Thus occurred the secession.  Mr. J. O’Connell simulated some stage grief, expressing his ardent hope that the “Liberator,” on his arrival, would heal the wounds he had himself inflicted.  How sincere was that hope is proved by the fact that, when Mr. O’Connell did arrive, which was on the Saturday following, he was prevented from proceeding farther than Kingstown, where he was detained until the hour of meeting on Monday; thus rendering it impossible to have an interview with Mr. O’Brien, or any one who could facilitate an arrangement.  On Monday, instead of using soothing language and kind advice, he probed the wounds to the bottom, and infused into them subtlest poison.  It is needless, as it would be painful, to recount the details of bitterness and hate with which on that day he dashed the hopes of the country.  The result was deep and irreconcilable estrangement.  Those who left the hall, rather than drive therefrom the son of Daniel O’Connell, finding themselves repaid by calumny, yielded to the conviction which every successive act of Mr. O’Connell conduced to establish, namely, that the country, and her great hope of destiny, were handed over to the Whigs.

The proofs of this belief were, first:  The statement in the Mail, which remained undenied, and must, therefore, be taken to be undeniable.

Secondly:  The expression used by Mr. O’Connell, in his speech at Conciliation Hall, that he would give no “vexatious opposition” to the Whig nominee.

Thirdly:  His statement, at Dundalk, that “one experiment more was to be made, in which every honest man would join.”

Fourthly:  The following passage, which occurred in Mr. O’Connell’s letter, dated London, 27th of June, 1846:  “There is an opportunity to consider the Irish question as if on neutral grounds; there is a glorious opportunity (the return of the Whigs to power) of deciding if the Repealers be right in believing that no substantial relief can be given to Ireland in a British Parliament; or that they are wrong, to the demonstration that would result from PRACTICAL JUSTICE being afforded by that Parliament.”

Fifthly:  The assertion of Mr. Lawless, in a letter to Mr. O’Connell, dated 18th July, which the latter published, without contradiction or comment, namely:  “And yet it was with difficulty you (Mr. O’Connell) prevented his (Mr. Shiel) being opposed in his election for Dungarvan,”

Sixthly:  Mr. Shiel’s election, without opposition, when his defeat, if opposed, was perfectly certain.

Seventhly:  Mr. O’Connell’s eulogy on The O’Conor Don for “accepting an office, which would enable him to serve his country.”—­(Speech in Conciliation Hall, July 13th.)

Eighthly:  Mr. O’Connell’s assertion, in his speech at Conciliation Hall:  “I did not begin this quarrel; in my absence in London, an attack was made on the Whig ministry.”

And, finally:  The boasted acceptance by Mr. O’Connell of the distribution of Whig patronage, and the appointment of his personal friends to lucrative employment.