The Judicial History of Individual Liberty, counts of the indictment, and succeeded so badly in their uncommon pains as to make their verdict void. From the very beginning of the case the government's procedure was unfortunate. The prosecution objected to all Catholics whose names were called as jurors. An error on the part of the sheriff in making up the jury list had already ma terially reduced the number of Catholics en-
593
logical and convincing. But the crowning effort of this great cause was the speech by James Whiteside; impassioned but philoso phical, although fervent, always pertinent and persuasive, this is one of the greatest argu ments ever made in a court of justice. In the end the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and O'Connell was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, and fined £2000. O'Connell
RICHARD LALOR SHEIL.
titled to serve, so that in the end a great Catholic leader was tried by a jury composed of Protestants. O'Connell addressed the jury in his own behalf, but his speech lacked his usual power. Some of the speeches for the defense are worthy of the best traditions of Irish eloquence. Richard Lalor Sheil was dramatic, sparkling and epigrammatic; Jona than Henn and Richard Moore were deep.
carried the case to the House of Lords, where the English judges were consulted. The voluminous indictment contained counts which all the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland held good and all the Eng lish judges pronounced bad. As judgment had been entered and sentence passed upon good and bad counts alike, Denman, Cottenham and Campbell, a majority of the law
