"TO WILLIAM SMITH O'BRIEN, ESQ.

"RESPECTED VICE-PRESIDENT AND BROTHER.

"Heartily approving of the course you have taken in refusing to devote to the concerns of another people any of the time which your own constituents and countrymen feel to be of so much value to them, we, your brethren of the '82 Club, take this occasion of recording our increased confidence in, and esteem for you, personally and politically, and our determination to sustain and stand by you in asserting the right of Ireland to the undistracted labours of our own representatives in Parliament.

"We, sir, like yourself, have long since 'abandoned for ever all hope of obtaining wise and beneficial legislation for Ireland from the Imperial Parliament'; nor would such legislation, even if attainable, satisfy our aspirations. We are confederated together in the '82 Club upon the plain ground that no body of men ought to have power to make laws binding this kingdom, save the Monarch, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. From that principle we shall never depart, and with God's help it shall soon find recognition by a parliament of our own.

"Upon the mode in which the House of Commons has thought fit to exercise the privilege it asserts in the present instance—upon the personal discourtesy which has marked all the late proceedings in your regard, we shall make but one comment, that every insult to you is felt as an insult to us and to the people of Ireland.

"It would be idle and out of place to offer condolence to you, confined in an English prison for such an offence. We congratulate you that you have made yourself the champion of your country's rights, and submitted to ignominy for a cause which you and we know shall one day triumph.

"(Signed)

"COLMAN M. O'LOGHLEN, Vice-President, Chairman.

"May 9th, 1846."

"BROTHERS OF THE '82 CLUB.—I receive this address with pride and satisfaction.

"I recognise in the '82 Club a brotherhood of patriots, who have volunteered to take the foremost place in contending for the liberties of Ireland, and who may vie, in regard of ability, integrity and sincerity of purpose, with any political association, consisting of equal numbers, which has ever been united in voluntary confederation.

"The unqualified approval accorded to my conduct by such a body justifies me in entertaining a sentiment of honourable pride, which I am not ashamed to avow.

"Nor shall I attempt to disguise the satisfaction with which I receive this address.

"If you had approached me with language of condolence, I could scarcely have dissembled my grief and disappointment; but you have justly felt that such language would be unsuited to the occasion, and unworthy both of yourselves and of me.

"On the contrary, you congratulate me upon being subjected to reproach and indignity for having aspired to vindicate the rights of my native land; you deem, as I deem, that to suffer for Ireland is a privilege rather than a penalty.

"In acknowledging your address, I shall not dwell upon the many important considerations which are involved in my present contest with the House of Commons. I cannot but think, indeed, that the constitutional questions at issue are of the highest moment, not alone to the Irish people, but also to each member of the legislature, and to every parliamentary elector in the United Kingdom. Upon the present occasion, however, I am contented to waive all reference to collateral issues, and to justify my conduct upon the simple ground upon which it has received your approval—namely, that until a domestic legislature shall be obtained for Ireland, my own country demands my undivided exertions.

"Be assured that those exertions will not be withheld so long as life and liberty remain to me, until Ireland shall again fiat the Declaration of 1782: 'That no body of men is entitled to make laws to bind the Irish nation save only the Monarch, the Lords, and the Commons of Ireland.'"

On my way home I was invited to address a public meeting of Repealers in Liverpool. I accepted the invitation, and in the course of my observations, emphatically repudiated all compromise on the subject of my country's deliverance. I disclaimed the idea that any concessions, any equalization with England in political franchises, any amelioration of our political or social condition, could ever be accepted by Ireland in compromise of her inalienable independence. When I arrived in Dublin, I attended the Association, and, happening to read a letter from the Rev. Mr. Walshe, of Clonmel, couched in the warmest terms of admiration of Mr. O'Brien's purity and heroism, the cowardice or jealousy of a certain party in the Hall found expression through its proper organs, and I was called to order in the name of the law. A violation of law to praise William Smith O'Brien! The chairman decided it was. To such decision I scorned to submit, and I read the letter to the end, amidst the most enthusiastic cheers of the audience. I was proceeding to read another letter from another clergyman of the same town, written in a very different spirit, when I was besought to withhold it, and entreated not to read it. I complied. It is but fair to add here that on the Saturday previous, an article was published in the Nation, some expressions of which Mr. O'Connell considered personally insulting.

Whether Mr. O'Connell was influenced by one or all of these occurrences, cannot be affirmed here. But he proceeded to Ireland in the course of the week, and suddenly called a meeting of the Committee of the Association, before which he arraigned us of discourtesy to him in London, found fault with the meeting at Liverpool, accused the Nation of attacking him, and, finally, expressed his unequivocal disapprobation of my resistance to the order of the chairman in the Hall. The deputation explained their conduct in London, and the motives that governed them, with which he appeared to be satisfied. All connection with the proceeding in Liverpool with which he took offence, was disclaimed, and, finally, Mr. Duffy satisfied him that no offence was meant him in the Nation, and that the passage of which he complained had no reference to him.

The discussion was a long and, to some extent, an angry one. It ended, however, as we thought, amicably. Mr. O'Connell had proposed at the outset two objects, namely, to express a solemn condemnation of the proceedings in Liverpool, and to expel the Nation from the Association. The rule of the Association was to send to every locality, at the expense of the body, whatever papers the subscribers of a certain sum desired. There were then three other weekly papers in Dublin, The Register, the Freeman, and the Old Irelander. The Nation had a circulation nearly equal to that of all the others. Its expulsion from the Association would at once deprive it of all the circulation it had through its agency, thus involving a very serious pecuniary loss to Mr. Duffy.

The two positions were abandoned, and the Committee separated on amicable terms. Another subject of importance was under discussion. This was, what suitable mark of national respect should be offered to Mr. O'Brien; and it was proposed that the committee should re-assemble on the following day (Sunday), at two o'clock. At the second meeting the disagreeable topics of the former evening were revived and discussed in a more acrimonious spirit and tone. The Committee was differently composed, most of the treasurers connected with the Committee being present, and most of the professional men, who attended on Saturday, being absent, Mr. O'Connell saw his advantage, or those under whose guidance he unfortunately was, saw it, and urged him on. He clearly had a majority. But having satisfied himself he could succeed, with a resolution refusing to circulate the Nation, he generously conceded the whole matter; and once more the Committee separated on good terms.

It was hoped that, as the concession was entirely voluntary, Mr. O'Connell would be content. This was a vain hope. On the next day, he referred to the subject in terms of unmitigated animosity; and on Tuesday the resolution of exclusion, in effect, though not formally, passed in the absence of most of those who were well known to be opposed to it.

One word of concession would have saved the Nation at this juncture; but that one word would not be written, had the consequence of refusal been the loss of every subscriber it had in the world. It maintained its high position in face of the two despotisms which had combined to crush it. The resolution of the Association was not formally recorded, but it remained in readiness to be re-asserted as soon as the trial in the Queen's Bench would be over.

That trial was for the celebrated railroad article, written by John Mitchel. When the article first appeared, Mr. O'Connell came to the Nation office. He seated himself familiarly, and, seeing all its contributors around him, he said: "I came to complain of this article." He then read through until where certain principles, previously promulgated, were recommended to Repeal wardens as the catechism they should teach. "I do not object," said he, "to your principles; but I object to your coupling them with the duties of Repeal wardens who are the officers of the Association." Mr. Duffy promised, at once, to explain the matter, to Mr. O'Connell's satisfaction, in the next number. He did so accordingly, and no more was said of it until after the prosecution was commenced.

On the 17th of June, Mr. Duffy was placed at the bar, on an information or indictment setting forth the entire of the obnoxious article. The Government was vehement and imperative, and the Bench constitutionally jealous of the law. The prosecution was conducted with malevolent ability, and the court charged, with pious zeal, for the crown. Robert Holmes was counsel for the accused and, in an impassioned speech, on every word of which was stamped the impress of originality, vigour and beauty, vindicated not the "liberty of the press," but the truth of the startling propositions Mr. Mitchel had propounded.

In the Hall, the speech was regarded as triumphant for the country, but conclusive against Mr. Duffy. It was said that for sake of his client he should confuse, confound and deny. The fact, however, justified the advocate. When Mr. Mitchel first promulgated his principles, they grated strongly on the public ear. Men openly pronounced the doctrines pernicious and bloody. But the veteran of the bar, speaking in the spirit of the more glorious times he remembered, denounced as a slave and a toward any one who thought them too strong for the occasion on which they were used, and the provocation to which they applied. For a brief moment he awoke in other hearts the spirit that lived in his own. The jury refused to convict, and were discharged. But the prosecution in which the Attorney-General failed, was transferred before a more loyal tribunal, and Mr. Duffy was condemned by the judgment of Conciliation Hall; a judgment of which something remains to be said hereafter.

It has been stated that the subject of testifying the respect of the Nation for its chivalrous advocate, after his release from the prison of the House of Commons—he was discharged without compromise or submission on the 26th of May—was under discussion.

A public and triumphal entry was determined on. But Mr. Smith O'Brien, desirous that the State prisoners of 1844 should be participators in any tribute of respect offered to him, requested that the 6th of September, the day of their release from prison, should be fixed on for a public triumph, in which all alike could share.



Mr. O'Brien passed through the metropolis quietly on his way home; but in Limerick and Newcastle was received by hundreds of thousands with boundless joy. When he returned to town, it was to be expelled from that body to which he, of all living men, gave most firmness, and for which he alone acquired most respect. In the events which followed, the public dinner was forgotten.

It is now time to recur to those events, some of which at least range behind those already detailed—to which the following preliminary may be necessary. Early in June, a meeting was held at Lord John Russell's, when the minister-expectant explained the grounds on which he claimed the support of the entire Liberal Party. The English Liberals, generally and enthusiastically, acquiesced. The correspondent of the Evening Mail, writing from London, stated that Mr. O'Connell added to his adhesion, a voluntary promise to sink the cause of Repeal provided measures of a truly liberal character were carried into effect. He, moreover, said that he never meant more by Repeal than a thorough identification of the two countries. The Nation indignantly repelled the insinuations of the correspondence, and pronounced it a lie. Mr. O'Connell and his friends passed the Mail by unnoticed, but bestowed on the Nation their measureless wrath. It was never afterwards forgiven.



CHAPTER V

DEFEAT OF PEEL.—ACCESSION or THE WHIGS.—MR. O'CONNELL'S COURSE.—DEBATES IN CONCILIATION HALL.—MR. O'CONNELL DENOUNCES THE YOUNG IRELAND PARTY.—CONTINUED DEBATES.—QUESTIONS AT ISSUE.—PHYSICAL FORCE.—THE SECESSION.—WHIG ALLIANCE.—DUBLIN REMONSTRANCE.—FORMATION OF THE CONFEDERATION, ITS CAREER.—MR. O'CONNELL'S DEATH.—CLOSE OF THE YEAR 1847.

On the 25th of June, Sir Robert Peel was defeated in the House of Commons on a motion that the Irish Coercion Bill be read a second time.

The majority against him was seventy-three, and was composed of the Whig party, the extreme Conservatives, the ultra-Radicals and Irish Repealers. In ten days after, Lord John Russell assumed the seals of office. During the preliminary arrangements that led to Peel's defeat, there was much coquetting between the Whig and Irish leaders. Alarmed by this startling aspect of affairs, and somewhat, perhaps, by the uncontradicted correspondence of the Mail, heretofore alluded to, Mr. Meagher, in the midst of vociferous cheering, announced from the tribune of Conciliation Hall, "that Irish Repealers would teach an honest lesson to the Whigs." This took place on the 15th of June. A short discussion followed, in which Messrs. Mitchel, O'Gorman and Barry took part, denouncing in the strongest language all idea of compromise with the Whigs. On the next day of meeting (June 22nd) a letter was read from Mr. O'Connell, expressing "the bitterest regret at the efforts being made by some of their juvenile members to create dissension in the Association." "To silence all unworthy cavilling," he desired that the solemn pledge of the Rotunda be read after his letter, and copies thereof posted in the Hall. This letter was the signal for an attack on the Seceders by James Fitzpatrick, who is now enjoying his reward in shape of a lucrative office on the coast of Africa. Another discussion followed, in which Messrs. Mitchel, Barry, O'Gorman and myself repelled the charge urged against us by Lord John Russell, to the effect that we were separatists.

The discussion which followed was an angry one. Fierce denunciations against the Whigs proceeded from the Seceders, which were answered by the Old Irelanders, as they called themselves, with clap-trap allusions to the name and fame of the "Liberator." The audience were indisposed to be duped, and so strong and general was the aversion to a Whig compromise, that Mr. D. O'Connell, jun. was denied a hearing, and even the Secretary found it difficult to command a moment's attention.

The next letter from Mr. O'Connell, was written after the accession of the Whigs. It, too, evidently bore the impress of that controlling fact. The writer enumerated twelve measures (excluding Repeal) "without which no British minister should dream of bidding for the people of Ireland." On the whole, the letter, which was long and elaborate, was an unmistakable though very guarded advice to give another trial to the Whigs. Mr. O'Brien, in moving that it be inserted on the minutes, pressed his conviction that the "millions would never abandon Repeal." He concluded by reading a resolution, pro posed in 1842 and seconded by Mr. O'Connell himself, to the effect that the Whigs were as inimical to Repeal as the Tories; and that no honest Repealer could vote for a Whig representative. Mr. O'Brien, on this occasion, took a wrong course. Instead of moving that the letter be inserted on the minutes, he should have moved its rejection, as containing doctrines subversive of principle and inconsistent with the solemn pledges of the nation. He was, no doubt, influenced by a desire to preserve unanimity; but the unanimity which is based on the disruption of most binding obligations is weaker and more fatal than any division. One paramount advantage would result from at once joining issue with Mr. O'Connell—the question would be placed on its true ground, and the preposterous folly of the physical and moral force abstractions would never have been heard of.

Mr. O'Connell appeared in Conciliation Hall on Monday, the 6th of July. He stated that his object was to ascertain the state of the registries, so as to resist the return of the anti-Repealers in any of the towns where a vacancy was likely to occur. But he added, "I will give no vexatious opposition." Here a voice cried "Dungarvan," with significant emphasis, a question Mr. O'Connell evaded with his usual dexterity. Four seats were then actually vacant; Dungarvan, Drogheda, Dundalk and Roscommon county. In the three former, there were clear majorities in favour of Repeal. That question admitted of no earthly doubt. It had been long before enquired into, and assurances the most unequivocal were transmitted to the Association. On motion of Mr. O'Connell, the question was referred to the committee.

Daniel O'Connell, jun., was a candidate for Dundalk, where a public dinner was given him on the 7th. His father attended, and said, "I tell you there is another experiment to be made, in which every honest and rational man, of every party, will join." Similar doctrines were to be found in his former letter and speech, above referred to; and the other members of the Association awoke to a sense of the danger that threatened the body. Meantime, the Dungarvan committee proceeded with its labours. A deputation from that town waited on them—the parish priest and two others. They paid their first visit, however, to the Secretary, at the Castle. They found it as easy to satisfy the committee, or its majority, as the Secretary found it to satisfy themselves. They advised there should be no opposition given to Mr. Shiel on these two grounds: First, because success was then impossible, owing to the shortness of the time for preparation. And secondly, because a failure then would endanger the cause at the general election which was to take place in a few months. The sincerity of these reasons was tested by the facts, that, at the general election, the same parish priest stood at the hustings to propose and sustain the same official of the Whigs, insolently proclaiming his steadfastness in O'Connell's glorious principles, while he was huckstering away the honour and independence of his country; and that at that general election, when the people of Dungarvan were more openly betrayed and trafficked on by John O'Connell, and when they had to contend against the treachery of the priest, the treachery of the Association and the whole strength of the Whigs, they were only defeated in their opposition to Mr. Shiel by three votes. But, sincere or not, absurd or not, they were conclusive with the committee, or its chairman, who reported that it was not advisable to oppose Mr. Shiel, and this report was published just two days after Mr. Shiel had been returned unopposed.

No wonder that the actual return of Mr. Shiel, which the committee was charged to resist, had escaped its vigilance; for the celebrated Peace Resolutions were, at the same time, under discussion, and produced simultaneously with the Dungarvan report. Mr. Mitchel, Mr. O'Gorman and Mr. Meagher, who attended the committee, vainly remonstrated against the betrayal of Dungarvan, as well as the Peace Resolutions. They saw that the real object of the resolutions was to blind the country to the other important question, whether the Irish constituencies were to be transferred once more to Whig placemen; and they confined their opposition principally to the Dungarvan case. It must be admitted, too, that the falsehood involved in the Peace Resolutions, escaped their attention in the first instance; and they were under the impression that the pledge they contained extended no farther than the action of the Association itself was concerned. On consideration, they found it was of far wider scope, and would engage them to a false principle, embracing all men, all countries and all tunes; and having stated this at the public meeting of the Association, they allowed the resolutions to pass without further opposition.

The original resolution on which the Association was framed is this:—

"The total disclaimer of, and absence from, all physical force, violence or breach of the law."

The resolution, reported on the 13th of July, 1846, is as follows:—

"That, to promote political amelioration, peaceable means alone should be used, to the exclusion of all others, save those that are peaceful, legal and constitutional."

Sometimes, it has been averred lately that these two resolutions are, in principle and effect, the same. Mr. O'Connell himself declared the latter was introduced by him, "to draw a line of demarcation between Old and Young Ireland." Indeed, if there were no distinction, the introduction would be eminently absurd as well as pernicious. And if they be different, as essentially they are, there must be some strong justification for the adoption of the latter.

But before proceeding to this enquiry, it may not be amiss to point out the exact distinction between the original and the new resolution. The former embraced a rule of action whereby the members of the Association engaged their faith and honour to each other and the country that they would not use its agency to cause or promote physical force or violence of any kind, or commit one another to any act of illegality. But it went no farther—it enunciated no moral dogma—a rule of conscience rather than a pledge of conduct such as the other—and it claimed no sacrifice of one's own convictions. As a mutual guarantee, it was not only just but essential to the perfect safety of the Association.

On the other hand, the new resolution excluded the question of practical action altogether. Neither in itself nor in its preamble was there an averment, or even an assumption of its necessity, as a rule of guidance. It was a mere abstract opinion, utterly irrespective of the object or conduct of the Association, and only applicable as a test of certain speculative theories. But not alone was it inapplicable and preposterous; it was utterly untrue: at least, there are many men who could not subscribe to it without, according to their own convictions, being guilty of a lie. Supposing, however, that the seceders had attempted to violate the old constitution of the confederacy, it may be argued that Mr. O'Connell would be justified in preparing the most stringent tests for the purpose of restraining them. But no such attempt was ever made; no one proposed in the Association, no one hinted outside it, that it ought to violate one of its rules. No one complained of these rules, or said they ought to be changed, modified or, to the least extent, relaxed. Neither directly nor indirectly, openly nor covertly, was there a word spoken, nor an act done, nor a suggestion offered to that effect. The resolution was, therefore, uncalled for and unnecessary, as it was unsound and untrue.

Of this there is the clearest proof. First, the negative proof is conclusive. Mr. O'Connell did not name an act, or refer to a word of one single seceder, which would justify the imputation that they sought or desired to involve the Association in any expedient inconsistent with its fundamental rules. His only proof was this, and he did not then rely on it: Lord John Russell stated in the House, "I am told that one party among the Repealers are anxious for a separation from England." This is his solitary proof, nor does it appear that he was not himself the informant of the minister. But the positive proofs at the other side are numerous and incontestable. I select a few. On the 13th of July Mr. O'Gorman, in presence of Mr. O'Connell, said: "In order that there shall be no misconception on the subject, as far as I am concerned, I say, at once, I am no advocate for physical force. As a member of the Association I am bound by its laws. One of these is, that its object is not to be attained by the use of physical force, but by moral means only." Mr. Mitchel, on that occasion, said: "This is a legally organised and constitutional society seeking to attain its object, as all the world knows, by peaceable means and none other. Constitutional agitation is the very basis of it; and nobody who contemplates any other mode of bringing about the independence of the country has a right to come here, or consider himself a fit member of our Association." On the 28th of July, Mr. Meagher said: "I do advocate the peaceful policy of the Association. It is the only policy we can and should adopt. If it be pursued with truth, with courage and with firmness of purpose, I do firmly believe it will succeed."

Mr. M.J. Barry, on the 7th of June, said, "It is perfectly plain to all that the purpose of the Association is to work out its object by means of moral force, and that only." In my letter to Mr. Ray, written long after the secession, I used these words: "The first (original rule of the Association) implies a pledge and an obligation to which every member of the Association bound himself. Any member, who violates it, or would induce the Association to infringe it, must be false to his own vow and treacherous to the Association, whence he should be expelled with every mark of infamy."

These proofs are taken at random: they range over the time before, after and contemporaneous with the secession. They could be multiplied one hundredfold, and taken from the speeches and writings of every one of the seceders. Yet that fact availed nothing—they were told, because "they differed from the rules laid down by the Liberator, they ceased to be members of the Association."

This is, in some sort, a digression. I return to the events which directly precipitated the division. It will be remembered that the objections of the seceders to the Peace Resolutions were confined to an emphatic expression of dissent. They were not, then, informed that they ceased to be members. They attended the next meeting; and, having repeated the same dissent, they expressed their fervent wish for a perfect understanding, and pledged themselves to continue their co-operation, as if the resolution had not been passed. Mr. John Reilly repudiated these advances, and charged them with treachery to Ireland, as the natural complement of disobedience to O'Connell. He gave notice that he would put certain interrogatories to Mr. O'Brien, in reference to a speech delivered by him at Clare On the next day of meeting, Mr. O'Brien attended (July 26), and a letter from Mr. O'Connell, containing the bitterest complaints, against the "advocates of physical force," as he pleased to call them, "who," he said, "continued members of our body, in spite of our resolutions," was read.

A discussion, acrimonious and prolonged, followed. The debate was adjourned to the next day, when it was again renewed. Mr. John O'Connell spoke for nearly three hours, directing most of his arguments against some admissions of the Nation as to the purpose entertained by the writers in 1843. A casual expression—"we had promises of aid from Ledru Rollin, and many a surer source."—supplied him with abundant material for loyal indignation. He was heard without interruption. Mr. Meagher rose to reply. He delivered that most impassioned oration, in which occurs the apostrophe to the sword. The meeting yielded to the frankness, sincerity, enthusiasm and supreme eloquence of the young orator, and rewarded him by its uncontrollable and unanimous applause. Mr. J. O'Connell rose, and, in the midst of a scene of universal rapture, coldly said, "either Mr. Meagher or myself must leave the Association." Too generous to avail himself of the enthusiasm he excited, Mr. Meagher withdrew. So did Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Mitchel and the others, with more than three-fourths of the meeting.

Thus occurred the secession. Mr. J. O'Connell simulated some stage grief, expressing his ardent hope that the "Liberator," on his arrival, would heal the wounds he had himself inflicted. How sincere was that hope is proved by the fact that, when Mr. O'Connell did arrive, which was on the Saturday following, he was prevented from proceeding farther than Kingstown, where he was detained until the hour of meeting on Monday; thus rendering it impossible to have an interview with Mr. O'Brien, or any one who could facilitate an arrangement. On Monday, instead of using soothing language and kind advice, he probed the wounds to the bottom, and infused into them subtlest poison. It is needless, as it would be painful, to recount the details of bitterness and hate with which on that day he dashed the hopes of the country. The result was deep and irreconcilable estrangement. Those who left the hall, rather than drive therefrom the son of Daniel O'Connell, finding themselves repaid by calumny, yielded to the conviction which every successive act of Mr. O'Connell conduced to establish, namely, that the country, and her great hope of destiny, were handed over to the Whigs.

The proofs of this belief were, first: The statement in the Mail, which remained undenied, and must, therefore, be taken to be undeniable.

Secondly: The expression used by Mr. O'Connell, in his speech at Conciliation Hall, that he would give no "vexatious opposition" to the Whig nominee.

Thirdly: His statement, at Dundalk, that "one experiment more was to be made, in which every honest man would join."

Fourthly: The following passage, which occurred in Mr. O'Connell's letter, dated London, 27th of June, 1846: "There is an opportunity to consider the Irish question as if on neutral grounds; there is a glorious opportunity (the return of the Whigs to power) of deciding if the Repealers be right in believing that no substantial relief can be given to Ireland in a British Parliament; or that they are wrong, to the demonstration that would result from PRACTICAL JUSTICE being afforded by that Parliament."

Fifthly: The assertion of Mr. Lawless, in a letter to Mr. O'Connell, dated 18th July, which the latter published, without contradiction or comment, namely: "And yet it was with difficulty you (Mr. O'Connell) prevented his (Mr. Shiel) being opposed in his election for Dungarvan,"

Sixthly: Mr. Shiel's election, without opposition, when his defeat, if opposed, was perfectly certain.

Seventhly: Mr. O'Connell's eulogy on The O'Conor Don for "accepting an office, which would enable him to serve his country."—(Speech in Conciliation Hall, July 13th.)

Eighthly: Mr. O'Connell's assertion, in his speech at Conciliation Hall: "I did not begin this quarrel; in my absence in London, an attack was made on the Whig ministry."

And, finally: The boasted acceptance by Mr. O'Connell of the distribution of Whig patronage, and the appointment of his personal friends to lucrative employment.

All that followed was one unvaried scene of distraction, division and enmity. Week after week, the seceders were held up to public odium, derision and scorn. One day, they were "blasphemous," one day, "revolutionary," one day, they "sang small," and one day "their nobles were come to ninepence." Now, they were challenged to establish a society of their own principles; now, they were recommended to the mercy of the Attorney-General, and again commended to the hatred of the people. Meantime a blight had fallen on the earth, and a whole people's food, in one night, perished. To the new Government, the famine that ensued was an assurance of subsistence and success. Hunger would waste the bodies of the people, as the dearth of truth had wasted their souls. The ministry affected great sympathy, great diligence, and great impotence. Among other wants of theirs, the want of practical engineers was felt the deepest. They knew and lamented that many died of starvation; but the thing was inevitable as long as they were unprovided with practical engineers. Mr. O'Connell, from the platform of the hall, announced the good intentions of the Government, and proclaimed, at the same time, his own commission to supply them with engineers. How many applied and were refused, I am not in a position to say; but there is no disputing the records of the church-yard, where many an uncoffined corpse attested the care of the "paternal government." The people were guaranteed against death, and yet death came, and took them at his will; but what was left of life was taught to exhaust itself in curses against those who would save it at every risk. Wherever the seceders appeared they were hooted. Prostitutes of both sexes regarded them as fit subjects for their insolent raillery. The avowed foes of nationality looked on them as fools; its pretended friends as knaves; and the common herd of indifferent villains as a butt. The low retainers of the English garrison, who had sold their souls to the enemy but were kept in awe by bodily fear, became outrageously patriotic; and with insulted gratitude they scouted the traducers of the "saviour of their country." Alas! in Ireland, nothing was saved but death's agencies. Doom had come upon all—her produce, her people, her hopes and her morality.

The same report, which contained the Peace Resolutions, set out with a statement dissevering the Association from the Nation newspaper. If the statement were embodied in a resolution of expulsion, it would clash directly with the failure of the prosecution against it, and brand the jurors who refused to find a verdict with perjury. But the admission of the Nation that, in 1843, it inculcated principles having a remote tendency to effect the redemption of the country, by arms if need were, supplied the Association with a pretext for expelling it altogether. Two rules had been adopted for the circulation of newspapers. The first was, when L10 were forwarded to the Secretary, the subscribers had the privilege of naming two weekly or one evening paper, which the Secretary was to forward and pay for. By the second rule, adopted after the State trials, the subscribers retained the drawback, and selected and paid for their own paper. For several weeks, the Nation was the only theme of Mr. O'Connell's abhorrence. He exhausted all his eloquence in warning the people against it, but in vain. The people continued to insist on it in return for their subscriptions. Accordingly, on the 10th of August, a resolution was proposed to the effect that no money subscribed for Repeal Purposes should be allocated to the payment of a subscription for the Nation, on the sole ground that, in 1843, it inculcated doctrines which were in their tendency treasonable. Mr. O'Connell said, after the resolution was passed, that he did not wish to injure the paper in a pecuniary point of view; and on the next day of meeting, he brought down to the Association some twenty law authorities, which he read, to prove that treason had actually been committed; and thus stamped the conduct of the Attorney-General as not alone justifiable, but lenient to excess.

The seceders determined to abide the issue. They had the fullest confidence that the insensate cry raised against them would eventually subside, and that truth would again prevail. They contented themselves, therefore, with appealing to their countrymen, through the columns of the Nation, then interdicted and banned through every parish in the island. But, in those appeals, there was no word of allusion to the storm of calumny and denunciation then raging against them. They sought to fix public attention on subjects of vast national importance, and to awake the energies of the people to some becoming effort where the stake was their lives. Meantime, week after week, the Government was praised, the Board of Works were praised, and the people—"the faithful and moral people, who died, peacefully, of hunger"—were praised, in the Repeal Association.



Late in the autumn of 1846, some men, few in number and humble in condition, undertook the desperate task of remonstrating with the Repeal Association. Among them, Mr. Keeley and Mr. Holywood, Mr. Crean and Mr. Halpin, were prominent. Their undertaking was gigantic, considering the formidable obstacles they proposed to encounter. They proceeded silently and sedulously; and, in a few weeks, a remonstrance against the course pursued by the Association was signed by fifteen hundred citizens of Dublin. It was presented to the Chairman of the Association on the 24th of October, and ordered by Mr. J. O'Connell to be flung into the gutter. The remonstrants and the public resented this indignity alike. It was determined to hold a meeting in the Rotunda, where they proposed to defend themselves against every species of assault. The meeting was held on the 3rd of November, and was allowed to pass off without disturbance. Mr. M'Gee attended. He had never appeared in the struggle in the hall, nor was he a member at the time. His speech at the Rotunda was calm, forcible and conclusive on the points in issue; and the excitement it created was, in no small degree, enhanced by the fact that the speaker was a young man theretofore unknown. The success of the meeting suggested the practicability and safety of an experiment upon a large scale preparatory to the formation of the Confederation. The meeting was fixed for the 2nd of December. The remonstrant committee offered to defend it against any assailants. The main object was to reply to the calumnies which, for nearly six months, had been urged against the leading seceders. The meeting was one of the most important ever held in the metropolis. It was intelligent, numerous and fashionable. The entire ability of the seceders was put forth; and such was the sensation created by the proceedings that two publishers, one in Dublin and one in Belfast, brought out reports, in pamphlet form, which were read all over the country with the greatest avidity. It was that night stated, only casually, that the seceders would meet in January to announce to the nation the course of political action they would recommend. On the 13th of January, the promise was redeemed. The seceders met as before, and their deliberations were guarded by the same men, who thus a third time risked their lives—the hazard was nothing less—to secure to the seceders freedom of speech and of action. On the 13th of January, the Confederation was fully established. The bases, if the phrase be applicable, were freedom, tolerance and truth. There was no avowal of war, and no pledge of peace. The great object was the independence of the Irish nation; and no means to attain that end were abjured, save such as were inconsistent with honour, morality and reason.

During the intervening time, between the first and second meetings, overtures of peace were made by Mr. O'Connell. A sudden and singular change was observable in his tone and language. He said with chagrin, and acknowledged with reluctance, that the position and strength of the party defied alike his power and his address. Every art and every effort to crush them had been exhausted in vain. The question between them, he now loudly proclaimed, was one purely of law; and he referred to several barristers, by whose judgment he was ready to abide. The question he was prepared to submit suggests the most mournful considerations. If it were not painful, it would be amusing to see to what painful absurdities he was compelled to have recourse. He would leave it to anyone at the bar, whether the "physical force principle" would not make the Association illegal; and then he would indulge in a hollow triumph over the certainty and security of his position. But that was not the question in issue. None of the seceders ever recommended the principle of physical force, in practice or theory, to the Association. On the contrary, they disavowed it, in reference to that body, and their own connection with it. The real question was this—whether it was necessary to the legality of any political society, to disavow, formally and forever, under all circumstances, and at all times, the right of men to strike down the cruellest tyranny with the strong hand. It would be absurd to submit such a proposition to a lawyer, which could only be answered by a laugh. It had been sufficiently settled by the fact that, without it, the Catholic Association, the Corn-law League, and the Repeal Association itself, up to the 13th of July, 1846, were perfectly safe and perfectly legal. But no man knew better than Mr. O'Connell that this was a feigned issue, the real one being the mendicancy of the Association, and the treachery with which it abandoned the national constituencies to Whig officials. The overtures on this occasion eventuated in some negotiations, of which the Rev. Mr. Miley was the medium. His mission was singularly unfortunate, for it led to greater misunderstanding; and the negotiations terminated in mutual charges of misconception or misrepresentation.

The history of the Confederation, such as its importance deserves, is beyond the scope of my present purpose. Others may undertake to vindicate for its proceedings that enduring place in the annals of the country to which they are eminently entitled. Here, but a few words can be said.

As soon as the eclat of the first meetings had subsided, and the business began to assume a more routine character, the moral-force disciples, hitherto kept in awe by the mustered strength of the seceders and their followers, determined to give a practical illustration of the sincerity of their pledge by breaking the skulls of their opponents. On the first occasion, their onslaught was vigorous and successful. Blood was shed, and heads opened. This was deemed no infraction of the holy vow recorded in the books of the Association; for the body held its meetings without exercising its undoubted prerogative of "blotting out" the scene of outrage "from the map of Ireland." On the second occasion, the wreckers of Conciliation Hall were met as they deserved, and after a short skirmish fled through the city.

The success of the new Confederacy was certain, but slow. But, in the same proportion as their principles obtained predominance, the hatred of the Old Irelanders became unscrupulous and implacable. Often in the house of prayer, they heard themselves denounced; often in the streets, they heard their names used as by-words of scorn. Mr. O'Connell disappeared from the scene of his glory, which relapsed to the guidance of his intolerant and intemperate son. Some attempts were made to force him to a reconciliation, which in public he appeared to yield to, but which in private he exercised his utmost cunning to baffle. In the midst of this scene of distraction, Mr. O'Connell died. The news was a stunning blow to the nation. A great reaction, for a short time, ensued. Added to the other crimes of the seceders, was that of being O'Connell's murderers. They, on the other hand, resolved to treat O'Connell's memory with the greatest respect. They resolved to attend his funeral procession, in deep mourning; and they gave orders for expensive sashes, of Irish manufacture, which the members of the council were to wear. Mr. O'Brien communicated this purpose to Mr. J. O'Connell. The answer was too plainly a prohibition; and the Confederation reluctantly abandoned their design. Mr. O'Connell died at Genoa, on the 15th of May, 1847, and was buried in Glasnevin, on the 5th of August. His corpse, which was delayed some days in Liverpool, was conveyed through the streets of Dublin, during the election scene which resulted in the return of Mr. John Reynolds; being thus made subservient to the success of the man, to whom, of all his followers, he was most opposed during his life. It was a strange end, surely. Mr. O'Connell was buried with great pomp. The trustees of the Glasnevin Cemetery were generous in appropriating the fund at their disposal to the purposes of the funeral; but when the sincerity of the mourners' grief came to be tested, by the claim for a contribution to erect a suitable monument to the great champion of the age, it was found how hollow was their woe, and how lying their adulation. Daniel O'Connell is yet without a monument, save that which his own genius has raised in the liberalised institutions of his country.

The reaction in the public mind, consequent on his death, was short-lived; and the Confederation progressed rapidly, during the closing months of the year 1847. Although not formally acknowledged, every one saw that it was the only public body in the country deserving or enjoying anything like public confidence.



CHAPTER VI

THE SPLIT WITH MR. MITCHEL.—HIS TRIAL, CONVICTION, SENTENCE AND SPEECH.—THE "FELON" AND "TRIBUNE" ESTABLISHED.—ARREST OF MESSRS. MARTIN, O'DOHERTY, WILLIAMS AND DUFFY.—CONVICTION OF MR. MARTIN.—HIS SPEECH.—CONVICTION, SENTENCE AND SPEECH OF MR. O'DOHERTY.—DISSOLUTION OF THE CONFEDERATION.—THE LEAGUE

At the opening of the new year, which was destined to be its last, the Confederation, though yet regarded with coldness by the Catholic Hierarchy, was in full career. Its members had won the respect of every educated man in the land, however widely most of them may have differed from it in political faith. Among the middle classes of the Catholics, all that were left uncorrupted fell into its ranks, and embraced its belief. Men began to regard as possible everything which enthusiasm advanced with such unhesitating courage and devoted self-sacrifice. Mr. Mitchel delivered some lectures on land tenure and the poor-law system, which startled thoughtful and unthinking men alike. He had previously made an able and sincere effort in the Irish Council to compel the landlord class to some redeeming act of good sense and good will, which their own true interests required as well as the agonies of the starving tenantry. He was met by ignorance, stolidity and scorn. A timid and narrow measure of improvement in the relation between landlord and tenant had been proposed, and ably supported by Messrs. Ferguson, Ireland and O'Loghlen; and such was the obstinate aversion to all amelioration, on the part of the landlords, that they abstained from resisting Mr. Mitchel's amendment, lest they would be thereby committed to the milder reform proposed by Mr. Ferguson. His motion was lost only by a majority of two several of the five-pound Repeal representatives, who brawled at tenant-right meetings, and one member of the Confederation, Mr. M'Gee, being included in the majority.

The result of the division produced a marked change in Mr. Mitchel's career. His lectures on land-tenure in Europe, displayed the bold outlines and distinctive characteristics of his principles. His hopes from the Irish landlords, of whatever shade of politics, had ever afterwards vanished. He believed them incapable of being influenced by commonsense or good feeling; and he turned to the people, with full confidence in their fidelity and strength. All further attempts to conciliate the upper classes, he regarded as foolish, feeble and cowardly. He continued to reassert the substance of his lectures in another form, in the pages of the Nation, of which he was at the time editor-in-chief—that is, of which he wrote the greatest portion, especially of its leading articles. Some of these articles gave rise to a difference of opinion between him and Mr. Duffy, who, as responsible owner and editor, had the sole control of the Nation. There were not wanting men to take advantage of the difference and fan the flame. Charles Duffy had messages conveyed to him, to the effect that a rumour was abroad charging him with treachery; and to John Mitchel, perhaps by the same agents of dissension, it was stated that he, too, was suspected. It is unfortunately characteristic of Irishmen to be suspicious; and it was the object of one of Mr. O'Connell's eternal lessons to perpetuate and extend this degrading national vice. Whether the representations made to either of these friends were the result of national prejudice, or proceeded from a baser motive, it is scarce worth while to inquire. A separation ensued. Mr. Reilly adopted the resolution of his friend Mr. Mitchel. Mr. M'Gee adhered to Mr. Duffy; and a new career and distinct fortunes opened to the enterprise of the four men, whose united efforts elevated the popularity of the Nation to a height never before enjoyed by an Irish journal.

The early differences between the two great journalists suggested to Mr. Duffy, and to others, the necessity of drawing up a programme for the guidance of the Confederation. A committee was appointed, consisting of several members, including all the leading advocates of both the policy of Mr. Duffy and that of Mr. Mitchel. The report was principally the production of Mr. Duffy. It was in part modified by others; but Mr. Mitchel, who objected to its principle, refused to take any part in its modification. It was afterwards submitted to the council of the Confederation; and there gave rise to a long, earnest and, to some extent, an angry discussion. It was under consideration for several successive nights, the debate lasting sometimes until three o'clock in the morning. The principle of the report embraced the belief that moral means and agencies to effect Ireland's liberties were not yet exhausted, and should be further tried; and the agencies through which the experiment was to be tested were indicated in detail. The principle of the amendment proposed by Mr. Mitchel involved a preparation for and an appeal to arms as the only resource available to the country. After a long and anxious debate, the question of adopting the report passed in the affirmative by a considerable majority. The details then came under discussion, and, paragraph by paragraph, alterations were proposed and adopted. The discussion on these matters was still more prolonged and vehement. The principle of the entire was questioned indirectly by various amendments of form; but it was always affirmed by a majority. The report had, however, undergone such modifications and alterations that its original promoters lost all interest in its passing; and at the final stage, it was rejected, as well as I remember, without a division. At all events, it was rejected, and, I believe, with the concurrence of Mr. Duffy, who afterwards published the original draft in the Nation.

It was on that occasion the celebrated resolutions, afterwards the subject of the three nights' discussion at the Rotunda, were drafted and proposed by Mr. O'Brien. They were at once adopted, Mr. Mitchel alone dissenting. This may be the fittest opportunity distinctly and definitely to settle the question, which has recently arisen, in reference to these resolutions. On the several occasions of Mr. Duffy's trial, they have been given in evidence as proof of his loyalty, on the assumption that they emanated from him, and that it was through his influence the body was led to adopt them. Again, it seems to have been inferred—indeed, it has been so stated repeatedly, by persons who boast of his confidence—that it was owing to his arrest and absence from the council of the Confederation, that measure of fatal rashness was adopted, of which he became the first victim; although it was his discretion and ability that kept the "Jacquerie," who then obtained the ascendant, in check from the beginning.

This is partly a statement of fact, and partly an inference. The fact is not true, and the inference is fallacious. The resolutions were not Mr. Duffy's. On the contrary, one main object with those who adopted them, without discussion, was to avoid the expression of an opinion on several abstract principles forming the groundwork of his report. Secondly, he exercised little or no influence in the debate which led to their adoption by the Confederation. Thirdly, they were warmly sustained by the influence, personal and otherwise, as well as by the exertion and ability of the very men who, according to a recent contemptible sneer, "improvised a revolution." Every one of them, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Meagher, Mr. Dillon, Mr. O'Gorman, and myself, spoke in favour of them, and against Mr. Mitchel's amendment. And, finally, even if this were not so and that the rashness of the outbreak really involved deep culpability, Mr. Duffy cannot claim exemption from his share of the blame.

I subjoin the Resolutions and Amendment. The division took place at ten o'clock, on Saturday morning, February the 5th, 1848, when the former were adopted, by a majority of 318 to 188:—

"Resolved: That inasmuch as letters, published by two members of this Council, have brought into question the principles of the Irish Confederation, and have given rise to an imputation that we are desirous to produce a general disorganisation of society in this country, and to overthrow social order, we deem it right again to place before the public the following fundamental rule, as that which constitutes the basis of action proposed to our fellow-countrymen, by the Irish Confederation:—

RULE

"That a society be now formed, under the title of 'The Irish Confederation,' for the purpose of protecting our national interests, and obtaining the legislative independence of Ireland, by the force of opinion, by the combination of all classes of Irishmen, and the exercise of all the political, social and moral influences within our reach.

"II. That (under present circumstances) the only hope of the liberation of this country lies in a movement in which all classes and creeds of Irishmen shall be fairly represented, and by which the interests of none shall be endangered.

"III. That inasmuch as English legislation threatens all Irishmen with a common ruin, we entertain a confident hope their common necessities will speedily unite Irishmen in an effort to get rid of it.

"IV. That we earnestly deprecate the expression of any sentiments in the Confederation, calculated to repel or alarm any section of our fellow-countrymen.

"V. That we disclaim, as we have disclaimed, any intention of involving our country in civil war, or of invading the just rights of any portion of its people.

"VI. That the Confederation has not recommended, nor does it recommend, resistance to the payment of rates and rents, but, on the contrary, unequivocally condemns such recommendations.

"VII. That, in protesting against the disarmament of the Irish people, under the Coercion Bill lately enacted, and in maintaining that the right to bear arms, and to use them for legitimate purposes, is one of the primary attributes of liberty, we have had no intention or desire to encourage any portion of the population of this country in the perpetration of crimes, such as those which have recently brought disgrace upon the Irish people; and which have tended, in no trifling degree, to retard the success of our efforts in the cause of national freedom.

"VIII. That to hold out to the Irish people the hope that, in this present broken and divided condition, they can liberate their country by an appeal to arms, and consequently to divert them from constitutional action, would be, in our opinion, a fatal misdirection of the public mind.

"IX. That this Confederation was established to obtain an Irish Parliament by the combination of classes, and by the force of opinion, exercised in constitutional operations; and that no means of a contrary character can be recommended or promoted through its organisation, while its present fundamental rules remain unaltered.

"X. That while we deem it right thus emphatically to disavow the principles propounded in the publications referred to in the resolutions, we at the same time equally distinctly repudiate all right to control the private opinions of any member of our body, provided they do not affect the legal or moral responsibility of the Irish Confederation."

AMENDMENT

"That this Confederation does not feel called upon to promote either a condemnation or approval of any doctrines promulgated by any of its members, in letters, speeches, or otherwise; because the seventh fundamental rule of the Confederation expressly provides, 'That inasmuch as the essential bond of union amongst us is the assertion of Ireland's right to an independent legislature, no member of the Irish Confederation shall be bound to the adoption of any principle involved in any resolution, or promulgated by any speaker in the society, or any journal advocating its policy, to which he has not given his special consent, save only the foregoing fundamental principles of the society.'"

But nothing could be more remote from the fact than the assumption that those who supported the Rotunda resolutions were opposed to Mr. Mitchel in principle. If that ground were not expressly repudiated, Mr. Mitchel would have been sustained by a majority of two to one. Every speaker who exercised any influence on the meeting, took occasion emphatically to disclaim it. They did not deprecate the right or the duty of taking up arms against the English Government; but they said: While we approve of the end in view, we condemn the means, and precisely because we think them the most surely calculated of any that could be devised, to frustrate the object. This was the distinct ground, specifically, clearly and unmistakably stated, on which the amendment of Mr. Mitchel was opposed and it was the only ground on which it could be opposed; with sincerity or success. The use, therefore, which was made of the resolutions on Mr. Duffy's trial was false and unsustainable in every point of view.

There is no disposition and no desire to quarrel with the line of defence adopted by Mr. Duffy. It is conceded freely that any defence which his counsel, some of the ablest and most honourable men at the bar in Ireland, or elsewhere recommended was justifiable. But coupling that part of the defence with the evidence given on the same trial, by pensioners and parasites[8] of the British Government, and with the commentaries that afterwards appeared from the pens of some of Mr. Duffy's friends, the whole was calculated to leave on the public mind an impression, not only utterly inconsistent with the truth, but pernicious and fatal in its influence on the future of the country, if indeed she is ever to have a future.

This impression inevitably would be that Mr. Duffy modelled and moulded the proceedings of the Confederation at his mere pleasure; that Mr. Duffy was not alone averse to revolution, but actually conservatively loyal; and that, in the spirit of that loyalty, he controlled the whole body, and kept an insensate "Jacquerie," which existed within it, in check—that it was only when he was sent to prison this Jacquerie obtained the ascendant, and that Mr. Duffy was the victim of their intemperate folly. However agreeable all this may be to personal vanity, Mr. Duffy must feel compelled to reject it as audacious and unmeaning flattery. There is much more at stake than the estimate of private character—the highest interests of truth. They require that it should be made known and incontestably established that every word of the above—fact and inference—is unfounded. As to the statement that Mr. Duffy was made the victim of others' intemperance, its converse could be much more easily sustained. But it satisfies every requirement of truth simply to state that, morally speaking, Mr. Duffy was equally responsible for the late outbreak, with those who perilled their lives and lost their liberty forever in the struggle.

The United Irishman started under auspices more flattering than ever cheered the birth of a similar enterprise. The man in Dublin, who did not read the first number, might indeed be pronounced a bigot or a fool. Every word struck with the force and terror of lightning. So great was the sale of the first number that the press was kept busy for three days and nights. When the second was announced, a guard of police was necessary to keep order and peace among the newsvendors around the office door. In every corner of the island the influence of the United Irishman was instant and simultaneous. The letters to the Ulster farmers caused a sensation as universal and profound as the letters to Lord Clarendon excited sentiments of wonder and alarm. Thomas Devin Reilly's powers, too, never before tested in this range of literature, astonished even the warmest admirers of his genius. The journal at once attained a standard of eminence, political, literary and poetical, never accorded to a production of the kind, published in Ireland. For the days in which they were written, the songs and essays of Thomas Davis contained greater depth, and a holier purpose. They seemed to flow, too, from a diviner inspiration; were of a wider, calmer and more generous scope. But the times were different; and it was as if the spirit of fire, burning at the bases of man's social hopes throughout Europe, breathed its prophetic glow on the heart of John Mitchel, conscious that he, of all men, in a prostrate land, could find it befitting utterance. It must not be omitted that the muse of "Mary," of "Eva," and of poor Clarence Mangan, considerably enhanced the high estimate of the United Irishman.

In the presence of such an oracle of defiance and vengeance, the Government for a while stood aghast. But the urgency of the times admitted of no temporising policy. Messrs. O'Brien, Meagher and Mitchel, were selected for prosecution; but the latter was honoured with a double suit—one for an article, and the other for a speech. The morning they were called upon to enter into security, all Dublin was startled as if by a spell. The streets were crowded by a dense and anxious mass of men. The police-office in a short time became inaccessible. Mr. O'Connell's two sons, and the staff of the old Association, anticipated the crowd, and occupied the seats around the bench. When Mr. O'Brien was called on, the O'Connells offered to become his security. The fact was trumpeted by the journals, yet living on the garbage of Conciliation Hall. But the offer, if sincere, might then be productive of important consequences. It was not sincere; a fact sufficiently attested by the Messrs. O'Connell's necessary consciousness that Mr. O'Brien would not come without his bail. In truth, it was known to all Dublin that he even found a difficulty in reconciling the conflicting claims of several gentlemen who aspired to that honour. So it was, too, with Mr. Meagher and Mr. Mitchel. All those gentlemen hurried to tender their services, as soon as they heard that bail would be required, the Messrs. O'Connell alone selecting the public court for the display of their magnanimity. It is needless to add that their courtesy was declined; and they must have left the police-office that day in the wake of the crowd, oppressed with the conviction that the confidence of the Irish people had passed for ever from their house.



This prosecution marked a new epoch in the Irish movement. It was determined at once to meet it boldly—to extenuate nothing, to retract nothing—to take advantage of no legal subterfuge; but dare the issue promptly, openly and fully. Mr. O'Brien at first refused to be defended by counsel. He was with great difficulty prevailed upon to change his determination; and, when it was known that he was willing to accept professional assistance, at least twenty of the ablest young men at the bar volunteered their services; and the traversers saw arrayed at their side an amount of professional ability and chivalry such as was never united on such an occasion. The most respectable solicitors in the profession, too, contended for the honour of being their recorded attorneys. The juries disagreed in both cases; and the charge against Mitchel lapsed into that more formidable prosecution which sealed his fate.

Mitchel's arrest under the Treason Felony Act was not unexpected. But as soon as it was ascertained that he was lodged in Newgate, his fate engaged the entire care of his co-Confederates. The question at once arose whether, if a rescue were attempted, there were resources to ensure even a decent stand. It was ascertained that the supply of arms and ammunition was scanty and imperfect, and the supply of food still scantier. The people had been decimated by three years of famine: and no want could be more appalling than the want of food. On inquiry, it was found that there was not provision for three days in the capital, which depended on daily arrivals for its daily bread. Throughout the country, the supply was even more precarious. The Government had in their own hands the uncontrolled power of preventing the arrival of a single grain of corn; and, if so minded, could starve the island in a fortnight, supposing the people were even able to possess themselves of all the cattle in the country.

These were some of the considerations which influenced the decision of Mr. Mitchel's comrades. Whether the opinion were or were not a correct one, they acted on the conviction that, under all circumstances, any attempt to rescue him would eventuate in a street row which would entail not only defeat but disgrace. If they could but persuade themselves that a blow might be struck, even though defeat and death followed, they most certainly would have attempted it. It was generally understood, on the day before the trial, that the idea of a rescue was abandoned; and the trial commenced amidst gloomy presentiments and blighted hopes. After hours of quibbling and legal fencing, a jury was selected, by the crown, to convict. From the moment they went through the blasphemous process of swearing to give a true verdict, John Mitchel's fate was sealed.

I pass over the details, and come to the last act in the infamous drama, called his trial.

The following account of the closing scene is not mine. Feeling inadequate to describe a scene of which even a distant recollection is exciting, I asked a friend who felt the deepest interest in the trial to describe it. With what he has written I entirely agree, save one sentence. He says that it was owing to the action of the council of the Confederation John Mitchel's personal friends were allowed to be assaulted, with impunity, by the police. I do not think so. With respect to the decision of the council, I feel bound to assume my share of its responsibility, although I yielded to it with the utmost reluctance and regret:—

On the morning of Saturday, the 27th May, 1849, the court was crowded to a greater excess than usual, even in those days. About the empty dock were the personal friends of Mr. Mitchel, those who agreed with him, and those who did not. A little retired on either side sat John Martin, and John Kenyon—in front were William H. Mitchel, brother of the prisoner and his only relative in court, T. Devin Reilly, Thomas F. Meagher, John B. Dillon, Michael Doheny, Richard O'Gorman, Martin O'Flaherty (Mr. Mitchel's attorney), Charles O'Hara and others whom we have forgotten.

A little in advance, on the left of the dock, were the stalls reserved during the sham trial for the counsel for the defence. As yet they were only occupied by the junior advocates, Sir Colman O'Loghlen and John O'Hagan. The benches at the right of the dock, and nearer to the bench, reserved for the Attorney-General and his retainers, were vacant. The Sheriff and his white stick occupied their box, and the galleries to the right and left were crowded with jurymen—those who "had done their business," and those who were eager for employment to do more. The bench of the judges held two empty chairs. And police officers and other mercenaries, dotted thickly over the court, "concluded and set off the arrangements."

An old man, low of stature, and stooped, passed through a side door, and walked slowly and decrepidly into the benches of the prisoner's counsel. Whispers, and then applause from the galleries, were heard and passed by him unheeded. Quietly and unostentatiously he moved to his seat—the junior advocates, and all the Confederates in the body of the court, rising and bowing to him in silence. It was the solitary Republican of the United Irish day, Robert Holmes, coming to discharge his last duty to the great Republican of a younger century.

The applause of the galleries was hushed by the crier's voice—"Silence! take off your hats"; and on the right stalked in the gaunt figure of James Henry Monahan. Triumph, animosity and fear marked his night-bird face. Even yet it was hoped the great opponent of his "government," whom by rascality alone he could convict, would strike his colours, and sue for mercy. Even yet it was feared that a rescue would be attempted. How possible the former was, the reader may judge. The latter was rendered impossible by the council of the Confederation, and the few who cherished the design in the council's despite, had attempted an emeute the night previous, and were beaten and placed hors de combat. As Monahan and his retainers entered, the red face of Lefroy oozed through the bench curtains, and followed by the pale Moore, "the court was seated."

As yet the dock was empty, save that the jailor of Newgate and his deputy occupied each a corner.

There was a dead silence.

"Jailor, put forward John Mitchel," said the official, whose duty is to make such orders.

A grating of bolts—a rustling of chains, were heard behind. The low door-way at the back of the dock opened, and between turnkeys Mitchel entered.

Ascending the steps to the front of the dock, and lifting, as he advanced, the glazed dark cap he wore during his imprisonment, as gracefully as if he entered a drawing-room, he took his stand in a firm but easy attitude. His appearance was equally removed from bravado and fear. His features, usually placid and pale, had a rigid clearness about them that day we can never forget. They seemed, from their transparency and firmness, like some wondrous imagination of the artist's chisel, in which the marble, fancying itself human, had begun to breathe. The eye was calm and bright—the mouth, the feature round which danger loves to play, though easy, motionless, and with lips apart, had about it an air of immobility and quiet scorn, which was not the effect of muscular action, but of nature in repose. And in his whole appearance, features, attitude and look, there was a conscious pride and superiority over his opponents, which, though unpresuming and urbane, seemed to speak louder than words—"I am the victor here to-day."

He saluted quietly those friends about the dock he had not that day seen, conversing with one or two, and bowing to those at a distance. He then directed his eyes to the court.

After some preliminary forms, Baron Lefroy commenced operations, by stating that he had called the case the first that morning, in order to give time for any application to be made in court by, or on behalf of, the prisoner of the crown.

Again there was a silence of some minutes. The judges looked at each other inquiringly. The crown prosecutor watched the prisoner's counsel. Upon the prisoner himself all other eyes were fixed.

There was no reply.

"Business proceeded." The "Clerk of the Crown," rising to ask the usual question—"If Mr. Mitchel had anything to say why judgment should not be passed upon him?"

"I have," he answered, and after a momentary look at judges, jury-box and sheriff, he slowly continued: "I have to say that I have been tried by a packed jury—by the jury of a partisan sheriff—by a jury not empanelled, even according to the law of England, I have been found guilty by a packed jury obtained by a juggle—a jury not empanelled by a sheriff, but by a juggler."

Here he was interrupted by the sheriff rising, and, in high indignation, claiming the protection of the court.

"That is the reason," continued Mitchel, "that is the reason why I object to the sentence being passed on me."

"That imputation," interrupted Lefroy, "upon the conduct of the sheriff I must pronounce to be most unwarranted and unfounded." And this discriminating judge continued to show that the imputation was so—concluding with the assertion that the sheriff "had done his duty in the case." Then without pausing, he proceeded to the usual lecture, full of hypocritical cant with which British judges usually preface their awards, however infamous. He alluded to the personal condition of Mr. Mitchel, and expressed his regrets that a person of such merits should be in such circumstances, Then having dilated on the enormity of the offence, he assured Mr. Mitchel that he had been found guilty of many heinous charges against the Queen and the Imperial Crown, and among others, of felonious intending to levy war upon that gentlewoman, and that the evidence was furnished by the prisoner's self. "How, therefore," he continued, "you think yourself justified in calling it the verdict of a packed jury, and thus imputing perjury to twelve of your countrymen—deliberate and wilful perjury—"

"No," interrupted the prisoner, "I did not impute perjury to the jury."

"I understood," said the speaker on the bench, "that you had stated, in arrest of judgment, that you had been found guilty by a packed jury."

"I did," was the reply.

Robert Holmes rose, during the judge's speech, and said, "My lords, with the greatest respect, what I said was, that though he might be statutably guilty, he was not, in my opinion, morally guilty. I repeat that opinion now."

This avowal, so boldly and firmly made by the veteran Republican, was answered by all the audience, not pensioned, with plaudits.

Baron Lefroy would say no more on that point, only that the court could not acquiesce in a line of defence "which appeared to it very little short of, or amounting to, as objectionable matter as that for which the prisoner had been found guilty.

"I," replied the aged advocate, "I am answerable for that under your Act of Parliament."

Loud applause followed. "Are there no policemen in court?" shouted Baron Lefroy. The High Sheriff "had given strict orders," he said, "to have all removed who would interrupt." "Make prisoners of them," said the judge. "I wish you to understand," he continued, still excited, and addressing Mr. Mitchel, who during these episodes, stood unmoved, "that we have with the utmost anxiety and with a view to come to a decision upon the measure of punishment which it would be our duty to impose, postponed the passing of sentence on you until this morning." Then, having stated the various considerations which induced him to believe that the punishment should be lenient, and the equally various considerations which induced him to believe the contrary, Lefroy concluded as follows: "We had to consider all this—to look at the magnitude of the crime, and to look also at the consideration, that if this were not the first case brought under the Act, our duty might have obliged us to carry out the penalty it awards to the utmost extent; but, taking into consideration, that this is the first conviction under the Act—though the offence has been as clearly proved as any offence under the Act could be—the sentence of the court is, that you be transported beyond the seas for the term of fourteen years."

The listeners to the hypocritical sentence which concluded Lefroy's speech, heard the sentence with astonishment and indignation. Mr. Mitchel merely asked, apparently without any astonishment, if he might now address some remarks to the court. The leave asked was granted, and a silence still as death awaited the prisoner.

"The law," he said, in his usual manly tone, and unexcited manner, "the law has now done its part, and the Queen of England, her crown and government in Ireland are now secure—'pursuant to Act of Parliament.' I have done my part, also. Three months ago I promised Lord Clarendon and his government in this country, that I would provoke him into his 'courts of justice,' as places of this kind are called, and that I would force him publicly and notoriously to pack a jury against me to convict me, or else that I would walk out a free man from this dock to meet him in another field.

"My lord, I knew I was setting my life on that cast; but I warned him that, in either case, the victory would be with me; and the victory is with me. Neither the jury, nor the judges, nor any other man in this court, presumes to imagine that it is a criminal who stands in this dock."

He was interrupted with the plaudits of the auditory; and again continued:—

"I have kept my word. I have shown what the law is made of in Ireland. I have shown that her majesty's government sustains itself in Ireland by packed juries, by partisan judges, by perjured sheriffs—"

Here he was interrupted by Lefroy, who said, "the court could not sit there to hear him arraign the jurors of the country, the sheriffs of the country, the administration of justice, the tenure by which the crown of England holds that country. The trial was over. Everything the prisoner had to say previous to the judgment, the court was ready to hear, and did hear. They could not suffer him (Mr. Mitchel) to stand at that bar to repeat, very nearly, a repetition of the offence for which he had been sentenced."

"I will not say," Mr. Mitchel continued, "anything more of that kind. But I say this—"

Lefroy again interrupted him, to the effect that, within certain limits the prisoner might proceed.

"I have acted," he then said, "I have acted all through this business, from the first, under a strong sense of duty. I do not regret anything I have done, and I believe that the course which I have opened is only commenced. The Roman," he continued in one of those bursts of eloquence, with which he used to electrify men, stretching forth his clenched hand and arm, "the Roman who saw his hand burning to ashes before the tyrant, promised that three hundred should follow out his enterprise. Can I not promise for one, for two, for three, aye for hundreds?"

Here he pointed to his friends, Reilly, Martin, and Meagher. A burst of wild enthusiasm followed.

"Officer! officer! remove Mr. Mitchel," was heard from Lefroy. A rush was made on the dock, and the foremost ranks sprung from the galleries, with out-stretched arms to vow with him too. The judges rushed in terror from the benches—the turnkeys seized the hero, and in a scene of wild confusion he half walked, and was half forced through the low, dark door-way in the rear, waving his hand in a quiet farewell. The bolts grated, the gate slammed, and he was seen no more.

Men stood in affright, and looked in each others' faces wonderingly. They had seen a Roman sacrifice in this modern world, and they were mute.

An hour elapsed—the excited crowd had passed away; and the partisan judges, nervous and ill at ease, ventured upon the bench again.

They were seated, and seemed to be settling down to get through "business" as well as they could, when Mr. Holmes, whose defence of Mr. Mitchel had been so offensive to them, rose. "My lords," he said, "I think I had a perfect right to use the language I did yesterday. I wish now to state that what I said yesterday as an advocate, I adopt to-day, as my own opinion. I here avow all I have said; and, perhaps, under this late Act of Parliament, her Majesty's Attorney-General, if I have violated the law, may think it his duty to proceed against me in that way. But if I have violated the law in anything I said, I must, with great respect to the court, assert that I had a perfect right to state what I stated; and now I say in deliberation, that the sentiments I expressed with respect to England, and her treatment of this country, are my sentiments, and I here openly avow them. The Attorney-General is present—I retract nothing—these are my well-judged sentiments—these are my opinions, as to the relative position of England and Ireland, and if I have, as you seem to insinuate, violated the law by stating those opinions, I now deliberately do so again. Let her Majesty's Attorney-General do his duty to his government, I have done mine to my country."

Such was the conclusion of the trial of John Mitchel. The brother-in-law and friend of Robert Emmet, the republican of our fathers' days, came to attest the justice of the republican of our own, and to vie with him in defying and scorning the infamous laws of England.

It is needless to say that the English officials did not dare accept the challenge so nobly and defiantly flung down before the very dock whence one victim had just been borne.

I feel tempted to add a word of a scene that intervened, in which I took a part. When the sheriff recovered his self-possession, he ordered several to be arrested; among others, Mr. Meagher. The officer who seized him acted rudely and violently, which led to further confusion, and the exchange of blows. At last Mr. Meagher and myself were secured and removed to prison. When order was restored, we were brought out before the court, and asked for an expression of regret. I answered, that having heard Mr. Mitchel express, in the dock, sentiments in which I entirely concurred, I took immediate occasion to mark my most distinct and emphatic approval. In doing this I had no intention of an affront to the court. But as to retract, or regret, no punishment in the power of that or any other court to inflict, would compel me to do either one or the other.