IMPRISONMENT OF O'BRIEN FOR CONTEMPT OF THE BRITISH COMMONS.--CONDUCT OF
THE ASSOCIATION.--DEPUTATION FROM THE '82 CLUB.--MR. O'CONNELL RETURNS
TO IRELAND.--DISCUSSIONS IN THE COMMITTEE.
Before proceeding to detail the circumstances which led to the
celebrated secession, it is essential to dispose of an episode in the
struggle, which, more than any other, stamped its impress on the acts
and feelings of that unfortunate period; I allude to the imprisonment,
by the House of Commons, of William Smith O'Brien. There is no act of
his life upon which there has been so much acrimonious criticism; none
on account of which he has been subjected to so much intemperate
misrepresentation. And yet, perhaps, his great career, fruitful in good
actions, never furnished a purer or more unselfish example of sound
judgment as well as intrepidity and devotion. The history of his
incarceration ranges over a great portion of the time which has been
already passed, and enters largely into the leading events, hereafter to
be related. A clear understanding of the whole--of Mr. O'Brien's
influencing motives and his tenacity of principle--would be impossible
without a distinct recital of the circumstances out of which his purpose
first grew, and which, to the end, controlled his resolution.
In the spring of 1845, the committee of the Association passed a vote to
the effect that the Parliamentary representatives, who were members of
that body, should withdraw from the British Parliament. It was proposed
by Mr. Davis and received Mr. O'Connell's entire approval. Though at
first sneered at, it had a stunning effect. The supercilious British
Commons, who would have answered the just remonstrance of the Irish
Repealers with a jeer, shrank from the consequences of legislating for
the country in the absence of the men, whose efforts, if present, they
would not hesitate to scoff at. The disturbing influence of the
resolution became at once perceptible, and the earliest means were taken
to bring the question to an issue. Mr. Hume, a parsimonious economist,
of niggard principle and grovelling sentiment, undertook the office of
coercing the Irish. He gave notice of a motion for a call of the House.
This man, a mean utilitarian, had been rejected by the country of his
birth and the country of his adoption, and found refuge in an Irish
constituency, that returned him without solicitation and without
expense. He repaid them and the country by a vulgar jest, and now
assumed the responsibility of their public prosecutor.
The Association heard his threat with calm indignation and resolved at
once to defy him. The great importance of the position in which it was
placed suggested the necessity of a deliberate consideration; first, of
the constitutional question at stake and, secondly, of the steps proper
to vindicate its own dignity and resolution. As on all such occasions, a
sub-committee was appointed to whom the question was referred. Mr.
O'Connell had to some extent formed an opinion favourable to the object
of the Association. He stated that he had considered the question in a
two-fold point of view.
First, "Whether the controlling power of the English House of Commons
over its members, which admittedly it possessed before the Act of Union,
was extended to the Irish portion of the members by that Act, there
being no express provision creating it?"
And secondly, "Whether even if the House possessed the power, it was
competent to enforce it, or, in other words, whether the Speaker's
warrant would receive Ireland?"
To report on these two questions, thus framed, the following gentlemen
were elected as a sub-committee: James O'Hea, Sir Colman O'Loghlen,
Robert Mullen, James O'Dowd and myself. Of that committee, each
approached his task with that instinctive bias, inseparable from ardent
minds, excited by a darling hope. They read the precedents, the cases,
the arguments and judgments applicable to their enquiry with the aid of
such a hope, and still they came to the reluctant decision that the
ground taken against the authority of the British Parliament was not
maintainable. With regard to the first branch they were unanimous. With
regard to the second, Sir Colman O'Loghlen alone entertained some
doubts. As chairman of the committee, I drew up a brief report,
embodying our opinion. One reason alone we thought conclusive, namely,
that the formidable jurisdiction claimed by the House of Commons was
indispensable to the unimpeded fulfilment of its functions, as a
coordinate branch of the supreme power and controlling authority of the
State. In its very danger and extravagance consisted its supremacy; for
it showed that it was only admitted from its overruling and
overmastering necessity. And as the Parliament was recognised in Ireland
in all things else we thought it would be absurd to deny it functions
indispensable to its vitality.
On handing in the report, I mentioned the doubts entertained by Sir
Colman O'Loghlen. Mr. O'Connell suggested that the report should be
deferred until he could consult Sir Colman. The suggestion was agreed
to, and time given for reconsideration. Mr. O'Connell himself examined
the question, he said, with great attention. He was assisted by Mr.
Clements in his researches, and at the end of the fortnight he came down
to the committee with a report of his own, distinctly and emphatically
contradicting ours, upon both branches of the case. He delivered it to
the chairman (Mr. S. O'Brien), with exultation, as a great
constitutional discovery of unspeakable importance to the liberties of
Ireland. The committee received it in the same spirit. I ventured to
question the soundness of his opinion, and maintain my own, it was
considered a daring thing to do in those times; but the question seemed
to me so clear that I could not abandon my views without treachery to my
conviction. The discussion was very short, and ended in personality,
wherein he insinuated something about unworthy motives. No scene of my
life made the same impression on me. I felt keenly his reproaches, but
still more keenly the impolicy and imprudence of the step into which the
country was precipitated. I requested that the question should be again
postponed, and the opinion of some eminent men outside the Association
taken. I was overruled, and even laughed at--it was "doubting Mr.
O'Connell." Mr. O'Connell said, "I'll test this question '_meo
periculo_.'" The resolution passed amid cheers, and was recorded next
day amid the louder and more vehement cheers of the Association. The
country re-echoed the boast, and the House of Commons was, by a formal
and solemn vote of the entire nation, set at defiance. The conflict was
pre-arranged, even to its minute details. Mr. O'Brien was to proceed to
London, where disobedience would be more marked and decisive; and Mr.
John O'Connell was to remain in Ireland, where he could take advantage
of an additional obstacle to the exercise of its authority to the House.
So the matter stood when Mr. Hume, through what motive it is not easy to
see, neglected or abandoned his notice. The country regarded this as a
confession of weakness by the House, and gloried in a new triumph
achieved by the genius of Mr. O'Connell. He himself thought he had found
a great and solid basis for future action, and hinted at the prospect of
being able to raise upon it a parliamentary structure, having
imprescriptible and indefeasible authority, and only requiring the
sanction of the crown.
A short time after the withdrawal of Mr. Hume's motion, the question was
again raised in another form. The chairman of the Committee of Selection
for Railways addressed a circular, among others, to Messrs. S. O'Brien
and John O'Connell, requiring their attendance at the selection of
special Railway Committees. The correspondent of the _Freeman's
Journal_, thus writes in forwarding their replies:--
_London, Monday, June 30._
"The authority of the British Senate over Irish representatives
is now fairly placed at issue. By my letter of yesterday
evening, you were apprised of the determination of Smith O'Brien
and John O'Connell, to refuse to comply with the summons of the
parliamentary selection committee.
"The course I suggested as that which it was probable would be
adopted, has been since finally resolved upon, and in part
carried into execution. John O'Connell, for the purpose of
taking the chances of a judgment in the Irish court, will not
forward his answer till he shall have reached Ireland. Smith
O'Brien delivered his reply to the clerk of the House of Commons
this day, at one o'clock."
Here follows Mr. O'Brien's letter:--
OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE CLUB, PALL-MALL.
"_June 30, 1845._
"Sir.--I had the honour of receiving on Saturday afternoon a
letter dated 28th June, and signed 'Henry Creed,' to the
following effect: 'I am directed by the committee of selection
to inform you that your name is on the list for which members
will be selected to serve on the railway committees, which will
commence their sittings in the week beginning Monday, the 14th
July, during which week it will be necessary for you to be in
attendance, for the purpose of serving, if requested, on a
railway committee.'
"I trust that the committee of selection will not think that I
am prompted by any feeling of disrespect towards them, or
towards the House of Commons, when I inform them that it is my
intention not to serve on any committees except such as may be
appointed with reference to the affairs of Ireland.
"I accepted a seat in the House of Commons, in the hope of
being thereby enabled to assist in improving the condition of
the land of my birth. So long as I continued to believe that I
could serve Ireland effectually in the House of Commons, I
shrank from none of the labours which are connected with the
varied functions of that assembly. During twelve years I
attended Parliament with an assiduity of which I might feel
disposed to boast, if the time so consumed by the House and by
myself had been productive of results useful to my native
country.
"Experience and observation at length forced upon my mind the
conviction that the British Parliament is incompetent through
want of knowledge, if not, through want of inclination, to
legislate wisely for Ireland, and that our national interests
can be protected and fostered only through the instrumentality
of an Irish legislature.
"Since this conviction has established itself in my mind I have
felt persuaded that the labours of the Irish members, though of
little avail in the British Parliament, might, if applied in
Ireland with prudence and energy, be effectual in obtaining for
the Irish people their national rights.
"I have reason to believe that in this opinion a very large
majority of my constituents concur. To them alone I hold myself
responsible for the performance of my parliamentary duty. If
they had disapproved of my continued absence from the House of
Commons, I should have felt it my duty to have withdrawn from
the representation of the county of Limerick; but I have the
satisfaction of thinking that I not only consult the interests,
but also comply with the wishes of my constituents in declining
to engage in the struggles of English party, or to involve
myself in the details of English legislation.
"While such have been the general impressions under which I have
absented myself during nearly two years from the House of
Commons, I yet do not feel myself at liberty to forego whatever
power of resistance to the progress of pernicious legislation my
office of representative may confer upon me. Upon the present
occasion, I have come to London for the purpose of endeavouring
to induce the House of Commons, or rather the Government, who
appear to command the opinions of a large majority of the House,
to modify some of the Irish measures now before Parliament in
such a manner as to render them beneficial, instead of
injurious, to Ireland.
"Desiring that none but the representatives of the Irish nation
should legislate for Ireland, we have no wish to intermeddle
with the affairs of England, or Scotland, except in so far as
they may be connected with the interest of Ireland or with the
general policy of the empire.
"In obedience to this principle I have abstained from voting on
English and Scotch questions of a local nature, and the same
motive now induces me to decline attendance on committees on any
private bills, except such as relate to Ireland.
"I am prepared to abide with cheerfulness the personal
consequences which may result from the course of conduct which I
feel it my duty to adopt.
"I speak with great diffidence upon any question of a legal
kind, but I am supported by very high professional authority
when I suggest to the committee that no power was delegated to
the House of Commons by the Act of Union, or by subsequent
statutes, to compel to attendance Irish members on the
deliberations of the British Parliament. Neither do I find that
any authority has been given by statutory enactment to the House
(except in the case of election petitions) to enforce the
attendance of members upon committees.
"I refrain, however, from arguing legal questions which may be
raised before another tribunal, in case it should become
necessary and advisable to appeal from the decision of the House
of Commons to the courts of judicature, and conclude by assuring
the committee that I take the course which I propose to
adopt, not from any desire to defy the just authority of the
House of Commons, but in obedience to my sense of the duty which
I owe to my constituents and my country.
"I have the honour to be, your obedient servant,
"WILLIAM S. O'BRIEN.
"To the Chairman of the Committee of Selection."
[Illustration: Thomas Devin Reilly]
Mr. O'Connell's letter bears date on the next day, as announced in the
correspondent's notice, because it was intended it should not be
delivered until the honourable gentleman was beyond the pale of English
jurisdiction.
"BRITISH HOTEL, JERMYN STREET,
8 a.m., _July 1st._
"Sir.--I have to acknowledge the receipt of a notification by
order of your committee, to the effect that my attendance in
Parliament will be required during the week beginning Monday,
14th July, for the purpose of serving, if chosen, on a
parliamentary committee.
"With every respect to you, Sir, and the gentlemen of your
committee, I absolutely decline attending.
"I, like some others, came to London the first time this session
about a fortnight ago to remonstrate against and endeavour to
resist the plan of infidel education which the Government are
forcing upon Ireland. We had not, nor for some years have had,
the slightest hope of obtaining any measure of good from a
foreign parliament; but we came against our better judgment,
that it might not be said we had not gone all lengths to
endeavour to deter the Government from a scheme so redolent of
political corruption, social profligacy and religious
infidelity.
"We came armed with multitudinous petitions of the people, and
the strong, unanimous and most decided protest from our revered
prelacy and clergy.
"We were of course mocked at, derided and refused; but, what is
of infinitely more consequence, the voice of our prelates and of
the faithful people of Ireland have been treated with utter
contempt--even Irish Catholics (yielding to the unwholesome
influences around them) joining in the contemptuous refusal.
"Under these circumstances, Sir, I certainly will not suffer
that portion of the people of Ireland who have entrusted their
representation to my charge to be further mocked at and insulted
in my person. I go to where I can best discharge my duty to them
and to Ireland--_in Ireland_. There struggling, with doubtless
as little ability, but with more energy and, if possible, more
whole-hearted devotion than ever, to put an end to the present
degradation of my country and obtain for her that which can
alone ensure protection to her interests, relief to her many
wants, and peace, freedom and happiness to her long oppressed
and long enduring people,
"I have the honour to be, Sir,
"Your obedient servant,
"JOHN O'CONNELL.
"To the Chairman of the Committee of Selection."
These documents were entered on the minutes of the Association, and
remained on its records with the original resolution. But no more was
done in the matter until the beginning of April, 1846.
Mr. O'Connell and his son were in London, and Mr. O'Brien remained in
Ireland. They had been all summoned to attend on committees. When Mr.
O'Brien reached London, he found that the Messrs. O'Connell, without any
previous communication with him or with the Association, and without
reference to the solemn resolution, to the contrary, of that body, were
acting on committees. This deeply disappointed and mortified him, and he
at once resolved to remain faithful, at all risks, and though he stood
alone, to the obligation which he had contracted with the sanction and
approval of his country. Whatever may be the temper and resolution of
the House of Commons, had it been resisted by the unbroken strength of
the Association, it felt confident of its power to crush Mr. O'Brien
alone, separate from, nay, abandoned by, the great leader of the Irish
people. It must be acknowledged that the course pursued by the Commons
was considerate and moderate. A principle involving their liberty of
action was in issue; to vindicate it was indispensable; but finding
themselves only opposed by a single man, of all those who had provoked
the encounter, they proceeded with caution and forbearance. They
forewarned, counselled and remonstrated during the time that intervened;
and several members of the House, including Mr. O'Connell, urged Mr.
O'Brien to give way. He refused, determinedly, and it may be supposed
not the less sternly, when he found, among those who advised him to
falsify his solemn promise, the man upon whose authority and through
whose influence he had made it. The result was, his arrest and
imprisonment, for disobedience to the House. Circumstances more trying
never beset the fortitude of a great man. Personal liberty was his
slightest loss. The sneers of his enemies, the pity of his personal, and
the desertion of his political, friends poisoned[A] the very air of the
miserable cell to which he was consigned, and what completed his agony
was a notion that he had been abandoned by his country.
During the early part of his imprisonment, a motion was made questioning
the authority of the House. In the course of the discussion, Sir Thomas
Wilde, then Attorney-General, dared any constitutional lawyer to impugn
the jurisdiction assumed by the House. Every member felt that the
challenge was offered to Mr. O'Connell, who replied as follows:--
"I am sure that the House will give credit to my assurance that
I should not rise to advocate the cause of my honourable friend,
if I thought he had had the slightest intention of being
disrespectful towards the House. It has not been his intention
to be guilty of any contempt towards it: he thought he was
entitled to make the exception to which he adheres. He has acted
from a strong sense of duty, and I am sorry to see it is a sense
of duty he is not likely to give up."
I add to this an extract from his speech delivered at the Corn Exchange,
when, in spite of the most earnest remonstrance, the Association offered
its defiance in solemn form to the British Parliament.
"Mr. O'Connell rose amid loud cheers, and said:--Our usual
course of proceeding in this hall is to commence with handing in
money, and then to go on with business of inferior importance,
the business of making speeches (hear! hear! and laughter); but
among the passing events of the day, there is one of such signal
importance, that I am sure you will readily admit that I am
right when I claim for it, on the present occasion, a right of
precedence over any donation or subscription, no matter from
what quarter they may come. The matter I allude to is a menace
held out for the intimidation (as it is supposed) of the Irish
members who are given to understand that there is about to be a
call of the House, and that it is intended that the Speaker's
warrant shall issue to compel them to go over to London. Now,
sir, I think it right to apprise the Association and the country
that, having considered this question attentively, I have made
up my mind that the Speaker has no constitutional authority
whatever to issue any such warrant."
But what pained Mr. O'Brien the deepest was the apparent coldness,
apathy or cowardice of the Irish people. Among them, and them only, he
calculated an enthusiastic sustainment. But those who felt the deepest
in his regard were constrained by the responsibility of coming to an
open rupture with Mr. O'Connell, at a time when union in the ranks of
the Association was indispensable to even partial success. A vote was
proposed to the committee, approving of Mr. O'Brien's act, and pledging
the Association to an identification with the principle by which his
conduct was governed. That vote was resisted by the whole of Mr.
O'Connell's family, and personal friends and by all the pensioners and
employes of the body. It was carried, nevertheless. But a motion to
consult Mr. O'Connell as to its legality was passed, and the resolution
was transmitted to him accordingly. His reply was an urgent remonstrance
against the resolution on the ground of illegality. Meantime,
representations were made that a certain party in the Association,
intolerant of Mr. O'Connell's sway, were using that occasion to
undermine his authority and overthrow his power. The great
responsibility of causing disunion determined the supporters of the
resolution to compromise with its opponents, and it was finally shaped
thus:--
"Resolved, That having learned with deep regret, that by a
resolution of the House of Commons the country has been deprived
of the eminent services of Mr. William Smith O'Brien, and that
illustrious member of this Association himself committed to
prison, we cannot allow this opportunity to pass without
conveying to him the assurance of our undiminished confidence in
his integrity, patriotism and personal courage, and our
admiration for the high sense of duty and purity of purpose
which prompted him to risk his personal liberty in assertion of
a principle which he believed to be inherent in the constitution
of his country."
It was again, in its modified form, transmitted to Mr. O'Connell, and
returned with his disapprobation. Captain Broderick read a letter from
him, to that effect, at a meeting of the committee, suddenly summoned on
Monday, the 4th of May, a few hours only previous to the public meeting
of the Association, deprecating the passing of the resolution in any
form. The present writer was the proposer of the resolution, and,
feeling that he had already made too great a compromise, he refused to
accede to this last request of Mr. O'Connell. The resolution was
proposed and adopted with acclamation, and a letter was read from Mr.
O'Connell, by Mr. Ray, in which he stated that the resolution did not go
far enough.
In the provinces, the timid policy of the Association was decried with
bitterness, and the men who struggled, against great odds, to identify
the whole island with Mr. O'Brien, and pledge it to sustain him to the
last, were subjected to the most virulent denunciations. Because the
compromised resolution was moved, seconded, and spoken to by them, the
whole country regarded them as the betrayers of their own avowed chief,
and the violence with which they were attacked was unmeasured and
unscrupulous.
They made no reply. No unjust aspersions from a people in ignorance of
the resistance offered to them, and the motives that influenced them,
could induce them to explain the position they had taken. But when they
saw while they were subjected to the storm that Mr. O'Connell's friends,
on the authority of his published letter, took credit for neutrality,
they resolved once more to test the question in a body, whose
proceedings were of a more private character, and where the most marked
difference of opinion could lead to no fatal result--the Eighty-Two
Club. Mr. O'Connell was the president of this club, and Mr. O'Brien one
of its vice-presidents. A meeting was called. The attendance was
unusually large. Men who had never before, and have never since,
appeared at its meetings, were present. The question proposed was that
an address be presented to Mr. O'Brien, in which his principles and his
conduct would be fully recognised, approved of and adopted. This led to
a discussion that lasted two days, but the motion was carried in the
end by a majority of two to one. One man, and one only, unconnected with
Mr. O'Connell, either by personal friendship or personal obligations,
voted against the resolution. That man is Sir Colman O'Loghlen. His name
is mentioned, because he was the only member of the minority whose
motives could be regarded as unquestionable. For the rest, the minority
was composed of Mr. O'Connell's sons and relatives, with Mr. Ray and Mr.
Crean, officers of the Association, and one or two members whom he had
caused to be returned to Parliament, amounting to twelve. A committee
was appointed to prepare the address and resolutions, which were written
by John Mitchel, and adopted by the committee without the change of a
word. They also determined that the address should be adopted in its
integrity by the club, or not at all. When it was proposed, objection
was again taken to its principle, on the ground that it would commit the
club, and involve it in a hopeless conflict with the House of Commons
which of itself, it was averred, would be a misdemeanour at common law.
The proposition was eminently absurd in common sense, as well as law,
but it was sustained by the practised ingenuity and great skill of Mr.
O'Hea, who, to do him justice, seemed deeply to feel the hopelessness
and shamefulness of the task that was assigned him. But no other
argument could prevail, and this appeal to the fears or selfishness of
its wealthiest members was had recourse to in consequence of the utter
poverty of reason and argument, which could otherwise be presented
against the principle of the address. But such an obligation led to a
novel difficulty and bitterer conflict. A discussion involving
principles of the greatest moment narrowed into a technical disquisition
of abstract law. Mr. O'Hea was driven from his position by the unanimous
and unqualified opinion of every barrister present, and even by his own
silence, when dared to allow the address to pass in the negative, and
assume the responsibility of its rejection on the avowed ground of his
legal opinion, as expressed to the meeting. The address was adopted by a
greater majority than that which had confirmed the principle on the
previous day, and a deputation was appointed to present it to Mr.
O'Brien in his prison.
The members of that deputation, who proceeded to fulfil their mission,
were William Bryan, of Raheny Lodge; John Mitchel, Richard O'Gorman,
Thomas Francis Meagher and the present writer. They were accompanied by
Terence Bellew MacManus and John Pigot, who joined them in London. They
waited on Mr. O'Connell, as the president of the club, produced the
address and requested he would proceed with them to present it. He
admitted, without question, that as it was adopted by so very large and
influential a majority, he was bound to do so. But he added that Mr.
O'Brien refused to receive a visit from him, owing to the part he had
taken, and further said, if Mr. O'Brien expressed a wish to see him,
that he would accompany us. The deputation on their way to the House of
Commons consulted for a moment, and, as well as I remember, Doctor Gray
and some others were present: the result was a determination to present
the address without Mr. O'Connell, feeling that an explanation between
him and Mr. O'Brien, could not fail to lead to unpleasant
recriminations, if not to more serious differences. The address and
answer were as follows:--
"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.
[Illustration: John Mitchell]
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.