usive. 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 Committee of the Association alone nearly escaped the influence of
the fierce spirit of the times. There the voice of reason for a while
held sway. The forbearance and respect for conflicting opinions which
preserved its dignity were, with the one exception, extended to the
proceedings in the Hall, where even the most unscrupulous were checked
by a petition which recognised and welcomed the principle of united
education, but strongly deprecated the objectionable provisions of the
"Godless Bill." To this petition was affixed the signature of almost
every educated lay Catholic in Dublin. The number of Catholic barristers
alone whose names are found among those signatures amounts to
seventy-two. At the same time, a remonstrance addressed personally to
Mr. O'Connell was signed by the leading Catholics of the Association.
Its object was to preclude all discussion on the subject of the disputed
principle in Conciliation Hall. It was signed for the most part by men
who theretofore had taken but little part in the dispute. But against
all these precautions passion by degrees prevailed, and when Mr.
O'Connell was reminded by Mr. Barry, of Cork, that in reply to the
remonstrance he had pledged himself to abstinence from the irritating
discussion, his apology was, that he thought the document in question
and all proceedings connected with it were strictly private; as if the
privacy of a solemn pledge dispensed with its obligation.

An episode in this strife deserves specific notice. At a meeting of the
Association, held on the 26th of May, the question was incident