Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1880-11-25
DAN O'CONNELL'S TRIAL.
a REMINIscENCE or 1884 THAT Is NOT
WITHOUT INTEREST NOW.

| WITHOUT INTEREST NOW.
The London 81. James Gazette in Il
recent issue says: "The impending
prosecution Of the leading Irish agita-
tors brings back to memory the great
trial of the Queen vs.. O'Connell and
others. 1t is reported, too, that the
proceedings both Of the prosecution
and Of the prosecuted will be framed
on those in that case, and even if they
are not, there must be enough Of re-
semblance between the two to make
that which occurred thirty-seven years
ago interesting to-day.
The proceedings were taken against
Daniel O'Conrell, his son John O'Con-
nell, Steele, Ray, Charles Gaven Duf-
fly, the Rev. Thomas Tierney, the Rev.
Peter James Tyrrell, and Richard
Barrett No fewer than twelve coun-
sci appeared for the prosecution and
fifteen for the defense. The proceed
ings commenced by OConnell and the
other defendants being held to bail on
the 18th Of October, 1S43. This was
followed by the charge to the grand
jury on the I'd of November. All
sorts of interlocutory contests over
technical points We're then fought from
time to time, so that it was not until
the 18th Of January, 1914, that the
trial actually commenced. Meantime,
Mr.. Tyrrell had died. His attorney
could answer to the court that THE
reverend defendant had been sum
moned before the Judge Of Judges
His soul and body are alike beyond
the power of this court"
The counts of the indictment were
eleven in number, and are summarized
in TownseId's Modern State Trials"
They consisted of six distinct charges
First-A conspiracy to raise and Gre
ate discomfort and dsaiiection among
her majesty's subjects, and to excite
them to hatred and contempt, and to
unlawful and seditious opposition to
the government and constitution as
by law established. Second-A con-
spiracy to stir up iealousies, hatred
and ill-will between different classes of
her majesty's subjects, and to promote
among them in Ireland feelings of
hostility and ill.will towards her ma
jesty's subjects in other parts of the
United Kingdom. Third-A conspir-
acy To excite discomfort and disaticc-
ton in the army. Fourth-A con
spiracy to assemble large numbers of
persons in Ireland, and by means Of
intimidation to be thereby caused and
the exhibition and demonstration Of
physical force thercat, to obtain
changes and alterations in the govern
ment, laws and constitution. and es-
pecially to effect a dissolution of the
legislativcunion between Great Britain
and Ireland. Fifth-A conspiracy TO
bring into hatred and disrepute the
courts by laws established for the adj
minstration of justice in Ireland, and
to diminish the confidence in the adj
mnistratiou of the laws so a to induce
the adjudication of disputes to be
drawn from them. SiXth-A con
-piracy to assemble meetings of large
numbers Of persons in Ireland and
by means of scditious and inhammahle
speeches, and by the publication of
Seditious writings to iutimidate the
lords spirtal and temporal and com
mons of parliament, and thereby to
bring about changes and alterations in
the laws and constitution. On the
l2th Of February the trial came to an
end. Speeches, good and bad, prosaic
and declamatory, had been made the
attorney general had been so irritated
by the comments made on his conduct
of the prosecution that-incredible as
1t may seem now-he had sent a chal-
lenge to one of the counsel for the de.
iensc, Mr.. Fitz-Gibbon. O'Connell
had defended himself; Shiel, then
member for Dungarvan, had made an
eloquent and illogical speech for John
OConncll and Mr. Whiteside, the
future chief justice of ireland, on be-
half of Duffy, spoke both eloquently
and logically, and carried away the
honors of the contest. On the 18th of
February the jury returned verdict
of guilty against the defendants. On
the 25th Of April proceedings began
on behalf of O'Connell and his com
panions to obtain new trial and an
arrest of judgment, in which endeavor
they were unsuccessful and on the
Both Of May O'ConnelI was condemn
ed to pay fine of $4,000. and to be
imprisoned for twelve months, and the
Others received lighter sentences.
The scene was then shifted to the
house of lords, where, after elaborate
argument before the Judges and the
law lords, a majority of the house
namely, Lords Gottenham, Denham
and Campbell-decided in favor of
the prisoners against the opinions of