ready to facilitate its movements than I am. The only reason I have for being a Repealer is the injustice of the present government towards my country."

This doctrine was, indeed, much less likely to be acceptable to the Irish people than that which O'Connell promulgated in the speech he made in 1800 against the Union; namely, that a re-enactment of the whole penal code would be preferable to the abolition of the Irish Parliament. The notion of preferring an absentee legislature to a resident one as the distributor of "justice to Ireland" is self-contradictory; inasmuch as the most important ingredient in "justice to Ireland" is the restoration of the Irish Parliament. Even an indifferent legislature sitting at home would be much more conducive to national prosperity than the very best non-resident legislature imagination can conceive. Nor is the injustice of any individual government to Ireland the sole reason why Irishmen are Repealers. They are so because Repeal is their inalienable right; because the management of their affairs by another nation is utterly incompatible with their welfare; and because it is perfectly impossible that a system of non-resident legislation can be other than unjust to their country.

* O'Connell spoke the passage here quoted, in February, 1833, on the motion for the house going into a Committee of Supply.

The declaration I have quoted, coming from a man "whose words were things," was undeniably calculated to damp the ardour which the stirring events of the past year had excited to a pitch of intensity.

He still battled away against the ministerial measure, and battled nobly. The journals which had abused him, and sought to sneer him down, were constrained, despite their prejudices, to admit that he was a first-rate parliamentary orator. And his triumph in this respect was the more remarkable, inasmuch as he was transplanted late in life from scenes and habits utterly differing from those of the English Parliament.

I took an opportunity, in the course of the coercion debates, to declare my unalterable attachment to the cause of Repeal.

Mr. O'Connell was greatly disgusted at the utter want of sympathy with the people of Ireland, displayed by some of the English Catholics. One night I said to him,

"There is Howard, of Corby, among the ranks of our opponents."

66

Ay," he replied, indignantly, "only for us Irish he wouldn't have a seat in Parliament, and the grateful return he makes is to do us all the mischief he can."

Mr. Stanley's personal hostility to O'Connell was bitter and vehement. It was incessantly manifested throughout the entire session. His fiery and brilliant invectives, his pungent sneers and sarcasms, would have told with crushing effect upon any inferior antagonist. But O'Connell was too great to be put down by sarcasm or ridicule. He often grappled Stanley with tremendous vigour. When he made a hit he liked to have it appreciated. One night, after a stormy debate, in which he had been particularly successful, I chanced to sit next him under the strangers' gallery.

"I think," said I, "that if you owed Stanley any thing, you fully paid off your debts to-night."

"Do you really think so?" he quickly said, turning round to me with a hearty laugh of satisfaction.

Observing the "internecine warfare" that raged between him and Stanley, I asked him if he had ever been on terms of personal intercourse with his brilliant enemy.

"Yes," said he, "and I have been even favoured with his courtesy. He followed me out into the lobby on the night of my speech in favour of Reform, shook hands with me, and complimented me on my

cion Bill. An English country member said to me one night,

"The member for Cork is an unbroken colt, but he has good points. With some training he'll make a useful horse by and by."

The English Reformers were too strong for the friends of constitutional liberty in Ireland. Despite the combined opposition of O'Connell and his allies, the obnoxious bill became law by a very large majority.

CHAPTER II.

Dinner at Bulwer's-O'Connell on the Irish Language-Judge Johnson's Libel-Prolixity of Counsellor Scriven-O'Connell's reluctant Introduction of Repeal into the British Parliament in 1834-General Election in 1835—O'Connell's unalterable Conviction on Repeal-O'Connell versus Combinations.

ON St. Patrick's day, 1833, I met Mr. O'Connell at dinner at the house of Sir Edward (then Mr.) Bulwer. The party consisted exclusively of anticoercion members of the legislature. The author of “Pelham” wore a large artificial shamrock in the breast of his coat, in compliment to his Irish guests. Politics were but little discussed. O'Connell told the traditionary story of St. Patrick's selection of the shamrock as an emblem of the Trinity. Some one asked him whether the use of the Irish language was diminishing among our peasantry. "Yes," he answered, "and I am sufficiently utilitarian not to regret its gradual abandonment. A diversity of tongues is no benefit; it was first imposed on man