LORD ALVANLEY AND MR. 0 • CONNELL—D ' ISRAELI THE

YOUNGER.

In the first edition of last week's paper, we alluded to the rumour of Lord Alvanley having sent a challenge to Mr. O'Connell ; and intimated our doubts of its correctness, as we thought that Lord Alvanley would scarcely challenge a person who he very well knew would not fight. In a later impression, however, we informed our readers that something like a challenge had really been sent ; but that, in anticipation of Mr. O'Connell's refusal to meet him, Lord Alvanley bad got up a requisition to the Managers of Brookes's to call a meeting of the members of the Club with a view to Mr. O'Connell's expulsion from that society, on account of the abusive language he had used in the House of Commons when alluding to Lord Alvanley. The account we gave, and which was abstracted from an article in the Courier of Saturday evening, was substantially but not minutely correct. The following documents will put our readers in possession of all the particulars of this transaction.

First comes Lord Alvanley's letter to Mr. O'Connell, written at Cliefden on the 21st of April ; and sent to Colonel Darner in London, to be delivered to Mr. O'Connell ; but which Colonel Darner sent by post to Dublin, finding that Mr. O'Connell had left town.

"Sir—lit the remarks r ou made on Monday last, on a question which Iliad put on She previous Saturday to Lord Melbourne, a question of purely a political nature, you used language which I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. I am aware that you assume a right of insulting with impunity ; and I can hardly hope that you will make an ex. mutton in my favour, by doing that which every other gentleman would do, and giving satisfitction where you have offered insult. I. however, give you the option of doing so ; and my friend Colonel Darner will make the necessary arrangements, should you be inclined to avail yourself of my proposal. I am, your obedient servant, "Cliefilen, Tuesday. '•ALYANLEY."

Having ascertained that Mr. O'Connell arrived in Dublin on the 26th, and having received no answer on the 28th, Colenel Darner sent the following note to Mr. O'Connell.

Sir—I was in hopes to have heard from you by this time; and must request that you will return me an immediate answer to Lord Alvanley's letter of the 2211, as he is impatient at labouring under the stigma of your gratuitous insult to him on the 20th. " I am, your obedient servant,

"40, Grosvenor Street, April 28. "GEORGE DAMES."

No answer to this letter of the 28th of April having been received .on the 3d May, Lord Alvanley then sent the subjoined note to the Managers of Brookes's Club.

" Gentlemen — I enclose you a requisition signed by twenty four members of Brookes's Club, which I request you to take into your consideration as soon as You

c onvetiently can. I am your obedient servant, "ALveNLE0' "No. 2, Albemarle Street, May 3,

" We, Vie undersigned, members of Broolces's Club request the Man-were to call a general meesting of the Club as soon s possible to Consider a statement Blot will be amide to it of Mr. O'Connell's conduact -to Lord Alvanley, both being members of the " Lord A LVANLZY, STANLEY, Lord SEFToN, W. H. IRBY, T. S. litINCoMBE, Esq., Sir T. S. HIPPISLEY, Lord DE Roos, Sir M. W. RIDI.EY, Lord JERSEY, Sin. GRAHAM, II. GALLY KsulGIIT, Esq., Sir IL W. BCLILELEY,

C. STANDISH, Esq., VILLIERS,

C. ST. Jour N FANcOCRT, Esq., LICHFIELD, ROWLAND ERRINGTON, C. C. GREVILLE,

Anovi.r., WILLOUOHBY DE EREsBY,

II. BMWS, Esq., Lord G. BENTINCK,"

TANKERYILLE,

The Managers returned the following answer.

"The Managers of Brookes's Club hav.'ng had under their consideration a requisition, signed by several members, requesting them to call a general meeting 'To consi.der a statement that will be mule to it of Mr. O'Connell's conduct to Lord AJranley, both being members of the Club,' are of opinion that le would be inconsistent x ith the practice and contrary to the established rules of the nub to take cognizance of differences of a private nature beI ance with time (ig e above requisition. DeNCANNON.

It should be mentioned, that the Duke of Norfolk withdrew his name from the requisition, when be found or suspected that there was a political object at the bottom of these proceedings ; and it is said that others of the requisitionists have also expressed their regret at having incautiously signed the paper.

These steps were taken its Mr. O'Connell's absence. But his son, Mr. Morgan O'Connell, being in town, called Lord Alvanley to account for his conduct, in the following letter ; which was delivered to Lord Alvanley by Colonel Hodges, on behalf of Mr. Morgan O'Connell, at half-past five on Monday evening.

" 9, Clarges Street, Monday 4.

" My Lord—Your Lordship thought proper to throw out grossly offetteive expressions in the House of I.ords, on the 15th of last month, against my father, and indeed against the Irish Members generally in the Reform interest.

" My father on the 20th retorted in the House of Commons, and in doing, so is stipposed to have desie,nated you as a bloated buffoon.

" My father remained two days in London is ithout bearing env thing from you on the subject against which hue retorted. After his deperture for Iteland, you scrim to have made up your mind to send him a species of hostile communication. You now state that this interval was occasioned luy your havinut been in the country, but this matters not ; I have this day seen our letter, which it appears you have sent to the noespapers.

" All the world knews that my tither has been engaged in an unfortunate personal transaction, that he has puliliely declared his determination never :wain to be similarly engaged, and therefore that any man may so address hint with safety and impunity.

•• Although you were decidedly the aggressor.—altholigh run attribtfted unworthy and interested motives to him,—although in your challenge, if it is to be so considered, you do not attempt to explain away the disrespectful expressions you Inol in the first instante used towards him.—although my father's return to London would necessarily be in a few days„—although but a few days elapse(' after your sending this communication to Ireland, so few indeed as scarcely to admit of the possibility of answer, you or your friends nevertheless hastened to give publicity to the eircumsiance, and follow it up by canvassing for a requisition to Brookes's (and at the head of which your own name, am interested party, is unbecomingly placed), having for its object my lather's expelMon from that Club : various insulting statements, also grounded on the sante circumstances, and obviously also emanating from the same source, went tlie TOOTH'S of tho public papers devoted to your party : it wuts aiSO confidently announewl by your partisans that you intended to assault my father if he refused you satisfaction.

" Whether Mr. O'Connell will take any notice of yonr epistle, or will treat it with the contempt it merits at his hands, is immaterial. Ile is ignorant of the ntisemble and paltry machinations going on In the Clubs of St. James's Street. It is also immaterlal whether the rumours and statements in the public prints were or were not unfounded, because you identified yourself with them by permitting them repeatedly to appear without your denial.

" But all doubt on this point is at :in end; your letter has this day nppeared in the newspapers, and your views are developed. It is IloVe quite evklent that your object, and that of those with whom you act, was by no means that of obtaining the satisfaction which one gentleman tnay have a right to demand from another. Your object, in fact. in thus publicly parading your willingness to fight, was quite clearly neither more nor less than that of casting a stigma on my father, on the party of which I am one, and so, through us, to cast discredit on the measure we advocate, and on the Govern' meat of whom we are the supporters.

"Thinking it right that the public should know the real eliaracter of this wretcheil manoeuvre, atul pitying or coutemnine some of those who. without being ostensibly of your faction, have weakly or basely rent themselves to it as your coadjutors. I have thought proper thus to explain briefly the Cases., together with its apparent and undoubted object, in order to prevent further mystification. " And I have considered you the most fitting meliam through whom to convey this succinct narrative to the public ; butt not, I confess, in the vain hope of inducing a man whom I sincerely believe to have betel appropriately designated by nty father, and who, moreover, has been deliberately guilty. as I must conceive you to be, of this utterly ungentlemartlike and braggadocio mode of carrying on party warfare ; not, I repeat, Iii the vain hope of its inducing you to give me satisfaction, or to call upon we for a meeting.

"But still, lest I should wrong you in this surmise, not imitating your example in giving this communication immediate publicity, I will leave you intermediately a masonsrble time during obich I have the honour to acquaint you that I am at your Lordship's service, and to facilitate any such possibility, I have requested a friend to convey this to j-ou. I have the honour to be, 8ce.

"To the Lord Alvanley, tee. "Monoarr

Lord Alvanley put this letter into the hands of his friend Colonel Dawson Darner ; and the subjoined account of what followed was sent by the Colonel to the Times, in which paper it appeared on Tuesday.

" Shortly after I had communicated with Lord Air:imbue, I waited on Colonel Hodges at the Junior I.'nited Service Club. Having obtained nn interview with hint, 1 formally protested against the course Mr. Morgan O'Connell had thought it proper Co pursue, butt at the same time informed Colonel Hodges that Lord Alvanley was ready to meet Mr. Morgan O'Connell immoratelg. " Colonel Hodges asked whether it should be this evening or tomorrow ? I replied, this evetting. Colonel Hodges then acceded to my proposal-, and added, that as it was but halfupast six o'clock, there would be still plenty of light.

" We then separated, and returning to our respective principals, accompanied them a short distance out of town.

"As we were proceeding from our carriages to the ground, Colonel Hodges took me aside and expressed his desire that the affair should be amicably settled. Ile observed —.We are come here to receive an apology from Lord Alvutuky : he has caused a requisition to be presented to the Managers of Brookes's, urging them to turn Mr. Daniel O'Connell oat of that Club.' I replied, that he could not have read the requisition, for that it only required the managers to call a general meeting of the Club. I then recalled to the recollection of Colonel Hodges the protest I had verbally made when I had previously seen him, and I preseuted him with a written statement to the same effect. This Colonel Hodges refused to accept; and be said that Mr. Morgan O'Connell came there to demand satisfaction for the insult offered to his father by the requisition made to Brookes's. I then declared that Lord Alvanley's quarrel was with Mr. Daniel O'Connell, anti not with his son ; but, that as Mr. Morgan O'Connell had thought proper to write to him to intimate his conviction that Lord Alvanley would be afraid to meet him, I had brought Lord Alvanley to the ground to prove the contrary ; I again tendered my protest.

"The ground having been measured. and the parties placed at a distance of twelve paces from one another, Mr. O'Connell's pistols were placed in their hands.

" Colonel Hodges and myself agreed that I should give the si°eual to fire, and that it should be • Make ready, Eire I' I was proceeding to instruct the gentlemen concerned as to the signals that were to be their guide, and had said, 'Gentlemen, I shall use the following words • Make ready, Fire!' when, Mr. O'Connell, thinking that I had given the signal, througit mistake discharged his pistol. I had then a short discussion with Colonel Hodges as to the light in which that shot was to be considered, when Lord Alvanley desired Inc to waive the right I conceived he had to return the fire. 'We proceeded to load again, and shots were exchanged without effect. I then asked Colonel Hodges whether he and his principal were satisfied ? The Colonel replied that they were not. That they still demanded an apology for the letter to Brookes's. Here I felt a deep responsibility, and that ms situation was one of great embarrassment; my first impression was, that I was bound not to allow Lord Alvanley to be made answerable to one man for a quarml with another, and that his having proved to Mr. Morgan O'Connell, by having received two shots from him, how unfounded was his assertion that Lord Alvanley NV Is unwilling to meet him. I was then called upon to put a stop to the proceeding, by taking him off the ground. But on second thoughts I judged it more desirable to allow the affair to go on One step further, to prevent the possibility of any misrepresentation of the subject. " After another exchange of shots without effect, I withdrew Lord Alvanley from the field without his having made any apology to Mr. Morgan O'Connell, or any withdrawal of what he had said respecting Mr. Daniel O'Connell. "As we were leaving the ground, Mr. O'Connell said to me Colonel Darner, I give

Ton my honour that I fired that shot by mistake ;' on which Lord Alvanley Approached and said he was satisfied Mr. O'Couuell had done so.

" GEORG' DAWSON Dante."

Colonel Hodges sent his account of what took place to the Morning Chronicle. It will be seen that in some particulars the accounts vary. Colonel Darner says that Lord Alvanley agreed to waive his right to fire after the first shot from Mr. O'Connell : Colonel Hodges says that he refused to allow his Lordship to fire. Colonel Darner makes Mr. O'Connell come forward to declare that he fired the first shot through mistake : Colonel Hodges states that Lord Alvanley spontaneously declared that Mr. O'Connell had not taken any sort of advantage. Colonel Hodges's account however must speak for itself.

At half-past five, Colonel Darner Dawson called upon Colonel Hodges, and stated. that although he took an entirely different view hem that takeu by Mr. Morgan O'Connelb yet Lord Alvanley was ready to give him an immediate meeting, and promised that Colonel Hodges should proceed with Mr. Morgan O'Connell to Arlington Street, where Colonel Moder Dawsoe and Lord Alvailley should meet them, for the purpose of proceeding to a spot to be determined on for a hostile encounter. Accordingly, Colonel Hodges and Mr. Morgan O'Connell proceeded to Arlington Street in a carriage, and finding Colonel Darner Dawson and Lord Alvanley there, they agreed upon a meeting at a short distance heyoud the turnpilie, next the Regent's Park. on the Barnet road. On reaching the spot, Colonel Hodges stated to Colonel Darner Dawson that, in order to relieve himself from all responsibility as to the results, he thought it his duty to declare that he was ready to recommend to his friend (Mr. M. O'Connell) to receive an apology from Lord Alvanley for the part taken by him in order to procure a meeting at Brookes's with a view to the expulsion of his father from that Club. Colonel Darner Dawson replied, that Lord Alvanley came there to convince Mr. Morgan O'Connell that he ass ready to put matters to that test which Mr. Morgan O'Connell had intimated that lord Alvauleywas unwilling to do ; Colonel Darner Dawson then offered a paper to Colonel II oslges. protesting against the proceeding of Mr. Morgan O'Connell. and disputing his right to interfere. Colonel Hodges refused to receive the protest, and denied its admissibility. The ground was measured at twelve prices. It was agreed that Colonel Darner Dawson should give the word, and that it should be ' Ready, fire! • The parties were placed—the pistols were delivered. Colonel Dawson gave the words, and Mr. M. O'Connell fired. Lord Alvanley did not fire, and exclaimed that he thought the words were only given by way of preparation, and claimed the right to fire. Colonel Darner Damson agreed with Lord Alvanley, brit Colonel Hodges retested against such an interpretation being attached to the words, and insisted that Lord Alvanley having omitted his opportunity, should not fire. Colonel Hodges acorn demanded an apology, which being refused, pistols were again handed to the parties, and (it having been agreed that Colonel Hodges !horrid give the word) both, on the signal being given, fired without effect. Colonel Darner Dawson asked whether Mr. Morgan O'Connell was satisfied, to which an answer in the negative was given by Colonel Hodges. Colonel Denier Dawsou then declared that he would agree to wiener exchange of fire, and in case of its being ineffectual, he would walk Lord Alvanley off the ground. The parties fired without effect, and Colonel Darner Dawson declaring that Lord Alvanley had proved to Mr. Morgan O'Connell that he was ready to meet him, walked off the ground. It is but justice to Lord Alvanley to state, that from the moment he received Mr. Morgan O'Connell's letter down to that in which lie ass walked by his friend off the ground, he exhibited a most manly, gentlemanlike, and gallant bearing. After the parties had left the ground, Lord Alvailley told Mr. Morgan O'Connell that although he (Lord Alvanley) had not fired on the first shot, he was convinced that Mr. Morgan O'Connell had not taken any sort of advantage, and had acted with perfect fairness." " G. LLoYD Honors."

It is rather curious, that Colonel Hodges calls Colonel Darner "Colonel Dawson" throughout.

In the meanwhile, the following correspondence had been going on between Colonel Darner and Mr. O'Connell.

" Merrion Square, Dublin, May 1. " Sir—I have received three letters, two pnrporting to be written by you. are one by Lard Alvanley, but under such circumstances of a ludicrous nature, that I can scarcely bring myself to believe them to be genuine : if not, I trust you will excuse me for giving you this trouble, and blame only the persons who used your name. The first letter is indeed dated the 29d of April, but was not put into the London Post-office until the 27th, and did not, and could not, reach me here before the 29th, Thursday. Your second letter is dated the 28th, Wednesday, and expresses surprise that I did not before then answer your first letter, which I could not receive uutil the day after.

" Again, Lord Alvanley's letter is nothing less than a challenge to fight, to be delivered to me in London—as it would seem, rattler an inconvenient distance, as the letter is dated at Cliefilen. But this letter assumes an air of more comicality when it turns out to be one sent by one person in Midden to another person in Loudon, to be transmitted thence to a third person in Dublin, to fight a duel at a truly long shot. This, as we say in Ireland, • bangs Banaglier: •• It is, however, after all, but an unvalorous—I believe I have coined the proper word—an uuvalorous absurdity in Lord Alvanley to send me a challenge, when my sentiments on that subject have been so publicly and so frequently proclaimed. " But there is really a serious view of the subject, which it is, I do believe, my duty to take : it is this—that these letters are a distinct breach of privilege. It seems to me, at present, that I am bound to treat them as such and if I continue to think so, I will bring them to the attention of the House of Commons accordingly. " As to duelling. I have no hesitation to tell you that I treat it with the most sovereign contempt, as a practice inconsistent with common sense, but, above all, as a 'violation plain and palpable of the divine law. '• At the same time I wish you distinctly to understand, that although I totally disclaim every thing connected with duelling, yet I am most anxious on every occasion upon which any man can point out to me that I have anywhere, or in any manner, done him au injustice, to repair it to the utmost extent of his wishes. So if I have, without a complete justification, offended any man. I am always perfectly ready to make the frullest atonement lie can possibly desire. Therefore, neither Lord Alvanley nor any other person requires the absurd code of duelling with me. I should have the greatest alacrity to atone to any man who showed me that I bad unjustifiably assailed him. " I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant, "DANIEL O'CONNELL. •• Honourable Dawson Darner, &c.

•• I now learn that this matter has already got into the London newspapers; I pre. same, indeed, that it is only calculated fur that meridian."

ANSWER TO MR. O'CONNELL'S LETTER OF 1ST MAY.

May 5. "Sir--I have to acknoe ledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st of May ; and as you therein state that you consider it to be your duty to bring Lord Alvanley's letter to you of the 21st before the house of Commons as a breach of privilege, I have recommended him to wait the result of such a determination.

" I beg to affirm that I put my letter, !naming Lord Alvanley's of the 21st, into the astral letter-box of the Travellers' Club before five o'clock on Wednesday the 22d, and I must request that you will forward to me the envelope that inclosed it, that I may be able to ascertain from the Post-office whence this extraordinary delay originated.

" GEORGE DAWsON DARER.

" Daniel O'Connell, Esq.. Merrion Square."

Thus, for the present, the quarrel between Lord Alvanley and Mr. O'Connell is in a state of suspense ; but Mr. 13enjamin D'Israeli has recently provoked Mr. O'Connell's wrath, and choosing to fancy that because Mr. Morgan O'Connell had called out Lord Alvanley, he was also bound to fight any one who had a difference with his father, Mr. D'Israeli commenced a warlike correspondence with Mr. Morgan O'Connell. It should be premised, that in consequence of Mr. D'Israeli's having attacked Mr. O'Connell on the hustings at Taunton last week (given in our report of the Election proceedings there), calling him a "traitor," &c. Mr. O'Connell used language in reference to Mr. D'Israeli, when addressing the new Franchise Association in Dublin, on the 2d of May, which will be found in the following extract from his speech.

Even in the present day, we learn from the English journals that the odious cry of "No Popery " is heard in several, but he was happy to say, not many

parts of England. It WAS the bugbear set up to scare the honest but too eredulous people of that country irons the prosecution of the great work of

Reform, and excite their worst passions against his countrymen. One of the

persons most mischievously intent on propagating the " No Popery " alarm WAS one D'Israeli ; who was himself, be would not say the greatest of living

bugbear*, but he would rather call him a humbug of the first magnitude.

That fellow's conduct at Taunton had not been paralled in the annals of political turpitude—had never yet been equalled for downright blackguardism. hr

the year 1831 or 1832, this D'Israeli had been candidate fur the borough of

Wycombe, which was then vacant. "It appears that he, or some one of his name, had written two or three novels, dignified with the titles, I believe, of Curiosi.

ties of Literature. He then professed Radical principles, and wrote to me u

a Radical Reformer, requesting niy support, and entreating me to give him a recommendatory letter to the electors of that borough, whom he represented as Liberals, and warmly attached to my principles. This was my first introduction to D'Israeli. Well, I believed the fellow on his word, and composed an epistle in his favour. This letter D'Israeli took with him, as a guarantee for his Radical principles, to the electors. He had it actually lithographed, printed, and placarded through the streets. D'Israeli, howeverovas better known to the constituency of Wycombe than to me, and was accordingly defeated. That was not my fault. He owed me at least an act of civility, which ought not to be repaid by the foulest calumny. The next time I heard of D'Israeli, was when he offered himself a candidate for Marylebone, on Reform principles. There too, be was suspected, and of course defeated. Well, after this double defeat as a Radical Reformer, out he conies as a Conservative, abusing and denouncing the Radicals. His failure as a Liberal only rendered him the more fit to support Church and King.' This miscreant has had the audacity, some few days since, to call me an incendiary, and charge me with being a traitor. What is my answer to the calumniator ? Why, it is shortly this—that he is a liar in action and in word ; that in his life he is a living lie. If such a creature as this shall be tolerated amongst gentlemen, what state of society, I ask, can exist in England ? Yes, Sir, I repeat it, England must be degraded by allowing a creature like this—the most depraved of his species and his kind—a creature of so atrocious, so vile, and so selfish a character, to hold any intercourse with the virtuous and respectable portion of her sous." Mr. O'Connell was aware he owed an apology for having employed such terms in so respectable an assembly, but the apology should rather be offered for not having used the harshest words the English language could afford for the description of treachery, falsehood, and depravity. Ile would venture to say this—Dis:aeli now considered himself Tcry enough to assume the leadership of the Conservative party, instead of Sir Robert Peel. This man, he understood, was by descent a Jew, and his father bad become a convert to Christianity. If that were the case, so much the better for the father ' • though the son had not improved much by the change. The Jewish nation had been habitually persecuted, but the cruelest persecutions of all were those directed against the character of that people. They suffered more keenly from calumnies than from all other indignities besides. He himself had the pleasure—the great and exquisite satisfaction—of knowing several Jewish families in London : be had an intimate acquaintance, and he was proud of it, with the members of those families • and be would take that opportunity of declaring, that he never met anywhere ladies more refined, more virtuous, or more amiable, nor gentlemen more high-minded, independent, or honourable. The Jews were at one time the chosen people of Cod; but there were even then amongst them some miscreants also. Had this D'Israelis genealogy been traced up, -he had no doubt he would be found tine true heir-at-law of the impenitent thief who atoned for his crimes on the cross. He now had done with D'Israeli, and forgave this heir-at-law of the bla.phe• moos thief.

It was in consequence of this speech that the following correspondence ensued between Mr. D'Israeli and Mr. Morgan O'Connell.

"31. A. Park Street, Grosvenor Square, Tuesday. May 5, " Sir—As you have established yourself as the champion of your hither. I have the honour to request your notice to a very scurrilous attack which your father has made upon my conduct and character. " Had Mr. O'Connell, according to the practice observed among gentlemen, appealed to me respecting the accuracy of the reported expressions before Ire indulged ill offen. sire comments upon them, he would, if he can be influenced by a sense ofjust ice, have felt that such comments were unnecessary. Ile has not thought fit to ito so, and he leaves me no alternative but to request that you, his son, will resume your vie:aloes duties of yielding satisfaction for the insults which your father has too long lavished with impunity upon his political opponents. " I have the honour to be. Sir, your obedient servant,

"Morgan O'Connell, Esq., M.P. "13. D'IsRAELI."

(NO.2.)

" 9, Charges Street, Tuesday. May 5. " Sir—I have this day received a letter from you, stating that a scurrilous attack had been made on you by my father, without giving me any information as to the expressions complained of, or when or where they were used, and which I now hear of for the first time.

" I deny your right to call imon me in the present instance, and I am not answerable for what my father may say. I called on Lord Alvanley for satisfaction because I conceived he had purposely insulted my father, by calling a meeting at Brookes's for the purpose of expelling him the Club. he being at the time absent in Ireland. " When I deny your right to call on me in the present instauce. I also beg leave most unequivocally to deny your right to address an insulting letter to me, who am almost personally unknown to you, and unconscious of having ever given you the slightest offence. I must therefore request that you will withdraw the letter, as, without that, it shill be impossible for me to enter into an explanation. " I have honour, &c.

" B. D'Israeli, Esq. "M. O'CoNnera.." " This letter will be delivered to you by my friend, Mr. French."

(No. 3.) "31. A, Park Street, Grosvenor Square, Tuesday, May 5. " Sir—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, delivered to me by Mr. Fitzsteplien French, by which I learn that you do rot consider yourself • answerable for what your father may say.'

" With regard to your request that I should withdraw my letter, because its character is insulting to yourself, I have to observe that it is net in my power to withdraw the letter, which states the reason of my application; but I have no hesitation in assuring you, that I did not intend that it should convey to you any personal insult. " I have the honour, &c.

" 13. D'Isaaer.i."

" I feel it my duty to publish this correspondence."

Mr. D'Israeli also felt it his duty to publish the subjoined letter to Mr. Daniel O'Connell in the Times newspaper, as a sequel to tho..:e we have given above.

TO MR. DANIEL O'CONNELL, M.P. FOR DUBLIN. " London, May 5. " Mr. O'Connell—Although you have long placed yourself out of the pale of civiliz ties, still I am one who will not be insulted, even by a yahoo, without chastising it. When I rend this morning in the same journals your virulent attack upon myself, and that your son was at the same moment paying the penalty of similar virulence to another individual on whom }on had dropped your filth, I thought that the consciousness that your opponents had at length discovered a source of satisfaction might have animated your insolence to unwonted euergy, and I called upou your sou to reassume his vicarious oflice of yielding satisfaction for his shrinking sire. But it seems that gentleman declines the further exercise of the pleasing duty of enduring the cores quences of your libertine harangues. I have no other means, therefore, of 1201king your effusion but this public mode. Listen, then, to me. "It it had been possible for you to act like a gentleman, you would have hesitated

before you made your foul and insolent comments upon a hasty and garbled report of a speech which scarcely contains a sentence or all expression as theyemanatedyrom my mouth; but the truth ie, you were glad to seize the first opportunity of petering forth your venom against a man whom it serves the interest of your party to represent as a political apostate.

t. In 1831. when Mr. O'Connell expressed to the electors of Wycombe his anxiety to assist me iu my election. I came forward as the opponent of the party in power, and which I described in my address as "a rapacious, tyrannical, and incapable faction "— the English Whigs, who in the ensuing year denounced you as as traitor from the throne. and every one of whom, only a few mouths back, you have anathematized with all the peculiar graces of a tongue practised in scurrility. You are the patron of these men now, Mr. O'Connell : you, forsooth, are 'devoted ' to them. I am still their 1111C0111. promising opponent. Which of us is the nmst consistent ?

"

You say that I was once a Radical, and now that I am a Tory. My conscience acquits me of ever having deserted a political friend, or over having chauged a political opinion. I worked fur a great and avowed end in 1831, and that was the restoration of the balance of parties in the state ; a result a hich I believed to be necessary to the honour or the realm end the happiness of the People. I never advocated a measure which I did not believe tended to this result, and if there be any measures which I then urged, and now am not disposed to press, it is because that great result is obtained. "Is 1531, I should have been very happy to have laboured for this object a ith Mr. O'Connell. .with whom I had tie personal acquaintance, but who was a member of the Legislatnre remarkable for his political infbience, his versatile talents, and his intense hatrel and undisguised contempt ofthe Whigre "Sitter 1831, we have met only onee; but I have a lively recollection of my interview with so distinguished a personage. Our conversat hie was of great length : I had a very ample opportunity of studying your character. I thought you a very amusing, a very interesting, but a somewhat overrated mau. I am sure on that occasion I did not disguise from you my political views : I spoke with a frankness which I believe is themeteristie of my disposition. I till you I was not a sentimental, but a practical julit Han : that is teat I chiefly desired to see was the fermation of a strong, but constitutional Gov( ruinent, that would maintain the empire, and that I thought if the Whigs remained in office they would shipwreck the State. I observed then, its was my habit, that the Whigs must be got rid of at any price. It seemed to me that you were much of the same opinion as myself; but our conversation was very general. We formed no politkal alliance, and for a simple reason ; I concealed, neither from yourself, nor from your friends, the Repeal of the Union was an impassable gulf between us, and Mat I could uot comprehend, after the announcement of such an intention, how any Engliih party could cooperate with you. Probably you then thought that the English M evemeat might confederate with you on a system of mutual assistance, and that you might exchange and circulate your accommodation measures of destruct; but even Mr. O'Connell. with his lively faith in Whig feebleness and Whig dishonesty,could scarcely have imagined that in the course of twelvemonths his fellow-conspirators were to be my Lord Melbourne and the Marquis of Lansdowne.

" I admire your scurrilous allusions to my origin. It is quite clear that the' Iteredi• tary bondsman' has already forgotten the clank of his fetter. I know the tactics of your church ; it clamours for toleration, and it labours for supremacy. I see that you are quite prepared to persecute. "With regard to your taunts as to my want of success in my election contests, permit me to remind y on that I had nothing to appeal to Ind the good sense of the people. No threatening skeletons canvassed for me; a death's-head and cross-bones were not blazoned on my banners. My peenniary resources, too, were limited ; I am not one of those public beggars that we see swarming with their obtrusive boxes in the chapels of your creed, nor am I in possession of a priecely revenue wrung from a starving race of fanatical slaves. Nevettheless. I have a deep conviction that the hour is at hand when I shall be more successful, and take my piece in that proud assembly of which Mr. O'counell avows his wish no longer to be a member. I expect to be a Representative of the people heron: the Repeal of the Union. We shall meet at Philippi; and rest assured that, confident in a good cause, and in some energies is hiell have been not altogether unproved. I will seize the first epportunity of inflicting upon you a castigation it !deli will make you at the same time remember and repent the insults that you

have lavished upon '• BENJAMIN DISRAELI."

Mr. D'Israeli would not let the matter rest here, but addressed another letter to 111r. Morgan O'Connell ; which, with the reply of that gentleman, closes the duelling correspondence of the week.

"31 A. Park Street. Grosvenor Square, May 6, 18.35. " Sir—Nit having been favoured with your reply to my second letter of yesterday, I thought fit to address a letter to your father, and for this reason—I deduce from our communication delivered by Mr. French, that you do not consider yourself respire:Me for any insults offered by your Sillier, but only bound to resent the insults that he may receive. Now. Sir, it is my hope that I hare insulted him ; assuredly it was v intention to do so. I wished to express the utter scorn in which I hold his character, and the disgust with wldch his conduct inspires me. If I failed in conveying this expression of my feelings to him, let me more successfully express them INIW to you. I shall take every opportunity of holding your father's name up to public contempt. And I fervently pray that you, or some one of his blood, may attempt to avenge the tweetinguishable hatred with which I shall pursue his existence.

"I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant. " Morgan O'Connell, Esq., M.P. "B. Dist:esti."

" May 7, 1835. " Sir—I have this moment received your letter of the 6th instant, which teas left at Clarges Street, during my absence, at half-past eleven last night. Your letter of the 5th instant, in allich you declare that you • did not intend to convey to me any personal insult,' followed by a publication of which you gave me notice, induced any to think that the matter was concluded between us. The tenor of your lust letter is such that it is impossible for me to renew the correspondence.

" In the postscript of your letter of the 5th instant, you state that you feel it your duty to publish the correspowlence. In accordance with that view, I send your last commumeatieu, and my reply, to the press.

"B. D'Israeli, Esq. •• MORGAN O'CONNELL."