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.