Mr. O’Connell was on his legs for nearly two hours, assisted occasionally, in the management of his documents, by some devoted aide-de-camp.  To the house generally, it was a performance of dumb show, a feeble old man muttering before a table; but respect for the great parliamentary personage kept all as orderly as if the fortunes of a party hung upon his rhetoric; and though not an accent reached the gallery, means were taken that, next morning, the country should not lose the last, and not the least interesting of the speeches of one, who had so long occupied and agitated the mind of nations.  This remarkable address was an abnegation of the whole policy of Mr. O’Connell’s career.  It proved, by a mass of authentic evidence, ranging over a long term of years, that Irish outrage was the consequence of physical misery, and that the social evils of that country, could not be successfully encountered by political remedies.  To complete the picture, it concluded with a panegyric of Ulster and a patriotic quotation from Lord Clare."[91]

That the rich and splendid voice, which had so often sounded in the ears of his countrymen, like the varied and touching music of their native land, and led them where he would, had lost its finest tones, was true enough; but it had not so utterly failed as Mr. D’Israeli asserts.  I heard O’Connell speak in public after this time, and although the marks of age and feebleness were in his whole manner, he managed his voice so as to be heard and understood at a considerable distance.  “Respect for the great parliamentary personage kept all as orderly as if the fortunes of a party hung upon his rhetoric,” Mr. D’Israeli says.  He ought to have recollected, that the fortunes of a party did really hang upon his rhetoric on this very occasion; for, to the uncompromising opposition of O’Connell and his friends, may be fairly attributed the ultimate defeat of this Coercion Bill, which defeat drove Sir Robert Peel from power, and brought in Lord John Russell.  As to some means or other having been taken to publish a speech that had not been heard, there can be little doubt but the reporters took it down substantially, with the exception of the documents read.  It was not O’Connell’s habit to write his speeches; where then could the means of publishing this one come from, except from the reporters?  He made several short speeches during the progress of the bill, which were printed in the newspapers in the usual way, surely they must have been reported in the usual way.

But this is a trifle:  the most unkind and groundless assertion the author of the letters of Runnymede makes, with regard to the man who called him the lineal descendant of the impenitent thief, is, when he says, that “this remarkable address was an abnegation of the whole policy of Mr. O’Connell’s career.”  This is strangely inexact:  nay more, if Mr. D’Israeli heard the speech, as is to be inferred, or if he read it, it is disingenuous.  The speech was a bold