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.