unanimity was most necessary, and most likely to be useful.  He, in substance, repeats the principles contained in the Report adopted a few days before:—­“Here we take our stand,” he writes, “peaceable exertions and none others—­no compromise, no equivocation—­peaceable exertions and none others.”  “Let it, however, be borne in mind that these peaceable doctrines leave untouched the right of defence against illegal attack or unconstitutional violence.”  “It had become,” he adds, “more essential than ever to assent to those peace principles, as the Association was sought to be involved in proceedings of a most seditious nature, stated in the Nation newspaper to have been perpetrated in and by the writers for that publication.”

Smith O’Brien was the first to speak.  Although he might, he said, be in error, he conceived that the present discussion had been raised with a view to call upon the Association to say that there are no circumstances, in this or any other country, to justify the use of physical force for the attainment of political amelioration—­a doctrine to which he did not subscribe.  He instanced various countries which had attained their liberty by means of physical force.  Then referring to the period of 1782 in Ireland—­“I say,” said Mr. O’Brien, “if the Parliament of England refused to accede to the national demand of the Volunteers to have a free constitution, that the Volunteers would have been fully justified in taking up arms in defence of the country.”  He, however, for his part, considered the question a merely speculative one, as, so far as he knew, no one contemplated an appeal to physical force, under the present circumstances, which would be madness, folly, and wickedness.  He considered it very unwise to be putting those tests when there was no occasion for them.  He declared against permitting those Liberals, who had taken place under the Whigs, to have a walk over; they should, he maintained, be opposed by Repeal candidates, as nothing in the Whig programme called for the anticipative gratitude of Ireland.  Finally, he expressed the hope that no rash attempt would be made to expel certain members of the Association.  “Let nothing,” he said, “be done rashly; let nothing be done to destroy this glorious confederacy, the greatest and most powerful that ever existed for the preservation and achievement of the liberties of a people.”

Mr. John O’Connell, in a clever speech, replied to Smith O’Brien.  He defended the course his father had taken in not giving immediate opposition to the Whigs, as several excellent measures might be expected from them; besides, if they were driven from power they must be succeeded again by the Tories, and although he was far from becoming the defender of the Whigs, still they were better than the Tories; “if the antecedents of the Whigs were bad, the antecedents of the Tories,” said he, “were most criminally bad.”  With regard to the graver question, the chief cause of difference in