The scenes of yesterday in the Dublin police-court will cause an
astonished public to put the question, is the government insane? They
suppress the processions one day, and on the next proceed with
deliberation to destroy all possible effect from such an act by
inviting the magistrates' court to be used as a platform from whence
a fresh roar of defiance may be uttered. The originators of the
seditious demonstrations are charged with having brought the
government of the kingdom into hatred and contempt; but what step
taken, or word spoken or written, from the date of the first
procession to the last, brought the government into anything like the
"contempt" into which it plunged itself yesterday? The prosecutions
now instituted are in themselves an act of utter weakness. We so
declared when we imagined that they would be at least rationally
conducted; but what is to be said now? It is literally impossible to
give any sane explanation of the course taken in summoning as a crown
witness one who must have been known to be prepared to boast of his
participation in the procession. Mr. Sullivan boldly bearded the
prosecutors of his brethren. It was a splendid opportunity for him.
"I was present (he said) at that funeral procession. I participated
in it, deliberately and heartily. I call this a personal and public
outrage, to endeavour to drag the national press of this country--".
Timid and ineffectual attempts were made by the magistrate to protect
his court and position from insult, but Mr. Sullivan had the field,
and would hold it. "He might help the crown to put some one else up,"
he said, "as they are scarce, perhaps, in accused." The summoning of
him was, he resumed, an "attempt to destroy the national press, whose
power the crown feels and fears, but which they dare not prosecute."
Mr. Sullivan was suffered to describe the conduct of the crown
prosecutors at another stage as an "infamous plot." The government
desired "to accomplish his imprisonment; they were willing to wound
but afraid to strike." "They knew (he added) that they would not get
a jury in all Ireland to agree to convict me; and I now characterise
the conduct of the crown as base and cowardly." Another witness, in a
halting way, entered a like protest against being supposed to have
sympathy with the crown in the case; and the net result was a very
remarkable triumph for what Mr. Sullivan calls the "national
press"--a title wholly misapplied and grossly abused. Are we to have
a succession of these "scenes in court?"
_Saunders's News-Letter_ of the same date dealt with the subject as
follows:--
The first step in what appears to be a very doubtful proceeding was
taken yesterday by the law advisers of the crown. We refer to the
prosecution instituted against the leaders and organisers of the
Fenian procession which took place in this city on Sunday, the 8th
instant, in honour of the memories of the men executed at Manchester
for murder. As to the character of that demonstration we never
entertained any doubt. But it must be remembered that similar
demonstrations had taken place a week previously in London, in
Manchester, and in Cork, and that not only did the authorities not
interfere to prevent them, but that the prime minister declared in
the House of Lords that they were not illegal. Lord Derby doubtless,
intended to limit his observations to the violition of the Party
Processions Act, without pronouncing any opinion as to the legality
or illegality of the processions, viewed under another aspect, as
seditious assemblies. But his language was calculated to mislead,
and, as a matter of fact, was taken by the Fenian sympathisers as an
admission that their mock funeral processions were not unlawful. It
is not to be wondered at, therefore, however much to be deplored,
that the disaffected portion of the population should have eagerly
taken advantage of Lord Derby's declaration to make a safe display of
their sympathies and of their strength. They were encouraged to do so
by the toleration already extended towards their fellows in England
and in Cork, as well as by the statement of the prime minister. Under
these circumstances the prosecution of persons who took part in the
Dublin procession, even as organisers of that proceeding, appears to
us to be a matter of doubtful policy. Mr. John Martin, the leader of
the movement, stands in a different position from his companions.
They confined themselves to walking in the procession; he delivered
an inflammatory and seditious speech, for which he alone is
responsible, and which might have been made the subject of a separate
proceeding against him. To do Mr. Martin justice, he showed no desire
to shirk the responsibility he has incurred. At the police-court,
yesterday, he frankly avowed the part he had taken in the procession,
and offered to acknowledge the speech which he delivered on that
occasion. If, however, the policy which dictated the prosecution be
questionable, there can be no doubt at all as to the objectionable
manner in which some of the persons engaged in it have
acted--assuming the statement to be true that Mr. Sullivan,
proprietor and editor of the _Nation_ newspaper, and Sir John Gray,
proprietor of the _Freeman's Journal_, have been summoned as crown
witnesses. Who is responsible for this extraordinary proceeding it is
at present impossible to say. Mr. Murphy, Q.C., the counsel for the
crown, declared that he did not intend to examine Mr. Sullivan; Mr.
Anderson, the son of the crown solicitor, who appears to be entrusted
with the management of these prosecutions, denied that he had
directed the summonses to be served, and Mr. Dix, the magistrate,
stated that he had not signed them. Tot Mr. Sullivan produced the
summons requiring him to attend as a witness, and in the strongest
manner denounced the proceeding as a base and cowardly attempt on the
part of the government to imprison for contempt of court, a
"national journalist" whom they dared not prosecute. Sir John Gray,
ill less violent language, complained of an effort having been made
to place some of the gentlemen in his employment in the "odious
position of crown witnesses," and stated that he himself had been
subpoenaed, but would decline to give evidence. We have not concealed
our opinion as to the proper way of dealing with Mr. Sullivan. As the
weekly disseminator of most exciting and inflammatory articles, he is
doing much to promote disaffection and encourage Fenianism. In no
other country in the world would such writing be tolerated for a day;
and, assuredly it ought not to be permitted in Ireland in perilous
and exciting times like the present. But if Mr. Sullivan has offended
against the law, let him be proceeded against boldly, openly, and
fairly. He has, we think, a right to complain of being summoned as a
witness for the crown; but the government have even more reason to
complain of the conduct of their servants in exposing them by their
blunders to ridicule and contempt. It is too bad that with a large
and highly-paid staff of lawyers and attorneys the government
prosecutions should be conducted in a loose and slovenly manner. When
a state prosecution has been determined upon, every step ought to be
carefully and anxiously considered, and subordinate officials should
not be permitted by acts of officious zeal to compromise their
superiors and bring discredit on the administration of the law.