of the Irish Repealers with a jeer, shrank from the consequences of legislating for the country in the absence of the men, whose efforts, if present, they would not hesitate to scoff at.  The disturbing influence of the resolution became at once perceptible, and the earliest means were taken to bring the question to an issue.  Mr. Hume, a parsimonious economist, of niggard principle and grovelling sentiment, undertook the office of coercing the Irish.  He gave notice of a motion for a call of the House.  This man, a mean utilitarian, had been rejected by the country of his birth and the country of his adoption, and found refuge in an Irish constituency, that returned him without solicitation and without expense.  He repaid them and the country by a vulgar jest, and now assumed the responsibility of their public prosecutor.

The Association heard his threat with calm indignation and resolved at once to defy him.  The great importance of the position in which it was placed suggested the necessity of a deliberate consideration; first, of the constitutional question at stake and, secondly, of the steps proper to vindicate its own dignity and resolution.  As on all such occasions, a sub-committee was appointed to whom the question was referred.  Mr. O’Connell had to some extent formed an opinion favourable to the object of the Association.  He stated that he had considered the question in a two-fold point of view.

First, “Whether the controlling power of the English House of Commons over its members, which admittedly it possessed before the Act of Union, was extended to the Irish portion of the members by that Act, there being no express provision creating it?”

And secondly, “Whether even if the House possessed the power, it was competent to enforce it, or, in other words, whether the Speaker’s warrant would receive Ireland?”

To report on these two questions, thus framed, the following gentlemen were elected as a sub-committee:  James O’Hea, Sir Colman O’Loghlen, Robert Mullen, James O’Dowd and myself.  Of that committee, each approached his task with that instinctive bias, inseparable from ardent minds, excited by a darling hope.  They read the precedents, the cases, the arguments and judgments applicable to their enquiry with the aid of such a hope, and still they came to the reluctant decision that the ground taken against the authority of the British Parliament was not maintainable.  With regard to the first branch they were unanimous.  With regard to the second, Sir Colman O’Loghlen alone entertained some doubts.  As chairman of the committee, I drew up a brief report, embodying our opinion.  One reason alone we thought conclusive, namely, that the formidable jurisdiction claimed by the House of Commons was indispensable to the unimpeded fulfilment of its functions, as a coordinate branch of the supreme power and controlling authority of the State.  In its very danger and extravagance consisted its supremacy; for it showed that it was only admitted from its overruling and overmastering necessity.  And as the Parliament was recognised in Ireland in all things else we thought it would be absurd to deny it functions indispensable to its vitality.