ion. 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.

It was hoped that, as the concession was entirely voluntary, Mr.
O'Connell would be content. This was a vain hope. On the next day, he
referred to the subject in terms of unmitigated animosity; and on
Tuesday the resolution of exclusion, in effect, though not formally,
passed in the absence of most of those who were well known to be opposed
to it.

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.

On the 17th of June, Mr. D