have been substantially as follows:

"That Mr Sheil made communications respecting the Irish Coercion Bill to persons connected with the Government, and others, with the intention thereby of promoting the passing of the Coercion Bill, and having a direct tendency to produce that effect, whilst his speeches and

votes in the House were directed to the defeat of the Coercion Bill.'

"Into the substance of this allega

tion the Committee proceeded to enquire. Two witnesses were called before them at the suggestion of Mr Hill, and others were about to be examined, when Mr Hill himself, finding the testimony already heard very different from what he had expected, freely and spontaneously made the following communication to the Committee:

"That he had come to the conviction that his charge against Mr Sheil, of having directly or indirectly communicated, or intended to communicate, to the Government, any private opinions in opposition to those which he expressed in the House of Commons, had no foundation in fact;-that such charge was not merely incapable of formal proof, but was, in his present sincere belief, totally and absolutely unfounded;-that he had originally been induced to make mention of it in a hasty and unpremeditated speech, under a firm persuasion that he had received it on undeniable evidence; but that, being now satisfied of the mistake into which he had fallen, and convinced that the charge was wholly untrue, he came forward to express his deep and unfeigned sorrow for having ever contributed to give it circulation.' Mr Hill added,

that if there were any way consistent with honour by which he could make reparation to Mr Sheil, he should deem no sacrifice too great to heal the wound which his erroneous statement had inflicted,'

"The Committee continued-' It is with the highest gratification that the Committee found themselves enabled thus to exonerate an accused Member of Parliament from imputations alike painful and undeserved. The voluntary avowal of an erroneous statement on the part of Mr Hill puts it now in their power to pronounce a decided opinion, and to close the present enquiry. Neither of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee deposed to any facts calculated to bear out the allegation against Mr Sheil, nor did their testimony go to impeach his character and honour in any way, or as to any matter whatever. The Committee had no hesitation in declaring their deliberate conviction that the innocence of Mr Sheil, in respect to

« PreviousContinue »