s the object of one of Mr. O'Connell's eternal
lessons to perpetuate and extend this degrading national vice. Whether
the representations made to either of these friends were the result of
national prejudice, or proceeded from a baser motive, it is scarce worth
while to inquire. A separation ensued. Mr. Reilly adopted the resolution
of his friend Mr. Mitchel. Mr. M'Gee adhered to Mr. Duffy; and a new
career and distinct fortunes opened to the enterprise of the four men,
whose united efforts elevated the popularity of the _Nation_ to a height
never before enjoyed by an Irish journal.

The early differences between the two great journalists suggested to Mr.
Duffy, and to others, the necessity of drawing up a programme for the
guidance of the Confederation. A committee was appointed, consisting of
several members, including all the leading advocates of both the policy
of Mr. Duffy and that of Mr. Mitchel. The report was principally the
production of Mr. Duffy. It was in part modified by others; but Mr.
Mitchel, who objected to its principle, refused to take any part in its
modification. It was afterwards submitted to the council of the
Confederation; and there gave rise to a long, earnest and, to some
extent, an angry discussion. It was under consideration for several
successive nights, the debate lasting sometimes until three o'clock in
the morning. The principle of the report embraced the belief that moral
means and agencies to effect Ireland's liberties were not yet exhausted,
and should be further tried; and the agencies through which the
experiment was to be tested were indicated in detail. The principle of
the amendment proposed by Mr. Mitchel involved a preparation for and an
appeal to arms as the only resource available to the country. After a
long and anxious debate, the question of adopting the report passed in
the affirmative by a considerable majority. The details then came under
discussion, and, paragraph by paragraph, alterations were proposed and
adopted. The discussion on these matters was still more prolonged and
vehement. The principle of the entire was questioned indirectly by
various amendments of form; but it was always affirmed by a majority.
The report had, however, undergone such modifications and alterations
that its original promoters lost all interest in its passing; and at the
final stage, it was rejected, as well as I remember, without a division.
At all events, it was rejected, and, I believe,