to their natural intelligence, they would see that a political development on lines similar to those adopted in England was, considering the necessary relations between the two countries, best for Ireland; and then they would cease to desire what is ordinarily understood as Home Rule.  A basis for united action between politicians on both sides of the Irish controversy was then suggested.  Finding ourselves still opposed upon the main question, but all anxious to promote the welfare of the country, and confident that, as this was advanced, our respective policies would be confirmed, it would appear, it was suggested, to be alike good patriotism and good policy to work for the material and social advancement of the people.  Why then, it was asked, should any Irishman hesitate to enter at once upon that united action between men of both parties which alone, under existing conditions, could enable either party to do any real and lasting good to the country?

The letter proceeded to indicate economic legislation which, though sorely needed by Ireland, was hopelessly unattainable unless it could be removed from the region of controversy.  The modus co-operandi suggested was as follows:—­a committee sitting in the Parliamentary recess, whence it came to be known as the Recess Committee, was to be formed, consisting in the first instance, of Irish Members of Parliament nominated by the leaders of the different sections.  These nominees were to invite to join them any Irishmen whose capacity, knowledge, or experience might be of service to the Committee, irrespective of the political party or religious persuasion to which they might belong.  The day had come, the letter went on to say, when “we Unionists, without abating one jot of our Unionism, and Nationalists, without abating one jot of their Nationalism, can each show our faith in the cause for which we have fought so bitterly and so long, by sinking our party differences for our country’s good, and leaving our respective policies for the justification of time.”

Needless to say, few were sanguine enough to hope that such a committee would ever be brought together.  If that were accomplished some prophesied that its members would but emulate the fame of the Kilkenny cats.  A severe blow was dealt to the project at the outset by the refusal of Mr. Justin McCarthy, who then spoke for the largest section of the Nationalist representatives, to have anything to do with it.  His reply to the letter must be given in full:—­

     MY DEAR MR. PLUNKETT,

I am sure I need not say that any effort to promote the general welfare of Ireland has my fullest sympathy.  I readily acknowledge and entirely believe in the sincerity and good purpose of your effort, but I cannot see my way to associate myself with it.  Your frank avowal in your letter of August 27th is the expression of a belief that if your policy could be successfully carried out the Irish people “would cease to desire