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