The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-01-01 00:00:00

THE STATE PROSECUTIONS IN•
IRELAND.

The trial of Mr. Parnell and his thirteen associates
commenced on Tuesday in the Queen's Bench, Dublin.
The Four Courts were closed to all persons who
were, not provided with tickets, and the precau-
tions taken to exclude the public were so great that
when the traversers, with Mr. Parnell at their
head, presented themselves for admis2ion they
were peremptorily refused. It was only, indeed,
after the Lord Mayor of Dublin had interposed that
Mr. Parnell and his party were permitted to file
in. They took their seats in the following order at
the ta,b'A directly in front of the Bench :—Messrs.
Charles Stewart Parnell, M.P., Thomas Sexton,
M.P., Thomas Brennan, secretary of the Land
League; Patrick Egan, hon. treasurer ot the Land
League; T. D. Sullivan, M.P., John Dillon, M.P.,
Joseph Gillis Biggar, M.P., Michael O'Sullivan,
assistant-secretary of the Land League; Michael
Boyton, Patrick Joseph Gordon, Matthew Harris,
John W. Many, John W. Welsh, and P. J. Sheri-
dan. They had been accompanied to the court by
about 30 gentlemen' members of Parliament, and
others, and the party were loudly cheered as they
walked through the streets. Beyond this popular
demonstration there was a Mal absence of excite-
ment, not only in the public thoroughfares, but in the
Four Courts. The services of a large body of mounted
constabulaty and city police, which was drawn up in
the neighbourhood of the court, were not required.
It may be of interest to state that the jury as
ultimately chosen to try the case consists of eight
Catholics, three Protestants, and one Quaker.

,
Immediately on taking his seat on the Bench,
accompanied by the two other Judges, Lord Chief
Justice May said :

Before this trial is entered upon I wish to say a few words.
A curious misconstruction appears to have arisen with re-
spect to the judgment I delivered some time ago upon a
motion to postpone the trial of this case. That application
was one to the discretion of the Court. It appeared to rue
that the state of this country afforded a conclusive reason
against the granting of the postponement. stated that in
the judgment, and I gave a description of the disorder
which prevailed. That description was based upon matters
of which I had judicial knowledge. I am not aware that I
stated anything but the simple truth. In my opinion, as chief
magistrate, intrusted by the Crown with the preservation
of peace in this country, it was my duty to speak the truth
and the whole truth upon that subject; and I adhere to
everything that I then stated. But it has been objected that
I used language which imported that I considered the tra-
versers guilty of the charges in the information laid against
them in this case. It occurred to me that I might have.
used terms capable of such a construction, so I imme-
diately corrected what I had said, adding that I meant
to express no opinion as to the charges winch the travasers
would have ta answer, and that if they could satisfy the jury
of their innocence they should be acquitted. When a
speaker delfvering an unpremeditated address corrects him-
self if by inadvertence he has used expressions which did
not convey what he intended and in the same breath ex-
plain his real meaning, it is only just—it is certainly usual
—to accept his explanation. However, that language of mine
has occasioned very considerable excitement and has been
bitterly complained of. It is all-important in a case like the
present that those engaged in the administration of justice
should be free from the slightest shadow or suspicion of
bias or prejudice. I trust it is scarcely necessary for me to
state that I am not conscious of favour in this case as
between the Crown and the traversers. I feel that I should
deal with the entire case with impartiality, which is the
first duty of a Judge. Still, it has suggested itself to me
that in the present trial, considering the critical state of
, this country, it is most important to remove every
element that might tend to disturb the calm and dispassion-
ate consideration of the case •, nor is it desirable that it
should be open to those upon their trial on serious charges
even to suggest that the Judge whose duty it would be to
bring the facts and evidence in the case before the jury
had already exhibited any bias against them. Upon the
whole, after anxious consideration, and with the concur-
rence of some whose opinions I highly value, I have come
to the conclusion that the due administration of justice will
be promoted by my not taking part in the case. My pre-
sence is not 14 any means necessary. The interests of the
public will not suffer, for I have the satisfaction of feeling
that the case will be in the hands of Judges who in every
judicial characteristic have no superiors. After some
'further observations, the Lord Chief Justice then withdrew,
, and the trial proceeded before Justices Fitzgerald and Barry

-
The preliminary proceedings, including the em-
panelling of a Jury, occupied about two hours, and
the remainder of the day was devoted to the open-
ing speech of the Attorney-General. He said the
Traversers were charged with conspiring to prevent
persons from paying rent, to incite tenants to resist
the judgment of the Courts, and to reinstate evicted
persons. He explained the law of conspiracy,
and said it would be enough to show that the
immediate object of the prisoners was mischievous.
The only question for the jury would be, was there a
combination among the traveriers for an unlawful

purpose? and he read peassages from some of their
speeches upon which he relied to prove the case for
the Crown.

At the close of the day's proceedings the Court was
adjourned, and Mr. Parnell was again loudly cheered
by the crowd as he drove off.