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,