THE FELON'S TRACK

OR

HISTORY OF THE ATTEMPTED OUTBREAK

IN

IRELAND

Embracing the Leading Events in the Irish Struggle from
the year 1843 to the close of 1848

BY

MICHAEL DOHENY

Author of "The American Revolution."

Hurrah for the mountain side!
Hurrah for the bivouac!
Hurrah for the heaving tide!
If rocking the Felon's Track!

ORIGINAL EDITION

WITH D'ARCY M'GEE'S NARRATIVE OF 1848, A PREFACE, SOME ACCOUNT OF THE AUTHOR'S CONTEMPORARIES, AN INDEX, AND ILLUSTRATIONS

DUBLIN

M.H. GILL & SON, LTD.

1920

TO

GENERAL JAMES SHIELDS

UNITED STATES SENATOR, ETC.

DEAR SIR,—

In dedicating to you this narrative, I have been influenced by one consideration only. I have no title to your friendship. I cannot claim the most remote affinity with your career in arms. There is nothing connected with this sad fragment of history, either in fact or hope, to suggest any association with your name or achievements. But as my main object is to show that Ireland's failure was not owing to native recreancy or cowardice, I feel satisfied that of all living men, your position and character will best sustain the sole aim of my present labour and ambition.

In past history, Ireland holds a high place; but her laurels were won on foreign fields, and the jealous literary ambition which raised adequate monuments to these stormy times denied to her swords the distinction they vindicated for themselves in the hour of combat. The most brilliant, unscrupulous and daring historian of France degraded the niggard praise he accorded them by making it the medium of a false and contemptible sneer. "The Irish soldier," says Voltaire, "fights bravely everywhere but in his own country."

In the wreck of every hope, all who yet cherish the ambition of realising for Ireland an independent destiny, point to your career as an encouraging augury, if not a complete justification for not despairing of their country. It is because I am among those that I have claimed the honour of inscribing your name on the first page of this, my latest labour in her cause.

I remain, dear Sir,

Very respectfully and sincerely yours,

MICHAEL DOHENY.

New York, Sept. 20, 1849.

The Irish Confederation still awaits its historian. Three of its leaders have left narratives of its brief and momentous career, but, of the three, Doheny alone participated in the Insurrection that dug the political grave of Young Ireland. In "The Felon's Track," written hot on his escape from the stricken land, he tells the story vividly and passionately. It has morals deducible for all manner of Irishmen, and one for those English statesmen who comfort themselves with the illusion that Irish Nationalism, like Jacobitism, is a platonic sentiment. The man who, roused from his bed at midnight by tapping fingers on his window and a voice whispering that insurrection was afoot, rose and rode away in the darkness to join himself to its desperate fortunes was no young man ardent for adventure. Michael Doheny, when he left his home and his career to engage in the fatal enterprise, was a sober middle-aged barrister, a man of weight and fortune into which he had built himself by the hard toil of twenty years. His social anchorages were deep-cast—and no mere sentiment provokes such a man to throw aside the hard-won harvest of his life and risk the rebel's or the felon's fate.

From this point, Doheny's narrative may be supplemented and corrected by information that was not at the time he wrote available to him. Meagher, Leyne, M'Gee, O'Mahony and MacManus, have left in newspaper articles and in MS. accounts of what happened in the light of which Doheny's narrative must be read.

Doheny's account of what happened after the fatal retreat from Carrick needs to be amplified in connection with the final error of O'Brien's leadership. At the Council of War on the 28th of July O'Brien rejected the proposal to seize for the use of his followers all things needful, paying for them with drafts on the future Irish Government, and he declined the other practical proposal to offer farms rent-free to all who fought for Ireland. Neither would he assent to the suggestion that he and the other leaders should go into hiding until the harvest was reaped. Willing to fight and ready to die, he would not consent to conduct a revolution on revolutionary lines. The departure of Doheny and others—save Devin Reilly, who urged the abandonment of the insurrection as hopeless—was in pursuance of their plan to await the gathering of the harvest.

If courage and devotion could have saved Ireland in 1848, O'Brien and his comrades would have saved the land. No braver gentlemen could any nation produce. They asked their countrymen to take no risks they did not take themselves in the forefront. But courage and devotion alone can never make an insurrection into a revolution. 1848 was a failure—in one sense—because there was no second Mitchel in Ireland when the first Mitchel was hurried off on a British gunboat.

seemed to have grown a reality. Young Ireland evoked the fighting tradition of the nation once again. Without 1848 the spirit that freed the Irish Catholic from being tributary to another Church and regained the land for the farmers would have slept for a century—perhaps for ever.

Driven from his country, Doheny with the companion of his fugitive wanderings, James Stephens, and the chivalrous O'Mahony, founded the Fenian brotherhood in the United States. Once more before his sudden death in April, 1862, he saw Ireland—on the occasion of the MacManus Funeral.

Let me, said a wise man, always be surrounded by men of sanguine temperament. Defeat and exile could not dim the faith of Doheny in his country. The fugitive who had wrecked his fortunes in Ireland's cause and witnessed a failure which English statesmen believed ended for ever the dream of Irish independent nationhood, set his foot in exile only to begin anew to plan Ireland Independent. So long as the sanguine heart that carried Michael Doheny undaunted along the Felon's Track beats in the breast of his country the Irish Nation will be indestructible.

ARTHUR GRIFFITH.

Facing page

There are few facts detailed in the following pages that need explanation here. If my motive in writing them were personal gratification, or simply a desire to preserve a memorial of scenes in which I took an anxious part, I might labour to make the narration more interesting to my readers, without any care for future consequences.

But through every disaster I preserved unbroken faith in the purpose and courage of my country. I believed, and still believe that her true heart is faithful to liberty and hopeful for the future; and this conviction involved me in a struggle with the apparently opposite tendency of the facts I was bound to narrate. Had I to write for a new generation, upon whom these facts could have made no false impressions, my task would be easy. I am persuaded that a simple statement of all that occurred would satisfy any candid mind that no disgrace attached to Ireland in her recent discomfiture. But I must needs confess that it is a task of extreme difficulty to reconcile her fall with the pre-conceived notions or present prejudices of those who read her story through the false medium of the press; nor do I hope for more than partial success from the details I have been able to give of the circumstances of which she was the victim and the dupe.

In this view of her recent struggle, there can be no doubt of the tendency of Mr. O'Connell's policy to demoralise, disgrace, enfeeble and corrupt the Irish people, and it is in that sense, and that only, I have always spoken of him.

Another subject, of perhaps greater delicacy and difficulty, was the part taken by the Catholic clergy. On my arrival in America, I found a fierce contest agitating, dividing and enfeebling the Irish-American population. It was asserted on one side that the entire failure was attributable to the Catholic priests, and that in opposing the liberation of Ireland they acted in accordance with some recognised radical principle of the Church.

But while I feel the injustice of the sweeping charge made against the whole body of the priesthood, I would be unfaithful to my purpose and my convictions if I concealed the acts and language of those among them, who interposed and unhappily exercised baneful influence on the abortive attempt of their unfortunate country. I shall only say further that what relates to them is the only part of my narrative which gave me shame to tell.

In certain circumstances which I relate, I may possibly make some mistakes in the dates, owing to the difficulty of finding those dates in odd numbers and broken volumes of the Journals to which alone I have had access.

New York, September 21, 1849.

RETROSPECT—COMMENCEMENT OF THE REPEAL STRUGGLE. — ARLY DAYS OF THE ASSOCIATION.

The appearance of this narrative will surprise no one. For apology, if any be needed, the writer may trust to his own share in the transactions with which it deals; and still more so perhaps to the misrepresentation to which, during their progress, he had been personally subjected. But personal vindication imparts neither interest nor importance to history, while it necessarily detracts from its dignity and good faith. Besides, time with the disastrous events marking its more recent course, have silenced the voice of calumny; and the writer undertakes his task with no personal feeling to gratify or even to consult. The character of others, now unable to be heard, is far dearer to him than his own: and while he aspires to justify, before the world, their singular career, distinguished throughout by generous and lofty passions, surpassing intellect and measureless love of their country and countrymen—a career so brilliant and instructive even in the last hours of gloom—he will endeavour to infuse into the history of their struggles and their fate, that generous tenderness toward others, that spirit of self-sacrifice and supreme love of truth, which were among their noblest characteristics.

The very character of Emancipation has assumed an exaggerated and false guise. The joy of the nation was boundless—its gratitude immeasurable. In the shout that hailed the deliverer, earlier deliverers were forgotten. No one remembered the men whose stupendous exertions wrung from the reluctant spirit of a far darker time the right of living, of worship, of enjoying property, and exercising the franchise. All these, and more, which were once, and not very remotely, denied to the Catholics had been before this accorded to them. Yet the interest and importance of winning access to Parliament, to the higher ranks of the army, and, perhaps a stray seat at the Privy Council, acquired the name of Emancipation, and Mr. O'Connell monopolised its entire renown. He was styled the "Liberator," and his achievement designated as "striking the fetters from the limbs of the slave, and liberating the altar." In truth, the import of Emancipation was so exaggerated, and its history so warped, that even now at a distance of more than twenty years, both the act and the actors are so misunderstood that it requires no little daring to approach a question involving the sensibilities, prejudices and passions of an entire generation.

Mr. O'Connell entered the House of Commons under auspices more flattering and encouraging than ever smiled on the advent to that assembly of any other man. In whatever light he was regarded, he was far the foremost personage of his time. How his subsequent career might justify the hushed awe with which a proud senate received him if he had devoted himself to the broad and comprehensive questions of imperial jurisprudence, for which he seemed so eminently fitted, it would be idle now to conjecture. Certain it is that no act of his after life, varied and wonderful as it was, realised the promise of that glad and glorious morning.

The agitation succeeded rapidly. The Government became at once intolerant and impotent. They proclaimed down the agitation; but this only imparted to it activity, energy and strength. The Government gave way to a furious storm which had been long gathering elsewhere. The great Reform Ministry succeeded with Earl Grey at its head; and in the struggle for Imperial parliamentary Reform, Ireland and her independence were forgotten.

His remonstrances were vehement and angry, but they were vain. The ministry disregarded the claims of justice, as well as the voice of the orator. The quarrel became personal and vindictive to so great an extent, that Mr. O'Connell's support would almost ensure the defeat of any measure at the hands of the English Whig faction.

This is not said for the purpose of disparaging the legitimate ambition of those who sought advancement in the altered circumstances and sentiments of the time. But the effect of such a state of things on the morality of the nation was incalculably injurious. The most solemn resolution was openly violated, and that by the very men who were foremost in recommending the national vow. Nor would its tendency be less fatal, assuming that Mr. O'Connell was correct in supposing that the experiment would be vain, and that its failure could not fail to supply new and more urgent reasons for the nation's independence. The compact, if even entered into with that view, would shake all faith in public men; because it would only change the parties with whom a false obligation was contracted, leaving the obligation itself and its violation exactly where they were.

Mr. O'Connell's support was doomed to be as fatal to the Whigs as his opposition. He unhappily assisted them during his period to carry one measure, against which they had recorded several solemn decisions in Parliament, namely, the Tithe Bill, without an appropriation clause, which was a direct falsification of their own resolution, whereby they defeated Sir Robert Peel's short-lived administration, in 1835. And what was still more lamentable, he supported them in renewing in a modified form the very Coercion Act for the introduction of which he designated them as "base, bloody and brutal."

From whatever cause, his influence over the Whigs visibly declined, and his counsels no longer swayed their Irish policy. Once more they relied on the false expedient of yielding to their enemies and allowing them to wield the power, while they were themselves content with the spoils of the country. Again the quarrel with Mr. O'Connell became bitter and personal, and again had he recourse to Repeal.

At last the late Repeal Association was formed. Its birth was received with sneers. Mr. O'Connell's sincerity was questioned, and his motives canvassed with vindictive vigilance. The warmest Nationalists looked on with doubt and coldness. Not one man of rank, outside the members of the defunct society, joined its ranks. The routine of business, the receipt of money, the resolutions, the speeches, were exactly identical with those of its predecessors. The Government seemed neither to dread it nor care for it. It lingered on, unsustained by the country and despised by its enslavers. The contributions of the members did not suffice to pay half the ordinary expenses of its machinery. Debts accumulated, and the revenue did not increase. While the body was thus situated, Mr. O'Connell had recourse to an expedient at once singular and decisive. It was to build Conciliation Hall. The Association was at the time seriously in debt, and he proposed to multiply that debt four-fold by engaging in this costly undertaking.

THOMAS DAVIS, HIS EARLY LABOURS. — THE "NATION" NEWSPAPER. — PROGRESS OF THE ASSOCIATION. — CLONTARF MEETING. — THE STATE TRIALS. — THE YOUNG IRELAND PARTY. — SMITH O'BRIEN. — FEDERALISM. — THE BEQUEST ACT.

The stipendiaried journals of the Castle exhausted their adulation, and had received their last reward for upholding the appointment. The Tory press, hungry for the spoil which it maddened the others to lose, paid back the compliments by intense vituperation. The slang of party warfare was bandied in the usual fashion, without thought or a care beyond the interest of party. The Register, to everybody's astonishment, took up the one cause not represented, namely, that of the country. Davis denounced the appointment as an insult to that country, and with a bold hand vindicated the superiority of its Bar, without any reference to party, above the adventurers whom each faction placed over it in turn.

The change became more marked as the publication proceeded. In speech, article, song and essay, the spell of Davis's extraordinary genius and embracing love was felt. Historic memories, forgotten stories, fragments of tradition, the cromlech on the mountain and the fossil in the bog supplied him substance and spirit wherewith to mould and animate nationality. Native art, valour, virtue and glory seemed to grow under his pen. All that had a tendency to elevate and ennoble, he rescued from the past to infuse into the future. His songs, so soft and tender, and yet so redolent of manliness and hope, inspired the ambition to compose a minstrelsy as wild and vigorous as themselves. They were read and learned and sung with an avidity and pride heretofore unknown.

During this period two events occurred deserving particular notice—the only facts upon which Mr. O'Connell's supremacy was questioned, or his advice audibly condemned. These were, first, his refusal of French contributions and French sympathy, of which M. Ledru Rollin, since so celebrated, was to be the bearer; and secondly, his acceptance of contributions from America under protest, against the "infamous institution" of slavery. He rejected the first with indignant scorn, because it was the offering of "republicans," and spoke of the latter with contempt, as "smelling of blood."

These two acts alienated from his cause the only foreigners in the world who were willing to espouse it. His wisdom was questioned and condemned. It was urged upon him that he should not intermeddle with foreign institutions or with the political predilections of individuals. Enough for Ireland, he was told, to find that Frenchmen and Americans were ready to do battle in her cause, and it ill became her to spurn their advances with indignity and a sneer. The argument failed, his hatred of slavery and republicanism out-weighed all other considerations.

Ireland triumphed. Her triumph was a just and a great one.

But her exultation was on a fallacious basis. She believed Mr. O'Connell's infallibility was re-established. No one cared, or perhaps dared to correct the error. In itself it seemed little worthy of notice, yet it had its share of evil influence. First, it diverted men's minds from the one question; secondly, it left behind it the demoralising effect inseparable from untruth. Were it even what the public eagerness chose to shape it, its relative value, weighed against the triumph of courage and virtue, would be contemptible.

Those who took immediate part in the proceedings of our circle before the State Trials, were Thomas Davis, John Dillon, Thomas MacNevin, Michael Joseph Barry, Charles Duffy, David Cangley, John O'Hagan, Denis F. MacCarthy, Denny Lane, Richard Dalton Williams, with one or two others whose names I cannot mention. To this list was afterwards added Thomas Francis Meagher, Richard O'Gorman, John Mitchel, Thomas Devin Reilly, and Thomas Darcy M'Gee. I do not include several distinguished men who lived in the provinces with whom we communicated, and from whom we received sympathy and sustainment; and I omit others who took a leading part, in deference to the position they are now placed in.

I have not mentioned the name of Mr. O'Brien, as associated with us at this early stage. He joined the Association in a time of great excitement. The Nation hailed the accession with the fondest joy. The consistency of his politics, the purity of his intentions, and the unvarying rectitude of his life gave abundant assurance, not alone that he was deeply sincere, but that his purpose could only be changed by death. But to those who looked beyond the expediency of the hour, those who had cherished fervently the passionate aspirations for true liberty his name and character became an augury of success: nor would they intrude for any consideration on the attitude of lofty dignity he assumed.

Before proceeding to details of succeeding events, a brief recapitulation of important facts, with the dates of their occurrences, become necessary. A few others, not heretofore alluded to, must needs be added.

The date of the imprisonment is the 30th of May, 1844: that of the release the 6th of September in the same year.

In the intermediate period the amount received in the Repeal treasury during four weeks was, £12,379 14s. 9d.

One party there was who regretted the Bill still more deeply, but in a different point of view. At the head of these was Thomas Davis. He regarded it as an instrument of dissension and weakness, cunningly adapted to that end by Sir Robert Peel, and he deplored the diversion of the public mind and energy from the grand national object. Mr. O'Brien, to a certain extent, shared this feeling, but never obtruded the opinion or ventured to check the Association, while Mr. Davis confined his efforts to passionate warnings addressed through the columns of the Nation.

This question is introduced here because it was important and fatal in its consequences. A still more important one taken in the same light must interrupt its discussion for a moment: Mr. O'Connell's Federal letter, already referred to. The leading sentiments of that letter are subjoined. It is dated the 2nd of October, 1844.

After stating what Simple Repeal and what Federalism respectively meant, he proceeded to contrast their value.

"The Federalists, on the contrary, appear to me to require more for the people of Ireland than the Simple Repealers do; for besides the local parliament in Ireland having full and perfect authority, the Federalists require that there should be, for questions of imperial concern, colonial, naval and military, and of foreign alliance and policy, a Congressional or Federal Parliament, in which Ireland should have her fair share and proportion of representatives and power.

"It is but just and right to confess that in this respect the Federalists would give Ireland more weight and importance in imperial concerns than she could acquire by means of the plan of Simple Repealers.

"For my own part, I will own that since I have come to contemplate the specific differences such as they are, between Simple Repeal and Federalism, I do at present feel a preference for the Federative plan, as tending more to the utility of Ireland and the maintenance of the connection with England than the plan of Simple Repeal.

"The Federalists cannot but perceive that there has been upon my part a pause in the agitation for Repeal since the period of our release from unjust imprisonment."

I have only extracted from Mr. O'Connell's most elaborate letter, his distinctly expressed preference for Federalism, and the single reason upon which the preference is founded. The remainder consists for the most part of a sort of logical equation, balancing the component elements of both plans, from which is deduced the above conclusion.

Prominent among these was the spirit of religious dissension already under discussion, to which it is now time to recur.

At and after the period when the Roman Catholic prelates accepted the functions of administering a law insulting and obnoxious to the Catholics generally, much angry controversy prevailed. A report was rife that the Government not alone succeeded in deluding the Irish Bishops, but had accredited a minister plenipotentiary, whose mission was to conciliate the Court of Rome to a "Concordat" with England. A rescript said to be received by the Most Reverend Doctor Crolly, the Primate, was adduced to prove not alone the existence of the intrigue, but its partial success. The rescript contained an admonition to restrain the intemperate violence of political priests, and an advice to confine themselves more generally to the sacred functions of their holy office. The English press magnified the advice into a command, and exulted over the failure of the Repeal movement whose extinction they augured from the withdrawal of the Catholic priesthood.

Mr. O'Connell, alarmed at the import of a command so fatal, pronounced the rescript "uncanonical." This led to greater dissensions and bitterer recriminations. The prelates who condemned the Bequest Act, denounced those who accepted the task of administering it. One of the body thus writes:—

FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT CAUSED BY THE RESCRIPT—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MR. O'CONNELL AND THE PRIMATE. — FINANCIAL REFORMS IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION, AND CONSEQUENT DISSENSION.—'82 CLUB. — THE COLLEGES BILL. — DIFFERENCES AND CALUMNIES CONSEQUENT UPON IT. QUARREL WITH MR. DAVIS. — THE GREAT LEVEE AT THE ROTUNDA. — DECLINE OF THE AGITATION. — CLOSING LABOURS AND DEATH OF THOMAS DAVIS.

Thus wrote Thomas Davis at the opening of the new year:—

But the prelates were far from unanimous in their construction of the rescript which they promised unanimously to obey. With the resolution among his papers, the Archbishop of Tuam proceeded directly from the Episcopal meeting to the Repeal banquet at Limerick, where he delivered a speech stronger in language and more violent in character than any he had ever uttered. Some passages in that speech, wherein he eulogised the heroism of the women of Limerick who cut their long hair to supply the defenders of the city with strings for their bows, excited the wildest enthusiasm and most rapturous applause. Doctor Cantwell, in the letter already referred to, gives his construction, which he says was that of the majority.

The coincidence seems a strange one, that in the same paper, which thus disposes of the rescript, the same paper wherein appear the letters of Doctor Crolly, Doctor Cantwell, and Mr. O'Connell, the same paper in which is published the official denial of a Concordat with the Pope, under the viceregal seal, are also published the proceedings of the Repeal Association, which consisted, to a great extent, of a violent attack on the exploded Concordat. At the meeting held on the 13th of January, it was denounced especially by two of Mr. O'Connell's friends, Mr. O'Neill Daunt and Mr. John Reilly, in terms the most vehement and indignant. Mr. Daunt used these words. "On that day fortnight he had proclaimed from the chair of the Association, that if a rescript should emanate from Rome denouncing the national movement, the Catholics of Ireland would treat it as so much waste paper." This statement was made on the 13th, Doctor Crolly's letter is dated on the 11th, Mr. O'Connell's on the 14th, and Lord Heytesbury's denial of the Concordat on the 15th of January. Contemporaneously with all these was also published an address of his clergy to the Archbishop of Dublin, deprecating in the strongest language certain calumnies against him, which they attribute to priests and people, Protestant and Catholic.

Publicly or privately the Seceders did not interfere. At the meeting of the Association already alluded to, Mr. O'Brien made a most noble speech, inculcating education, self-reliance, organisation and progress, without stooping to refer to the perplexed question, which filled his audience with angry passions, and supplied the other speakers with intemperate enthusiasm.

The Eighty-Two Club which was projected in prison was finally organised in January, 1845. The differences which manifested themselves in Conciliation Hall imperceptibly extended to this body. The original members constituted the committee and were self-appointed. The others had to submit to a ballot. Some few were rejected, at which Mr. O'Connell's friends took umbrage, and the rejected aspirants were sure to attribute their decision to their devotion to the "Liberator." Thus it happened that most objectionable candidates could not be resisted without incurring the imputation of opposing and thwarting the "saviour of his country."

But that which produced the first sensible and vital difference between Mr. O'Connell and the Seceders was the Colleges Bill. Education had long been a subject of anxious solicitude with Mr. Davis, and he was in continual communication with Mr. Wyse, its great parliamentary champion. He had repeatedly urged upon him the indispensable necessity of the principle of mixed education, as the basis of any collegiate system for Ireland. That basis was recognised in the system of national education which was accepted and approved of by the whole Catholic Hierarchy, with one exception, and most warmly sanctioned by the Catholic priesthood and laity. Extreme bigots of the Protestant school opposed and denounced it as unscriptural and Godless, and one extreme bigot of the Catholic school echoed the objurgation. It was not to be supposed that a principle thus sanctioned, tried, and efficient as applicable to the children of the poor, would be objected to when applied to those who were higher in station and older in years. When, therefore, the Bill was introduced and its principal provisions announced, it was received with the utmost delight and, even, triumph. Mr. O'Connell proclaimed in a meeting of the committee his emphatic approval of the principle of the Bill.

It will be observed that the principle of mixed education is not here directly approved or condemned. But approval is an inference, as clear and emphatic as words could express. The memorial prays for distinct and specific alterations in the details of the Bill. It demands that certain branches of secular education should be taught to the Catholic students by Catholic professors approved of by the prelates, and it insists upon other guarantees to secure the Catholic youth from the danger of all and every species of interference with the tenets of their faith.

In the desultory history of this question, two facts have been stated requiring distinct proof. They are:—First, that Mr. O'Connell was favourable to the principle of mixed education in the commencement.

And, secondly, that the Seceders—those who were afterwards so glibly denounced as infidels for their support of the Godless bill—were as much opposed to that bill as he was.

In a prolonged and most earnest debate in the House of Commons, on motion for going into Committee on the Bill, June 2nd, Mr. O'Connell, after eulogising the Maynooth grant, says:—

But the testimony of Mr. O'Connell himself will be considered more conclusive.

Speaking in the Association on the 6th of July, he said:—

Again, in the course of the same speech, he said:

He concluded by lauding Lord John Russell for his valuable assistance in the attempt to amend the bill, and finally said that, having failed in this attempt, he "flung the bill to the ministry, to deal with it as they pleased."

It will be observed that Mr. O'Connell's opinions underwent a serious and important change during the time over which these speeches range. That change was produced gradually, and not without infinite trouble on the part of his son whose inveterate zeal knew no bounds. In his father's presence, and more particularly so in his absence, he denounced the bill, and held up any Catholic who dared to support it to public indignation. He called on the people of Waterford to demand Mr. Wyse's resignation, not because he was an unfaithful representative, but because he was unchristian. If he had not determined to divide the Association on this question, he did all a man could do who had so determined.

Upon the occasion of this petition being submitted to the Association (9th June, 1845), Mr. J. O'Connell delivered one of his usual invectives against the bill and its abettors. Mr. O'Brien deprecated the ill-feeling and discord such language was calculated to provoke. In the course of his observations he said:—

The Reverend John Kenyon, then little known, rose to protest against the course pursued by Mr. J. O'Connell, which he characterised as not only uncatholic but unchristian. Mr. J. O'Connell, in the blandest tones, deprecated any discussion tending to division, which induced Mr. Kenyon to sit down. Having spread with dexterous industry the most baleful elements of discord, he begged they should not be disturbed.

I will be pardoned for transcribing here a few observations of my own on that occasion.

Numerous other proofs to the same facts are accessible, but these are abundantly conclusive. The history of the struggle itself, the slow and evidently reluctant change in Mr. O'Connell's opinions, and the intolerant spirit with which the enemies of the bill pursued the name and character of those who, although they approved of the mixed system, were as inveterately inimical to the dangerous provisions of the bill as they were themselves, sufficiently attest that faction swayed the troubled movement of clerical and popular passion alike. The vulgar and virulent anathemas of some tongues and pens not only swept unsparingly over the unhappy crowd, but aimed at the lofty sphere of Episcopal authority, even where most identical with purity and piety. A malignant charity extended to the errors of the Primate that palliation which perverted reason otherwise refused to admit. Too lofty to be accused of treachery, he was not too sacred to be pronounced mad.

The great act of the day was the adoption of the following pledge. It had been prepared and approved by the Committee of the Association, and every word was canvassed with the most scrupulous regard to the trying circumstances which the committee found themselves in presence of. The virulent hostility of the Tory Government had been baffled, and its utmost strength discomfited. It was understood at the time that a Whig Government was in the advent of power, and the great object of the pledge was to record the solemn conviction of the Nation that they were faithless and treacherous as the others were unscrupulous and vindictive, and that to the corrupting influence of the one and the unmasked hostility of the other the same resistance should be shown. The pledge was preceded by this resolution:—

No event worth a memory marked the close of 1845, or the first months of 1846. The Colleges Bill had passed, without a single important amendment, and a Roman Catholic priest accepted the nomination of Government, as president of one of the institutions. Some of the prelates, too, were said to be favourable to the colleges, even as they were then constituted, and the divisions supposed to exist among them were imparting their acridity to the deepening distractions of the time, when an event occurred—the advent of the Whigs to office—which broke up the great confederacy on which the hopes of the nation were staked.

IMPRISONMENT OF O'BRIEN FOR CONTEMPT OF THE BRITISH COMMONS. — CONDUCT OF THE ASSOCIATION. — DEPUTATION FROM THE '82 CLUB.—MR. O'CONNELL RETURNS TO IRELAND. — DISCUSSIONS IN THE COMMITTEE.

Before proceeding to detail the circumstances which led to the celebrated secession, it is essential to dispose of an episode in the struggle, which, more than any other, stamped its impress on the acts and feelings of that unfortunate period; I allude to the imprisonment, by the House of Commons, of William Smith O'Brien. There is no act of his life upon which there has been so much acrimonious criticism; none on account of which he has been subjected to so much intemperate misrepresentation. And yet, perhaps, his great career, fruitful in good actions, never furnished a purer or more unselfish example of sound judgment as well as intrepidity and devotion. The history of his incarceration ranges over a great portion of the time which has been already passed, and enters largely into the leading events, hereafter to be related. A clear understanding of the whole—of Mr. O'Brien's influencing motives and his tenacity of principle—would be impossible without a distinct recital of the circumstances out of which his purpose first grew, and which, to the end, controlled his resolution.

First, "Whether the controlling power of the English House of Commons over its members, which admittedly it possessed before the Act of Union, was extended to the Irish portion of the members by that Act, there being no express provision creating it?"

And secondly, "Whether even if the House possessed the power, it was competent to enforce it, or, in other words, whether the Speaker's warrant would receive Ireland?"

Here follows Mr. O'Brien's letter:—

These documents were entered on the minutes of the Association, and remained on its records with the original resolution. But no more was done in the matter until the beginning of April, 1846.

During the early part of his imprisonment, a motion was made questioning the authority of the House. In the course of the discussion, Sir Thomas Wilde, then Attorney-General, dared any constitutional lawyer to impugn the jurisdiction assumed by the House. Every member felt that the challenge was offered to Mr. O'Connell, who replied as follows:—

I add to this an extract from his speech delivered at the Corn Exchange, when, in spite of the most earnest remonstrance, the Association offered its defiance in solemn form to the British Parliament.

In the provinces, the timid policy of the Association was decried with bitterness, and the men who struggled, against great odds, to identify the whole island with Mr. O'Brien, and pledge it to sustain him to the last, were subjected to the most virulent denunciations. Because the compromised resolution was moved, seconded, and spoken to by them, the whole country regarded them as the betrayers of their own avowed chief, and the violence with which they were attacked was unmeasured and unscrupulous.

Whether Mr. O'Connell was influenced by one or all of these occurrences, cannot be affirmed here. But he proceeded to Ireland in the course of the week, and suddenly called a meeting of the Committee of the Association, before which he arraigned us of discourtesy to him in London, found fault with the meeting at Liverpool, accused the Nation of attacking him, and, finally, expressed his unequivocal disapprobation of my resistance to the order of the chairman in the Hall. The deputation explained their conduct in London, and the motives that governed them, with which he appeared to be satisfied. All connection with the proceeding in Liverpool with which he took offence, was disclaimed, and, finally, Mr. Duffy satisfied him that no offence was meant him in the Nation, and that the passage of which he complained had no reference to him.

The two positions were abandoned, and the Committee separated on amicable terms. Another subject of importance was under discussion. This was, what suitable mark of national respect should be offered to Mr. O'Brien; and it was proposed that the committee should re-assemble on the following day (Sunday), at two o'clock. At the second meeting the disagreeable topics of the former evening were revived and discussed in a more acrimonious spirit and tone. The Committee was differently composed, most of the treasurers connected with the Committee being present, and most of the professional men, who attended on Saturday, being absent, Mr. O'Connell saw his advantage, or those under whose guidance he unfortunately was, saw it, and urged him on. He clearly had a majority. But having satisfied himself he could succeed, with a resolution refusing to circulate the Nation, he generously conceded the whole matter; and once more the Committee separated on good terms.

One word of concession would have saved the Nation at this juncture; but that one word would not be written, had the consequence of refusal been the loss of every subscriber it had in the world. It maintained its high position in face of the two despotisms which had combined to crush it. The resolution of the Association was not formally recorded, but it remained in readiness to be re-asserted as soon as the trial in the Queen's Bench would be over.

That trial was for the celebrated railroad article, written by John Mitchel. When the article first appeared, Mr. O'Connell came to the Nation office. He seated himself familiarly, and, seeing all its contributors around him, he said: "I came to complain of this article." He then read through until where certain principles, previously promulgated, were recommended to Repeal wardens as the catechism they should teach. "I do not object," said he, "to your principles; but I object to your coupling them with the duties of Repeal wardens who are the officers of the Association." Mr. Duffy promised, at once, to explain the matter, to Mr. O'Connell's satisfaction, in the next number. He did so accordingly, and no more was said of it until after the prosecution was commenced.

In the Hall, the speech was regarded as triumphant for the country, but conclusive against Mr. Duffy. It was said that for sake of his client he should confuse, confound and deny. The fact, however, justified the advocate. When Mr. Mitchel first promulgated his principles, they grated strongly on the public ear. Men openly pronounced the doctrines pernicious and bloody. But the veteran of the bar, speaking in the spirit of the more glorious times he remembered, denounced as a slave and a toward any one who thought them too strong for the occasion on which they were used, and the provocation to which they applied. For a brief moment he awoke in other hearts the spirit that lived in his own. The jury refused to convict, and were discharged. But the prosecution in which the Attorney-General failed, was transferred before a more loyal tribunal, and Mr. Duffy was condemned by the judgment of Conciliation Hall; a judgment of which something remains to be said hereafter.

It has been stated that the subject of testifying the respect of the Nation for its chivalrous advocate, after his release from the prison of the House of Commons—he was discharged without compromise or submission on the 26th of May—was under discussion.

DEFEAT OF PEEL. — ACCESSION or THE WHIGS.—MR. O'CONNELL'S COURSE. — DEBATES IN CONCILIATION HALL.—MR. O'CONNELL DENOUNCES THE YOUNG IRELAND PARTY. — CONTINUED DEBATES. — QUESTIONS AT ISSUE. — PHYSICAL FORCE. — THE SECESSION. — WHIG ALLIANCE. — DUBLIN REMONSTRANCE. — FORMATION OF THE CONFEDERATION, ITS CAREER.—MR. O'CONNELL'S DEATH. — CLOSE OF THE YEAR 1847.

On the 25th of June, Sir Robert Peel was defeated in the House of Commons on a motion that the Irish Coercion Bill be read a second time.

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.

No wonder that the actual return of Mr. Shiel, which the committee was charged to resist, had escaped its vigilance; for the celebrated Peace Resolutions were, at the same time, under discussion, and produced simultaneously with the Dungarvan report. Mr. Mitchel, Mr. O'Gorman and Mr. Meagher, who attended the committee, vainly remonstrated against the betrayal of Dungarvan, as well as the Peace Resolutions. They saw that the real object of the resolutions was to blind the country to the other important question, whether the Irish constituencies were to be transferred once more to Whig placemen; and they confined their opposition principally to the Dungarvan case. It must be admitted, too, that the falsehood involved in the Peace Resolutions, escaped their attention in the first instance; and they were under the impression that the pledge they contained extended no farther than the action of the Association itself was concerned. On consideration, they found it was of far wider scope, and would engage them to a false principle, embracing all men, all countries and all tunes; and having stated this at the public meeting of the Association, they allowed the resolutions to pass without further opposition.

The resolution, reported on the 13th of July, 1846, is as follows:—

Sometimes, it has been averred lately that these two resolutions are, in principle and effect, the same. Mr. O'Connell himself declared the latter was introduced by him, "to draw a line of demarcation between Old and Young Ireland." Indeed, if there were no distinction, the introduction would be eminently absurd as well as pernicious. And if they be different, as essentially they are, there must be some strong justification for the adoption of the latter.

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.

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."

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.

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."

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.

The seceders determined to abide the issue. They had the fullest confidence that the insensate cry raised against them would eventually subside, and that truth would again prevail. They contented themselves, therefore, with appealing to their countrymen, through the columns of the Nation, then interdicted and banned through every parish in the island. But, in those appeals, there was no word of allusion to the storm of calumny and denunciation then raging against them. They sought to fix public attention on subjects of vast national importance, and to awake the energies of the people to some becoming effort where the stake was their lives. Meantime, week after week, the Government was praised, the Board of Works were praised, and the people—"the faithful and moral people, who died, peacefully, of hunger"—were praised, in the Repeal Association.

The history of the Confederation, such as its importance deserves, is beyond the scope of my present purpose. Others may undertake to vindicate for its proceedings that enduring place in the annals of the country to which they are eminently entitled. Here, but a few words can be said.

The reaction in the public mind, consequent on his death, was short-lived; and the Confederation progressed rapidly, during the closing months of the year 1847. Although not formally acknowledged, every one saw that it was the only public body in the country deserving or enjoying anything like public confidence.

THE SPLIT WITH MR. MITCHEL. — HIS TRIAL, CONVICTION, SENTENCE AND SPEECH. — THE "FELON" AND "TRIBUNE" ESTABLISHED. — ARREST OF MESSRS. MARTIN, O'DOHERTY, WILLIAMS AND DUFFY. — CONVICTION OF MR. MARTIN. — HIS SPEECH. — CONVICTION, SENTENCE AND SPEECH OF MR. O'DOHERTY. — DISSOLUTION OF THE CONFEDERATION. — THE LEAGUE

This is partly a statement of fact, and partly an inference. The fact is not true, and the inference is fallacious. The resolutions were not Mr. Duffy's. On the contrary, one main object with those who adopted them, without discussion, was to avoid the expression of an opinion on several abstract principles forming the groundwork of his report. Secondly, he exercised little or no influence in the debate which led to their adoption by the Confederation. Thirdly, they were warmly sustained by the influence, personal and otherwise, as well as by the exertion and ability of the very men who, according to a recent contemptible sneer, "improvised a revolution." Every one of them, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Meagher, Mr. Dillon, Mr. O'Gorman, and myself, spoke in favour of them, and against Mr. Mitchel's amendment. And, finally, even if this were not so and that the rashness of the outbreak really involved deep culpability, Mr. Duffy cannot claim exemption from his share of the blame.

I subjoin the Resolutions and Amendment. The division took place at ten o'clock, on Saturday morning, February the 5th, 1848, when the former were adopted, by a majority of 318 to 188:—

But nothing could be more remote from the fact than the assumption that those who supported the Rotunda resolutions were opposed to Mr. Mitchel in principle. If that ground were not expressly repudiated, Mr. Mitchel would have been sustained by a majority of two to one. Every speaker who exercised any influence on the meeting, took occasion emphatically to disclaim it. They did not deprecate the right or the duty of taking up arms against the English Government; but they said: While we approve of the end in view, we condemn the means, and precisely because we think them the most surely calculated of any that could be devised, to frustrate the object. This was the distinct ground, specifically, clearly and unmistakably stated, on which the amendment of Mr. Mitchel was opposed and it was the only ground on which it could be opposed; with sincerity or success. The use, therefore, which was made of the resolutions on Mr. Duffy's trial was false and unsustainable in every point of view.

This impression inevitably would be that Mr. Duffy modelled and moulded the proceedings of the Confederation at his mere pleasure; that Mr. Duffy was not alone averse to revolution, but actually conservatively loyal; and that, in the spirit of that loyalty, he controlled the whole body, and kept an insensate "Jacquerie," which existed within it, in check—that it was only when he was sent to prison this Jacquerie obtained the ascendant, and that Mr. Duffy was the victim of their intemperate folly. However agreeable all this may be to personal vanity, Mr. Duffy must feel compelled to reject it as audacious and unmeaning flattery. There is much more at stake than the estimate of private character—the highest interests of truth. They require that it should be made known and incontestably established that every word of the above—fact and inference—is unfounded. As to the statement that Mr. Duffy was made the victim of others' intemperance, its converse could be much more easily sustained. But it satisfies every requirement of truth simply to state that, morally speaking, Mr. Duffy was equally responsible for the late outbreak, with those who perilled their lives and lost their liberty forever in the struggle.

These were some of the considerations which influenced the decision of Mr. Mitchel's comrades. Whether the opinion were or were not a correct one, they acted on the conviction that, under all circumstances, any attempt to rescue him would eventuate in a street row which would entail not only defeat but disgrace. If they could but persuade themselves that a blow might be struck, even though defeat and death followed, they most certainly would have attempted it. It was generally understood, on the day before the trial, that the idea of a rescue was abandoned; and the trial commenced amidst gloomy presentiments and blighted hopes. After hours of quibbling and legal fencing, a jury was selected, by the crown, to convict. From the moment they went through the blasphemous process of swearing to give a true verdict, John Mitchel's fate was sealed.

I pass over the details, and come to the last act in the infamous drama, called his trial.

On the morning of Saturday, the 27th May, 1849, the court was crowded to a greater excess than usual, even in those days. About the empty dock were the personal friends of Mr. Mitchel, those who agreed with him, and those who did not. A little retired on either side sat John Martin, and John Kenyon—in front were William H. Mitchel, brother of the prisoner and his only relative in court, T. Devin Reilly, Thomas F. Meagher, John B. Dillon, Michael Doheny, Richard O'Gorman, Martin O'Flaherty (Mr. Mitchel's attorney), Charles O'Hara and others whom we have forgotten.

A little in advance, on the left of the dock, were the stalls reserved during the sham trial for the counsel for the defence. As yet they were only occupied by the junior advocates, Sir Colman O'Loghlen and John O'Hagan. The benches at the right of the dock, and nearer to the bench, reserved for the Attorney-General and his retainers, were vacant. The Sheriff and his white stick occupied their box, and the galleries to the right and left were crowded with jurymen—those who "had done their business," and those who were eager for employment to do more. The bench of the judges held two empty chairs. And police officers and other mercenaries, dotted thickly over the court, "concluded and set off the arrangements."

The applause of the galleries was hushed by the crier's voice—"Silence! take off your hats"; and on the right stalked in the gaunt figure of James Henry Monahan. Triumph, animosity and fear marked his night-bird face. Even yet it was hoped the great opponent of his "government," whom by rascality alone he could convict, would strike his colours, and sue for mercy. Even yet it was feared that a rescue would be attempted. How possible the former was, the reader may judge. The latter was rendered impossible by the council of the Confederation, and the few who cherished the design in the council's despite, had attempted an emeute the night previous, and were beaten and placed hors de combat. As Monahan and his retainers entered, the red face of Lefroy oozed through the bench curtains, and followed by the pale Moore, "the court was seated."

As yet the dock was empty, save that the jailor of Newgate and his deputy occupied each a corner.

There was a dead silence.

"Jailor, put forward John Mitchel," said the official, whose duty is to make such orders.

A grating of bolts—a rustling of chains, were heard behind. The low door-way at the back of the dock opened, and between turnkeys Mitchel entered.

He saluted quietly those friends about the dock he had not that day seen, conversing with one or two, and bowing to those at a distance. He then directed his eyes to the court.

After some preliminary forms, Baron Lefroy commenced operations, by stating that he had called the case the first that morning, in order to give time for any application to be made in court by, or on behalf of, the prisoner of the crown.

There was no reply.

"Business proceeded." The "Clerk of the Crown," rising to ask the usual question—"If Mr. Mitchel had anything to say why judgment should not be passed upon him?"

"I have," he answered, and after a momentary look at judges, jury-box and sheriff, he slowly continued: "I have to say that I have been tried by a packed jury—by the jury of a partisan sheriff—by a jury not empanelled, even according to the law of England, I have been found guilty by a packed jury obtained by a juggle—a jury not empanelled by a sheriff, but by a juggler."

Here he was interrupted by the sheriff rising, and, in high indignation, claiming the protection of the court.

"That is the reason," continued Mitchel, "that is the reason why I object to the sentence being passed on me."

"No," interrupted the prisoner, "I did not impute perjury to the jury."

"I understood," said the speaker on the bench, "that you had stated, in arrest of judgment, that you had been found guilty by a packed jury."

"I did," was the reply.

Robert Holmes rose, during the judge's speech, and said, "My lords, with the greatest respect, what I said was, that though he might be statutably guilty, he was not, in my opinion, morally guilty. I repeat that opinion now."

This avowal, so boldly and firmly made by the veteran Republican, was answered by all the audience, not pensioned, with plaudits.

Baron Lefroy would say no more on that point, only that the court could not acquiesce in a line of defence "which appeared to it very little short of, or amounting to, as objectionable matter as that for which the prisoner had been found guilty.

"I," replied the aged advocate, "I am answerable for that under your Act of Parliament."

The listeners to the hypocritical sentence which concluded Lefroy's speech, heard the sentence with astonishment and indignation. Mr. Mitchel merely asked, apparently without any astonishment, if he might now address some remarks to the court. The leave asked was granted, and a silence still as death awaited the prisoner.

"My lord, I knew I was setting my life on that cast; but I warned him that, in either case, the victory would be with me; and the victory is with me. Neither the jury, nor the judges, nor any other man in this court, presumes to imagine that it is a criminal who stands in this dock."

He was interrupted with the plaudits of the auditory; and again continued:—

"I have kept my word. I have shown what the law is made of in Ireland. I have shown that her majesty's government sustains itself in Ireland by packed juries, by partisan judges, by perjured sheriffs—"

"I will not say," Mr. Mitchel continued, "anything more of that kind. But I say this—"

Lefroy again interrupted him, to the effect that, within certain limits the prisoner might proceed.

"I have acted," he then said, "I have acted all through this business, from the first, under a strong sense of duty. I do not regret anything I have done, and I believe that the course which I have opened is only commenced. The Roman," he continued in one of those bursts of eloquence, with which he used to electrify men, stretching forth his clenched hand and arm, "the Roman who saw his hand burning to ashes before the tyrant, promised that three hundred should follow out his enterprise. Can I not promise for one, for two, for three, aye for hundreds?"

Here he pointed to his friends, Reilly, Martin, and Meagher. A burst of wild enthusiasm followed.

"Officer! officer! remove Mr. Mitchel," was heard from Lefroy. A rush was made on the dock, and the foremost ranks sprung from the galleries, with out-stretched arms to vow with him too. The judges rushed in terror from the benches—the turnkeys seized the hero, and in a scene of wild confusion he half walked, and was half forced through the low, dark door-way in the rear, waving his hand in a quiet farewell. The bolts grated, the gate slammed, and he was seen no more.

An hour elapsed—the excited crowd had passed away; and the partisan judges, nervous and ill at ease, ventured upon the bench again.

They were seated, and seemed to be settling down to get through "business" as well as they could, when Mr. Holmes, whose defence of Mr. Mitchel had been so offensive to them, rose. "My lords," he said, "I think I had a perfect right to use the language I did yesterday. I wish now to state that what I said yesterday as an advocate, I adopt to-day, as my own opinion. I here avow all I have said; and, perhaps, under this late Act of Parliament, her Majesty's Attorney-General, if I have violated the law, may think it his duty to proceed against me in that way. But if I have violated the law in anything I said, I must, with great respect to the court, assert that I had a perfect right to state what I stated; and now I say in deliberation, that the sentiments I expressed with respect to England, and her treatment of this country, are my sentiments, and I here openly avow them. The Attorney-General is present—I retract nothing—these are my well-judged sentiments—these are my opinions, as to the relative position of England and Ireland, and if I have, as you seem to insinuate, violated the law by stating those opinions, I now deliberately do so again. Let her Majesty's Attorney-General do his duty to his government, I have done mine to my country."

It is needless to say that the English officials did not dare accept the challenge so nobly and defiantly flung down before the very dock whence one victim had just been borne.

I feel tempted to add a word of a scene that intervened, in which I took a part. When the sheriff recovered his self-possession, he ordered several to be arrested; among others, Mr. Meagher. The officer who seized him acted rudely and violently, which led to further confusion, and the exchange of blows. At last Mr. Meagher and myself were secured and removed to prison. When order was restored, we were brought out before the court, and asked for an expression of regret. I answered, that having heard Mr. Mitchel express, in the dock, sentiments in which I entirely concurred, I took immediate occasion to mark my most distinct and emphatic approval. In doing this I had no intention of an affront to the court. But as to retract, or regret, no punishment in the power of that or any other court to inflict, would compel me to do either one or the other.

On the same day on which the above scene took place, John Mitchel was borne in irons from the land of his love, the wife of his bosom, and the children of his heart.

Immediately after, the council of the Confederation was reduced to twenty-one; and everything wore a sterner aspect, as if, whether they willed it or no, an imperious obligation required fulfilment at their hands. The slight disunion, which the fate of John Mitchel created, between those who favoured and opposed his rescue, quickly disappeared, and both parties only emulated each other in the activity and earnestness of preparation. Among the agencies of progress, suggested by the crisis, were two new journals—the Felon, edited by John Martin and T.D. Reilly, assisted by Mr. Brenan, and the Tribune, edited by Richard Dalton Williams and Kevin Izod O'Doherty, of which Mr. Savage and Dr. Antisell were joint proprietors, and to which they were joint contributors, with S.J. Meany and myself. The great object of the first was to follow in the footsteps of the United Irishman, and that of the latter was to urge the same principles upon a more republican basis. The Felon soon acquired additional interest from the daring principles and extraordinary ability of Mr. James F. Lalor, who had become a joint contributor with the recognised editors. Of the Tribune it would not become me to speak; perhaps no more is needed than that in the race to doom it was not outsped.

Although the trials that followed did not take place until long after the events which form the principal subject of this narrative, a brief account of them will not be inappropriate here.

Mr. O'Doherty was the first placed on his trial. The jury was of the stamp usual in such cases in Ireland. But a point of great importance was raised by his counsel, as to the publisher's intention to commit the felony, which they insisted should be proved, to bring his case within the provision of the Treason Felony Act. The court, composed of Chief Baron Pigot and Baron Pennefather, gave an opinion favourable to this construction, and the jury refused to convict, for which the Castle Organ did not hesitate to pronounce them perjurers. Every one supposed and rejoiced that Mr. O'Doherty had escaped; but the vengeance of the Attorney-General was far from satisfied, and he had ample satisfaction on a future day.

When asked what he had to say why sentence should not be passed upon him, he replied:—

Chief Baron and Baron Pennefather: "No. We cannot hear anything from you after sentence is pronounced."

Notwithstanding this, just as the words, "Not guilty," were pronounced by the jury, in Mr. Williams' case, despite the most flagrant and audacious bullying of the bench, Mr. O'Doherty was called up for judgment. Among all the martyr-band whom this year consigned to doom, not one behaved himself with truer or nobler heroism; not one, either, whose fate commands a deeper sympathy. Under thirty years of age, largely gifted, with most respectable connections, a high place in society, brilliant prospects, and so unostentatious in his enthusiasm that it was only then his country heard of his devotion, and learned his worth; there he stood with as lofty consciousness and as brave a heart as ever consecrated the scaffold or the battle-plain.

It is here needful to refer to myself, a topic always disagreeable to others, but painfully so on this occasion to me. The proposal to form a league with the remaining members of the Association originated with certain gentlemen, among whom the Rev. Mr. Miley held a prominent place, who personally waited on Mr. O'Brien to testify their abhorrence of the outrages offered to him in Limerick. Some very questionable politicians, who watched with the eye of traffic the current of public opinion, and sought to make the same profit of the reflux they had formerly made of its unimpeded tide, attended on those occasions. Others, of purer motives, and loftier patriotism, joined in these interviews, and contrived to have them repeated. Among these were the poet, Samuel Ferguson, and Richard Ireland, two recent and brilliant converts to the cause of nationality. There were others, whom I need not name, of equally unquestionable purity. But for several weeks, while these interviews were held, there was no exact delegation from either the Confederation or Association. I am not, indeed, aware whether any such delegation was ever formally given or assumed. However, negotiations proceeded, and though they were never brought to a satisfactory adjustment, the dissolution of the Confederation was formally proposed and adopted. On that day the greatest hope of Ireland perished.

Thus stood the facts. The considerations in favour of the junction were these: Certain men of influence, who, contrary to their own convictions, adhered to the Association, in the commencement through fear, and still adhered to it through an unintelligible hankering after consistency, pressed for an opportunity where they might abandon their former associates without the appearance of abandoning their old principles. There were others who followed a middle course, and were always with the greater crowd and the more intense enthusiasm, who demanded the same means of escape.

There was a consideration of some weight which no doubt influenced the decision of the Confederates. It was this: the Roman Catholic clergymen had given unmitigated opposition to the Confederation. Their hostility had been the most formidable obstacle in its way; and it was assumed that the presence of some leading churchmen among the Confederates, would remove the distrust which the former opposition of the priesthood had mainly tended to create.

The League met, resolutions were adopted, and speeches made that meant nothing. New men came together, looked each other in the face, and turned away as if at the heart of each there was something with which he could not trust the other. There was a short, feeble and false flourish, and no more. Those who augured so sanguinely for its action and effect were disappointed. But they shamed openly to relinquish a project for sake of which they had made such sacrifices. By degrees, however, they sought to rekindle the embers of that fire which with thoughtless hand they aided to extinguish. The Government availing themselves of the inactivity that prevailed, and acting on the information they received, resolved to strike a second blow. Charles Duffy was arrested for an article which the Castle Organ branded as shrinking and cowardly, and which evidently lacked the burning spirit of the time. Immediately the clubs, which continued a precarious and unintelligible existence, came together and elected a directory of five from among their own members. This directory consisted of Messrs. Dillon, Meagher, O'Gorman, Reilly, and M'Gee. What their exact duty was does not sufficiently appear. But I believe the fact to be that they never took counsel together.

THE OUTBREAK.—MR. O'BRIEN IN CARRICK. — CASHEL. — KILLENAULE. — MULLINAHONE. — BALLINGARRY. — AFFAIR AT KILLENAULE. — DEFEAT OF MR. O'BRIEN'S PARTY AT THE COMMON. — PERSONAL ADVENTURES OF THE WRITER AND HIS COMRADE, UP TO THE DATE OF MR. O'BRIEN'S ARREST

One singular fact, attested by all, deserves particular notice. It is this: The other Roman Catholic clergymen of Carrick did not then interfere. They had been always opposed, on other grounds, to the Irish Confederation; but in that hour of fate they were silent.

By this time crowds began to assemble at the place of rendezvous before alluded to, and word was brought us that the Reverend Mr. Morrissey, the parish priest of that place, was endeavouring to disperse them. Owing to his character, there was not much to be apprehended from his influence with the people. His associations had been with the aristocracy, and most of his friendships and sympathies contracted at the fox-covert, or on the "Stand House." This is mentioned, not in disparagement of the man, but for the purpose of rescuing his Order from imputations attaching to his conduct alone. The very fact of his interference would suggest the conclusion that the course he recommended was opposed to the general sentiments of his brethren; so we felt at this time. But we mistook his influence with the people. It was reported to us that he used certain arguments, incredible, because blasphemous. But the argument which succeeded, and which all alike attested, was this, "that he would put himself at the head of the people if they but waited three weeks."

The history was more melancholy than our own. My absence was used as an argument, sincere or pretended, against any effort in that town. Mr. O'Brien, in ignorance of whom to apply to, took counsel with one man at least, since accused of the darkest treachery. Others, from whom I had different hopes, shrank from an encounter which, at other times, they seemed to long for as the dearest blessing Heaven could bestow. There no clergymen interfered—the people were left to act for themselves; but it must be admitted that the actual people never had an opportunity of proving their courage. A young friend of mine, who had all my trust, and justified it by unshaken fidelity through many a trial, was despatched to the country to procure assistance, but he applied to the wrong source, and, deluded by the character of him to whom he had spoken, returned under the mistaken conviction that from the country nothing was to be expected.

Their departure from Cashel compelled a feeling of gloomier forebodings and deeper despair than they had yet experienced. The darkest consciousness that ever clouded the hopes of man began to darken upon them. Where they expected that every man would make a fortress for them in his very heart, they were almost abandoned. But their resolution remained unchanged. They, therefore, resolved as a final resource to take up their position in the most inaccessible part of the country. As they proceeded through the hilly grounds, skirting the Tipperary collieries, a crowd began to gather around them, and they saw what they hoped would form the nucleus of an army. Braver hearts never beat beneath a cuirass, but they were not armed, disciplined or even taught. On that day they took the road to the village of Mullinahone, situate about seventeen miles south-east of Cashel. As they entered Mullinahone, the chapel bell was rung, and a crowd of some thousands collected.

I was all this time ignorant of what occurred. After Mr. Reilly had left me, and I was joined by the young friend already mentioned, I summoned as many of the farmers of the neighbourhood as I could collect, and it was agreed that ten of them, who would represent each one hundred men, should meet me next day, after divine service, at the wood of Keilavalla, situate near the western base of Slievenamon. We were to be joined by two others from the neighbourhood of Carrick-on Suir, from which we were distant about ten miles. On that morning the news of Mr. O'Brien's disaster spread far, and was, of course, exaggerated. I had slept the previous night not far from the mountain, where I was watched by two brothers named Walsh, who lived at Brookhill, but have since removed to the United States. I gladly avail myself of this occasion to attest their fidelity and bravery. At the time appointed, my friend and I proceeded to the place of rendezvous. We remained for hours, and remained in vain. At last one only of the ten arrived. He told us that at the chapel the Rev. Patrick Laffan read the names of the proscribed traitors for whose persons a reward was offered....

We continued on the mountain during the remainder of the day; and toward evening about fifty men came up to us, who, one and all, expressed the utmost indignation at what had happened. Once more our hopes revived. If Mr. O'Brien could avoid arrest for a few weeks only, we expected that a sense of shame would sting the country to desperate exertion.

ARREST OF MR. O'BRIEN, OF MESSRS. MEAGHER AND O'DONOHOE. — ARREST OF TERENCE BELLEW MACMANUS. — CLONMEL SPECIAL COMMISSION. — TRIAL, CONVICTION, SPEECHES AND SENTENCE OF THE REBELS. — WRIT OF ERROR. — COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE. — TRANSPORTATION OF THE HEROES.

The propagator of this malignity knows it to be false. He knows also that it serves the purpose of those who would charge the country's truest and bravest with vilest treachery.

The 6th day of August was the date of Mr. O'Brien's arrest; the 13th of August that of Messrs. Meagher and O'Donohoe, and the 7th of September that of Mr. MacManus. Mr. O'Brien was taken at the Thurles railway station; Messrs. Meagher and O'Donohoe, near Rathgannon, on the road between Clonoulty and Holycross, about five miles from Thurles, and Mr. MacManus on board the ship N.D. Chase, in the bay of Cove, on the 7th of September. They were each conveyed to Kilmainham Jail, in the first instance, where they remained until within a few days of the opening of the special commission at Clonmel. This took place on Thursday, the 21st of Sept., when the bills were found, but six days were allowed to Mr. O'Brien and the rest of the prisoners to peruse the indictment, with copies of which they were respectively furnished. On Thursday, the 28th, the trial of Mr. O'Brien commenced; that of Mr. MacManus on the 9th of October; that of Mr. O'Donohoe on the 13th, and that of Mr. Meagher on the 16th.

The scene presented by Clonmel excited much public surprise. Newspaper correspondents magnified the sullen gloom that prevailed into popular apathy or national cowardice, as suited the bent or purpose of their employers. The truth was, the people exhibited during the trial a decent and respectful forbearance. Empty parade or vociferous sorrow would only mock the lofty purpose of the sufferers; and besides, the mortification which rankled in the public heart was too deep for utterance. The hopes of the people had been dashed, and they were stunned and stupefied by their fall. But so far from being apathetic, nightly assemblages were held to consider if, even in that extremity, something was not yet possible to be done.

I despair of conveying to my readers an adequate idea of the gloom and horror of the scene in which those immortal words were spoken. Death, near and terrible, was in the future. The recollection of ten days' infamy peopled the present with ghastly images of evil. Vindictiveness inexorable glared from the bench. The dust around the feet of the speakers was laden with guilt. It would not rise to the briskest breeze, beneath the clearest sky, in light summer air, so heavy had the tread of murder been upon it. And oh, to think when they closed their eyes upon this world, what deeper death they left their country ... Will no day of vengeance come, O God! . . .

On the morning of the 23rd of the same month, the same formula was repeated to Terence Bellew MacManus, Patrick O'Donohoe, and Thomas Francis Meagher, who replied respectively as follows:—

Mr. O'Donohoe confined himself to a few words concerning his trial.

The sentence of the court was then pronounced, as it had been previously on Mr. O'Brien. It was in the following words:—

A writ of error was sued out principally on the ground that the principles of constitutional law were violated. The House of Lords finally quashed the error and confirmed the judgment. Meantime, the country, or a great portion of the people, took the last step in the direction of debasement by praying the Queen and the Lord Lieutenant for a free pardon. The petitions were spurned; but her Majesty, yielding to the powerful sentiment of abhorrence against the punishment of death for political offences, commuted the sentence into transportation for life. This final sentence was carried into effect on the 9th day of July, 1849, when the ship of war Swift spread her sails and hoisted her felon flag, bearing out to sea, and having on board the four illustrious exiles.

CONTINUATION OF PERSONAL WANDERINGS. — DUNGARVAN. — THE COMERAGHS. — MOUNT MELLARY. — KILWORTH. — CROSS. DUNMANWAY. — GOUGANE BARRA. — BANTRY BAY. — THE PRIEST'S LEAP. — KENMARE. — THE REEKS. — KILLARNEY. — TEMPLENOE.— DEPARTURE. — CORK. — BRISTOL. — LONDON. — PARIS.

Next day but one I proceeded to meet O'Mahony, to learn his success in his nocturnal interviews. I was unable to meet him; but encountered a faithful follower of Thomas Francis Meagher, who was the bearer of a message to the effect that if he could be prevailed upon to attempt escaping, means could be procured for him. I expressed at once my entire concurrence, and desired the messenger should return to say that on condition the same means would be made available for those who were not yet arrested, we would all gladly accept of them. I ventured into a house, where, in early life, I spent many a happy day. Those of the family whom I had known and loved, had passed out of the world. They were a brother and sister, the former educated for the Church, and the latter highly gifted and educated far above her condition. I never knew a woman, in any rank of life, of nobler character or a more heroic nature. She had the richest store of womanly tenderness and kindly affections. She took the veil at the Dungarvan Convent in very early youth, where she died two years afterwards. I asked for some food, and while it was being prepared I wrote the following lines on a blank leaf of a book belonging to my dead friend:—

I shall not easily forget the delicacy with which this young man requested, if we thought it compatible with our safety, to tell him our names. There are few requests which either of us would feel greater reluctance in refusing. He saw our evident struggle, and said he would be satisfied with a promise that when our fate would be decided one way or the other, we would write to him; a promise which I redeemed the day after I reached Paris.

the scream of the eagle on the crags of Mailoc, far, far on high, all justify Callanan's preference for the spot which was meetest for the bard. We endeavoured to recall his tender strains, and thought mournfully of his sad prophecy—alas! when shall it be fulfilled?

We saw at a short distance, the pass which so enraptured us the night before, but we resisted the temptation to revisit it, lest the glare of light might disenchant us of those sublime impressions of beauty it had made on our minds.

But elements of danger began to lower over our loved haunts. The grouse season had just set in, and occasionally the report of a musket broke our reverie, or startled our deepest sleep. Yet, even from this cup of bitterness did we derive some sparkles of happiness. We could easily avoid the sportsman's eye; and when we wanted anything from the lower regions, the vicinity of the mountains, and the business of the fowler, accounted for our presence and our wants, and readily gained us a supply. But the potato crop had failed, and the disease had already destroyed all the tubers which had approached maturity. This rendered it necessary to look to other resources, and we contrived to procure bread and sometimes meat, which we were able to get prepared easily under pretence of being catering for shooting parties.

We at last saw our female friends approach. They brought us another excellent dinner, for which we had a still more excellent appetite. During the time we dined, they informed us that everything was proceeding as favourably as we could expect, and that they had no doubt of success. When taking leave of us, however, one of them pressed a little note into my hand, and they disappeared in the darkness. I burned to learn what the note contained. With the assistance of our new friend we found lodgings in the neighbourhood, where I read that the student failing in his enterprise, and being afraid to compromise himself further, left that very night for college. He had to consult a clergyman, a very near friend of his, and we made no doubt the present step resulted from his considerate advice.

This is written here, not for the purpose of disparaging the clergyman's counsel or the student's resolution. On the contrary, no doubt was then entertained of the sincerity of either, nor has there ever since been. There could be no one more disposed to make allowance for the difficult position in which both were placed, as well as all others who ventured to serve us: nor could we blame men for shrinking from peril, which at the best, presented no rational chance for us, while the effort involved those who made it in almost certain ruin. I had other opportunities of satisfying myself afterward that this clergyman, who visited us in the mountains, never relaxed in his exertions to save us.

At that hour, we were well assured, many a brain was busy, and many an eye set to discover our retreat. By the side of the public thoroughfares, on great bridges, and frequented cross-roads, detective vigilance kept sleepless watch, and fancied in every approaching form, the doomed victims, who were at once to satisfy the angry gallows and its own excited avarice. Equally well assured were we that the most inventive and hazardous scrutiny would never track our footsteps to the dizzy height of Carn-Tuathail. One motive with us was to baffle all calculation on the part of our pursuers. When we found we were tracked and discovered, our first care was to consider how our enemies would be likely to judge respecting our future movements. If we had reason to suspect that we were recognised on a mountain, we sought shelter in or near a town, and after we appeared in public places for a day or an hour, we kept the mountain-side for a week following.

Having appointed to meet a person this evening, near Kenmare, who was to bring us the latest papers and otherwise inform us of his lordship's movements, we proceeded in that direction, determined to return to Killarney next day to prosecute our examination of the locality. But the current news informed us that Lord John Russell had left for Scotland.

They were, it may be well conceived, not of the gayest character. The responsibility and hazards of the attempt before me, narrowed the chances of my destiny to the one alternative, and I could not shake off gloomy phantoms which represented every phase of the last bloody drama which was to close the career of those who loved, too dearly, our ill-fated land. But, come what might, my purpose was definitely fixed. I spent the evening in the deepest gloom, which I endeavoured to dissipate by composing the following stanzas, suggested at the time by involuntary visions of my wife and children at the foot of the gallows:—

He left the spot with the utmost reluctance, after venting an oath of vengeance against the head of the poor badger, to which he promised sure destruction on the occasion of their next meeting. We quickly descended in the direction of Gougane Barra, where he parted from me, indignantly refusing a half-crown which I offered him.

I felt quite secure in my then retreat. During the day I learned that the men who were to conduct me safely to Cork were arrested three several times on their way back.

In my sojourn for two days and nights in the woods of Coolmountain, I received attentions for which it would be shameful not to express my gratitude. Although the crisis of my fate was so near at hand, I felt some hours of unalloyed pleasure in its shade. I had leisure to peruse my letters from home, so full of courage, hope and love; and to consider well the different proposals and means of escape, suggested by others and contemplated by myself. The weather had cleared up and there was a succession of brilliant harvest days. I employed my evenings in composing the following two pieces; and after nightfall I was visited by some friends, with whom I sipped delicious champagne, till a late hour, 'neath the calm watchfulness of a brilliant harvest moon.

EIBLIN A RUIN

TO MY WIFE

COOLMOUNTAIN WOOD.

The next day was Sunday. No trains travelled to London except third class. This was rather unlucky, for I was aware that certain straitened gentlemen were often obliged, by stress of circumstances—the pressure of business which brooked not a moment's delay—reluctantly to avail themselves of this mode of conveyance. I felt, too, that the loyalty of these slender aristocrats, was on a par with the unhappy incidents which compelled them to consort with vulgar people, that is to say, so constrained, that however much against the impulses of their generous natures, they could not omit any opportunity of manifesting the sentiment in its full intensity, I selected my company on this occasion, being only anxious to exclude the "arbiters elegantiarum," Of my "compagnons de voyage," some were in gin, some in fumes and some in glee, and the journey passed off without an incident.

I left the place in utter dismay. I could not venture into a house such as I had lodged in at Bristol, the night before, because my person was well known in London, and because those places are frequented by characters of all sorts. I could not venture, in my then guise, to the house of my young friend to whom I had addressed the parcel, because my appearance there would inevitably attract the notice of the policeman. I dare not, of course, venture to a respectable hotel. Thus perplexed, I bethought of a woman with whom I used formerly to lodge, and I repaired to her rooms (she had herself become a lodger). I met her on the stairs, where she nearly fainted. She hurried me into the street, and there told me that a person who lived in the house was actually watching to betray me. She suggested the house of an Irishwoman who lived in a court hard by. I had no alternative. The poor woman received me with tears. Such was her emotion that I could not hesitate to trust her with my life: Her son and daughter-in-law, who spent the day with her, were about returning home. They lived in the suburbs, at the Surrey side. They proposed to take me to their cottage, and I readily consented. We got a coach and drove home. The kindliest attentions were lavished on me by these people. As soon as I arrived, I shaved and cleansed myself; no small task, considering that I had on a fortnight's beard, and had rubbed my face over with soot and grease.

There was a fete at Boulogne. Nothing was to be seen but glittering bayonets, and nothing to be heard but the harsh monotonous sound of the drum. Flags floated in the breeze, and cheers echoed from the distant hills, and everything proclaimed the festivity of liberty. It was a grand sight, and yet a sad one for me. I could not help contrasting with the scene before me the fate of my own unfortunate country. At ten o'clock we were on our way to Paris.

Such was the anxiety with which I gazed on the glad face of that sunny land during the entire of the journey that I could at this moment recognise every object that attracted my attention. But the scope of this narrative, now drawing rapidly to a close, does not embrace a description of France or Paris. Many pens have plied the task, and were mine more adequate than any, it were unfit to interweave so bright a theme with the gloomy details of this mournful history.

A word remains to be said in reference to the fate of those who were the special objects of the Government's attention. Of the six for whom a reward was offered, four escaped, namely, Mr. Dillon, Mr. O'Gorman, Mr. O'Mahony and myself. Mr. Dillon was the first who left Ireland. Late in August he sailed from Galway, and landed at New York after a voyage of seven weeks. In the same vessel sailed P.J. Smyth, who was despatched from Cashel to Dublin with directions from Mr. O'Brien. Richard O'Gorman, accompanied by John O'Donnell and Daniel Doyle, sailed from the mouth of the Shannon on board a vessel bound for Constantinople. After landing in the Turkish capital, they were obliged to lie concealed until able to procure passports for Algiers. Many foolish stories have been circulated in reference to Mr. O'Gorman's adventures and disguises in Ireland. Not one of them has the least truth in it. He or his companions never assumed any disguise, and though their adventures were more perilous, they were not so romantic as those that have been related. A more detailed account of their wanderings would no doubt be as interesting to my readers as it would be agreeable to myself. But both the time and the limits I have proposed to myself for this publication exclude it here. I could not, without too long a delay, acquire that minute and accurate knowledge of facts and dates, which would be indispensable to such a history.

I

THOMAS D'ARCY M'GEE'S NARRATIVE OF 1848

We perceived, on consultation, that if it were possible to land 400 or 500 staunch men in the north-west—say, at Sligo or Killala—where the Government were completely off their guard (all their anxieties being centred on the south), an important movement might follow in Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon and Mayo. It would be like hitting the enemy in the back of the head. It would necessarily draw off some of the forces from Munster, through the valley of the Upper Shannon, which, with its continuous chain of lake, bog and mountain frontier, would be difficult ground for the movements of a regular army.

It was necessary, as our informant said, that "someone with a name" should go over and concert with the Irishmen in Scotland the mode and time of action, and I was the only person at hand willing for that service. For my encouragement, Meagher assured me I would be "as famous as Paul Jones" if I got the men out of the Clyde, and Mr. Dillon suggested as a landing-place "the old ground, Killala."

That afternoon I left Dublin, and on Tuesday morning I was in Scotland.

These arrangements occupied from Tuesday till Friday of the last week of July. In the meanwhile, the London Journals arrived with news that O'Brien and his friends had been received with open arms in the south, and great excitement and suspicion of strangers arose in Scotland. In the Reading Room at Paisley I read myself in The Hue and Cry. One paper stated I was in Waterford, another said I was "revelling among the clubs in the Co. Dublin." The Times did me the honour to couple me with Meagher, calling us "the two most dangerous men now abroad." No one suspected my real locality.

But there never had been in Sligo or Leitrim any local Confederate or even "Repeal" organisation. The only local societies were secret—Molly Maguires and Ribbonmen. It was necessary to get into communication with them and late the next night Dr. ——, a Confederate, introduced me to one of their leaders, on a road which crosses a hill to the south of the town. This gentleman I found wary, resolute, and intelligent. He said: "I have no doubt of what you say, but I must have certain facts to lay before our district chiefs. At present we don't know what to believe. One day we hear one thing—another, another. Bring us by this day week assurances that the South is going to rise or has risen, and we will raise two thousand before the week is out." I agreed to do so and he in the meantime went to prepare his friends.

I returned to my confidants of the first conference and "reported progress." It was rather difficult to find a trusty messenger. I volunteered to go myself, but they would not hear of it. At last a man who could be depended on was obtained, and, armed with certain passwords (unintelligible except to those for whom they were intended) he left to go through Roscommon and Westmeath into Tipperary by Borrisokane and Nenagh.

From my lodgings under Benbulben I made a visit to Bundoran to meet some friends from Donegal who were anxious to consult me as to the state of the county. By an odd chance I lodged in the same house with the stipendiary magistrate, Sir Thomas Blake, and had to go through his bedroom to my own. We met frequently but he was quite unsuspicious. He has, I find since, been dismissed from his office, after an ineffectual search for me through the county, a month from the time we had lived under the same roof.

We could not but remember that this was the district chosen by Owen O'Neill after his arrival from Spain in 1645 and that it was here he "nursed up" by slow degrees the army which fought at Benburb, and which in Napoleon's opinion, but for the premature death of Owen, would have checkmated Cromwell. The ground once chosen by a great general for its natural capabilities may safely be chosen again, and usually is, as in Hungary for instance. The very posts and battlefields held and fought by Bem and Dembinski were the same whereon Huniad and Corvinus, four and five hundred years ago, fought against the Turks and Bosmens. Thus we had the sanction of a great example and the stimulus of an inspiriting tradition to point to for the choice of the ground.

We had not long to wait for news from the South—it came of itself. On Saturday the 5th of August Mr. O'Brien was arrested in Thurles. His companions, it was said, were fled hither and thither; but, at all events, his arrest had proved that, at that time, the South would not rise in arms against the Government.

This was the interpretation universally put upon it in the north-west. It was in vain I said, "There are other men as brave and as good who are still free and from whom we will hear better news." Those to whom I spoke were incredulous. Still I must do the people of the county the justice to say that in a meeting of their district-leaders at —— it was discussed for two successive nights with great animation whether or not the district should rise even then. The parties for and against a rising were nearly balanced, but the latter prevailed on the argument that unless it was general it would be fruitless.

THE PROCLAMATION OF DOHENY AND HIS COLLEAGUES

By the Lord Lieutenant General and General-Governor of Ireland

A PROCLAMATION

CLARENDON—

Whereas we have received information that THOMAS FRANCIS MEAGHER, JOHN B. DILLON and MICHAEL DOHENY have been guilty of treasonable practices, now we the Lord Lieutenant being determined to bring the said THOMAS FRANCIS MEAGHER, JOHN B. DILLON and MICHAEL DOHENY to justice, do hereby offer a reward of

THREE HUNDRED POUNDS

to any person or persons who shall secure and deliver up to safe custody the person of any one of them, the said THOMAS FRANCIS MEAGHER, JOHN B. DILLON and MICHAEL DOHENY.

And we do hereby strictly charge and command all justices of the peace, mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, constables and all other of her Majesty's loyal subjects to use their utmost-diligence in apprehending the said THOMAS FRANCIS MEAGHER, JOHN B. DILLON and MICHAEL DOHENY.

Given at her Majesty's Castle of Dublin, this 28th day of July, 1848.

By his Excellency's Command,

T.N. REDINGTON.

"THE HUE AND CRY"

The official description of himself read by Thomas Darcy M'Gee was more accurate and less intentionally insulting than the official descriptions of most of his colleagues compiled in Dublin Castle and published in the Hue and Cry of July 27th, 1848. Probably no other official document issued to the public in the last hundred years by Dublin Castle has equalled this stupid malignity. "Sketches of Doheny and some of the Confederate leaders, modelled upon the descriptions of burglars and murderers, that ordinarily adorn the Hue and Cry were," wrote Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, a generation later, "issued for the enjoyment of loyal persons." The Freeman's Journal of the day wrote that the public who were acquainted with the appearance of the gentlemen described will read with feelings of contempt the malignant effort to insult and wound the relatives of the men proscribed by the issue of a written caricature of their persons. This remarkable production of the genius and spirit of Dublin Castle, read as follows:—

DESCRIPTION OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH
TREASONABLE PRACTICES

WILLIAM SMITH O'BRIEN.—No occupation; forty-six years of age; six feet in height; sandy hair; dark eyes; sallow, long face; has a sneering smile constantly on his face; full whiskers; sandy; a little grey; well-set man; walks erect; dresses well.

THOMAS FRANCIS MEAGHER.—No occupation; twenty-five years of age; five feet nine inches; dark, nearly black hair; light blue eyes; pale face; high cheekbones; peculiar expression about the eyes; cocked nose; no whiskers; well-dressed.

MICHAEL DOHENY.—Barrister; forty years of age; five feet eight inches in height; fair or sandy hair; grey eyes; coarse red face like a man given to drink; high cheekbones; wants several of his teeth; very vulgar appearance; peculiar coarse unpleasant voice; dress respectable; small short red whiskers.

MICHAEL CREAN.—Shopman at a shoe-shop; thirty-five years of age; five feet eight inches; fair or sandy hair; grey eyes; full face; light whiskers; high fore-head; well-set person; dress, dark shooting frock or grey tweed, and grey tweed trousers.

JOSEPH BRENNAN.—Sub-Editor of the Felon newspaper; five feet six inches in height; dark hair; dark eyes; pale, sallow face; very stout; round shoulders; Cork accent; no whiskers; hair on the upper lip; soft, sickly face; rather respectably dressed, a little reduced.

THOMAS DEVIN REILLY.—Sub-editor of the Felon newspaper; twenty-four years of age; five feet seven inches in height; sandy coarse hair; grey eyes; round freckled face; head remarkably broad at the top; broad shoulders; well-set; dresses well.

JOHN CANTWELL.—Shopman at a grocer's; thirty-five years of age; five feet ten inches in height; sandy hair; grey eyes; fair face; good looking; short whisker, light; rather slight person, dresses ... Supposed a native of Dublin.

STEPHEN J. MEANY.—Sub-editor of Irish Tribune; twenty-six years of age; five feet eleven inches in height; dark hair; full blue eyes; dark face; small whiskers growing under the chin; smart appearance; was a constable of the C Division of Police, discharged for dirty habits; stout person; generally dressed in black.

RICHARD O'GORMAN, Junior.—Barrister; thirty years of age; five feet eleven inches in height; very dark hair; dark eyes; thin long face; large dark whiskers; well-made and active; walks upright; dresses black frock coat, tweed trousers.

ANGLESEY, LORD (1768-1854).—Henry William Paget, who lost a leg at Waterloo and erected a monument to its memory. Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 1828-9, 1830-3.

ANTISELL, DR. THOMAS.—A Dublin surgeon and chemist of distinction, author of various pamphlets and addresses to the Royal Dublin Society on the geology of Ireland, reafforestation, and the sanitary conditions of Irish town-life. He supplied a large part of the capital to found the Irish Tribune. After the failure of the insurrection he went to the United States where he had a distinguished scientific career.

BANTRY, LORD.—(1801-1884) William Hare White, third earl, Lieut-Col, of the West Cork Artillery. The title became extinct in 1891.

BARRY, MICHAEL JOSEPH (1817-1889).—A Cork barrister, editor of "The Songs of Ireland" in the Library of Ireland, and author of several martial pieces, including "The Flag of Green." After the failure of the insurrection he renounced Nationalism and subsequently became a Dublin Police Magistrate.

BARRETT, RICHARD (17— -1855).—Brother of Eaton Stannard Barrett of Cork, the once famous author of "All the Talents." A journalist of fortune who changed sides with agility and enlisted under O'Connell in his latter years, having formerly vilified him.

BRENAN, JOSEPH (1828-1857).—The youngest of the Young Ireland leaders. Edited Fullam's Irishman in 1849 and unsuccessfully attempted to revive the insurrection in Waterford and Tipperary. On his failure he emigrated to the United States and died in New Orleans.

BRYAN, MAJOR.—Of Raheny Lodge, Co. Dublin. Major Bryan acquired a moderate fortune in Tasmania and returned to Ireland where he joined the Repeal movement. He left Conciliation Hall with the Young Irelanders.

CAMPBELL, SIR JOHN (1779-1861).—Author of the "Lives of the Lord Chancellors." A Scots Tory politician, raised to the peerage subsequent to his connection with Ireland, and finally Lord Chancellor of England.

CANGLEY, DAVID (18— -1847).—A barrister and one of the hopes of Young Ireland. Ill-health pursued him through life and ended it prematurely.

CANTWELL, JAMES.—A Dublin mercantile assistant and, later, a restaurant-proprietor. One of the Council of the Confederation who supported Mitchel's policy.

CARLETON, WILLIAM (1794-1869).—Author of "Traits and Stories of the Irish Peasantry."

CAVAIGNAC, LOUIS EUGENE (1802-1857).—One of the most distinguished of the French Generals in the second quarter of the nineteenth century. On the establishment of the second Republic he was appointed Minister for War, and when the "Reds" threatened its stability he was invested with the dictatorship and speedily crushed the insurrection. In the contest for the Presidency the glamour of Louis Napoleon's name defeated Cavaignac. After Napoleon's coup-d'etat Cavaignac retired into private life. He had sympathies with Ireland, and in 1848 gave private assurances that in the event of an Irish insurrection winning initial successes, he would bring the influence of France to bear on England to force her to concede terms to Ireland.

"CHRISTABEL" (1815-1881).—Miss M'Carthy, of Kilfademore House, Kenmare, afterwards Mrs. Downing. A Popular poetess of the period, usually using the nom-de-guerre of "Christabel." Her best-known poem is "The Grave of MacCaura." She assisted Doheny and Stephens to escape.

CLARENDON, EARL OF (1804-1870).—George Villiers, the fourth earl, according to his English biographers, represented the highest type of English politician and English gentleman. Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 1846-1852. He hired the editor of an obscene journal in Dublin to publish libels upon the moral character of the Young Irelanders, and conducted the affairs of the country from March to June, 1848, under this man's advice. He paid £3,400 for the services rendered and a demand for further payments led to a public disclosure of the facts. At the time Clarendon hired James Birch, Birch had completed a sentence of imprisonment for criminal libel.

CLEMENTS, EDWARD.—A barrister. One of O'Connell's "tail" in Conciliation Hall. The attempt of O'Connell to provide "poor Ned Clements" with a Government situation precipitated the rupture with Young Ireland.

CONWAY, M.G.—A journalist of ability and no principle who followed the path of fortune. He professed ultra-Catholic views while O'Connell was in the ascendant. After O'Connell's death he abjured Catholicism to ingratiate himself with the Ascendancy element.

CRAMPTON, JUDGE (17— -1858).—Philip Crampton, called to the Bar 1810, Solicitor-General 1832, and raised to the Bench 1834. One of the judges at O'Connell's trial, a strong Tory but a clever lawyer.

CROLLY, DR. (1780-1849).—Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland from 1835 until his death.

DAUNT, W.J. O'NEILL.—A Co. Cork gentleman, one of O'Connell's first Protestant supporters in the Repeal Movement. He was elected for Mallow, but unseated. He ceased to attend Conciliation Hall after the rupture with the Young Irelanders. Many years later he took a prominent part in the Home Rule movement.

DAVIS, THOMAS (1814-1845).—The founder and inspiration of the Young Ireland movement. Son of an English father of Welsh descent and an Irish mother. From the inception of The Nation newspaper until his death he was the chief writer of that journal.

DILLON, JOHN BLAKE (1816-1866).—The close personal friend of Thomas Davis and with him one of the founders of the Nation. On his return from exile he attempted to found an Irish Party in alliance with the British Radicals and sat in the British Parliament for Tipperary.

DOYLE, DANIEL.—A Limerick solicitor who acted with John O'Donnell and O'Gorman in inciting Limerick county to insurrection in July, 1848. After the failure he escaped across the water.

DUFFY, CHARLES GAVAN (1816-1903).—One of the three founders of the Nation and its editor from 1842 to 1854, when he left Ireland for Australia where he became Prime Minister of Victoria. In 1873 he received a knighthood.

"EVA" (1825-1910).—Miss Mary Kelly of Galway, afterwards Mrs. Kevin Izod O'Doherty. One of the chief poets of the Nation.

FITZGERALD, JOHN LOYD.—Of Newcastle West, Limerick. A lawyer of high standing.

FITZSIMON, CHRISTOPHER.—Son-in-law of Daniel O'Connell, elected to the British Parliament for Co. Dublin. He deserted Repeal to support the Government and was rewarded with the post of Clerk of the Hanaper. His desertion caused the representation of the Co. Dublin to revert to the Unionists for half-a-century.

GRAY, SIR JOHN (1815-1875).—A medical doctor and owner of the Freeman's Journal, publicly supporting O'Connell, but personally in sympathy with Young Ireland. He sat in the British Parliament subsequently for Kilkenny and was an active member of the Dublin Corporation.

GRATTAN, HENRY, JUN.—Son of the great Grattan and member for Meath, 1831-52. An honest but weak politician.

GREY, EARL (1802-1894).—Third Earl. Colonial Secretary in the British Liberal Government, 1846 to 1852.

HALPIN, THOMAS M.—Secretary of the Confederation, and a Dublin working-man. According to Meagher he failed to transmit instructions to the Dublin Confederate Clubs to rise in insurrection in the streets of the capital when the fight opened in Tipperary. Halpin denied emphatically having received such orders. After the insurrection he made his way to the United States.

HEYTESBURY, LORD (1779-1860).—William A'Court, British Envoy in Spain and Naples, and Ambassador in Portugal and Russia. Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 1844-6.

HOLLYWOOD, EDWARD.—A silk-weaver and, with Michael Crean, an artisan leader. He acted as treasurer of the Davis Confederate Club. Arrested in Wicklow with D'Arcy M'Gee for sedition, but the prosecution was abandoned. After the insurrection he escaped to France, and some years later returned to Dublin.

HOLMES, ROBERT (1765-1859).—Brother-in-law of Thomas Addis and Robert Emmet, and a vehement opponent of the Union in 1799-1800. He declined to accept promotion at the Bar while the Union endured.

HUDSON, WILLIAM ELIOT (1797-1853).—Described by Thomas Davis as the best man and the best Irishman he ever knew. A man of fortune and culture who devoted his leisure and his wealth to helping every movement for the betterment of Ireland.

HUME, JOSEPH (1777-1855).—An English politician who sat in the British Parliament for English, Irish, and Scotch constituencies as Tory and later as Radical. Chief author of the Radical shibboleth, "Peace, Retrenchment and Reform."

IRELAND, RICHARD.—A barrister, one of the founders of the Protestant Repeal Association in 1848. He emigrated to Australia afterwards and became Attorney-General of Victoria.

KENYON, FATHER (18— -1869).—Curate and afterwards Parish Priest of Templederry in Tipperary. A strong opponent of the "Old Irelanders" and the close political and personal friend of John Mitchel.

LALOR, JAMES FINTAN (1810-49).—Son of Patrick Lalor, M.P. of Queen's Co. A vigorous writer whose agrarian doctrine was converted by Henry George into Land Nationalisation—which it was not. He contributed to the Nation and the Felon, 1847-8, and attempted an insurrectionary conspiracy, 1849.

LANE, DENNY (1818-95).—A Cork commercial man who identified himself prominently with the Young Ireland cause in Munster. Author of "Carrigdhoun" and some other popular ballads.

LAWLESS, HON. CECIL.—Son of Lord Cloncurry. An O'Connellite Repealer and somewhat virulent opponent of the Young Irelanders who nicknamed him "Artful Cecil."

LEDRU-ROLLIN, ALEXANDRE (1808-74).—Minister of the Interior in the French Republican Government of 1848. He was connected with Ireland by marriage and strongly sympathised with its people.

LEFROY, BARON (1776-1869).—One-time member for Trinity College in the British Parliament. Subsequent to 1848 promoted Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, and although he became incapable of discharging the office he refused to resign it until he had passed his ninetieth year.

LEYNE, MAURICE RICHARD (1820-1854).—The only member of the O'Connell family who identified himself with Young Ireland. He was an occasional contributor to the Nation from 1844 to 1848 and in June of that year, on the eve of the insurrection, formally joined Young Ireland. On the revival of the Nation in 1849 he joined Duffy in its editorship.

MAGINN, EDWARD, D.D. (1802-1849).—Son of a farmer at Fintona, Tyrone, Dr. Maginn entered the Church and speedily became noted for his vigour of intellect and strength of character. In 1845 he was appointed coadjutor-Bishop of Derry, and created Bishop of Ortosia in the Archbishopric of Tyre. A strong advocate of Repeal and tenant-right, he gradually attorned to the Young Irelanders when he discovered that the Whig Government had bought up Conciliation Hall. In 1848 he sent Sir John Gray to Gavan Duffy offering to take the field at the head of the priests of his diocese if the insurrection were held back until the harvest had been reaped. The sudden suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, however, forced the Young Irelanders' hands two months too soon.

MANGAN, JAMES CLARENCE (1803-49).—The first of the poets of the Young Ireland period. He declined to write for any but the Irish public, and died in poverty.

MARTIN, JOHN (1812-1875).—A landed proprietor of Co. Down. On his return from transportation, he re-entered Irish politics; was elected in 1870 to the British Parliament, for Meath, and played a leading part in founding the Home Rule movement.

"MARY" (1828-69).—With "Eva" and "Speranza" one of the triumvirate of the women-poets of the Nation: Miss Ellen Mary Downing of Cork—afterwards a nun, Sister Mary Alphonsus.

MEANY, STEPHEN JOSEPH.—A journalist, imprisoned in 1848 under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. In the United States he became a leader of one of the wings of the Fenian Brotherhood and, returning to Ireland in 1866, he was arrested on the way in London and sentenced to a term of penal servitude.

MELBOURNE, LORD (1779-1848).—William Lamb, second Viscount, Chief Secretary of Ireland, 1827-8, and Premier of England with brief intervals from 1834 to 1841.

MILEY, JOHN, D.D. (1805-1861).—Curate at the Catholic Pro-Cathedral, Dublin, and private chaplain to O'Connell. He was the intermediary in arranging the reunion of the O'Connellites with the Young Irelanders in the stillborn Irish League. In 1849 he was made Rector of the Irish College at Paris. On his return to Ireland he was appointed parish priest of Bray. He was an eloquent preacher, and author of several works on the Papacy.

MITCHEL, JOHN (1818-75).—A solicitor of Banbridge, and one of the first Irish Protestants of note to join the Repeal Association. From the death of Davis until the end of 1847 he was the chief writer of the Nation newspaper. On his escape from the British penal colonies in 1853 he settled in the United States, and took an active part on the Confederate side in the civil war. He returned to Ireland a few months before his death, and was elected member of the British Parliament for Tipperary, as a demonstration of hostility to British Government in Ireland.

MOORE, JUDGE.—Richard Moore, called to the Bar in 1807, acted for the defence in the trial of O'Connell and the Traversers, Liberal Attorney-General in 1846 and "almost Lord Chancellor." He was raised to the Bench in 1847 and died in 1858.

NAGLE, DR.—"A Dublin doctor without patients," who acted as a handyman for John O'Connell. He was devoid of ability. Subsequently he received a small Government post.

O'CONNELL, DANIEL (1775-1847).—Successor to John Keogh in the leadership of the Irish Catholics, and although his actual achievements were not so much greater than those of Keogh and Sweetman, their brilliancy threw the fame of his predecessors into the shade, where it still rests.

O'CONNELL, MAURICE (1802-53).—Eldest son of Daniel O'Connell, and a member of the British Parliament. He was the cleverest and most national of O'Connell's children.

O'CONNELL, MORGAN JOHN (1804-85).—Second son to Daniel O'Connell. He served under General Devereux in South America, entered the British Parliament as a Repealer, deserted Repeal, and was appointed Assistant-Registrar of Deeds.

O'CONNELL, JOHN (1810-1858).—The chief political assistant of his father, Daniel O'Connell. After the collapse of the Repeal Association he received a place from the British Government.

O'CONNELL, DANIEL, JUN. (1815-1897).—The youngest of O'Connell's sons. He sat in the British Parliament until 1863, when he was appointed to a Government post.

O'CONOR DON, THE (1794-1847).—Repeal M.P. for Roscommon. He deserted to the Liberals, and was made a Lord of the Treasury.

O'DEA, PATRICK.—The Young Ireland leader in Rathkeale, Co. Limerick.

O'DONNELL, JOHN.—A Limerick solicitor and an ardent Young Irelander. When Richard O'Gorman came to Limerick to urge the people to arms, O'Donnell travelled through the county with him as his aide-de-camp. On the news of the outbreak in Tipperary, O'Donnell, Doyle and Daniel Harnett raised the country around Abbeyfeale, cut off the mails and pitched an insurgent camp outside the town where the Abbeyfeale men waited for O'Gorman, who was elsewhere in the county, to take command. Before his arrival the news of the collapse at Ballingarry arrived and the Abbeyfeale Camp broke up. O'Donnell escaped from the country with O'Gorman.

O'DOWD, JAMES.—A Conciliation Hall lawyer. Afterwards appointed to a legal position in connection with the London Custom house.

O'DWYER, CAREW.—Repeal M.P. for Louth, 1832-5. He deserted Repeal and received a minor position in the Exchequer Court.

O'FLAHERTY, MARTIN.—A Galway solicitor and a member of the Irish Confederation.

O'GORMAN, RICHARD, JUN. (1826-1895).—Son of Richard O'Gorman of the Woollen Hall, one of the foremost Dublin merchants and Catholic leaders in the Emancipation struggle. O'Gorman settled in New York after his escape and became a judge of the Superior Court.

O'HEA, JAMES.—A lawyer described by Davis as of "vast abilities."

O'LOGHLEN, SIR COLMAN (1819-1877).—Second baronet, son of the Master of the Rolls. Afterwards M.P. for Clare, a Privy Councillor and Judge-Advocate-General.

PEEL, SIR ROBERT (1788-1850).—Chief Secretary for Ireland and organiser of the "new police"—hence "peelers." In politics an opportunist, opposing and supporting Catholic Emancipation and Free Trade. Premier of England, 1834-5, 1841-6.

PENNEFATHER, BARON (1773-1859).—Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer, 1821, and for thirty-eight years a judge.

PIGOT, CHIEF BARON (1797-1872).—Son of Dr. Pigot of Mallow and one of the founders of the attempted National Whig Party in the period 1820-30. He was a cultured man and an upright judge.

PIGOT, JOHN E. (1822-1871).—Eldest son of Chief Baron Pigot and the intimate comrade of Thomas Davis. Author of many ballads and articles in the Nation and other National journals, and an ardent collector of Irish music.

PLUNKET, LORD (1764-1854).—William Conyngham Plunket, member for Charlemont in the Irish Parliament and a bitter opponent of the Union. Lord Chancellor of Ireland from 1830 to 1841.

RAY, THOMAS MATTHEW (1801-1881).—A Dublin trades-union leader of great organising ability, appointed by O'Connell secretary of the Repeal Association. Subsequently Assistant-Registrar of Deeds.

REILLY, THOMAS DEVIN (1823-1854).—One of the Nation staff and one of the few leading Young Irelanders who supported Mitchel on the division in the Confederation in 1848. In the United States he won a foremost position as a political writer.

ROEBUCK, J.A. (1801-79).—An English politician who professed Independent views, and from the violence of his denunciation of his opponents was nicknamed "Tear 'em."

RUSSELL, LORD JOHN (1792-1878).—Liberal Prime Minister of England, 1846-52, and again, 1865. He successfully opposed Lord George Bentinck's proposal to preserve the Irish from famine and pauperism by undertaking the construction of railways.

SAVAGE, JOHN (1828-1888).—One of the founders of the Irish Tribune. After the complete failure of the insurrection, he escaped to the United States where he became eminent in literature and for a time head of the Fenian movement.

SHEIL, RICHARD LALOR (1791-1851).—Dramatist, orator and politician. Deserted Repeal and was made British minister at Florence. Subsequently Master of the Mint.

SHIELDS, JAMES, GENERAL (1807-1879).—Born near Dungannon, Shields emigrated in early life to the United States, where he attained distinction in journalism and subsequently celebrity as a lawyer. On the outbreak of war with Mexico, he forsook the Bar for arms, and as a soldier acquired even higher renown. In 1848 he was chosen as governor of Oregon, and was considered one of the ablest of the United States Generals. His political views being in sympathy with the Young Irelanders, several of them looked towards Shields as another Eoghan Ruadh, who would accept the call of his country and return to lead the Irish once they had taken the field. Subsequently Shields engaged in the Civil War on the Northern side, and, although a comparatively old man, distinguished himself by defeating General Stonewall Jackson at the Battle of Winchester, although his army was inferior in numbers and he had been wounded at the opening of the fight.

STANLEY, LORD (1802-1869).—Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the British Liberal Government, 1846-52.

STAUNTON, MICHAEL.—Proprietor of the Morning Register newspaper and an alderman of the Dublin Corporation. His memory survives as the involuntary agent of bringing Duffy and Davis together—and thus leading to the foundation of The Nation.

STEPHENS, JAMES (1825-1901).—A Kilkenny railway employe. Afterwards chief organiser of the Fenian movement, of which, with O'Mahony and Doheny, he was one of the founders.

TORRENS, JUDGE.—Called to the Bar, 1798, raised to the Bench, 1823, where he sat for thirty-three years.

WILDE, SIR THOMAS (1782-1855).—Lord Truro, Attorney-General to the British Liberal Government in England, 1846; afterwards Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Lord Chancellor of England, 1850-2.

WILLIAMS, RICHARD DALTON (1822-1862).—One of the most popular of the poets of the Nation. The Government prosecution failed in his case, and he emigrated to the United States where he became Professor of Belles Lettres in the University of Mobile.

WYSE, SIR THOMAS (1791-1862).—One of O'Connell's lieutenants in the Catholic Association, of which he wrote a history. He declined to support Repeal, but favoured what is now known as Federal Home Rule, served as a Lord of the Treasury in Melbourne's administration, and afterwards for many years as British minister at Athens. He was a man of superior character to the ordinary type of place-seekers, and his writings won him a temporary European reputation.