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,