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 £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 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.
[Illustration: Robert Holmes (1848)]
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.