ndeed something more than a
Liberal--what we should now call a Radical. He studied for the bar, and
was, to all appearance, little inclined for anything but law and field
sports. He was a keen sportsman, and, like another distinguished
Irishman, "all his life long he loved rivers, and poets who sang of
rivers." He made rapid way in his profession, and soon became one of the
foremost advocates in Ireland. He was a safe, shrewd, keen lawyer as
well as a great advocate--the two parts do not always go together. He
was a master of the art of cross-examination and he was a magnificent
speaker--his speeches were aflame with humor, and pathos, and passion.
His voice was one of immense power and sweetness and variety of tone.
Mr. Disraeli in one of his books, when praising to the highest the
superb voice of the great Sir Robert Peel, says that he had never heard
its superior "except indeed in the thrilling tones of O'Connell." The
Irish advocate had the advantage, too, of a commanding presence. He was
tall and moulded in almost herculean form, and he had eyes which were
often compared with those of Robert Burns--the light of genius was in
them. There is a full-length picture of him in the Reform Club, London,
which enables one to understand how stately and imposing his presence
must have been.

The career of O'Connell would appear to have been easily marked out for
him. He was the foremost advocate in Ireland; he was making a large
income; he had inherited a considerable property--what was there for him
but to go on and prosper; make money, hunt, shoot, fish, and be happy.
He could not indeed obtain any of the honors or dignities of his
profession. He could not even be a king's counsel, and wear a silk gown.
His religion cut him off from all such marks of distinction--for he was
a member of the Catholic Church. But no penal laws prevented him from
addressing juries and winning verdicts and attracting popular admiration
and making money. He was very happily married--a genuine love-match, it
would seem to have been, and the love lasted. Moreover he was strongly
and almost unreasonably opposed to all manner of agitation that bordered
on rebellion or even on sedition. He was positively unjust, he was
utterly unreasonable, in his estimate of the rebellion of 1798 and
Robert Emmet's abortive effort in 1803. He never did full justice even
to the brave men who were concerned in these movements. He had an
absolute detestation for all man