RICHARD LALOR SHEIL. (1794-1851.) "Mr. The Grave of a Government.-Professor Pryme says: Sheil was distinguished, like O'Connell, by his advocacy of a repeal of the Union, and was one of the most eloquent and impressive speakers in the Parliament (1835). On a motion respecting Ireland, during Peel's short administration, he said that the grievances of that country had been fatal to several Governments, and even now,' pointing with bended form to that space of the floor which lies before the Treasury bench, have dug the grave that is yawning before the present one.' The sensation which his action and his figure created was so intense that we were almost tempted to look if there were not a chasm in the place he pointed to. He spoke with prophetic lore." A Burst of Patriotism.-One of his most remarkable and beautiful outbursts of nationality (writes Francis) was in 1837, in his celebrated attack on Lord Lyndhurst for his "alien " speech. Alluding to the alleged charge that the Irish were aliens in blood and religion, he delivered this magnificent burst : "Where was Arthur, Duke of Wellington, when these words were uttered? Methinks he should have started up to disclaim them. 'The battles, sieges, fortunes that he'd passed,' ought to have come back upon him. He ought to have remembered that, from the earliest achievement in which he displayed that military genius which has placed him foremost in the annals of modern warfare, down to that last and surpassing combat which has made his name imperishable— from Assaye to Waterloo-the Irish soldiers, with whom your armies were filled, were the inseparable auxiliaries to the glory with which his unparalleled successes have been crowned. Whose were the athletic arms that drove your bayonets at Vimiera through the phalanxes that never reeled in the shock of war before? What desperate valour climbed the steeps and filled the moats of Badajos? All, all his victories should have rushed and crowded back upon his memory-Vimiera, Badajos, Salamanca, Albuera, Toulouse-and, last of all, the greatest. Tell me, for you were there I appeal to the gallant soldier before me (pointing to Sir Henry Hardinge), who bears, I know, a generous heart in an intrepid breasttell me, for you must needs remember, on that day when the destinies of mankind were trembling in the balance, while death fell in showers upon them; when the artillery of France, levelled with the precision of the most deadly science, played upon them; when her legions, incited by the voice, inspired by the example of their mighty leader, rushed again and again to the contest;-tell me if, for an instant (when to hesitate for an instant was to be lost), the 'aliens' blanched? And when, at length, the moment for the last decisive movement had arrived; when the valour, so long wisely checked, was at last let loose; when, with words familiar but immortal, the great captain exclaimed, ' Up, lads, and at them!'-tell me if Catholic Ireland with less heroic valour than the natives of your own glorious isle precipitated herself upon the foe? The blood of England, Scotland, Ireland flowed in the same stream, on the same field; when the chill morning dawned, their dead lay cold and stark together; in the same deep pit their bodies were deposited; the green arm of spring is now breaking on their commingled dust; the dew falls from heaven upon their union in the grave. Partakers in every peril, in the glory shall we not participate? And shall we be told, as a requital, that we are estranged from the noble country for whose salvation our lifeblood was poured out?" The effect produced by this passage will not be easily forgotten. The passionate vehemence of the speaker and the mournful music of his voice were a living echo to the deep emotions with which his soul seemed charged. Sheil and Feargus O'Connor.-Towards the end of March, 1848 (writes Torrens), considerable apprehensions were entertained regarding the effect of certain writings and speeches addressed to the working classes then suffering severely from want of employment-by Mr. Feargus O'Connor. Meeting him one day in the lobby of the House of Commons, Mr. Sheil drew him aside, and expostulated with him in a friendly but warning tone on the mischief he might heedlessly do to others as well as to himself. Remonstrance appearing to prove ineffectual, he said at length, in low but monitory accents, "Well, you will take your own course; but remember, I tell you as a friend, the Home Office has its eye upon you, and you may regret when too late your unwillingness to take prudent advice." 66 Oh!" exclaimed O'Connor, raising his voice, "this comes well from the Right Honourable Richard Lalor Sheil, whom I once heard on the hustings-when he was only, like myself, a plain honourable gentleman-tell the people what their rights were, and that if after due demand they could not get them by peaceful and constitutional means, he would not be found to shrink from leading them when other efforts must be tried." "But did you never hear," said Mr. Sheil, "what the people said to me afterwards? They told me that they knew very well that I had no more notion of taking up arms, or leading them to the field, than Feargus O'Connor." An Appeal for the Jews.-In the second reading of the Bill for removing Jewish disabilities, introduced by Lord John Russell's Government in 1848, Mr. Sheil made the following appeal in its favour: "There have been repeated references in this House to the author of the 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,' but I think that a name still more illustrious might have been cited. Was not Bolingbroke, the fatally accomplished Bolingbroke, to whose genius were offered tributes amounting almost to idolatrous veneration-was not Bolingbroke, who united to external accomplishment high intellectual endowments, and whose intercourse in private life exercised a species of fascination on all who had the misfortune to approach him-was not Bolingbroke, the infidel Bolingbroke, a member of this House? Was he stopped by the test which arrested the Jew? Did he not, on the contrary, tread upon it, and mount to the height of power, and become a confidential adviser of the Sovereign? Is it not preposterous that a man by whom revelation was rejected, who doubted the immortality of the soul, who doubted a future state of reward and punishment, who doubted eternity and providence, who believed nothing, who feared nothing, who hoped for nothing, who laid no restraint upon his depravity, who had no incentive to virtue beyond such natural promptings as God may have given him-is it not monstrous that such a fiend should find his way into the House of Commons, and climb to the pinnacle of power, and that you should slap the door with indignation in the face of an honourable and conscientious man, who adheres to the religion in which he was born and bred-of a man who believes in the facts which constitute the foundation of Christianity, who believes in the existence of the noble part of our being, who believes in the mercies of God and who practises humanity to man, who believes in the ten great injunctions on which all morality is based, whose ear is never deaf to the supplications of the suffering, whose hand is open as day to melting charity, and whose life perhaps presents a better exemplification of the precepts of the Gospel than any of those men, for the sake of whose Christian religion the dishonouring disabilities are injuriously maintained ? " LORD JOHN (EARL) RUSSELL. A Host in Himself.-Walking, says Samuel Rogers, some years ago (about 1838 or 1839) through the Park with the Duke of Wellington, I said to him, among other things, "What an array there is in the House of Commons against Lord John Russell-Peel, Stanley, Graham, &c.!" "Lord John," replied the Duke, "is a host in himself." His Introduction of the Reform Bill.-Earl Russell gave, in the introduction to his "Speeches," the following account of the effect produced in Parliament by the provisions of the first Reform Bill :-“ So little were the opposite party prepared for the Bill, that a few days before the 1st of March, 1831, Sir Robert Peel, in a careful speech, derided what had been done on the subjects of peace and retrenchment, and predicted that when the plan of Reform should be developed, it would occasion disappointment by the meagreness of its proportions and the trifling nature of the changes recommended. The effect, therefore, of the revelations of the 1st of March was astounding. It was no wonder that this proposition, when placed boldly and baldly before the House of Commons, created feelings of astonishment, mingled with joy or with consternation, according to the temper of the hearers. Mr. John Smith, himself a member for a nomination borough, said the proposal took away his breath. Some, perhaps many, thought that the measure was a prelude to civil war, which, in point of fact, it averted. But incredulity was the prevailing feeling, both among the moderate Whigs and the great mass of the Tories. The Radicals alone were delighted and triumphant. Mr. Joseph Hume, when I met him in the streets a day or two afterwards, assured me of his hearty support to the Government. He said on another subject, in a public speech, that he was ready to vote black white in order to carry the measure of Reform. Lord Durham, who was sitting under the gallery on the 1st of March, told me he was inclined to doubt the reality of what was passing before his eyes. A noble lord who sat opposite to me, and who has long ago succeeded to a seat in the House of Lords, cheered me so vociferously that I was myself inclined to doubt his meaning. I found afterwards that his cheers were meant derisively, to show his thorough conviction of the absurdity and impracticability of my proposals."-Lord Broughton in his "Recollections " says: "Never shall I forget the astonishment of my neighbours as Lord John Russell developed his plan. Indeed, all the House seemed perfectly astounded; and when he read the long list of the boroughs to be either wholly or partially disfranchised, there was a sort of wild ironical laughter. Lord John seemed rather to play with the fears of his audience; and, after detailing some clauses that seemed to complete the scheme, smiled and paused, and said, 'More yet.' When Lord John sat down, we of the Mountain cheered long and loud, although there was hardly one of us that believed such a scheme could, by any possibility, become the law of the land." “Finality” in Reform.-In June, 1837, Lord John Russell observed of the Reform Act, in the House of Commons, "Her Majesty's Ministers, while they consider it a final measure, do not intend that it should remain a barren Act upon the statute-book, but that it should be followed up in such a manner as would ennoble, invigorate, and enlarge the institutions of the country." The name 66 Finality John" was frequently applied to his lordship after this declaration; but in 1849, in the course of a debate on certain proposals connected with the Charter, Lord John denied having ever used the word "finality" in the sense imputed to him. Upsetting the Coach.-The satirist's portrait of Lord John Russell, in the following lines from Lytton's "New Timon," becomes far from uncomplimentary at its close : "Next cool, and all unconscious of reproach, Comes the calm 'Johnny who upset the coach.'* He wants your vote, but your affection not. Never A note is added here: "Lord Stanley's memorable exclamation on a certain occasion which now belongs to history- Johnny's upset the coach.' was coach upset with such perfect sang-froid on the part of the driver." The "coach" in question was the Ministry of Earl Grey, in 1834. The exclamation was hastily scribbled on a piece of paper, and passed to Sir James Graham. The story went that Sir James slipped this paper into his pocket; it was found there the same night by his valet, who carried it to the Times office, and in this way the ministerial crisis oozed out to the public. This story, however, has been denied. From the starved wretch its own loved child we steal, But see our statesman when the steam is on, And languid Johnny glows to glorious John! And foremost in the race the wheels of genius roll!" Mind Triumphing over Matter. Here is another picture of Lord John Russell, by an acute observer (Mr. Maddyn) :—“ His outward form was frail and weakly; his countenance sicklied over with the effects of ill health and solitary self-communing; his figure shrunken below the dimensions of ordinary manhood; his general air that of a meditative invalid. But within that feeble body was a spirit that knew not how to cower, a brave heart that could pulsate vehemently with large and heroical emotions, a soul that aspired to live nobly in a proud and right manly career. His voice was weak, his accent mincing with affectation, his elocution broken, stammering, and uncertain, save when in a few lucky moments his tongue seemed unloosed, and there came rushing from his lips a burst of epigrammatic sentences-logical, eloquent, and terse, and occasionally vivified by the fire of genius. Then would his right hand convulsively be clenched, his head proudly thrown back, the outline of his face become rigid and drawn, and the small form seem to dilate, while the cheek would blanchen with moral excitement, as the ecstacy of applauding partizans made the walls of the Senate ring with echoing cheers." Occasional Sparks.-The speeches of Lord John Russell, as a rule, show few sparkles of the genius which the literary portraits just referred to, like all contemporary impressions, recognise so freely. The wit and brilliancy which Lord John Russell undoubtedly possessed appear to have been deliberately and entirely subordinated to a staid, methodical way of dealing with parliamentary business, and to a sense of ministerial responsibility. It was often a momentary flash which alone revealed the full light within. This latent power was shown at times in unexpected repartee; and one of the most telling retorts ever uttered in either House of Parliament was made by Lord John when Sir Francis Burdett, after turning from Radical to Tory, thought proper to sneer at the "cant of patriotism." "I quite agree," said Lord John, "with the honourable baronet that the cant of patriotism is a bad thing. But I can tell him a worse the recant of patriotism-which I will gladly go along with him in reprobating whenever he shows me an example of it." Equal Rights. In a speech in the House of Commons in May, 1830, Lord John Russell thus opposed the idea of universal suffrage: "Considering our system-considering our monarchy and our House of Lords, and remembering the state of property in this country, I do not think that the exercise of universal suffrage could end otherwise than in a collision that would produce either a Commonwealth on the one hand, or an absolute Monarchy on the other. Mr. Fox, however violent he might be in opposition to, or in pursuit of, a particular measure, yet pre |