lict with the House of Commons
which of itself, it was averred, would be a misdemeanour at common law.
The proposition was eminently absurd in common sense, as well as law,
but it was sustained by the practised ingenuity and great skill of Mr.
O'Hea, who, to do him justice, seemed deeply to feel the hopelessness
and shamefulness of the task that was assigned him. But no other
argument could prevail, and this appeal to the fears or selfishness of
its wealthiest members was had recourse to in consequence of the utter
poverty of reason and argument, which could otherwise be presented
against the principle of the address. But such an obligation led to a
novel difficulty and bitterer conflict. A discussion involving
principles of the greatest moment narrowed into a technical disquisition
of abstract law. Mr. O'Hea was driven from his position by the unanimous
and unqualified opinion of every barrister present, and even by his own
silence, when dared to allow the address to pass in the negative, and
assume the responsibility of its rejection on the avowed ground of his
legal opinion, as expressed to the meeting. The address was adopted by a
greater majority than that which had confirmed the principle on the
previous day, and a deputation was appointed to present it to Mr.
O'Brien in his prison.

The members of that deputation, who proceeded to fulfil their mission,
were William Bryan, of Raheny Lodge; John Mitchel, Richard O'Gorman,
Thomas Francis Meagher and the present writer. They were accompanied by
Terence Bellew MacManus and John Pigot, who joined them in London. They
waited on Mr. O'Connell, as the president of the club, produced the
address and requested he would proceed with them to present it. He
admitted, without question, that as it was adopted by so very large and
influential a majority, he was bound to do so. But he added that Mr.
O'Brien refused to receive a visit from him, owing to the part he had
taken, and further said, if Mr. O'Brien expressed a wish to see him,
that he would accompany us. The deputation on their way to the House of
Commons consulted for a moment, and, as well as I remember, Doctor Gray
and some others were present: the result was a determination to present
the address without Mr. O'Connell, feeling that an explanation between
him and Mr. O'Brien, could not fail to lead to unpleasant
recriminations, if not to more serious differences. The address and
answer were as follows:--

"TO WIL