This question is introduced here because it was important and fatal in its consequences.  A still more important one taken in the same light must interrupt its discussion for a moment:  Mr. O’Connell’s Federal letter, already referred to.  The leading sentiments of that letter are subjoined.  It is dated the 2nd of October, 1844.

After stating what Simple Repeal and what Federalism respectively meant, he proceeded to contrast their value.

“The Simple Repealers are of the opinion that the reconstructed Irish Parliament should have precisely the same power and authority which the former Irish Parliament had.

“The Federalists, on the contrary, appear to me to require more for the people of Ireland than the Simple Repealers do; for besides the local parliament in Ireland having full and perfect authority, the Federalists require that there should be, for questions of imperial concern, colonial, naval and military, and of foreign alliance and policy, a Congressional or Federal Parliament, in which Ireland should have her fair share and proportion of representatives and power.

“It is but just and right to confess that in this respect the Federalists would give Ireland more weight and importance in imperial concerns than she could acquire by means of the plan of Simple Repealers.

* * * * *

“For my own part, I will own that since I have come to contemplate the specific differences such as they are, between Simple Repeal and Federalism, I do at present feel a preference for the Federative plan, as tending more to the utility of Ireland and the maintenance of the connection with England than the plan of Simple Repeal.

* * * * *

“The Federalists cannot but perceive that there has been upon my part a pause in the agitation for Repeal since the period of our release from unjust imprisonment.”

I have only extracted from Mr. O’Connell’s most elaborate letter, his distinctly expressed preference for Federalism, and the single reason upon which the preference is founded.  The remainder consists for the most part of a sort of logical equation, balancing the component elements of both plans, from which is deduced the above conclusion.

Charles Duffy’s answer, dated October the 18th, was triumphant and conclusive, at least in Mr. O’Connell’s own mind, for he did not afterwards repeat the same sentiments.  But a blow had been given the Association from which it never recovered.  The newspaper press, taken under three distinct heads, first the blind and heedless echoers of Mr. O’Connell’s doctrines, secondly the Whig organs in Ireland, and thirdly the papers in the English interest, gave way to unrestrained exultation.  The wisdom, the prudence, the holiness of the “great Liberator,” were extolled as unmatched in the annals of statesmanship.  A few whose self-interest constrained their subserviency, shrugged wisely and said nothing, while several provincial journals stoutly maintained the undoubted and enduring supremacy of the great national aim over every weak expedient.