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