Mr. M.J.  Barry, on the 7th of June, said, “It is perfectly plain to all that the purpose of the Association is to work out its object by means of moral force, and that only.”  In my letter to Mr. Ray, written long after the secession, I used these words:  “The first (original rule of the Association) implies a pledge and an obligation to which every member of the Association bound himself.  Any member, who violates it, or would induce the Association to infringe it, must be false to his own vow and treacherous to the Association, whence he should be expelled with every mark of infamy.”

These proofs are taken at random:  they range over the time before, after and contemporaneous with the secession.  They could be multiplied one hundredfold, and taken from the speeches and writings of every one of the seceders.  Yet that fact availed nothing—­they were told, because “they differed from the rules laid down by the Liberator, they ceased to be members of the Association.”

This is, in some sort, a digression.  I return to the events which directly precipitated the division.  It will be remembered that the objections of the seceders to the Peace Resolutions were confined to an emphatic expression of dissent.  They were not, then, informed that they ceased to be members.  They attended the next meeting; and, having repeated the same dissent, they expressed their fervent wish for a perfect understanding, and pledged themselves to continue their co-operation, as if the resolution had not been passed.  Mr. John Reilly repudiated these advances, and charged them with treachery to Ireland, as the natural complement of disobedience to O’Connell.  He gave notice that he would put certain interrogatories to Mr. O’Brien, in reference to a speech delivered by him at Clare On the next day of meeting, Mr. O’Brien attended (July 26), and a letter from Mr. O’Connell, containing the bitterest complaints, against the “advocates of physical force,” as he pleased to call them, “who,” he said, “continued members of our body, in spite of our resolutions,” was read.

A discussion, acrimonious and prolonged, followed.  The debate was adjourned to the next day, when it was again renewed.  Mr. John O’Connell spoke for nearly three hours, directing most of his arguments against some admissions of the Nation as to the purpose entertained by the writers in 1843.  A casual expression—­“we had promises of aid from Ledru Rollin, and many a surer source.”—­supplied him with abundant material for loyal indignation.  He was heard without interruption.  Mr. Meagher rose to reply.  He delivered that most impassioned oration, in which occurs the apostrophe to the sword.  The meeting yielded to the frankness, sincerity, enthusiasm and supreme eloquence of the young orator, and rewarded him by its uncontrollable and unanimous applause.  Mr. J. O’Connell rose, and, in the midst of a scene of universal rapture, coldly said, “either Mr. Meagher or myself must leave the Association.”  Too generous to avail himself of the enthusiasm he excited, Mr. Meagher withdrew.  So did Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Mitchel and the others, with more than three-fourths of the meeting.