ttee. As I now approach the period when
the differences with Mr. O'Connell, which hitherto developed themselves
in the distinctive characteristics of the respective opinions of both
parties rather than in any direct collision, became tangible, it is
necessary to observe strict historical and chronological accuracy.

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, L12,379 14s. 9d.

About the close of August was passed the Charitable Bequest Act, against
the indignant remonstrances of the priesthood and Catholic population of
Ireland. This Bill was obnoxious in all it's provisions, but the
enactment which was received with most scorn was the clause that
annulled a Catholic charitable bequest, unless it had been duly made six
months at least before the decease of the testator. The prohibition was
attributed to an insulting assumption that the Catholic clergymen abused
their influence over dying penitents, for sacerdotal or religious, if
not for personal aggrandisement, and the impeachment was repelled with
bitter execrations. Others objected to the Bill on grounds involving
more alarming considerations. They regarded it as the first infringement
on the liberty of the Catholic Church--the first criminal attempt to
fetter her free action and sow dissent among her prelates and priests.
The Repeal Association offered, from the beginning, its undivided,
unqualified and indeed vehement opposition. But amidst the storm and
rage of the nation, it became the law, and three Roman Catholic prelates
of the highest reputation undertook the duty of its administration.

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 passio