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.”