The Felon's Track Part 7

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 partic.i.p.ators 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.

[Ill.u.s.tration: John Mitch.e.l.l]

Mr. O'Brien pa.s.sed 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 p.r.o.nounced it a lie. Mr.

O'Connell and his friends pa.s.sed 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 a.s.sumed 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 a.s.sociation." "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 a.s.surances the most unequivocal were transmitted to the a.s.sociation. 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation 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 const.i.tuencies were to be transferred once more to Whig placemen; and they confined their opposition princ.i.p.ally 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation, they allowed the resolutions to pa.s.s without further opposition.

The original resolution on which the a.s.sociation 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 const.i.tutional."

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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation.

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 a.s.sumption of its necessity, as a rule of guidance.

It was a mere abstract opinion, utterly irrespective of the object or conduct of the a.s.sociation, 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 const.i.tution 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 a.s.sociation, 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation 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 const.i.tutional society seeking to attain its object, as all the world knows, by peaceable means and none other. Const.i.tutional agitation is the very basis of it; and n.o.body 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 a.s.sociation." On the 28th of July, Mr. Meagher said: "I do advocate the peaceful policy of the a.s.sociation. 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation) implies a pledge and an obligation to which every member of the a.s.sociation bound himself. Any member, who violates it, or would induce the a.s.sociation to infringe it, must be false to his own vow and treacherous to the a.s.sociation, 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 a.s.sociation."

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 pa.s.sed. 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 impa.s.sioned 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 a.s.sociation." 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 Sat.u.r.day 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 pa.s.sage, 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 a.s.sertion 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 a.s.sertion, 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 n.o.bles 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 a.s.surance 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. Prost.i.tutes of both s.e.xes 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 b.u.t.t. 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 grat.i.tude 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation with a pretext for expelling it altogether. Two rules had been adopted for the circulation of newspapers. The first was, when 10 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 pa.s.sed, 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation.