CHAPTER VI.

Legislative Riots-The "Collective Wisdom" in a State of Excitement-Peel's Opinion of O'Connell as a Debater.

In order to appreciate O'Connell's success in the English Parliament, we should consider the species of hostility he was constantly obliged to encounter. Envenomed personal hatred was the manifest source of much of the opposition directed against him. In 1839, he stated, what every body knew, namely, that certain election committees were partial and dishonest. Thereupon Lord Maidstone moved, "That Mr. O'Connell should be reprimanded." The motion was carried; and the reprimand accordingly was pronounced from the chair, and was laughed at by all rational men, as a specimen of the fantastic folly into which a strong feeling of personal spite could betray a parliamentary majority. In fact, the "reprimand" afforded a species of triumph to the intended victim, by giving him a

fresh opportunity of reiterating all his cnarges, without one word of retractation or apology.

But, perhaps, the most curious legislative riot upon record, was that which occurred on the introduction of Lord Stanley's bill for the annihilation of the Irish popular franchise. Whenever a disturbance ruffles the surface of an Irish Repeal, or other public meeting (and such an occurrence is unusual), the sages of the English press pounce with avidity on the event as a proof of our unfitness for self-government. Perhaps, in their estimation, the remarkable parliamentary demélé alluded to illustrates the capacity of English gentlemen to legislate for Ireland.

O'Connell had committed the offence of calling Lord Stanley's bill "a bill to trample on the rights of Ireland." For this offence he was furiously assailed with a storm of shouting, yelling, hooting, and whistling. He applied the term "beastly bellowing" to the hurricane of discordant noises made by the Collective Wisdom. The Collective Wisdom was highly displeased at this uncourteous designation of its utterances; and a scene of tumultuous wrangling ensued, during a great part of which it was perfectly impossible to distinguish an articulate sentence. Lord Maidstone and Sir Stratford Canning were particularly prominent in this

ruffianly attack upon O'Connell, who, however, contrived in the end to have the best of the skirmish.

What a picture of legislative wisdom is afforded by this curious scene! It suggests humiliating ideas of our boasted human intellect, that an assemblage to whom is committed a trust of the highest national importance, should thus degrade itself by vulgar brawls; which, as one of the members observed, are only fit for the meridian of the ale-house. Whenever the passions of foolish and intemperate partisans thus degraded parliamentary debate, O'Connell was always ready to administer a spirited rebuke. The pigmy host of Maidstones, Cannings, Tennents, et id genus omne, shrank into insignificance before him-an insignificance which was only rendered the more manifest by the boisterous efforts of the noisy crew to overwhelm him with factious clamour.

Sir Robert Peel is said to have expressed his high appreciation of O'Connell's parliamentary abilities. While the Reform Bill was under discussion, the speeches of its friends and foes were one day can vassed at Lady Beauchamp's. On O'Connell's name being mentioned, some critic fastidiously said, "Oh, a broguing Irish fellow! who would listen to him? I always walk out of the House when he opens his lips!" "Come, Peel," said old Lord Westmoreland,

"let me hear your opinion." "My opinion candidly is," replied Sir Robert," that if I wanted an efficient and eloquent advocate, I would readily give up all the other orators of whom we have been talking, provided I had with me this same broguing Irish fellow.""

6

O'Connell's eloquence, both in and out of Parliament, was principally characterised by a robust strength that harmonised well with the athletic personal appearance of the orator. He seldom sought ornament, and when he did he was not always successful. Sheil is said to have remarked of him, "That he flung a brood of sturdy ideas upon the world, without a rag to cover them." But on many occasions the fire of his thoughts found vent in extremely felicitous language. He excelled in clear and forcible argument, in ready and dexterous reply, and in bold and defiant denunciations of tyranny. His invective was frequently powerful: it sometimes, however, degenerated into common-place personal abuse. Like his great countryman, Curran, he was unequal. He could soar to the loftiest heights of parliamentary debate, or talk down to the level of the lowest democratic audience.

CHAPTER VII.

O'Connell's Prepossession in Favour of National DistinctnessHis Opinion of Lord Anglesey-Lord Anglesey's Opinion of him-The Repeal Association instituted-O'Connell on the famous Dispute between Grattan and Flood-Machinery of the Association-O'Connell in Committee-Purcell O'Gorman a Musician!-Incidents illustrative of O'Connell's Popularity -O'Connell's Opinion of Feargus O'Connor.

IN the autumn of 1839, O'Connell's mind was intently occupied upon the projected renewal of the Repeal Agitation. Day after day he discussed it with his private friends; and the institution of a confederacy for Repealing the Union was only postponed until a moment should arrive peculiarly propitious to such an experiment.

Whatever unguarded expressions may have escaped O'Connell, when battling with hostile Tories or treacherous Whigs, for the minor measures which then were termed "Justice to Ireland," there is not the least doubt that his prepossessions were entirely in favour of national distinctness; not only for Ireland, but for every country on which God had con