In 1834, Sir Robert Peel challenged both Dr. Lushington and Joseph Hume, but the causes of quarrel were courteously explained, and no meetings took place. On May 5, 1835, a duel was fought, in a field on the Finchley Road, between Lord Alvanley and Morgan O'Connell, son of the "Liberator." The ground was measured at twelve paces, and it was agreed that Colonel Damer should give the word, which was to be "Ready!--Fire!" The parties were placed, and the pistols were delivered, Colonel Damer gave the words, and O'Connell fired; but not so Lord Alvanley, who said he thought the words were only preparatory, and claimed his right to fire. This was disallowed, and another round was fired without effect. Mr. O'Connell not being satisfied, yet another was arranged, after which, Lord Alvanley's second declared he would walk his man off the ground; this also was fired, without effect, and the duel terminated. I have now to chronicle a passage of arms which, luckily, was bloodless, between two celebrities--Daniel O'Connell and Benjamin D'Israeli. At a meeting of the Franchise Association, held on May 2, 1835, at the Corn Exchange, Dublin, O'Connell stated that he had something to mention, personal to himself. Of all the abusive attacks that had ever been made on him, that recently volunteered by a Mr. D'Israeli, the unsuccessful Tory candidate at Taunton, was the most reckless, unprovoked, and unwarrantable. All that he knew of this Mr. D'Israeli was, that he had sent to him (Mr. O'Connell) in 1831, to write a letter in his favour to the electors of Wickham, for which he was a candidate in the Radical interest. On that occasion he was unsuccessful, as well as in a subsequent attempt as a Radical in Marylebone. Since then he had made some attempts to get into Parliament as a Tory, and certainly no one was so fit for the Tory faction as a man who had been twice rejected by the Radicals. He had called him (Mr. O'Connell) a traitor and an incendiary; and, having thus grossly and maliciously assailed him, he should not be restrained by any notion of false delicacy in describing Mr. D'Israeli in the terms his conduct merited. Here the honourable and learned gentleman uttered a terrible philippic against Mr. D'Israeli, of which the following passage is a specimen. In describing Mr. D'Israeli as a descendant of a Jew (without meaning to cast any imputation either on the name, or the nation, which he respected) Mr. O'Connell said that he verily believed that, although the people of Israel were the chosen of God, yet there were miscreants amongst them also, and Mr. D'Israeli was one of those, for he possessed the quality of the impenitent thief who died upon the cross, and he (Mr. O'Connell) was convinced that that thief's name was D'Israeli. For aught he knew, this D'Israeli might be his heir-at-law, and now he forgave the descendant of the blasphemous thief who died impenitent upon the cross.