Chapter III: Part 3

The magistrates reserved their decision till next day; so that there might be decent and seemly pause for the purpose of looking up and pondering the legal precedents, as the legal fiction would have it; and on next day, they announced that they would send all the accused for trial to the next Commission at Green-street, to open on the 10th February, 1868. The several traversers, however, were required to enter merely into their own recognizances in £500 each to appear for trial.

In this police court proceeding the government, confessedly, were morally worsted--utterly humiliated, in fact. So far from creating awe or striking terror, the prosecution had evoked general contempt, scorn, and indignation. To such an extent was this fact recognised, that the government journals themselves, as we have seen, were amongst the loudest in censuring the whole proceeding, and in supporting the general expectation that there was an end of the prosecution.

Not so however was it to be. The very bitterness of the mortification inflicted upon them by their "roll in the dust" on their first legal encounter with the processionists, seemed to render the crown officials more and more vindictive. It was too galling to lie under the public challenge hurled at them by Mr. Bracken, Mr. O'Reilly, and Mr. Sullivan. After twelve days' cogitation, government made up its mind to strike.

On Saturday, 28th December, 1867--just as everyone in Ireland seemed to have concluded that, as the Conservative journals said, there was "an end of" the foolish and ill-advised funeral prosecutions--Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Bracken (one of the funeral stewards), Mr. Jennings, of Kingstown (one of the best known and most trusted of the nationalists of "Dunleary" district). Mr. O'Reilly, (one of the mounted marshals at the procession), and some others, were served with citations to appear on Monday the 30th, at the Head Police Office, to answer charges identical with those preferred on the 16th against Mr. Martin, Dr. Waters, and Mr. Lalor.

Preliminary prosecution No. 2 very much resembled No. 1. Mr. Murphy, Q.C. stated the crown case with fairness and moderation; and the police, as before, gave their evidence like men who felt "duty" and "conscience" in sore disagreement on such an occasion. Mr. Jennings and Mr. O'Reilly were defended, respectively, by Mr. Molloy and Mr. Crean; two advocates whose selection from the junior bar for these critical and important public cases was triumphantly vindicated by their conduct from the first to the last scene of the drama. Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Bracken, and the other accused, were not represented by counsel. On the first-named gentleman (Mr. Sullivan) being formally called on, he addressed the court at some length. He said:--

Please your worship, had the officials of the crown adopted towards
me, in the first instance, the course which they have taken upon the
present occasion, and had they not adopted the singular course which
they pursued in my regard when I last appeared in this court, I
should trouble you with no observations. For, as one of the 50,000
persons who, on the 8th of December, in this city, publicly,
lawfully, and peacefully demonstrated their protest against what they
believed to have been a denial of law and an outrage on justice, I
should certainly waste no public time in this preliminary
investigation, but rather admit the facts as you perceive I have done
to-day, and hasten the final decision on the issues really knit
between us and the crown. What was the course adopted by the crown in
the first instance against me? They had before them, on the 9th, just
as well as on the 29th--it is in evidence that they had--the fact
that I, openly and publicly, took part in that demonstration--that
sorrowful and sad protest against injustice (applause). They had
before them then as much as they had before them to-day, or as much
as they will ever have affecting me. For, whatever course I take in
public affairs in this country, I conceal nothing, I take it
publicly, openly, and deliberately. If I err, I am satisfied to abide
the consequences; and, whenever it may suit the weathercock judgment
of Lord Mayo, and his vacillating law advisers, to characterise my
acts or my opinion as illegal, seditious, heretical, idolatrous, or
treasonable, I must, like every other subject, be content to take my
chance of their being able to find a jury sufficiently facile or
sufficiently stupid to carry out their behests against me. But they
did not choose that course at first. They did not summon me as a
principal, but they subpoenaed me as a witness--as a crown
witness--against some of my dearest, personal, and public friends.
The attorney-general, whose word I most fully and frankly accept in
the matter--for I would not charge him with being wanting in personal
truthfulness--denied having had any complicity in the course of
conduct pursued towards me; but where does he lay the responsibility?
On "the police." What is the meaning of that phrase, "the police?" He
surely does not mean that the members of the force, who parade our
streets, exercise viceregal functions (laughter). Who was this person
thus called the "police?" How many degrees above or below the
attorney-general are we to look for this functionary described as
"the police," who has the authority to have a "seditious" man--that
is the allegation--a seditious man--exempted from prosecution? The
police cannot do that. Who, then? Who was he that could draw the
line between John Martin and his friend A.M. Sullivan--exempt the
one, prosecute the other--summon the former as a defendant and
subpoena the latter as a crown witness? What was the object? It is
plain. There are at this moment, I am convinced--who doubts
it?--throughout Ireland, as yet unfound out, Talbots and Corridons in
the pay of the crown acting as Fenian centres, who, next day, would
receive from their employers directions to spread amongst my
countrymen the intelligence that I had been here to betray my
associate, John Martin (applause). But their plot recoiled--their
device was exposed; public opinion expressed its reprobation of the
unsuccessful trick; and now they come to mend their hand. The men who
were exempted before are prosecuted to-day. Now, your worships, on
this whole case--on this entire procedure--I deliberately charge that
not we, but the government, have violated the law. I charge that the
government are well aware that the law is against them--that they are
irresistibly driven upon this attempt to strain and break the law
against the constitutional right and liberty of the subject by their
mere party exigencies and necessities.

He then reviewed at length the bearing of the Party Processions Act upon the present case; and next proceeded to deal with the subject of the Manchester executions; maintaining that the men were hanged, as were others before them, in like moments of national passion and frenzy, on a false evidence and a rotten verdict. Mr. Sullivan proceeded:--

It is because the people love justice and abhor injustice--because
the real crime of those three victims is believed to have been
devotion to native land--that the Catholic churches of Ireland
resound with prayers and requiem hymns, and the public highways were
lined with sympathising thousands, until the guilty fears of the
executioners proclaimed it illegal to mourn. Think you, sir, if the
crown view of this matter were the true one, would the Catholic
clergy of Ireland--they who braved fierce and bitter unpopularity in
reprehending the Fenian conspiracy at a time when Lord Mayo's organ
was patting it on the back for its 'fine Sardinian spirit'--would
these ministers of religion drape their churches for three common
murderers? I repel as a calumnious and slanderous accusation against
the Catholic clergy of Ireland this charge, that by their mourning
for those three martyred Irishmen, they expressed sympathy, directly
or indirectly, with murder or life-taking. If an act be seditious, it
is not the less illegal in the church than in the graveyard, or on
the road to the cemetery. Are we, then, to understand that our
churches are to be invaded by bands of soldiery, and our priests
dragged from the altars, for the seditious crime of proclaiming
aloud their belief in the innocence of Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien?
This, sir, is what depends on the decision in this case, here or
elsewhere. All this and more. It is to be decided whether, in their
capacity of Privy Councillors, the judges of the land shall put forth
a proclamation the legality or binding force of which they will
afterwards sit as judges to try. It is whether, there being no
constitution now allowed to exist in the country, there is to be no
law save what a Castle proclamation will construct, permit, or
decree; no mourning save what the police will license; no
demonstration of opinion save whatever accords with the government
views. We hear much of the liberties enjoyed in this country. No
doubt, we have fine constitutional rights and securities, until the
very time they are most required. When we have no need to invoke
them, they are permitted to us; but at the only time when they might
be of substantial value, they are, as the phrase goes, "suspended."
Who, unless in times of governmental panic, need apprehend
unwarranted arrest? When else is the _Habeas Corpus_ Act of such
considerable protection to the subject? When, unless when the crown
seeks to invade public liberty, is the purity and integrity of trial
by jury of such value and importance in political cases? Yet all the
world knows that the British government, whenever such a conflict
arises, juggles and packs the jury--

Mr. Dix--I really cannot allow that language to be used in this
court, Mr. Sullivan, with every disposition to accord you, as an
accused person, the amplest limits in your observations. Such
language goes beyond what I can permit--

Mr. Sullivan--I, at once, in respect for your worship, retract the
word juggle. I will say the crown manipulates the jury.

Mr. Dix--I can't at all allow this line of comment to be pursued--

Mr. Sullivan--With all respect for your worship, and while I am ready
to use any phrase most suitable for utterance here, I will not give
up my right to state and proclaim the fact, however unpalatable, when
it is notoriously true. I stand upon my rights to say, that you have
all the greater reason to pause, ere you send me, or any other
citizen, for trial before a jury in a crown prosecution at a moment
like the present, when trial by jury, as the theory of the
constitution supposes it, does not exist in the land. I say there is
now notoriously no fair trial by jury to be had in this country, as
between the subject and the crown. Never yet, in an important
political case, have the government in this country dared to allow
twelve men indifferently chosen, to pass into the jury-box to try the
issue between the subject and the crown. And now, sir, if you send
the case for trial, and suppose the government succeed by the juries
they are able to empanel here, with 'Fenian' ticketed on the backs of
the accused by the real governors of the country--the Heygates and
the Bruces--and if it is declared by you that in this land of
mourning it has become at last criminal even to mourn--what a victory
for the crown! Oh, sir, they have been for years winning such
victories, and thereby manufacturing conspiracies--driving people
from the open and legitimate expression of their sentiments into
corners to conspire and to hide. I stand here as a man against whom
some clamour has been raised for my efforts to save my countrymen
from the courses into which the government conduct has been driving
them, and I say that there is no more revolutionary agent in the land
than that persecution of authority which says to the people, "When we
strike you, we forbid you to weep." We meet the crown, foot to foot,
on its case here. We say we have committed no offence, but that the
prosecution against us has been instituted to subserve their party
exigencies, and that the government is straining and violating the
law. We challenge them to the issue, and even should they succeed in
obtaining from a crown jury a verdict against us, we have a wider
tribunal to appeal to--the decision of our own consciences and the
judgment of humanity (applause).

Mr. Murphy, Q.C., briefly replied. He asked his worship not to decide
that the procession was illegal, but that this case was one for a
court of law and a jury.

On this occasion it was unnecessary for Mr. Dix to take any "time to consider his decision." All the accused were bound over in their own recognizances to stand their trials at the forthcoming Commission in Green-street court, on the 10th of February, 1868.

The plunge which the crown officials had shivered so long before attempting had now been taken, and they determined to go through with the work, _a l'outrance_. In the interval between the last police-court scene described above, and the opening of the Green-street Commission, in February, 1868, prosecutions were directly commenced against the _Irishman_ and the _Weekly News_ for seditious writing. In the case of the former journal the proprietor tried some skilfully-devised preparatory legal moves and manoeuvers, not one of which of course succeeded, though their justice and legality were apparent enough. In the case of the latter journal--the _Weekly News_--the proprietor raised no legal point whatsoever. The fact was that when he found the crown not content with _one_ state prosecution against him (that for the funeral procession), coming upon him with _a second_, he knew his doom was sealed. He very correctly judged that legal moves would be all in vain--that his conviction, _per fas aut ne fas_, was to be obtained--that a jury would be packed against him--and that consequently the briefest and most dignified course for him would be to go straight to the conflict and meet it boldly.

On Monday, 10th February, 1868, the commission was opened in Green-street, Dublin, before Mr. Justice Fitzgerald and Baron Deasy. Soon a cunning and unworthy legal trick on the part of the crown was revealed. The prosecuted processionists and journalists had been indicted in the _city_ venue, had been returned for trial to the _city_ commission by a _city_ jury. But the government at the last moment mistrusted a city jury in this instance--even a _packed_ city jury--and without any notice to the traversers, sent the indictments before the _county_ grand jury, so that they might be tried by a jury picked and packed from the anti-Irish oligarchy of the Pale. It was an act of gross illegality, hardship, and oppression. The illegality of such a course had been ruled and decided in the case of Mr. Gavan Duffy in 1848. But the point was raised vainly now. When Mr. Pigott, of the _Irishman_, was called to plead, his counsel (Mr. Heron, Q.C.) insisted that he, the traverser, was now in custody of the _city_ sheriff in accordance with his recognizances, and could not without legal process be removed to the county venue. An exciting encounter ensued between Mr. Heron and the crown counsel, and the court took till next day to decide the point. Next morning it was decided in favour of the crown, and Mr. Pigott was about being arraigned, when, in order that he might not be prejudiced by having attended pending the decision, the attorney-general said, "he would shut his eyes to the fact that that gentleman was now in court," and would have him called immediately--an intimation that Mr. Pigott might, if advised, try the course of refusing to appear. He did so refuse. When next called, Mr. Pigott was not forthcoming, and on the police proceeding to his office and residence that gentleman was not to be found--having, as the attorney-general spitefully expressed it, "fled from justice." Mr. Sullivan's case, had, of necessity, then to be called; and this was exactly what the crown had desired to avoid, and what Mr. Heron had aimed to secure. It was the secret of all the skirmishing. A very general impression prevailed that the crown would fail in getting a jury to convict Mr. Sullivan on any indictment tinctured even ever so faintly with "Fenianism;" and it was deemed of great importance to Mr. Pigott's case to force the crown to begin with the one in which failure was expected--Mr. Sullivan having intimated his perfect willingness to be either pushed to the front or kept to the last, according as might best promise to secure the discomfiture of the government. Mr. Heron had therefore so far out-manoeuvered the crown. Mr. Sullivan appeared in court and announced himself ready for trial, and the next morning was fixed for his arraignment. Up to this moment, that gentleman had expressed his determination not only to discard legal points, but to decline ordinary professional defence, and to address the jury in his own behalf. Now, however, deferring to considerations strongly pressed on him (set forth in his speech to the jury in the funeral procession case), he relinquished this resolution; and, late on the night preceding his trial, entrusted to Mr. Heron, Q.C., Mr. Crean, and Mr. Molloy, his defence on this first prosecution.

Next morning, Saturday, 15th February, 1868, the trial commenced; a jury was duly packed by the "stand-by" process, and notwithstanding a charge by Justice Fitzgerald, which was, on the whole one of the fairest heard in Ireland in a political case for many years, Mr. Sullivan was duly convicted of having, by pictures and writings in his journal the _Weekly News_, seditiously brought the crown and government into hatred and contempt.

The government officials were jubilant. Mr. Pigott was next arraigned, and after an exceedingly able defence by Mr. Heron, was likewise convicted.

It was now very generally concluded that the government would be satisfied with these convictions, and would not proceed with the funeral procession cases. At all events, it was universally regarded as certain that Mr. Sullivan would not be arraigned on the second or funeral procession indictment, as he now stood convicted on the other--the press charge. But it was not to be so. Elate with their success, the crown officials thought they might even discard their doubts of a city jury; and on Thursday morning, 20th February, 1868, John Martin, Alexander M. Sullivan, Thomas Bracken, and J.J. Lalor,[A] were formally arraigned in the _city_ venue. [Footnote A: Dr. Waters, in the interval since his committal on this charge, had been arrested, and was now imprisoned, under the Suspension of the _Habeas Corpus_ Act. He was not brought to trial on the procession charge.]

It was a scene to be long remembered, that which was presented in the Green-street court-house on that Thursday morning. The dogged vindictiveness of the crown officials, in persisting with this second prosecution, seemed to have excited intense feeling throughout the city, and long before the proceedings opened the court was crowded in every part with anxious spectators. When Mr. Martin entered, accompanied by his brother-in-law, Dr. Simpson, and Mr. Ross Todd, and took his seat at the travelers' bar, a low murmur of respectful sympathy, amounting to applause, ran through the building. And surely it was a sight to move the heart to see this patriot--this man of pure and stainless life, this man of exalted character, of noble soul, and glorious principles--standing once more in that spot where twenty years before he stood confronting the same foe in the same righteous and holy cause--standing once more at that bar whence, twenty years before, he was led off manacled to a felon's doom for the crime of loving Ireland! Many changes had taken place in the interval, but over the stern integrity of _his_ soul time had wrought no change. He himself seemed to recall at this moment his last "trial" scene on this spot, and, as he cast his gaze around, one could detect on his calm thoughtful face something of sadness, yet of pride, as memory doubtless pictured the spectacle of twenty years ago.

Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Bracken, and Mr. Lalor, arrived soon after, and immediately the judges appeared on the bench the proceedings began.

On their lordships, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald and Mr. Baron Deasy,
taking their seats upon the bench,

Mr. Smartt (deputy clerk of the crown) called upon John Martin,
Alexander M. Sullivan, John J. Lalor, and Thomas Bracken, to come and
appear as they were bound to do in discharge of their recognizances.

All the traversers answered.

Mr. Smartt then proceeded to arraign the traversers under an
indictment charging in the first count--"That John Martin, John C.
Waters, John J. Lalor, Alexander M. Sullivan, and Thomas Bracken,
being malicious, seditious, and ill-disposed persons, and intending
to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the realm, and to excite
discontent and disaffection, and to excite the subjects of our Lady
the Queen in Ireland to hatred and dislike of the government, the
laws, and the administration of the laws of this realm, on the 8th
day of December, in the year of our Lord, 1867, unlawfully did
assemble and meet together with divers other persons, amounting to a
large number--to wit, fifteen thousand persons--for the purpose of
exciting discontent and disaffection, and for the purpose of exciting
her Majesty's subjects in Ireland to hatred of her government and the
laws of this realm, in contempt of our Lady the Queen, in open
violation of the laws of this realm, and against the peace of our
Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity." The second count charged that
the defendants intended "to cause it to be believed that the three
men who had been duly tried, found guilty, and sentenced, according
to law, for murder, at Manchester, in England, had been illegally and
unjustly executed; and to excite hatred, dislike, and disaffection
against the administration of justice, and the laws of this realm,
for and in respect of the execution of the said three men." A third
count charged the publication at the unlawful assembly laid in the
first and second counts of the false and seditious words contained in
Mr. John Martin's speech. A fourth and last count was framed under
the Party Processions' Act, and charged that the defendants "did
unlawfully meet, assemble, and parade together, and were present at
and did join in a procession with divers others, and did bear, wear,
and have amongst them in said procession certain emblems and symbols,
the display whereof was calculated to and did tend to provoke
animosity between different classes of her Majesty's subjects,
against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and
against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity."

The traversers severally pleaded not guilty.

The Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Dr. Ball, Q.C.; Mr.
Charles Shaw, Q.C.; Mr. James Murphy, Q.C.; Mr. R.H. Owen, Q.C.; and
Mr. Edward Beytagh, instructed by Mr. Anderson, Crown Solicitor,
appeared to prosecute.

Mr. Martin, Mr. Sullivan, and Mr. Bracken were not professionally
assisted.

Mr. Michael T. Crean, instructed by Mr. John T. Scallan, appeared for
Mr. Lalor.

And now came the critical stage of the case. _Would the crown pack the jury?_ The clerk of the crown began to call the panel, when--

John Keegan was called and ordered to stand by on the part of the
crown.

Mr. Sullivan--My lord, have I any right to challenge?

Mr. Justice Fitzgerald--You have Mr. Sullivan, for cause.

Mr. Sullivan--And can the crown order a juror to stand by without a
cause assigned?

Mr. Justice Fitzgerald--The crown has a right to exercise that
privilege.

Mr. Sullivan--Well, I will exercise no challenge, for cause or
without cause. Let the crown select a jury now as it pleases.

Subsequently George M'Cartney was called, and directed to stand by.

Patrick Ryan was also ordered to stand by.

Mr. Martin--I protest against this manner of selecting a jury. I do
so publicly.

J.J. Lalor--I also protest against it.

Thomas Bracken--And I also.

The sensation produced by this scene embarrassed the crown officials not a little. It dragged to light the true character of their proceeding. Eventually the following twelve gentlemen were suffered by the crown to pass into the box as a "jury"--[Footnote: Not one Catholic was allowed to pass into the box. Every Catholic who came to the box was ordered to "_Stand by_."]

SAMUEL EAKINS, Foreman.
WILLIAM DOWNES GRIFFITH.
EDWARD GATCHELL.
THOMAS MAXWELL HUTTON.
MAURICE KERR.
WILLIAM LONGFIELD.
JOSEPH PURSER.
THOMAS PAUL.
JAMES REILLY.
JOHN GEORGE SHIELS.
WILLIAM O'BRIEN SMYTH.
GEORGE WALSH.

The Solicitor-General, Mr. Harrison, stated the case for the prosecution. Next the police repeated their evidence--their description of the procession--as given before the magistrates, and the government short-hand writer proved Mr. Martin's speech. The only witnesses now produced who had not testified at the preliminary stage were a Manchester policeman named Seth Bromley, who had been one of the van escort on the day of the rescue, and the degraded and infamous crown spy, Corridon. The former--eager as a beagle on the scent to run down the prey before him--left the table amidst murmurs of derision and indignation evoked by his over-eagerness on his direct examination, and his "fencing" and evasion on cross-examination. The spy Corridon was produced "to prove the existence of the Fenian conspiracy." Little notice was taken of him. Mr. Crean asked him barely a trivial question or two. Mr. Martin and Mr. Sullivan, when asked if they desired to cross-examine him, replied silently by gestures of loathing; and the wretch left the table--crawled from it--like a crippled murderer from the scene of his crime.

This closed the case for the crown, and Mr. Crean, counsel for Mr. Lalor, rose to address the jury on behalf of his client. His speech was argumentative, terse, forcible, and eloquent; and seemed to please and astonish not only the auditors but the judges themselves, who evidently had not looked for so much ability and vigour in the young advocate before them. Although the speeches of professional advocates do not come within the scope of this publication, Mr. Crean's vindication of the national colour of Ireland--probably the most telling passage in his address--has an importance which warrants its quotation here:--

Gentlemen, it is attempted in this case to make the traversers
amenable under the Party Processions' Act, because those in the
procession wore green ribbons. Gentlemen, this is the first time, in
the history of Irish State Prosecutions which mark the periods of
gloom and peril in this country, that the wearing of a green ribbon
has been formally indicted; and I may say it is no good sign of the
times that an offence which has been hitherto unknown to the law
should now crop up for the first time in this year of grace, one
thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight. Not even in the worst days of
Lord Castlereagh's ill-omened regime was such an attempt as this made
to degrade the green of Ireland into a party colour, and to make that
which has long been regarded as a national emblem the symbol of a
faction. Gentlemen, there is no right-minded or right-hearted
man--looking back upon the ruinous dissensions and bitter conflicts
which have been the curse and bane of this country--who will not
reprobate any effort to revive and perpetuate them. There is no
well-disposed man in the community who will not condemn and crush
those persons--no matter on what side they may stand--who make
religion, which should be the fountain and mother of all peace and
blessings, the cause of rancour and animosity. We have had,
unhappily, gentlemen, too much of this in Ireland. We have been too
long the victims of that wayward fate of which the poet wrote, when
he said:--

"Whilst our tyrants join in hate, We never joined in love."

But, gentlemen, I will ask of you if you ever before heard, until
this time, that the green of Ireland was the peculiar colour of any
particular sect, creed, or faction, or that any of the people of this
country wore it as the peculiar emblem of their party, and for the
purpose of giving annoyance and of offering insult to some other
portion of their fellow-countrymen. I must say that I never heard
before that Catholic or Protestant, or Quaker or Moravian, laid claim
to this colour as a symbol of party. I thought all Irishmen, no
matter what altar they bowed before, regarded the green as the
national colour of Ireland. If it is illegal to wear the green, all I
can say is that the Constabulary are guilty of a constant and
continuing breach of the law. The Lord and Lady Lieutenant will
probably appear on next Patrick's Day, decorated with large bunches
of green shamrock. Many of the highest officials of the government
will do the same; and is it to be thought for one moment that they,
by wearing this green emblem of Ireland and of Irish nationality, are
violating the law of the land. Gentlemen, it is perfectly absurd to
think so. I hope this country has not yet so fallen as that it has
become a crime to wear the green. I trust we have not yet come to
that pass of national degradation, that a jury of Irishmen can be
found so forgetful of their country's dignity and of their own as to
brand with a mark of infamy a colour which is associated with so many
recollections, not of party triumphs, but of national glories--not
with any sect, or creed, or party, but with a nation and a race whose
children, whether they were the exiled soldiers of a foreign state,
or the soldiers of Great Britain--whether at Fontenoy or on the
plains of Waterloo, or on the heights of Fredericksburgh, have nobly
vindicated the chivalry and fame of Ireland! It is for them that the
green has its true meaning. It is to the Irishman in a distant land
this emblem is so dear, for it is entwined in his memory, not with
any miserable faction, but with the home and the country which gave
him birth. I do hope that Irishmen will never be ashamed in this
country to wear the green, and I hope an attempt will never again be
made in an Irish court of justice to punish Irishmen for wearing that
which is a national colour, and of which every man who values his
country should feel proud.

When Mr. Crean resumed his seat--which he did amidst strong manifestations of applause--it was past three o'clock in the afternoon. It was not expected that the case would have proceeded so far by that hour, and Mr. Martin and Mr. Sullivan, who intended each to speak in his own behalf, did not expect to rise for that purpose before next day, when it was arranged that Mr. Martin would speak first, and Mr. Sullivan follow him. Now, however, it was necessary some one of them should rise to his defence, and Mr. Martin urged that Mr. Sullivan should begin.

By this time the attendance in court, which, during the Solicitor-General's speech and the crown evidence, thinned down considerably, had once more grown too great for the fair capacity of the building. There was a crush within, and a crowd without. When Mr. Sullivan was seen to rise, after a moment's hurried consultation with Mr. Martin, who sat beside him, there was a buzz, followed by an anxious silence. For a moment the accused paused, almost overcome (as well he might have been) by a sense of the responsibility of this novel and dangerous course. But he quickly addressed himself to the critical task he had undertaken, and spoke as follows:--[Footnote: As Mr. Sullivan delivered this speech without even the ordinary assistance of written notes or memoranda, the report here quoted is that which was published in the newspapers of the time. Some few inaccuracies which he was precluded from correcting then (being a prisoner when this speech was first published), have been corrected for this publication.]

My lords and gentlemen of the jury--I rise to address you under
circumstances of embarassment which will, I hope, secure for me a
little consideration and indulgence at your hands. I have to ask you
at the outset to banish any prejudice that might arise in your minds
against a man who adopts the singular course--who undertakes the
serious responsibility--of pleading his own defence. Such a
proceeding might be thought to be dictated either by disparagement of
the ordinary legal advocacy, by some poor idea of personal vanity, or
by way of reflection on the tribunal before which the defence is
made. My conduct is dictated by neither of these considerations or
influences. Last of all men living should I reflect upon the ability,
zeal, and fidelity of the Bar of Ireland, represented as it has been
in my own behalf within the past two days by a man whose heart and
genius are, thank God, still left to the service of our country, and
represented, too, as it has been here this day by that gifted young
advocate, the echoes of whose eloquence still resound in this court,
and place me at disadvantage in immediately following him. And
assuredly I design no disrespect to this court; either to tribunal in
the abstract, or to the individual judges who preside; from one of
whom I heard two days ago delivered in my own case a charge of which
I shall say--though followed by a verdict which already consigns me
to a prison--that it was, judging it as a whole, the fairest, the
clearest, the most just and impartial ever given to my knowledge, in
a political case of this kind in Ireland between the subject and the
crown. No; I stand here in my own defence to-day, because long since
I formed the opinion that, on many grounds, in such a prosecution as
this, such a course would be the most fair and most consistent for a
man like me. That resolution I was, for the sake of others, induced
to depart from on Saturday last, in the first prosecution against me.
When it came to be seen that I was the first to be tried out of two
journalists prosecuted, it was strongly urged on me that my course,
and the result of my trial, might largely affect the case of the
other journalist to be tried after, me; and that I ought to waive my
individual views and feelings, and have the utmost legal ability
brought to bear in behalf of the case of the national press at the
first point of conflict. I did so. I was defended by a bar not to be
surpassed in the kingdom for ability and earnest zeal; yet the result
was what I anticipated. For I knew, as I had held all along, that in
a case like this, where law and fact are left to the jury, legal
ability is of no avail if the crown comes in with its arbitrary power
of moulding the jury. In that case, as in this one, I openly,
publicly, and distinctly announced that I for my part would challenge
no one, whether with cause or without cause. Yet the crown--in the
face of this fact--and in a case where they knew that at least the
accused had no like power of peremptory challenge--did not venture to
meet me on equal footing; did not venture to abstain from their
practice of absolute challenge; in fine, did not dare to trust their
case to twelve men "indifferently chosen," as the constitution
supposes a jury to be. Now, gentlemen, before I enter further upon
this jury question, let me say that with me this is no complaint
merely against "the Tories." On this as well as on numerous other
subjects, it is well known that it has been my unfortunate lot to
arraign both Whigs and Tories. I say further, that I care not a jot
whether the twelve men selected or permitted by the crown to try me,
or rather to convict me, by twelve of my own co-religionists and
political compatriots, or twelve Protestants, Conservatives, Tories,
or "Orangemen." Understand me clearly on this. My objection is not to
the individuals comprising the jury. You may be all Catholics, or you
may be all Protestants, for aught that affects my protest, which is
against the mode by which you are selected--selected by the
crown--their choice for their own ends--and not "indifferently
chosen" between the crown and the accused. You may disappoint, or you
may justify the calculations of the crown official, who has picked
you out from the panel, by negative or positive choice (I being
silent and powerless)--you may or may not be all he supposes--the
outrage on the spirit of the constitution is the same. I say, by such
a system of picking a jury by the crown, I am not put upon my
country. Gentlemen, from the first moment these proceedings were
commenced against me, I think it will be admitted that I endeavoured
to meet them fairly and squarely, promptly and directly. I have never
once turned to the right or to the left, but gone straight to the
issue. I have from the outset declared my perfect readiness to meet
the charges of the crown. I did not care when or where they tried me.
I said I would avail of no technicality--that I would object to no
juror--Catholic, Protestant, or Dissenter. All I asked--all I
demanded--was to be "put upon my country," in the real, fair, and
full sense and spirit of the constitution. All I asked was that the
crown would keep its hand off the panel, as I would keep off mine. I
had lived fifteen years in this city; and I should have lived in
vain, if, amongst the men that knew me in that time, whatever might
be their political or religious creed, I feared to have my acts, my
conduct, or principles tried. It is the first and most original
condition of society that a man shall subordinate his public acts to
the welfare of the community, or at least acknowledge the right of
those amongst whom his lot is cast, to judge him on such an issue as
this. Freely I acknowledge that right. Readily have I responded to
the call to submit to the judgment of my country, the question
whether, in demonstrating my sorrow and sympathy for misfortune, my
admiration for fortitude, my vehement indignation against what I
considered to be injustice, I had gone too far and invaded the rights
of the community. Gentlemen, I desire in all that I have to say to
keep or be kept within what is regular and seemly, and above all to
utter nothing wanting in respect for the court; but I do say, and I
do protest, that I have not got trial by jury according to the spirit
and meaning of the constitution. It is as representatives of the
general community, not as representatives of the crown officials, the
constitution supposes you to sit in that box. If you do not fairly
represent the community, and if you are not empanelled indifferently
in that sense, you are no jury in the spirit of the constitution. I
care not how the crown practice may be within the technical letter of
the law, it violates the intent and meaning of the constitution, and
it is not "trial by jury." Let us suppose the scene removed, say, to
France. A hundred names are returned on what is called a panel by a
state functionary for the trial of a journalist charged with
sedition. The accused is powerless to remove any name from the list
unless for over-age or non-residence. But the imperial prosecutor has
the arbitrary power of ordering as many as he pleases to "stand
aside." By this means he puts or allows on the jury only whomsoever
he pleases. He can, beforehand, select the twelve, and, by wiping
out, if it suits him, the eighty-eight other names, put the twelve of
his own choosing into the box. Can this be called trial by jury?
Would not it be the same thing, in a more straightforward way, to let
the crown-solicitor send out a policeman and collect twelve
well-accredited persons of his own mind and opinion? For my own part,
I would prefer this plain-dealing, and consider far preferable the
more rude but honest hostility of a drum-head court martial (applause
in the court). Again I say, understand me well, I am objecting to the
principle, the system, the practice, and not to the twelve gentlemen
now before me as individuals. Personally, I am confident that being
citizens of Dublin, whatever your views or opinions, you are
honourable and conscientious men. You may have strong prejudices
against me or my principles in public life--very likely you have; but
I doubt not that though these may unconsciously tinge your judgment
and influence your verdict, you will not consciously violate the
obligations of your oath. And I care not whether the crown, in
permitting you to be the twelve, ordered three, or thirteen, or
thirty others to "stand by"--or whether those thus arbitrarily put
aside were Catholics or Protestants, Liberals, Conservatives, or
Nationalists--the moment the crown put its finger at all on the
panel, in a case where the accused had no equal right, the essential
character of the jury was changed, and the spirit of the constitution
was outraged. And now, what is the charge against my
fellow-traversers and myself? The solicitor-general put it very
pithily awhile ago when he said our crime was "glorifying the cause
of murder." The story of the crown is a very terrible, a very
startling one. It alleges a state of things which could hardly be
supposed to exist amongst the Thugs of India. It depicts a population
so hideously depraved that thirty thousand of them in one place, and
tens of thousands in various other places, arrayed themselves
publicly in procession to honour and glorify murder--to sympathise
with murderers as murderers. Yes, gentlemen, that is the crown case,
or they have no case at all--that the funeral procession in Dublin on
the 8th December last was a demonstration of sympathy with murder as
murder. For you will have noted that never once in his smart
narration of the crown story, did Mr. Harrison allow even the
faintest glimmer to appear of any other possible complexion or
construction of our conduct. Why, I could have imagined it easy for
him not merely to state his own case, but to state ours too, and show
where we failed, and where his own side prevailed. I could easily
imagine Mr. Harrison stating our view of the matter--and combatting
it. But he never once dared to even mention our case. His whole aim
was to hide it from you, and to fasten, as best such efforts of his
could fasten, in your minds this one miserable refrain--"They
glorified the cause of murder and assassination." But this is no new
trick. It is the old story of the maligners of our people. They call
the Irish a turbulent, riotous, crime-loving, law-hating race. They
are for ever pointing to the unhappy fact--for, gentlemen, it is a
fact--that between the Irish people and the laws under which they now
live there is little or no sympathy, but bitter estrangement and
hostility of feeling or of action. Bear with me if I examine this
charge, since an understanding of it is necessary in order to judge
our conduct on the 8th December last. I am driven upon this extent of
defence by the singular conduct of the solicitor-general, who, with a
temerity which he will repent, actually opened the page of Irish
history, going back upon it just so far as it served his own purpose,
and no farther. Ah! fatal hour for my prosecutors when they appealed
to history. For assuredly, that is the tribunal that will vindicate
the Irish people, and confound those who malign them as sympathisers
with assassination and glorifiers of murder--

Solicitor-General--My lord, I must really call upon you--I deny that
I ever--

Mr. Justice Fitzgerald--Proceed, Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Sullivan--My lord, I took down the solicitor-general's words. I
quote them accurately as he spoke them, and he cannot get rid of them
now. "Glorifiers of the cause of murder" was his designation of my
fellow-traversers and myself, and our fifty thousand fellow-mourners
in the funeral procession; and before I sit down I will make him rue
the utterance. Gentlemen of the jury, if British law be held in
"disesteem"--as the crown prosecutors phrase it--here in Ireland,
there is an explanation for that fact, other than that supplied by
the solicitor-general; namely, the wickedness of seditious persons
like myself, and the criminal sympathies of a people ever ready to
"glorify the cause of murder." Mournful, most mournful, is the lot of
that land where the laws are not respected--nay, revered by the
people. No greater curse could befall a country than to have the laws
estranged from popular esteem, or in antagonism with the national
sentiment. Everything goes wrong under such a state of things. The
ivy will cling to the oak, and the tendrils of the vine reach forth
towards strong support. But more anxiously and naturally still does
the human heart instinctively seek an object of reverence and love,
as well as of protection and support, in law, authority, sovereignty.
At least, among a virtuous people like ours, there is ever a yearning
for those relations which are, and ought to be, as natural between a
people and their government as between the children and the parent. I
say for myself, and I firmly believe I speak the sentiments of most
Irishmen when I say, that so far from experiencing satisfaction, we
experience pain in our present relations with the law and governing
power; and we long for the day when happier relations may be restored
between the laws and the national sentiment in Ireland. We Irish are
no race of assassins or "glorifiers of murder." From the most remote
ages, in all centuries, it has been told of our people that they were
pre-eminently a justice-loving people. Two hundred and fifty years
ago the predecessor of the solicitor-general--an English
attorney-general--it may be necessary to tell the learned gentleman
that his name was Sir John Davis (for historical as well as
geographical knowledge[B] seems to be rather scarce amongst the
present law officers of the crown), (laughter)--held a very different
opinion of them from that put forth to-day by the solicitor-general.
Sir John Davis said no people in the world loved equal justice more
than the Irish even where the decision was against themselves. That
character the Irish have ever borne and bear still. But if you want
the explanation of this "disesteem" and hostility for British law,
you must trace effect to cause. It will not do to stand by the river
side near where it flows into the sea, and wonder why the water
continues to run by. Not I--not my fellow-traversers--not my
fellow-countrymen--are accountable for the antagonism between law and
popular sentiment in this country. Take up the sad story where you
will--yesterday, last month, last year, last century--two centuries
ago, three centuries, five centuries, six centuries--and what will
you find? English law presenting itself to the Irish people in a
guise forbidding sympathy or respect, and evoking fear and
resentment. Take it at its birth in this country. Shake your minds
free of legal theories and legal fictions, and deal with facts. This
court where I now stand is the legal and political heir, descendant,
and representative of the first law court of the Pale six or seven
centuries ago. Within that Pale were a few thousand English settlers,
and of them alone did the law take cognizance. The Irish nation--the
millions outside the Pale--were known only as "the king's Irish
enemie." The law classed them with the wild beasts of nature whom it
was lawful to slay. Later on in our history we find the Irish near
the Pale sometimes asking to be admitted to the benefits of English
law, since they were forbidden to have any of their own; but their
petitions were refused. Gentlemen, this was English law as it stood
towards the Irish people for centuries; and wonder, if you will, that
the Irish people held it in "disesteem:--[Footnote B: On Mr.
Sullivan's first trial the solicitor-general, until stopped and
corrected by the court, was suggesting to the jury that there was no
such place as Knockrochery, and that a Fenian proclamation which had
been published in the _Weekly News_ as having been posted at that
place, was, in fact, composed in Mr. Sullivan's Office. Mr. Justice
Deasy, however, pointedly corrected and reproved this blunder on the
part of Mr. Harrison.]

"The Irish were denied the right of bringing actions in any of
the English courts in Ireland for trespasses to their lands, or
for assaults or batteries to their persons. Accordingly, it was
answer enough to the action in such a case to say that the
plaintiff was an Irishman, unless he could produce a special
charter giving him the rights of an Englishman. If he sought
damage against an Englishman for turning him out of his land,
for the seduction of his daughter Nora, or for the beating of
his wife Devorgil, or for the driving off of his cattle, it was
a good defence to say he was a mere Irishman. And if an
Englishman was indicted for manslaughter, if the man slain was
an Irishman, he pleaded that the deceased was of the Irish
nation, and that it was no felony to kill an Irishman. For this,
however, there was a fine of five marks payable to the king; but
mostly they killed us for nothing. If it happened that the man
killed was a servant of an Englishman, he added to the plea of
the deceased being an Irishman, that if the master should ever
demand damages, he would be ready to satisfy him."

That was the egg of English law in Ireland. That was the seed--that
was the plant--do you wonder if the tree is not now esteemed and
loved? If you poison a stream at its source, will you marvel if down
through all its courses the deadly element is present? Now trace from
this, its birth, English law in Ireland--trace down to this hour--and
examine when or where it ever set itself to a reconciliation with the
Irish people. Observe the plain relevancy of this to my case. I, and
men like me, are held accountable for bringing law into hatred and
contempt in Ireland: and in presenting this charge against me the
solicitor-general appealed to history. I retort the charge on my
accusers; and I will trace down to our own day the relations of
hostility which English law itself established between itself and the
people of Ireland. Gentlemen, for four hundred years--down to
1607--the Irish people had no existence in the eye of the law; or
rather much worse, were viewed by it as "the King's Irish enemie."
But even within the Pale, how did it recommend itself to popular
reverence and affection? Ah, gentlemen, I will show that in those
days, just as there have been in our own, there were executions and
scaffold-scenes which evoked popular horror and resentment--though
they were all "according to law," and not be questioned unless by
"seditionists." The scaffold streamed with the blood of those whom
the people loved and revered--how could they love and revere the
scaffold? Yet, 'twas all "according to law." The sanctuary was
profaned and rifled; the priest was slain or banished--'twas all
"according to law," no doubt, and to hold law in "disesteem" is
"sedition." Men were convicted and executed "according to law;" yet
the people demonstrated sympathy for them, and resentment against
their executioners--most perversely, as a solicitor-general,
doubtless, would say. And, indeed, the State Papers contain accounts
of those demonstrations written by crown officials which sound very
like the solicitor-general's speech to-day. Take, for instance, the
execution--"according to law"--of the "Popish bishop" O'Hurley. Here
is the letter of a state functionary on the subject:--