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.

The Liberal-Conservative Irish Times was still more outspoken:—­