arithmetic, or human nature. Ability may be rendered passive by dis inclination. Were Mr. Sheil's zest for the investigation of sum totals and raw produce equal to the interest he takes in the analysis of subjects more purely moral, we doubt not but that he would feel no mental impediment in applying to the former a vigorous understanding. Questions of mixed policy, however, as being more congenial to his tastes, would, in consequence, be also a more favourable illustration of his powers. On subjects such as these, we think he would produce an impression. It must be recollected, too, that the question of Emancipation had been fully probed and sifted, and literally turned inside out. It was only genius that could place it in any new light, or could produce on the sated hearer any additional impression. This consideration must tend to remove the scruples of those who are sceptical of Mr. Sheil's general powers, from the supposition that he has hitherto fought from a vantage ground. It is true, the demeanour of the Parliamentary orator (and we think that at no distant period we may hail Mr. Sheil as such), should and would be very different from that of the declaimer at the Corn Exchange. The foaming lip, the blood-shot eye, the clenched hand, the convulsed frame, must rarely then be seen. Nevertheless, though Mr. Sheil would now appear in a new and more temperate character, we do not think he would lose by being thus metamorphosed, but that he would exchange at par all the exaggerations of attitude for its natural involutions, all the excesses of impetuous thought for a more sustained and tranquil course of reflection, all the rabies and fierceness of language for a more qualified vehemence and subdued strength of expression. With the experience that Mr. Sheil is now possessed of, and arrived as he is at that time of life when all the faculties are fully developed, he could not fail in moulding the talents with which he is endowed, to suit the new objects on which he will hereafter have to exercise them, if called to a seat in the national council.

Having now viewed these two gentlemen apart, and vindicated, as we conceive, their talents from the general charge of insufficiency, we shall proceed to place them, side by side, in contrast. Here two cases of comparison suggest themselves; the one confined to the transaction of Catholic affairs, and having reference to the abilities of the parties, as displayed in the furtherance of Emancipation; the other comprising a consideration of those abilities with respect to general capacity, and with a view to their exercise in a House of Commons. These two cases are different. Though it be certain that there subsists analogy sufficient, between the details of the Catholic cause, and those of general legislation, to ensure the able man of business in the former, being also an able man of business in the latter; it does not follow, that after being transferred from the consideration of one to that of the other, he will preserve a proportionate superiority even in this respect, much less in any more enlarged sphere of intellect, over another person who might have previously competed with him. As to the first of these cases, there is little, if any difference of opinion with respect to the relative merits of the two gentlemen; and our discussing it, might be deemed superfluous, did it not serve, as we trust it will, to illustrate the second limb of our inquiry. We imagine it is pretty generally conceded, that whatever value we may place upon Mr. Sheil's abilities, as tending to aid Emancipation, we must estimate Mr. O'Connell's at a consider

ably higher rate. His powers of conduct at once stamped him as the great leader. The machine once set in motion, Mr. Sheil,. by the potent energy of his eloquence, added abundantly to its momentum; but his was not the sinewy and brawny arm that gave it the first impulse. It was with the vis inertia of the question that Mr. O'Connell had to contend. On every relapse to inactivity, it was the lever of his mind that forced it on again. He was the master-mover. Mr. O'Connell would have procured Emancipation without the aid of Mr. Sheil; Mr. Sheil might have procured it without the aid of Mr. O'Connell. Of course, we speak of speedy Emancipation. Sir Harcourt Lees and the Irish nation must have carried it sooner or later. We do not, however, mean to state that it was only by what is popularly called eloquence Mr. Shiel sought to advance the question, but by its more philosophical interpretation, in which a large share of practical ability is comprehended. What we would assert is, that with respect to the cause in which they were embarked, Mr. O'Connell possessed more of those useful powers, more of that business-like "conduct," the application of which was necessary for its advancement. Cast in a rougher mould than his colleague, less sensitive, less fastidious, less morbid, more anxious about the end than the means, desirous of resting his reputation and the question on some tangible basis, and comparatively careless of occupying an eminence in the ideal world, preferring to be an object of sight rather than of faith, Mr. O'Connell descended at once into the paths of literal life, and forcing his way through the crowd with the earnestness of a person intent on arriving at a certain and definite goal, he was wholly unconcerned whether the bystanders should remark the slovenliness of his gait, or the rustic violence of his speed, provided he at length reached the object that he sought. This singleness of purpose, this unity of design it was, that rendered such service to his cause, and impelled it forward in a rectilinear course. There was no complication of views or interests in his system to create any divergency. The resting-places of his ambition were also the pivots of the question. This was the line of conduct that dictated the first Clare election, this was the spirit in which it was undertaken. Of the lookers-on, some laughed, some frowned, some wept, others stood on each side in wonder and amaze; but meanwhile the Agitator jostled on, pommelled this person, shouldered that, shoved the high sheriff out of the way, trod on the heels of Sir Edward O'Brien, was elected the member for Clare, and thus both precipitated the measure and at tained the eminence his talents deserved. Now this manner of "roughing it," as the phrase goes, does not suit Mr. Sheil's taste. His turn of mind is more aristocratical than that of his colleague, less fitted for the plebeian contact of matter-of-fact and practical life. He may desire to place himself and the cause on a summit, but then he is also solicitous that the ascent should be tracked with glories. No vulgar foot-print must defile the haunts to be trodden by him, no rude concourse must throng his ways; for the crowd the highway was made, whilst to him, to wend round the mountain's side, and approach its brow through passes inaccessible to all, is more grateful than even the attainment of the pinnacle itself. The two objects of placing the question in a lofty situation, and himself in an imposing attitude throughout all its stages, not being coincident, or in the same line, necessarily dis

tracted his attention. His course was rather circuitous than direct. The simultaneous meetings, we believe, originated with Mr. Sheil, and their practical effect was certainly most adequate. Yet here the transcendental spirit is apparent. The poetry of the conception, and its utility, evidently strive, in his mind, for masteries. At one time he compares them to "Briareus upraising his hundred hands;" then again he contemplates with enthusiasm "the universal genuflection," "the common cry of liberty issuing from the altars of God ;" and then winds up with the practical effect, "two thousand three hundred petitions signed upon two thousand three hundred altars, and rushing at the same time into the councils of the legislature, may not excite alarm, but cannot be treated with contempt." Now, while Mr. Sheil was giving utterance to this energetic passage, and certainly demonstrating most powerfully the efficacious results that would follow from the project, Mr. O'Connell was very probably drawing up a plan by which it was to be matured into fact, and absolutely setting the wheels of the engine into motion. Both, then, were instrumental, both were practical, but not equally so; there was more of the operative about Mr. O'Connell, more of the artisan; it was he who hewed the stones and cemented them together; the beauty of the architecture and the sculpture might not have been his, but by whom was the structure reared? doubtless by none but him. Its entablature, its frescoes, and its capitals, by giving an im posing grandeur to the whole, may have, and must have compelled the blasphemer to venerate, when he came but to scoff and contemn; yet the rich carving and splendid imagery were, after all, little more than the non-essentials and accidents of the majestic pile itself. They might vanish, but the edifice would still remain; whilst the former could never exist until the latter began to be. Mr. O'Connell was the labourer, Mr. Sheil was the sculptor; but inasmuch as the skill of the one is useless without the energy of the other, since this is necessary, that dispensable,- --we must pronounce that the first of these gentlemen was best calculated to further Catholic Emancipation, and confirm the sentence of the public, which declared, that on this occasion Mr. O'Connell's talents and general capacity were paramount.

We come now to the second case, in which we propose to give an opinion as to the mutual relation in which the learned gentlemen will probably stand with respect to each other's abilities, if ever they meet together on the legislative platform. Here we must speak with rather more reserve; and walking, as we shall be obliged to do, in the twilight, must find our way with caution. We feel, on the whole, inclined to think, that in this case the before-mentioned disproportion between the learned gentlemen would be diminished, if not reversed. Though the opportunities for exhibiting "conduct" in its most literal sense, would remain after their transference into the House of Commons; yet they would be much rarer than before, and will seldom, if ever, require it to any thing like the same amount; whilst, on the other hand, that department of it which, comprehends the suggestions of practical measures, and their enforcement through means of eloquent reasoning, will increase by the influx of such new and various matter as daily pours in on the legislature. Here Mr. Sheil could throw his whole strength into what before he could only partially and passionately allude to, and support the character of a more rigid rea

soner than his faculties of conduct suggested to him, when the public mind did not require demonstration, but declamation, to sustain its precarious excitement. Here, therefore, he would have sufficient room to expatiate in, without treading over again his own footsteps, or being compelled to draw on the excesses of his imagination, or his enthusiasm, in order to throw an interest over exhausted topics. Doubtless, his colleague also will find ample space for his movements in a House of Commons; but the question is, will he not find too much of this space? Would not a smaller stage of thought be better proportioned to his powers? A nation is not too large for his practical talents, but will not his more purely intellectual ones lose somewhat of their dimensions in the theatre of St. Stephen's? It must never be lost sight of, that we are speaking comparatively; that we are treating of the abilities of these two individuals in respect to one another; and that in alluding to relative, we do not mean thereby to infer positive deficiency. As we have before said, there exists a sufficient analogy between the details of Catholic affairs, and those of general parliamentary business, to insure Mr. O'Connell's making a highly respectable appearance in the House; but it is now for us to decide whether he would there show that superiority over his colleague which he has hitherto exhibited. We are inclined to think he will not. With much industry and perseverance, much sagacity and astuteness, considerable powers of reasoning where the subject is small and specific, and the land-marks, as in his brief, plain and abundant, he is comparatively helpless and bewildered on a more wide and extensive ficld. In the one case he never wanders; in the other he frequently does; and travelling at random, when he would seek the point from which he had at first set out, he cannot retrace the

way.

Here, now, we think Mr. Sheil has the advantage. Though, as we have before said, indisposed by temperament to abstract his ideas where human nature is not prominent, we think he is fully equal to that process where it is. The warmth of his genius contains strong expansive powers, and his speculative faculties enable him to direct his footsteps independently of the aid of those beacons without which Mr. O Connell cannot advance. Those very functions of mind which availed the latter, and were rather detrimental to the former gentleman, in the transaction of Catholic affairs, would, we think, now produce contrary effects. The more near and tangible objects which lay under the eye and the hand, and of which Mr. O'Connell so ably availed himself, thereby excelling his colleague in the management of those affairs, are elsewhere comparatively few and scanty; at the same time also, that the habit of walking by sight has created in him an inability to walk by mind; whilst, on the other hand, the farsightedness of Mr. Sheil,which caused him to overlook, or see indistinctly, those matters which pressed too close on his vision, would now enable him to discover, in their due and plainly-defined proportions, what lay in the more remote vista of thought. To exemplify. Were Mr. O'Connell to bring in a bill for the regulation of Vestries, for instance, we are convinced that he would make as clear and luminous an exposition as could be made by any member in the House. Were he to rise in order to advocate a repeal of the Union, we think he would wholly fail. In the one, he would be placed, as it were, on a line with his course marked out; in the other,

on a surface with nothing to direct him. We think, also, that he could do no more than skim this surface, let his course be what it might. We think, that with full competency to sound the depths of the one subject, he would be wholly incompetent to fathom those of the other: we think, that whilst dilating on those consequences of the Union which are evident, he would not perceive those fundamental ones, which, though not so apparent, are infinitely more influential; nay, that from a deficiency in the faculties of abstraction, he would attribute effects to wrong causes, and, vice versa, connect matter with the question, which had with it no natural alliance, whilst at the same time he omitted that which was vitally united to it; we conceive, in fact, that he would take what we call a popular view of the subject, not a scientific one. Now, with respect to Mr. Sheil we have a different opinion. We think he would fail in discussing a small and practical question, such as the regulation of Vestries, whilst he would exhibit considerable ability on such a one as the Union. The first would hamper him down to a mechanical process of reasoning, if we may so speak, the which Mr. Sheil unfeignedly eschews. The ardency of his nature would not allow of his descending step by step, but would impel him to rush down a whole flight at once, which, with all due respect for Mr. Sheil's saltatory powers, would not be the way to treat the matter. The subject itself, also, would not interest him. It would be too near the ground, and its details too much of the nature of leading-strings, to be grateful to a mind jealous of any interference with its free movements, and proudly independent of any but its own free and unassisted resources. In a more open field of discussion, such as a repeal of the Union, these restrictions would not exist.

Such are our surmises with respect to the different displays which these two gentlemen would be likely to make in a British House of Commons. Here, as we have said, we would be inclined to yield by anticipation the palm to Mr. Sheil. The words of experience, however, are more to be trusted than those of prophecy. The former only require common judgment to dictate them, the latter inspiration; and although we would fain lay claim to the gift of the seer, we doubt if, in this age of scepticism, the demand would be confirmed: we ourselves also confess that we only see, as it were, through a glass darkly; and even were we assured of the truth of our testimony, we can write no miracle to prove it. The index of our favourable opinion, it is true, points, in this stage of the investigation, to Mr. Sheil; still, we are by no means so certain that he will exhibit the talent that we give him credit for, as we are that his colleague will evince that which we have attributed to him. Mr. Sheil may fail altogether, Mr. O'Connell cannot. The success of the one is problematical, that of the other determined; the former gentleman may occupy a lofty, or, by possibility, an humble position in public life; Mr. O'Connell cannot fill either, except as he is already exalted by the redemption of a nation. The highly-respectable medium of an able man of business he will never fall below; that he will not rise considerably above it, with respect to his parliamentary career, is, we think, about equally probable. Our opinion is, that he will generally hold that middle course, and of this we are far more certain than we are of Mr. Sheil's succeeding. Genius is less to be depended on than the steady temper of practical talent. It is sometimes