The Wearing of the Green written by A.M. Sullivan

A >> A.M. Sullivan >> The Wearing of the Green

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Mr. Sullivan--Don't interrupt me for a moment.

Mr. Dix--Mr. Sullivan wants to have himself included in the summons
and charge.

Mr. Murphy--That cannot be done at present.

Mr. Sullivan--With one sentence I will conclude.

Mr. Murphy--I don't intend to have you called as a witness--

Mr. Sullivan--It is an endeavour to accomplish my imprisonment for
contempt, when the government "willing to wound, afraid to strike,"
know that they dare not accuse me as a Fenian--

Mr. Dix--You are not here as a Fenian.

Mr. Sullivan--For a moment. Knowing well, your worship, that they
could not get in all Ireland a jury to convict me, to secure my
imprisonment openly and fairly, they do this. I now declare that I
participated in that funeral, and I defy those who were guilty of
such cowardice as to subpoena me as a crown witness (applause).

Mr. Crean--I perceive that my client, Dr. C. Waters, is now in court.
In order to facilitate business, I shall offer no further objection;
but, as a matter of fact, he was not summoned.

Then the case proceeded, the police giving their evidence on the whole
very fairly, and testifying that the procession was one of the most
peaceable, orderly, solemn, and impressive public demonstrations ever
seen in Dublin. Against Mr. Martin it was testified that he marched at
the head of the procession arm-in-arm with Mr. A.M. Sullivan and another
gentleman; and that he delivered the memorable speech at the cemetery
gate. Against Dr. Waters and Mr. Lalor it was advanced that they were
honorary secretaries of the funeral committee, and had moreover acted,
the former as a marshal, the latter as a steward in the procession. It
was found, however, that the case could not be closed that day; and
accordingly, late in the evening, the magistrates intimated that they
would adjourn over to next morning. Suddenly from the body of the court
is heard a stentorian voice:--

Mr. Bracken--I am summoned here as a crown witness. My name is Thomas
Bracken. I went, heart and soul into that procession (applause)--

Mr. Anderson, junior--I don't know this gentleman.

Mr. Bracken--I am very proud that neither you nor any one like you
knows me (applause).

Mr. Dix--I cannot hear you.

Mr. Bracken--I have been brought here as a crown witness away from my
business, and losing my time here.

Mr. Donal Sullivan--I am another, and I avow myself in the same way.

Several voices--"So am I."

Mr. Bracken--I want to know why I should be taken from my business,
by which I have to support my family, and put me before the eyes of
my countrymen as a crown witness (applause)? I went heart and soul
into the procession, and I am ready to do the same to-morrow, and
abide by the consequences (applause). It is curious that the
government should point me out as a crown witness.

Mr. Murphy--I ask for an adjournment till to-morrow.

Mr. Dix--It is more convenient to adjourn now.

Mr. Martin--I don't want to make any insinuations against the
gentlemen who represent the crown, nor against the police, but I
mention the fact, in order that they may relieve themselves from the
odium which would attach to them if they cannot explain it. This
morning a paragraph appears in one of the principal Dublin daily
papers, the _Irish Times_, in which it is said that I, John Martin,
have absconded; I must presume that the information was supplied to
that paper either by the crown representatives or by the police.

Mr. Murphy, Q.C.--It is right to state, so far as I am informed, that
an endeavour was made to serve Mr. Martin in Dublin. When the
summonses were issued he was not in Dublin, but had gone down to the
country, either to his own or the house of his brother, or--

Mr. Ross Todd, who sat beside Mr. Martin, here jumped up and said,
"To his own house, sir, to his own house"--

Mr. Murphy--Very well. A constable was sent down there, and saw Mr.
Martin, and he reported that Mr. Martin said he would attend
forthwith.

Mr. Dix--And he has done so?

Mr. Murphy--I have no other knowledge. It was briefed to me that Mr.
Martin said he would attend forthwith.

Mr. Martin--I am glad I have given the representatives of the crown
an opportunity of making that statement. But I cannot understand how,
when the representatives of the crown had the information, and when I
told the constables I would attend--as I have done at great
inconvenience and expense to myself--I cannot understand how a
newspaper should come to say I had absconded.

Mr. Murphy--I cannot understand it either; I can only tell the facts
within my own knowledge.

Mr. Molloy said it seemed very extraordinary that witnesses should be
summoned, and the crown say they were not.

Mr. Sullivan wished his summons to be examined. Did the magistrates
sign it?

Mr. Dix--Unless I saw the original I could not say.

Mr. J.J. Lalor--Sir John Gray has been summoned as a witness, too. It
is monstrous.

Sir John Gray, M.P.--I wish to state to your worship the unpleasant
circumstances under which I find myself placed. At an advanced hour
on Saturday I learned that the crown intended to summon as witnesses
for the prosecution some of the gentlemen connected with my
establishment. I immediately communicated with the crown prosecutor,
and said it was unfair towards these gentlemen to have them placed in
such an odious position, and that their refusal to act as crown
witnesses might subject them to serious personal consequences; I said
it would not be right of me to allow any of the gentlemen of my
establishment to subject themselves to the consequences of such
refusal, as I knew well they would all refuse. I suggested, if any
unpleasant consequences should follow, they should fall on the head
of the establishment alone (applause). I said "summon me, and deal
with me." I am here now, sir, to show my respect for you personally
and for this court; but I wish to state most distinctly that I will
never consent to be examined as a crown witness (applause).

Mr. Anderson, jun., here interposed.

Sir John Gray--I beg your pardon. I am addressing the bench, and I
hope I won't be interrupted. Some of my family are going to-night to
England to spend the Christmas with my son. I intend to escort them.
I will not be here to-morrow. I wish distinctly to state so. If I
were here, my respect for you and the bench, would induce me to be
present, but I would be present only to declare what I have already
stated, that I would not consent to be sworn or to give any evidence
whatever in this prosecution. I think it right to add that I attach
no blame whatever to the police authorities in this transaction. They
have, I am sure, performed their duty in this case with that
propriety which has always characterised their conduct. Neither do I
attach any blame to the crown prosecutor. I simply desire to state,
with the most profound respect for the bench and the court, that I
will not be a witness (loud applause).

Mr. Anderson--We don't intend to examine Sir John Gray, but I wish to
say that if the police believed any one could give important
evidence, it is a new proposition to me that it is an indignity upon
a man to summon him as a crown witness--

Mr. A.M. Sullivan--I say it is an indignity, and that the crown
solicitor should not seek to shift the responsibility on the police,
who only do what they are told.

Mr. Anderson--I am not trying to shift anything.

Mr. Sullivan--You are. You are trying to shift the responsibility of
having committed a gross indignity upon a member of parliament, upon
myself, and upon many honest men here.

Several persons holding up summonses said "hear, hear," and "yes."

Mr. Sullivan--This I charge to have been done by Mr. Anderson as his
base revenge upon honest men who bade him defiance. Mr. Anderson must
answer for this conduct. It is a vile conspiracy--a plot against
honest men, who here now to his face tell him they scorn and defy him
(applause).

Mr. Dix--I adjourn the case till one o'clock to-morrow.

The proceedings were then adjourned.

So far have we quoted from the _Freeman's Journal_. Of the closing scene
_Saunders's News-Letter_, grieving sorely over such a fiasco, gives the
following account:--

The adjournment of the court was attended with a scene of tumult and
disorder that was rarely, or never, witnessed in a police court, in
presence of the magistrates and a large number of police--both
inspectors and detectives. The crowd of unwilling witnesses who had
been summoned to give evidence against the defendants, clamorously
protested against being brought there as crown witnesses, avowed that
they were present taking part in the procession, and loudly declared
that they would not attend at any subsequent hearing of the case. The
latter part of the case indeed was marked with frequent interruptions
and declarations of a similar kind, often very vociferously uttered.
The proceedings terminated amid the greatest and unchecked disorder.

In plain words, "Scene I, Act I," in what was meant to be a most solemn,
awe-inspiring government function, turned out an unmistakable farce, if
not a disastrous break down. Even the government journals themselves,
without waiting for "Scene II.," (though coming off immediately) raised
a shout of condemnation of the discreditable bungle, and demanded that
it should be forthwith abandoned. Considering the course ultimately
taken by the government, these utterances of the government organs
themselves, have a serious meaning and are of peculiar importance. The
ultra-orange _Evening Mail_ (Tuesday, 17th December,) said:--

THE POLICE-COURT SCENE.

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.

The Liberal-Conservative _Irish Times_ was still more outspoken:--

While all commend the recent action of the government, and give the
executive full credit for the repression by proclamation of
processions avowedly intended to be protests against authority and
law, it is generally regretted that prosecutions should have been
instituted against some of those who had taken part in these
processions. Had these menacing assemblages been held after the
proclamations were issued, or in defiance of the authorities, the
utmost power should have been exerted to put them down, and the
terrors of the law would properly have been invoked to punish the
guilty. But, bearing in mind the fact that these processions had been
declared by the head of the government--expressing, no doubt, the
opinion entertained at that time by the law officers of the crown,
that these processions were "not illegal"--remembering, too, that
similar processions had been already held without the slightest
intimation of opposition on the part of government; and recollecting,
also, that the proclamation was everywhere implicitly obeyed, and
without the least wish to dispute it, we cannot avoid regretting that
the government should have been advised, at the last hour, to
institute prosecutions of such a nature. Once, however, it was
determined to vindicate the law in this way, the utmost care should
have been taken to maintain the dignity of the proceedings, and to
avoid everything calculated to create annoyance, irritation, or
offence. If we except the moderate and very able speech of Mr.
Murphy, Q.C., there is no one part of the proceedings in the
police-court which merits commendation. Some of the witnesses utterly
broke down; opportunity was given for utterances not calculated to
increase respect for the law; and disloyal sentiments were boldly
expressed and cheered until the court rang again. Great and serious
as was the mistake in not obtaining an accurate legal opinion
respecting the character of these meetings at the first, and then
prohibiting them, a far greater mistake is now, we think, committed
in instituting _these retrospective prosecutions_. For this mistake
the law officers of the crown must, we infer, be held responsible.
Were they men of energy and vigour, with the necessary knowledge of
the world, they would not have suffered the executive to permit
processions first, and then prohibit them, and at the same time try
men for participating in what had been pronounced not to be illegal.
We exonerate the attorney-general from the error of summoning to give
evidence persons who openly gloried in the part they had taken in
these meetings. To command the presence of such witnesses was of the
nature of an offence. There was no ground, for instance, for
supposing that Mr. Sullivan would have played the informer against
the friends who had walked with him in the procession--such is not
his character, his feeling, or his sense of honour. The summoning of
those who had moved with, and as part of, the multitude, to give
evidence against their fellows, was not only a most injudicious, but
a futile expedient, and naturally has caused very great
dissatisfaction and annoyance. The circumstance, however, proves that
the prosecutions was instituted without that exact care and minute
attention to all particulars which are necessary in a case of this
kind.

Even the _Daily Express_, the, all-but subsidised, if not the secretly
subsidised, organ of the ultra-orange section of the Irish
administration, had to own the discomfiture of its patrons:--

Are our police offices to become a kind of national journals court?
Is the "national press of Ireland" then and there to bid for the
support immediately of the gallery, and more remotely of that portion
of the population which is humourously called the Irish Nation? These
speculations are suggested by a curious scene which took place at the
inquiry at the police office yesterday, and which will be found
detailed in another column. Mr. Sullivan, the editor of the _Nation_,
seized the opportunity of being summoned as a witness, to denounce
the government for not including him in the prosecution. He
complained "of endeavouring to place the editor of a national journal
on the list of crown witnesses in this court as a public and
personal indignity," and as an endeavour to destroy the influence of
the national press. It is certainly an open avowal to declare that
the mere placing of the name of the editor of a "national" journal
upon the list of crown witnesses is an unparalleled wrong. But Sir
John Gray was still more instructive. From him we learn that a
witness summoned to assist the crown in the prosecution of sedition
is placed in an "odious position." Odious it may be, but in the eyes
of whom? Surely not of any loyal subject? A paid informer, or
professional spy, may be personally odious in the eyes of those who
make use of his services. But we have yet to learn how a subject who
is summoned to come forward to assist the government fills an odious
position in the opinion of his loyal fellow-subjects. We should
rather have supposed him to be entitled to their gratitude. However
that may be, Sir John Gray came gallantly to the rescue of several
"gentlemen connected with his establishment," whom, he was informed,
the government intended to summon as witnesses. This, he knew, they
would all refuse. "I suggested, if any unpleasant consequences should
follow, that they should fall on the head of the establishment
alone." He called upon the authorities to summon him. We do complain
of our police-courts being made the scenes of open avowals of
determination to thwart, or, at least, not to assist the government
in their endeavours to prosecute treason and sedition. We can imagine
no principle on which a subject could object to assisting the crown
as a witness, which, if followed to its logical consequences, would
not justify open rebellion. It is certainly a dangerous doctrine to
preach that it is allowable, nay, even praiseworthy in a subject to
refuse to give evidence when called upon to do so by the crown. There
is a disposition too prevalent in this country to regard the law as
an enemy, and opposition to it, either by passive obstruction or
active rebellion, as a praiseworthy and patriotic act. Can we wonder
at this when we hear opposition to constituted authority openly
preached by the instructors of "the nation," and witness the
eagerness of the "national press" to free itself from the terrible
suspicion of coming to the assistance, even involuntarily, of the
government in its struggle with sedition and treason?

It was amidst such an outburst of vexation and indignation as this, even
from the government journals themselves, that the curtain rose next
morning on Act II. in the Head Police Office. A very unique episode
commenced the proceedings on this day also. At the resumption of the
case, Mr. Murphy, Q.C., on behalf of the crown, said:--

Mr. Sullivan and some other gentlemen complained yesterday of having
been served with summonses to give evidence in those cases. I am
directed by the attorney-general to state that he regrets it, and
that it was done without his authority. He never gave any directions
to have those persons summoned, nor was it done by anyone acting
under his directions. It occurred in this way. General directions
were given to the police to summon parties to give evidence in order
to establish the charge against those four gentlemen who are summoned
for taking an active part in the procession. The police, in the
exercise of their discretion thought it might be necessary to summon
parties who took part in the procession, but there was no intention
on the part of those aiding on behalf of the crown to summon parties
to give evidence who themselves took part in the procession, and I am
sorry it occurred.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9