These were the chief considerations at the affirmative side.  On a less pressing occasion, and at a former period, they might have been forcible, nay, even conclusive.  But the issue had been then narrowed to one of actual force.  John Mitchel was transported, and the most trusted of his comrades had pledged their lives to redeem their brother felon at any cost.  Every consideration connected with the question should be examined and determined on in reference to that position and that pledge.  Tested by them, the first above presented would thus resolve itself:  either these men whose characteristic had been indecision, were sincere in seeking for an opportunity to redeem their patriotism by their blood, or they were not.  If they were, they would never be restrained by the miserable fear of being charged with inconsistency.  If they were not, the cause would be cursed by their adhesion.  The same argument would apply to the priesthood with still more imperious force; such of them as were actually sincere would be found at their post at the hour of trial, in obedience to no form, but influenced by their own conscientiousness.  Such of them as were insincere would be true to no obligation imposed by conventionality.  Untrue to their convictions, they could not be faithful to their words.  And finally—­an argument which appears unanswerable and insuperable—­Mr. John O’Connell and his immediate followers had so solemnly abjured, denounced and cursed the principles of the great majority with whom they were asked to league, that they could not comply without such a debasement of character as to compel the scorn of all men, not only to themselves, but all those with whom they were united.  It could not fail to strike any ordinary observer that materials so incongruous and repulsive were incapable of cohesion; and the consequence must be the distrust of the more ardent of their followers at both sides.

These were my opinions.  I pressed them at the time as strongly as I could, and perhaps more urgently than I ought.  But I was absent from Dublin, and my remonstrances were vain.  I would have retired in despair had I not been too deeply engaged.  The Rev. John Kenyon did actually retire, influenced by the same motives which I refused to yield to, solely because retirement would brand me with an imputation of cowardice, which no explanation could ever efface.  I refused all connection with the League, but continued to act in concert with my confederates, in establishing clubs and training the manhood of the country for the stern trial before it.  My position rendered bold, undisguised and explicit language indispensable.  This led to prosecution and arrest.  The charge was supposed to be high treason and Mr. Richard O’Gorman wrote to me to inquire what I wished to have done in my behalf.  My answer was a distinct refusal to accept any aid from a body whose constitution I could not approve.  This circumstance is mentioned, not because it deserves distinct attention, or even a place