of the confederacy without other reference than that of pointing out their moral influence, operating through a long space of time.  Thus I have referred to the Parliamentary Committee instituted by Mr. O’Brien among incidents which belong to an anterior period, because the vigour of these incidents, which left moral seeds in their track, continued to co-exist and blend with the powerful agencies of that Committee.  As I now approach the period when the differences with Mr. O’Connell, which hitherto developed themselves in the distinctive characteristics of the respective opinions of both parties rather than in any direct collision, became tangible, it is necessary to observe strict historical and chronological accuracy.

Before proceeding to details of succeeding events, a brief recapitulation of important facts, with the dates of their occurrences, become necessary.  A few others, not heretofore alluded to, must needs be added.

The date of the imprisonment is the 30th of May, 1844:  that of the release the 6th of September in the same year.

In the intermediate period the amount received in the Repeal treasury during four weeks was, L12,379 14s. 9d.

About the close of August was passed the Charitable Bequest Act, against the indignant remonstrances of the priesthood and Catholic population of Ireland.  This Bill was obnoxious in all it’s provisions, but the enactment which was received with most scorn was the clause that annulled a Catholic charitable bequest, unless it had been duly made six months at least before the decease of the testator.  The prohibition was attributed to an insulting assumption that the Catholic clergymen abused their influence over dying penitents, for sacerdotal or religious, if not for personal aggrandisement, and the impeachment was repelled with bitter execrations.  Others objected to the Bill on grounds involving more alarming considerations.  They regarded it as the first infringement on the liberty of the Catholic Church—­the first criminal attempt to fetter her free action and sow dissent among her prelates and priests.  The Repeal Association offered, from the beginning, its undivided, unqualified and indeed vehement opposition.  But amidst the storm and rage of the nation, it became the law, and three Roman Catholic prelates of the highest reputation undertook the duty of its administration.

One party there was who regretted the Bill still more deeply, but in a different point of view.  At the head of these was Thomas Davis.  He regarded it as an instrument of dissension and weakness, cunningly adapted to that end by Sir Robert Peel, and he deplored the diversion of the public mind and energy from the grand national object.  Mr. O’Brien, to a certain extent, shared this feeling, but never obtruded the opinion or ventured to check the Association, while Mr. Davis confined his efforts to passionate warnings addressed through the columns of the Nation.