;Jr. Shell has at length noticed in writing, but not
very explicitly, the Aisne of treachery brought against one of the Irish Members. In a 'letter to the Dublin Morning Register, he alludes to the denial which lie gave to the charge at the meeting on the Dublin Corn Exchange; mid repeats, that if the charge is meant to apply to him, it is " a base falsehood." He then says- -on thispositive avernient (reserving to myself the right of adopting such further e.eges.as I may consider to be proper) for the present I take my stand. I trust that in this Sage of the transaction (of which it is reasonable to anticipate the development by 'the intntmant,' upon whom -I call to come forth) this assertion will be considered stif- Beira! by those who conceive that atthe bar of public opinion a man is to be tried upon
Wirst i
iples analogous to the maxims of that law into which Mr. Hill has been selected by bis Majesty's Ministers to inquire. Placed near to the highest legal authority in the esapire, and connected by his official relation with our system ofsalutary judicature, Me. Hill mist look with abhorrence upon that tribunal in which the accused was ap- Peleedeg-thecliarge, but all knowledge of the accuser was wittiheld."I tben remarks upon Mr., Hill's omission to mention the name of NiuMformant; and argues, that until that name is disclosed, "the question of treason or calumny cannot be determined." As the in.- fittattantlasaid by Mr. Hill,to be well known and respected at Hull, theinhabitapts of Hull. have se me clue to the discovery. of his name, U4 other persona have no. clue at all, He concludes by. saying- -.lei Air. Ras infottnant anuounce himself, or let him be disclosed by Mr. Hill; mg zoodge myself to open immediate communication hint; Mr. Shell declines to put himself in immediate communication with Mr. Hill he declines to takethat course which would give him the best claim to be informed of the name of the accuser. Should he write to Mr. Hill, and receive for an answer "thou art the man ;" then he would be justified in asking again "who told you so?"
When that matter is arranged, however, the charge brought against the "several" Irish Members, by Mr. Pease, to which we have before alluded more than once, must be answered.. This charge is at length brought forward distinctly,, and in writing, in the following very ex-. traordinary letter from the pen of the Member for South Durham. It was addressed to Mr. Kelburne, of South Auckland, in April last. " Southend, 4th Month, 1st day, 1833.
" RESPECTED Pnimen—Fairly presuming, from the very respectable petition which I had the pleasure of presenting to the House of Commons, that many of my worthy friends at West Auckland and St. Helens Auckland have felt a lively interest in the discussions which have taken .place, and have now issued in the passing of the Irish Disturbances Bill, and presuming also that some of them may have been disappointed in my not giving the bill 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 ninth as any one need do; but after much anxious thought, resolved to write letters myself to every part of Ireland, to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the think- ing portion of all classes, and to assure myself that an act so outrageous was really called for by the- circumstances of that fine but unhappy country. Now every one of my answers contained expressions of the greatest'anxtety for the passing of the bill, even in its original shape. I need not say how greatly its severity has been mitigated —truly it is nut like the same production : the monstrosity of its birth is scarcely to be re- cognized in its present shape. Well, all thishas been theresult of an increasing force of re- presentation of the friends of a Reforming Ministry ; who have quietly, from timeto time, urged upon the Government 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 hare, and still would have, voted against military tribunals, &c. &c. &c. Why thou not? (One or two nights I was ill mid in bed.) I have spoken of letters unani- mously in favour of the bill. Again, the majority of the Irish M.P.'s, decidedly almost all the respectable men, were in favour of the bill. I believe Ireland to be fairly repre- sented; and to speak of the majority of her representatives, many of them told me, English members ought 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 not approve, should I be justi- fied 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 I and only deplored the bill ruining this most shameless of trades. . "Against large meetings 1 did vote; because the Irish are igbopant and passionate; and a fiery orator, safe himself from harm, brings a multitude into severe punishment, by irritating them about their real and great grievances. Now I shall be one to claim redress from those wrongs. " I have sat pretty regularly from fourteen to sixteen hours per day, rarely, never indeed, till near three, and mean to do my duty.
Previous page
