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

kind as a curse, at the building of Babel. It would be of vast advantage to mankind if all the inhabitants of the earth spoke the same language. Therefore, although the Irish language is connected with recollections that twine around the hearts of Irishmen, yet the superior utility of the English tongue, as the medium of all modern communication, is so great, that I can witness without a sigh the gradual disuse of the Irish."

many

He said that in 1828 he had made a speech in Irish at a Catholic meeting in the county Louth; and that at some other place (Tralee, if I recollect aright) the reporters from a London journal were ludicrously puzzled at an harangue he delivered in the ancient tongue of Erin. Their pencils and tablets were all in readiness, when the Agitator advanced to the front of the platform and pronounced a speech of which they did not understand a syllable.

O'Connell's parliamentary career for the years that followed 1833 presented no such vigorous efforts of genius as his opposition to the Coercion Bill exhibited. He made many admirable speeches; but he had not the excitement of such stormy elements of strife as those which aroused his great powers in that memorable session.

In the month of January, 1834, I was in Dublin,

and met the Liberator at a Repeal meeting held in the Corn Exchange. I spoke in reply to a Unionist effusion of Emerson Tennent's. O'Connell then proceeded to assail Mr. Tennent, whom he accused of political tergiversation, styling him "the species of monster we read of in the Arabian Nights,' with a green back and an orange tail." After a lengthened attack on the object of our animadversion, the Liberator asked me to accompany him to his house in Merrion Square.

Some allusion was made to the Liberator's political labours, and his relinquishment of his profession. He said, "I believe I am the only person on whom a voluntary annual tribute was ever bestowed by a nation."

Among his reminiscences of bar practice, he mentioned the trial of Judge Johnson for a libel which Cobbett had printed. Cobbett had been previously tried and convicted; and rather than undergo the legal penalty, he gave up Johnson, who was the author of the libel. It was a curious document to emanate from a judge. O'Connell said;—

"It called Lord Hardwicke a sheep-feeder from Cambridgeshire, and Lord Redesdale a stout-built special-pleader from Lincoln's Inn. Johnson's great object was to gain time. He sued out his habeas corpus in every one of the courts. The last was the

Common Pleas. One of his counsel was Scriven, whose instructions were to be as lengthy as possible. He accordingly opened by stating that he had eighteen distinct propositions to enunciate. Lord Norbury soon got tired, and tried to cut the matter short by occasionally saying, 'That will do, Mr. Scriven the Court is with you on that point, so you need not occupy your time by demonstration.' "That won't do, my lord,' said Scriven; 'I must assist your lordship with some additional reasons; I well know the great ability of my learned friends who will follow on the other side, so I cannot possibly accept your lordship's concession.' The first day was wholly occupied by stating the eighteen propositions; the succeeding days were devoted to proving them. The opposite counsel, whose game was brevity, let Scriven run on uninterrupted. When he came out of court the first day, he said, 'D—n those fellows! I could not get one of them to interrupt me.' But he and his brethren succeeded in wearing out the term. Meanwhile, the administration changed; the new government (of 1806) let Johnson off easily. He was not turned off the bench, but induced to retire on a pension of 12001. a year."

This Johnson had been made a judge for sup

VOL. I.

C