I  infiT  fnim  his  t^iue  that  he  euppoeed  he  had  some  personal  wrong  ta
avent;e  on  me ;  I  never  had  tho  slightest  idea  what  it  was,  life  being  too
full  of  work  at  that  time  for  iiorsunal  controversies.  Bat  Mr.  Hitohel
mutrailietcd  his  suggestion  in  the  Uniltd Irishman.  "  Mr.  Duffy  (he said)
was  ]»-rficlly  rijihl  when  he  denied  tliat  the  lite  difloreQces  iu  tho  Irish
Confederation  had  onginuted  iu  a  'newspaper  dispnte.'  There  waa  no
nuw~i>a)H'r  disjiutv.  The  div-ision  of  parties,  both  in  the  newspaper  and
in  the  Confederation,  came  oat  of  one  common  aoarce — a  vital  duuigree-
inent  sh  to  the  true  uatiiinal  policy  of  Ireland.  We  have  no  quarrel  with
Mr.  Duffy  (and  sorely  mistaken  we  believe  him  to  be) ;  know  him  too  well
to  ascribe  any  mean  or  pecuniary  motives  to  him."


522  FOTJE    7EAE8   OF  IRISH  EI8T0BT.
and  a  minority  who  followed  the  Confederation.  The
policy  of  the  best  Nationalists  was  to  reunite  these  two
sections ;  the  policy  of  the  new  Seceders  was,  in  effect,
to  spHnter  off  another  fragment  from  the  minority.
