sible constructions that might be put upon every trivial word or ironical phrase of ill-remembered conversations. He was possessed with the idea that O'Connell long desired an opportunity of getting rid of him, and would seize upon the present occasion "to destroy him with his constituents in Ireland." Nothing could be more groundless than such an apprehension, as the sequel soon afterwards proved; but for the moment it was impossible to convince him of its fallacy. After a time his mind appeared to become somewhat more calm; but so deep and settled was the gloom that still hung over him, that his friends resolved not to leave him to himself, and insisted upon his spending the remainder of the day in their company. They dined together at the house of Mr. Fonblanque, and both of them accompanied him to his home. The greater part of the following day was spent in the same manner, and it was only by the continuous care and judicious kindness of his gifted and considerate companions, that he at length regained somewhat of his accustomed buoyancy and selfpossession.

On the 10th of February, Mr. O'Connell put in a copy of the Examiner containing the report of Mr. Hill's speech; and the paragraph having been read,

Mr. Sheil rose and said, that "before his honourable and learned friend proceeded with the motion of which he had given notice, he would ask the House to extend its indulgence to him for a few seconds. He assured the House that he had no intention of interfering with the discussion that might arise on the question, lest he should by any ill-considered expression wound the feelings of any individual in the House; but he took the opportunity of repeating, with the simple strenuousness of one whose conscience was pure, that he was innocent of the charge imputed to him. He had no wish to take any part in the debate, but he earnestly called for a full and complete investigation. The course to be pursued in conducting that investigation he left to the wisdom of the House; he submitted his cause to their decision; he left his fate in their hands, and he threw himself entirely on the candour and justice of the House."

Mr. O'Connell moved that the paragraph should be referred to a committee of privileges. Sir Francis Burdett moved as an amendment, that the House do proceed to the order of the day. He thought the inquiry unnecessary, and could not see any useful end to which such a proceeding could lead. As far as the honourable and learned member for Tipperary was con

cerned, he did not see that there was anything in the case to touch him, for he should be ashamed of himself if he did not solemnly declare his entire belief in that honourable and learned gentleman's asseveration of his innocence.

He did not know how the committee

were to proceed, the charge had already dwindled away, it had shrunk like a phantom and eluded the grasp; might it not happen to any public man to give a strong opinion in private on a particular measure, and afterwards on more mature consideration, to vote differently from what he had said? For his own part he could say that it had often happened to him to give his vote in that House differently from the impressions he had expressed in private as they first arose in his mind, but he did not think that in so doing he had been guilty of any dereliction of honourable principle, or of any political inconsistency. In the present case the charge was a calumny, or it was a story repeated from private conversation; but he did not think that matters taken from private conversation ought to be made the ground of a public charge amongst gentlemen.

A discussion followed, in which Sir R. Peel, Mr. Stanley, and others took part. The House divided, and the committee was carried by one hundred and

ninety-two to fifty-four. Mr. Sheil and his friends

voting in the majority.

The following committee was then appointed:

Mr.

The Committee met the following day and proceeded to elect Mr. Grote their chairman. Charles Phillips was in attendance as counsel for Mr. Sheil; but a resolution having been adopted that the investigation should be conducted with closed doors, none but members of the House were permitted to be present. The order of reference having been read, Mr. Hill was called upon to substantiate his charge. He declined positively to give up the name of his original informant but stated that he was prepared with other evidence. In this however he entirely failed, no witness being produced whose testimony served in any degree to support the allegations he had

undertaken to prove. As the last of the witnesses retired, Sir Robert Peel said, "I think it clear that there is an end of the case." Upon this Mr. Hill declared "that he felt convinced that his charge against Mr. Sheil, of having directly or indirectly communicated 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."* The Committee then adjourned to another day in order to consider the form of their report.

In a few hasty lines written the same afternoon to a friend in Ireland, where the result was looked for, not without anxiety, Mr. Sheil intimated that all shade of misgiving as to the issue had been swept from his * Annual Register, 1834, p. 12.