the change of a word.  They also determined that the address should be adopted in its integrity by the club, or not at all.  When it was proposed, objection was again taken to its principle, on the ground that it would commit the club, and involve it in a hopeless conflict 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 WILLIAM SMITH O’BRIEN, ESQ.

    “RESPECTED VICE-PRESIDENT AND BROTHER.