CRIMINAL SESSIONS. TRIAL OF MR. C. O. B. DAVIS. VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXI, Issue 2549, 19 September 1865, Page 7

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. TRIAL OF MR. C. O. B. DAVIS. VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL.

The Court wet at two o'clock on Saturday for tbo disposal of the clinrgo agaiust Mr. Davis. The evidence having been concluded ou the piccodiug evening, there remained ouly the speeches of counsel to be heard, and tho summing up of his Honor. For somo time previous to the commencement of the pioccediugs the Court wr- ciowded, about fifty Maoris being present, who sat patiently from half-past one o'olock till the verdict was deliveicd at scvou. His Honor entered Court at a few minutes nftor two o'clock, and tho jurymen having answcicd to thoir names, Mr. Wynn said that ho had closed the caso for the defenoe ou the preceding evening, but this morning there had arrived a Government Gazette from Wellington, which lie thought; in some degree boio upon the case ; and he thought it would be an advantage to the defendant to have it in Com t. lie asked to be allowed to put it in as cvidoncc, with tho sancjon of his learned friends and the Court. Of course he could only ask it as a matter of concession from the other side. He could, not havo put it in previously, as it was not known to exist till that morning, -when it j had ai rived by the steamei, Mr. Hait said the pioclamation in tho Gatcltc did not affect the caso in the least, so far as he uudeistood it. It was a proclamation of peace to the natives, with a promise of paidon to thoso who had been engaged in the insuirection. Mr. AVynn said it was a proclamation of peace, followed by a pioclftmationof maitial law. Ho would ask his learned friend to permit him to lead it, as ho wanted to comment upon it. Mr. Hait said if the pioel.unation had any legal bearing on the ca«o, he would have no objection to have it put iv, but it had no bearing on the Gase whatever. Tho pioclamation was not allowed to be put in ; but dm ing tho 'discussion as to whethei oi not it should be submitted to the juiy, coii^idpiable'amuse ment was caused in com t by sevei.il of tho juijnien beinsr observed leading the pioclamatiou fiom the Gazelle. Mr. Wynn addiessed the jury for the defe'ice at considerable length. Tie sud; If your Ilonoi please ,— Gentlemen of the juiy, — The tune has at length ai rived when it is my duty and my privilege to address you upon this ca=e, and I confers that 1 have felt for a very loner tune exceedingly anxious that this time should anivo ; because w e know— and all of us know- that tho defendant in this case has not oniy been subject to comment in leqaid to this paiticulat case, but ho has been subject to much pu'judice ami comment, both in the public Pi ess and elsewhere, calculated to do him serious liijniy. It is thus, theiefore, tint I feel anxious, and have felt for some time anxious, to add test you upon this subject; because I frel roitam thiough me lie will be entnely vindicated as one of the loyal subjects of heiM.ajestv the Queen, and assnehlilotakcpleasurcm defending him against the piosecution on behalf of the Crown, The chm gc against him, gentlemen, is of a tw ofoldchiiacter Fn-tof all theieis the ch.ai go of sedition, of which I exp°ct presently to «ay something to you about; and it also contains a chaige — a count of libel against certain individual'!. My leai ned friend (Mr. lifart) has come up, as he has informed you, and as we all know, specially ou behalf of the Go vernment to prosecute this case. And w hen ho fii st opened the case befoie you, lie felt it necessaiy — and I may almost say with ablush on his face— to excuse himself and the Government foi scudiug him up heic to prosecute this case on behalf of the Government. He told you that he came heie to relieve my learned frieud on the light (Mi. Btookficlcl), who was his learned friend ou the left— inasmuch as the Government had euti listed to my fiiend (Mr. B ) the onerous duties of down Piosecutor. And yet the very first case of importance which the Government hive to prosecute they take it out of my learned frieud'b bauds. My learned fueud (Mi. H ) says it was to relieve Mr. ]3. "in a great measure" — I think these were his teims. But, gentlemen, if that was the "great measuio," I will tell you tho little measme, — in one wonl, it was " Auckland '' No good thing could come fiom Auckland to Wellington ; and L was about to say that they were de termmed to send no good thing to Auckland, but I canuot say so, when they have sent my learned friend, Mr. Hait, here. Iv truth, gentlemen, Wellington has set its heait upon this prosecution, and my client has sot lus^ heart to win it, and \un it we will. Gentlemen, if it was necessary to relieve my learned fiiend, Mr. Biookfield, from the gieat ami onerous duties which have devolved upon Mr. ITait, is there no peison in Auckland — is there no lawyer iv Auckland who could undpitake this matter on behalf of the Government? The liuth of the matter is they could not tiust. it— they were afiaiil— this being a mere Government pio-.ucutiou— a mere political matter, they could not ti list it out of then hands— they were afiaid— they weie so distrustful of every person in Auckland, that they really cou'dn't give credit to the honour and ability of any gentleman in Auckland, to conduct their case foi them Mr. Hart 1 I think it only nyht, youi llouoi, to state that a gentleman m Auckland returned the letaincr sent him to piosecute this case, on bshalf of the Government. His Honor : I don't think Mr. Hart can have any particular object iv appeal iv« to conduct the prose cutiou. I don't express ni3' own feelings ou the matter, but I think Mr. Wynn ought not to make those stiingent remaiks. If the Attoiuey-Geueial, who should have appeared in this case, and who would, no doubt, have appeared, was engaged iv specific duties in Wellington, and if he chose to send one of the most able men connected with the Bai in New Zealand to appear for him, it is not a mattei for comment. I think much ci edit is due to Mr. Hai t for the manner in which he has conducted the case. Mr. Wynn : In making these remarks, Ido not for one moment express any kind of feeling against my learned fiiend who has conducted the piosecution. On the contrary, I shall expiess my extieme gratification for his comtesy, and the fair and straightforwaul manner in which he has conducted the case against us. His Honor : You will abstain from making those extreme comments on the Government of the country in which we live. It is only natural for counsel, when addressing the jury ou behalf of his client, to make stringent remaiks ; but you will kee]> them as closely to the case as yon can. lam not preventing the juiy from having the benefit of your remarks on behalf of your client when they bear upon the case they have to try. Mr. Wynn : I fchall endeaveur. Although 1 feel it my duty and privilege to stand hero, as I do, to defend Mr. Davis against the attacks made upon him, I shall not scruple to make the strongest and most stringent remarks that occur to my wind upon tho motives that have led to this prosecution. I i-hall do so, I hope and trust, without in any way iufiingiog the propriety of counsol in addiessing tho juiy as against the GovernineDt of the country in which we live. I say in this case the Government is tho prosecutor, aud I will maintain that it is my privilege to address to you tho strongest and most severe remarks in regard to the Government as regards this prosecution. It is not my wish or duty to say one word with regaid to the Government of the country in any other lespect except as it relates to this prosecution ; and as it relates to this prosecution I deem it my duty to comment in the most extreme manner I possibly can as regards this case, because they are here only as the prosecutor, and I am entitled to comment upon them aud look at them in piecisely the same manner as I would do in regai d to any other prosecutor in any criminal action. They have chosen to come here as the prosecutor and have subjected themselves to any remarks that may, in the discietion of tho coumelforthedefence.bemadeaboutthem. Aslhave B*id, gentlemen, my iirm belief, my firm conviction is that you will believe that this prosecution is not founded — never _ was founded — upon tho document to which I shall presently call your attention — tho alleged libel of this prosecution. And here I would say one word about my learned friend Mr. Hart ; that during tho progress of the case he persistently and consistently would call this document a libel. Ido not mean to say that he did it with any improper bias ; but that is a question for you, whether this document is or is not * libel. You will recollect that he has no right, nor has anybody else a right, to call it a libel until you shall have pronounced it to be so. Now, gentlemen, as I said before, my conviction is that you will not believe that this prosecution ever arose fiom this document — that it arose from a previous prejudice conceived against tho defendant ; and that when they got hold of this document they thought that thon they would institute tliii prosecution. And for what purpose ? Was it from a&incere and a loyal motive to uphold theQiieen'sauthority that they prosecuted this man for libel ? Idon't think you will think that for one moment. If that was their motive, where havo they nil been «o long ? Where has been this new-born zeal for maintaining the Queen's authority 1 Have we not known — do we not know — does not every one know,

and every ono listening to mo in this Court know — oases and instances of a far grosser chaiaoler than this passing unnoticed, supposing it were wrong? Whcio, gentlemen, is that arch-traitor frdin Canterbury, v lio is kuown to bo in open aud dnceb communication with rebels avowedly in arms ngaiustthe Queen's authority ? — Where is ho if this be a sinoero, bonft, fiile piosecntiou ? If they leally mean to uphold the Queen's nuthoiifcy ho (the aich-traitor) should bo hcie standing sido by side with tho dofendnnt. Where is he ?— ln the Counsels of— IT is Honor : Wo don't know to whom you lofor. Mr. Wynn: I don't mention any name. His Honor : It is improper that ono goutlomau should call auothor a tiaitor. Mr. Wynn : That is the reason I didn't mention any n nines. His Honor : I didn't call your attention to it with the view of showing that it was absolutely necessary to quash any expressions of foico ai d vigour you may think proper to uso, but in tho lastoso I tiiod which savoured of a political aspect, I told the counsel for tho defence that if ho made any lcmaiks lcJlocting upon tho Government of the countiy I should dojnivo him of tho piivilegc of addicting the jury. Tho jury cannot be nnoouscious of what may bo tho political history of this country. Thoio was a shadow of ovidonco about a ceitam pamphlet that had boon circulated among tho natives. Mr. Wyim: Thore was a pamphlet. I was going to nlludo to it. I was observing, gcntlomen, that it must bo patent tocvciybody aud to yourselves that this is not a bona fido piosecutiou on behalf of tho Ciown to uphold the Queen's aubhonty — that it amounts to nothing but tins ; and I boi row tho oxpiessiou fiom his Loulship tho Bishop of: Waiapu — it is nothing but a meie "lickspittle" contemptible bowing down to tho natives themselves. That is what it is ; it is nothing in tho woild else; beoause, as I said befoio, it is patent — it is patent to us all — wo all know it — I use tho teun genet ally — it is patent to you that if tho Crown had been sincero in suppressing a document of tho character that is bionghfc bofoio yon today, theic arc hundreds, nay, thousands ot persons who ought to ha\o been ttied long befoio this. Vnd, gentlemen, when I was just addussing you, 1 intondod to como to a mattci, when his Honor tutoirupted me, namely, with leg.udtotho pipjudioes, and I may say suspicious aud prejudices which hive been attached to my client, and which piejudices .and suspicions have lod to this prosecution. I nob only complain of that before this mtttcr c.imo into comb, but I fuither complain of tln>, that since this matter has been under investigation, what luvo wo soon ? What have we all seen .' We have seen tho Pi ess absolutely condemn and prejudge the case as against my client ; aud nob only the Piess— of which 1 don't much complain, as a matter may creep into .i p.ipci without the editoi's knowledge — but we do complain, and wo cannot blind our eye-, to it — wo have absolutely seen in tho P.uliament of the colony th.it gentlemen have not thought fit to tcsti.un their tongue, but absolutely stood up in their places at the P.uliament of the colony and piejudged this case, and condemned Mr. Davis; and those itotoidinaiy persons, but goutlemeu who have sat in the Mimstiy ; a gentleman w r ell known, and who knew tho native tongue well, got up there and commended this piosecutiou — said it was a wise, just, and pioper one. If I was not addiessing myself to a fieo and independent jmy of Englishmen, what effect might not that hive? it is not my douo or my wish to mention the names of those gentlemen cxpiessly, bnb [ will lecall to your recollection, gentlemen, a couple of lino* which you are familiar with, fiom the well known nuiscry lhyme, which I oucc heaid veiy cleverly paiodied :—: — '1 winkle, twinkle, little stu, Oh, how I woiulei what \o\\. are. The parody is "Tinkle, tinkle, flckle I!c!l, How 1 n outfit jou're not m hell (Laughter ) I need say no moie, (."Mttlemcn, ou that subject. It is something to me — if this case was not so utteily and absolutely ndioulons fiom its very commencement to its \ eiy end — it is to me something perfectly horrible to find men .standing in that position — themselves having occupied a high judicial office — (Mi.Biookfield • Parliamentary hinging* ) — to conceive that men occupying that position in tho Parliament of the colony, should st md up and express an opinion, and prejudge the case by his own condemnation befoie tho c.ise is heaid. I "ay the woids I used towaids him, — if they allude to him— fitly descubc him. Now, gentlemen, my learned fueud, in his opening speech, Vilnch, I don't mean to deny foi a, moment, was a most able one, aud 1 give him eveiy possible ciedit for ir, because lie must have known fiom the commence ment that he had a most wealc, miserable, im etched, and unfounded case to s'ippoit. I think 'when jou heaid him fiom his own speech, however able it was, \ou ■will say that it was labomed from tho beginning to tho end. I shall not follow him through all his speech. He went through the whole of the indictment, every woul of which was followed by -what we lawyers call an inuendo. In other words, the document itself, upon the face of it, was pcifettly innocent, nothing in the woild in it to show anything, — and, theiefoie, it was ncccssaiy bifoie the Crown could make anything of it — ifc was absolute!}' neccssaiy for the Ciown to convey a hidden meaning to so aud so : that is then inuendo. I shall not go thiough the indictment and show how absolutely they ha\e failed in pioving what they call their inuendoes, because I do uob think lb i-> uecessaiy that I should delay you at all upon that subject. My leatned ftiend, who coinp3 fiom a remote paib of tho colony, somcwheie in Cook's Stiaits, told iw — he said " the most astute legislator cannot by picscicnco anticipate all the foims in which the evil minded of men will vary and put the mischief which they contemplate " I confess I was struck with the woid " pie-science," as I had uevci heaid it before. It is posiible in ancient times the v. oid may have been pronounced in that way. My learned fiiend had not received a copy of Walker's Dictionaiy, in order to see that what he pronounced '" pe-sciencc" should be prescience, lie had nob peihaps heard the woid before, and I was about to ofler my learned fuend a leccnt copy of the dictiouai}'. Possibly now, knowing what we do of public affairs, tho Panama steamei will possibly bung him an edition, so that lie may bo able to infoim himself belter. (Laughter.) Now, gentlemen, with lcgard to tho libel itself, all of us who have known— no doubt we all have lead of in olden times repoits of tuals — no doubt wo all have in times gone bye lead Gidlivei's Ttavels. I have the book in my hand, and I will read a passage out of that book, not foi youi iufoinution, but lather to lefiesh your memory, and you will find it to be most applicable to the present, what I musb pionounce a lemaikaule, case, for ceitainly it is a lemaikablo case, but in a different semo from what lie uses tho word : "I told him that, in the kingdom of Tubnia, by the natives called Laugden, wheio I had sojourned some time in uiy travels, tho bulk of tho pooplo consist in a manner wholly of discoverers, witnesses, informciw, .iccuseis, piosecutois, evidences, sweareis, together with their «ieveial subservient and .subaltern instalments, all under the coloui3, tho conduct, and the pay of ministers of state and their deputies. The plots, in that kmgilom, aie usually the woikmanship of those persons who desire to raise their own chaiactcrs of profound politicians ; to restoie new vigour to a crazy administration (laughter), to stifle or diveit general discou tents ; to fill their coffin s with forfeitures ; and laisc or sink the opinion of public ciedit, as either shall best answer their piivato advantage. It is fiist agreed and settled among them, what suspected persons shall be accused of a plot ; then effectual caic is taken to secme all their lettois and papers, and put then owners in chains " The first attempt made in this case is to get that miserable man, Allwood— upon whoso conduct I shall have a woid to say presently — to creep through the window and catch hold of Mr. Davis's papeis. That was what was done here — "These papeis arc dchveied to a set of artists, very dexterous in finding out the mysterious meanings of words, syllables, and letters ; for instance, they can discover a close stool to signify a privy council j a flock of geese, a senate." Now, gentlemen, in this case they discover the words pai maiiro, which, mean good and peaceable, to mean muidei — a sedition. I will not tiouble yon with auy more about it. That is just what has been done. This libel, or document, the natuio tho thing itself, and the language of which is simple and innocent j but y«t they bring a lot of men dexterous in finding out tho latent and subtle meaning of different woids, which in themselves aro perfectly plain. They tell you they mean somelhing else. That is what they have done. I will ask my learned friend to study " Gulliver's Travels," and I believe he musb havo studied it before this action was brought ; it must havo been the hint lie took, otherwise no man would ever havo dreamt of seeing that document, withont finding that ifc was peifectly plain and innocent, as tho Bishop of New Zealand and otheis had said it was. Now, gentletnon, a few words with legard to tho manner m which this piosecution was fiist commenced, aud the manner in which it ha& been followed up. You will recollect, gentlemen, iho first witness thdt was called beforo you, Eobert Francis Allwood. Now I cannot rofiain from making an observation or two upon the conduct of that man— not that it has muuh to do with this case. I may toll you at once that I don't mean for ono moment to deny Mr. Davis's knowledge

of that doouniout— that ho did wrifco tlvab manuscript brought boforo you— Hint ho caused it to be piiutod. That is of courao admitted m^lio fullest sense. When that evidence is bt ought before you regarding the writing of that document by nafcivo witnesses, 1 didn't mean for one momont— t with to disabuso your mind if you have entoitMiiod any notion of that kind— l didn't mean to attempt to show that Mr. Davia was not legally guilty, if guilt there was, in oaustng that document to bo printed and published. The object iv calling that ovidonco I shall piosently allude to. The evidence ofthatman Allwood is unimportant, for I admit my client wi oto that paper and caused it to lie punted. But, at the same timo, although that bo so, I don't feel lb light that I should allow that inau to escape fiom the observations I think it necessary to make upon his conduct. What position, gontlemon, did he stand iv with regard to Mr. Davis? It appears quite clear that ho wept there as tonant to Air. Davis- took his punting oflieo and all his typo, and by that means was earning a Jivolihopjl. It is true ho says he paid him somo small amount of lout j yet, nevertheless, it must be apparent to you ? that he was under deep obligation to Mr. Davis. Finding that tlut business, iv partnership with Mr. French, did not pay him, it is peifcctly clear, from his o\mi statement, although the lease undov which lie held those picmises was not formally cancolloil —ib must have been poifcotly clear to you all tint ho abandoned— he left the plaoo looked up, and oeased to oairy on that business, and no longer considered himself Mr. Davis's tonant, or liable to rent. And what does that man do ? When ho finds that the Goverumeut want to piosecute Mr. Davis — that was on the 15th of Juno— what (Joes ho do ? lie goes down to this place, and finding the door locked — as he know it would bo —he goes down at dmnor timo, when ho know theio would be no pel son about, opens tho window, creeps in like a felon, abstracts this document for tho purpose of mining Mr. Davis, gaining his own credit, and obtaining employment fiom tho Government, which ho did. Why at that time Mr. Dnvis had, no doubt, full confidence m tho man ; ho did not know tho villainous, base chaiactor of tho man— ho had ti listed him with Una document, supposing it had been even treasonable ; and yet tins is the man whom ho has befucuded, and, in poiut of fact, placed him in a position to gain a livelihood ; yet, this is the villain who is the lir->t to attempt to betray him. Well might he oxebim : If it had been an open enemy that h.ul done it I could have boinc it ; but it wasthou, my fuend, my guide, who has done it. Mr. Davis has found out the wietohed man — tho villain who lus betiayed him, — a man himself who ought to bo iv this dock for tn.il for feloniously taking th.it document. "Foitunitely, after all, what is that document? It is absolutely nothing. Weic it to bo supposed for one moment, if Mr. Davis had had any ti disenable, intention in publishing that document, that ho would have allowed that punted paper to bo placed on the file in a, public punting oflicc ? Why, the thing is picpoit&ous My learned fuoud says his own absolute intention had nothing to do ■nith it ; but 1 suy it had oveiything to do with it. Unlesb the \s ouls wcie f.viily Uoasonable on the face of them — (Mr. Halt: " We don't say it was ticasonablo")—or seditious, of course then you cinnot inquire into the nun's mind what ho meant by pul> lishing them ; beo.uiso my learned friend piopeily says, the man's act is tho index to Ins mind. Wo cannot say what he meant if the thing itself is not plainly and clearly sedition on the face of it. You must then inquiie as to the cause of him using the wouls in the seditious form — you must then have absolute evidence of his intention. But I have a woid to say befoie I quit that individual Allwood. You will lecollect, gentlemen, snpposmg for one moment that his evidence had anything to do with the case— can you suppose — I can scaicely insult your undoistanding by asking you to siy whether you could phco tho smallest leliance upou him — whether that man ought to bo believed on oath. You would say ho was not fit to be behoved judging meiely from his demeanoi m Couit, and Ins manner of giving lus evidence. If the prosecutor had depended on his eudence you would say he was a pci son unable to be believed on his oath. He had the effrontery to say in a touc and m a manner to make us blush for our species— he absolutely stated that his price was £500, to go out of gaol, to clear out and get Mr. Davis away. If Mi. Daws was conscious of being Ctulty of sedition in this matter — if conscious of being a criminal, and a sentence or verdict of guilty of sedition hanging over him, what was £500 to him to do what A ll wood suggests and get clear a \va> ? Allw ood tolls you he would have gone away ; md if so where would tho prosecution have been ? — Cleaily nowhtie. Mi. Davis felt conscious that theio could be and was not anything el«e in this matter. It came out m cioss-examination by my learned fiicnd that a Mr Ki(*g had made oveituies to All wood iv this mittei. (Hi 3 Honor : ' 1 have no name in the evidence ' ) One of the jinymen asked who liistuictcl Mr. liigg. We don't know ; but it is all of a piece with the whole of this piosecution. I suppose it was intended to try and instil into the mind of the j my —to laiso their suspicion that Kij;>j w.xs the n<;ent of Mi. Davis to make these oveituies to Mr. A ll wood. Now, if that had been so, it \unild have been veiy easy for ihoprosocutioiitoluveputMr. ttigg in the box and to have pnneditso. But they will say -"You should have put Mr. Rig.; in the bo\ to ne«itivo it." Not at idl ; we aie not bound to negative it until it is fust sworn to. I complain of it as a matter eutiiely unfair e\en to thiow out such a suggestion. On the other hand, remember Mr. Davis did not avail him self of this ovciture. You will agiee with me, if he felt conscious of a guilty intention in publishing ting document, he would have made an ovcituie oi stipulation to get lid of this piosecution, because it is quite clear that ho would have got nd of it if he chose to get nd of Mi. Allwood. Gentlemen, this indictment, as I before told you, is finmcd iv two different ways. First of all— and I may say it is framed in two different counts, and it is somewhat pujv.liuc; to undeistand — the fiisb count, and leally it is tho couub on which the Crown lests most completely, because it is more the subject of a Ciown piosucntion, namely, sedition — th.it the document is calculated to incite the loyal natives to subvert the Government of the country. Now you have hoard the document often lead — I want to kuow fiom my learned fiiend — whom does it incite? It is calculated to incite all othois except the Aiawas to lebcllion against tho Qneon. That is shortly the substanoo of the fiist count; then the other count is tins— not to incite any of the other natives, but it is a. libel against theloyal portion of the Aiawa tribes, calculated to incite them to do something. Thcrcfoic, in the first count it is to incite the other natives to kill the Aiawas ; and then to incite tho Ar.vw as themselves to disaffection. llow my learned fuend is going to explain that I don't understand. (Mr^Biookhehl: "You aremakingamistake there.") Never mind the mistake j you can cleat up the mistake. My learned fiicnd, if you recollect, gentlemen, m his opening addics, paid putieulav attention to the last sentence of what he was pcisis tently calling a libel— " Mo whakahoki pai miriio a te Aiawa ki tupunga mai, ki Hawaiki " lie ne\t told yon that the woids pai maiiic avoic oiigiually m themselves innocent, and even moio afiiunativoly good than even that, lie telli you — I quote fiom the printed repoifc of his speech, if WLongly reported he will no doubb correct; me — "I will not stato what it is until you hear the witnesses' lepresentation. Here is another piece of evidence, to which I shall lefei buefly, and that is in loferenee to tho woids 'pai mariie.' Two editions of tho New Testament m Maori will be produced, for the purpose of showing that the change described by the witnesses as having taken place on these woidi has induced the publisher to bring out a late edition, and suppress these woids and substitute others." Now, gentlemen, the object, if T undeistand my learned fiiend, if his observation had any meaning at all, it was this: — In tho old edition of the Testament, the woids " pai maihe" weic used to express satisfaction and content. That subsequently, and in consequence of the woids now beiug used in a different sense in lelatiou to those Ilaiihaus now in New Zealand, those wouls had beeu suppressed, and a different form of expression used, that he docs not use these words pai mariro, which had become an evil expression. If my learned friend's meaning had beeu this, what is the effect of his having evidence from tho Bishop of Waiapu that the flauhau religion had only sprung up iv this colony within tho last two yeais— bo only knew it a few months ago ? Speaking fiom leputation, ho understands— we all know it — that this new fanaticism has only spuing up within the last two years. And with legaid to the levision of tho Testament, he tells you ho revised it in 1851, fouiteen years ago, and that therefore the suppression of tho use of The words from the modem one, the romoving of the words pai marii o from that edition, could have no kind of connection with that new sect— could havo no kind of connection with that now seer, because al that timo it was not known or contemplated; and, therefore, that pait of my learned fiioiid'n oration with regaid to tli.it is eutiiely inapplicable to tho caso. You will lecollect the hesitation — I uso no harsher teim — of his Lordship the Bishop of Waiapu about that, when I piessed him so stiongly to give you a reason why pai inaiiro had been omitted, and other words used to express the same meaning ] 10 couldn't, or, at all events, ho didn't give us any satisfactory answer at all. As I said before, my learned friend's speech, although a very able one, is a very remarkable one.

JTia Honor (loEovring to that part of the Buhop of Waiapu s ovidenooi : Ilia Loidship stated that you don t always expiess the samo idea in oxaotly tho saino woi ds. Mr. Wynn • I shall g(l y O no woid more about that. It is true I put it to his Lordship at the time. It is lino, it a man is expressing his ideas to-day, and sitting down to-moirow to expiess the samo ideas, lie might not use the same form of expression j bufc if he goos to correct whathehad wi itteu before, ami ho erases wot ds in order to placo otheis in their stead; there must bosomoieason. II ia nob analogous a man wilting anything ouo day, and wilting them when ho sees tho form of expression used on a foimer occasion. It is quito a different thing revising what you havoahoady written. When you levise it is not oppressing ideas, but revising what you had bofoio wutten and correcting it, revision being synonymous with tho word conection. It is peifectly clear that there must; have btou somo loason for it, for I presume that a commilteo assembled togother and revising a translation of a document, they wouldn't alter any portion of it without they should sco a valid leason for so doing. Wo know yeiy well— if I may pursue tho subject— two yeais ago in legaid to the gieat discussions" wo havo heard of ah home, and m fad, through tho whole of iiurope, in regaid to tho revision of tho Scriptures by tho Bishops or some other assembly of lo.ii nod men —if they came to any passage and wished to coiroct it— l couldn't uudeisUnd any ono of 6h»se men coming tome and telling mo that ho allied it, but could give me no lenson for the alteration. AVliat was Uieio befoio was either correct or incorrect ; if incorteot it was collected, and there must bo some leason for that con eetion. You havo heaid what the Bishop of Waiapu said, and I shall bay no more about that My learned friend, in la homing his case as ho did, bpoko of Owonism and Finnierism. It is not necessary for me to oxplain these particular matters to you ; but leally what in the woild has that to do with this case? I feel quite ashamed in pm suing tho subject; what has it got to do with the case? lie introduced—ho labouied and fought to put fch6 teim Uauhaus into this document ; but the woid docs not appear on tho document at all in any shape or form A clause in the indictment calls it f.uiaticisin—using very harsh language, calling it muvdeious, slanderous, and I don't know whnt. I ically thought my learned friend was about to pub .1 number of witnesses into tho box to descubo the horublo cpiemonies and docliines of those people When 1 say I expected that, you and cveiy one in Com t expected italio — that you expected that Maous would be examined to show tho doctrines of Uk'SO people, and what was the lesnlt or reading this document. I wouldn't bo alarmed at that being done, beciiuso ho docs nob connect the llauliaus \wth the paper. Indeed, after all, what is it ? What da the Hauhaus say, and what do they do? Why, take it fiom. his own evidence. What do they do? Why, gentlemen. ono poition of tho active and phy.sical pait of the ceiemony is to go lound a pole. I don'fc know that thoie is any liann in running round a pole. I havo often done so, and I see no haiin in it. (Laughtei ) We know a gieat many persons who could nob bo called fanatics, who do a gieat deal woise than that What do they say when they do so ? Its meauing the Bishop of Waiapu tells you is — God tho Fatliei, lmvo meicy on us ; God the Son, li.ivo merer on 11s , God tho Holy Ghost, ha\o mciev on 115 Is that fanaticism ? If that is fanaticism, I appiohend we aie till fanatics. And that is the only evidence wo have. I will not, gentlemen, insulb your understanding by going thiou<,'h the indictment, and comparing it with tho inuendo applying to that portion of it. You aie not, and I am sine you will not, and I need not ask you not to judge of this case by nnythnig hcatd outside. Yon will judge of it only by what you heard in that box — to give the verdict upon whnt you have heard and seen take placn. Has tlieio been 111 the coiuso of the tiial one single woid or gesture made by the Maoris that can lead you to tho conclusion that any of them aie fanatics 2 After all, what do you mean by fanaticism? What does the indictment mean by fanaticism ? Ido not know what persuasion my learned friend is of ; ho may be of a persuasion 1 may consider peifectly fanatical; but is that any reason I should indict him for high tieason ? All 3' poison familiar with English history can recall numeious instances of fauaticism, and 3 r ct the poisons could not bp su->-pectcd of high treason. Take, for instance, Maciulay's description of the Puutans in Scotland : woio they nob perfect fanntics? If we lead the histoiy of tho leigu of Queen Maiy, wheio 500 pencils were burned— absolutely burned for their doctrines, would you not say that those per=ons "who harucd them weie fanatics ; butcould you consider them guilty of high tieason ' No : foi ifc was the Govemmimt who did it. (Laughter.) And yet to say for oue moment that fanaticism and high tieason fjo togrthoi is peife2tly ridiculous ; because you will find the Empeior of China is a f.vnilic in 0111 sense and yet he cannot be said to be a tiaitor. Tt is peifectly lidiculou-. and piepusterous. Now, my learned fiieud put into Court a Gazette, knotting, 110 doubt, that his case was absolutely absuid, weak, and ndiculons, as far as the evidence he could himself adduce — he puts into Comb, as a nutter of evidence, apiocl.unation. Now, gentlemen, lb i% undoubtedly line that all Gazelles or Acts of I'.ulialiient, or other Acts of State aic taken in themselves as evidence, and the Court is bound to take judicial notice of them; but it must be lecoliected that tho miiio fact of the Covet nincnt publishing a Ga:eUcdws not prove the statements contained 111 it to be facts unless they me of a public chaiacter. I say thar, subject to his lloiioi's correction, •■upposing the Government to issue a proclamation, and to Ray A killed B, and they offeied a lewaul for the appieheuskm of the muideier, would that be talcou as proof thar a murder had been committed ? It would bo absolute nonsense to cany the matter so far. If tins (a-jehad assumed a moie serious aspect than it did, I Mould havo sticuuously exoited myself to pieveub its being taken as evidence. Because it amounts to this :—lt: — It is easy foi my learned fiieud to say that it was put 111 for a paiticular puipose- for once the juiy have read it, it would be idle for the counsel to tell thejiuj, You mu3t look ab it for a paiticular puipose and no other purpose. They lead it and tie.it it accordingly. I will lead you the proclamation, and show yon the way the prosecution is managed — the way in w Inch the Government sticnuously, peisistently endeavour unfairly andimpropeily to piejudicothe casoagamsb my client. (Mr. Wynn h«e read the f unions Pai Maure pi cnlamation dated April 29,1803) JN T ow, was thcie ever such a proclamation ? What absolute stuff' Does ho mean to say for one moment to say that this pioclamatiou is proof of the cutting of heads off.' Does he maintain that eveiy person— evciy one of the Hun liaus running lound the pole, woishipping Goil, worshipping tho Trinity— does it necessarily follow in consequence that they cut people's heads off.md cook them? So Mr. Weld says 1 , at all ovonU The thing is absolutely absmd. l r or what object my learned friend pub this document in, except an unfair one, 1 cannot possibly conceive, unless lie had followed it up by positive evidcnco to show the effect. The only evidence ho brought forwaid woitliy of any credit at all was that of the Bishop of Waiapu; and 1 need not relato to you what ho said. Now, to go a little mot c pai ticularly into the libel itself. My learned friend l.ibouied most particularly as to the eaily pait of tho libol, which is tianslated by tho various interpreter to mean " the big-mouthed Arawas." He called that a libel— that it was calculated to excite, thorn and make them anmy. 1 put an Aiawa in the box, and ho said ho was far fiom being angiy, but ho would bo absolutely well pleased at it. Tho term was familiar, and well understood, and ho would only laugh at it, and bo lather pioud of it thau otherwise. So much for tho bi "-mouthed. Arawas. There wns a gieat deal of bi» mouthed talk about it. (Laughter.) So far fiom it being libellous against tho Ar.uvas, they thought nothing of it, and considered no evil of it. Then we come to, I think, the only two points that oonld possibly on tho fuco of tho document, or from my learned friend's opening statement, have any meanmg,at all. And, first of all, was the minder of Te Apoiotangn. My learned friend tried to make a great de.il out of that. How did it stand ? It i*> admitted that Te Aporotanga was miudcied. Several of his own witnesses spoke of it as a murder. Is it a libel to call a mmder amm del ?— to say that a particular people had murdeied another poison, is that a libol ? Where, goutlemen, is the wrong if To Apoiotunga was murdered ? How is it, gentlemen, that tho Government o£ this colony, with ton thousand tioops, have not stineel a stop or laised a hand to bring that murdoior to justice? I here is tho evil-doing, if I ™W 80 ,. call lfc > and not anything in this paper of calling a minder, murder. So fai fi °m being wrong, I think, gentlemen, you will say with mo that it is tho houuden duty of evoiy loynl subject to incite eveiy other loyal subject to bung the uiui deror to justice. And for a Government of a country to say that because tho Maoris aio comphvinod of as having committed a minder, tlmt it is, thorefoie, a seditious libel I Why, gentlemen, we know of our own knowledge that a few weeks— a few days ago, a number of murders were committed: Should I bo guilty o£ sedition, or every nowspaper guilty of sedition

by calling the attention of a supine Governmonk, ana urging them to tako stops to avenge the niurdoiß of Mr. Volkuor and Mr. Fulloon? Is that sedition ? If that is not sedition, tlieu thin document is not sedition!). And if this paper wns seditious, I would bo guilty of sedition if I should writo complaining that a paitieular sect hail murdered Mr. Volkner and Mr. Fulloon. lam peifectly astounded that this should bo made a matter of sedition. If it has raised a feeling in the hearts of the native race or in men's minds to condemn that murder, then it is a good and proper paper; so far from bciug condemned ib is to bo commended. They tallc of this seditious libel as inciting those people to rebellion. Whore, gontlemen, aie they themselves? They toll us that they are so anxious and so careful of the Queen's authority and supremacy, and that they aro loyal subjects. What aie they doing ? Aio they acting as if they wore so? Do not we hoar fiom day to day of murders, riots, rebellions ? and yob not a foot is stirrod or a hand is laiscd to put a stop to ie ; and yet;, whon a niisoiablo htble pap ei like this comes out they say — Look, this is sedition, and wo musb suppress ib. It makes ono feel nshamed to speak of such a thing. I feel ashamed myßolf in addi casing you ab such lonytli on stick a paltry subject ; noi would I havo done ho, bub I feel in a case of this m.ignibudo you all must havo made up your minds on this subject, as all in Coiirb have made up their minds, yet E felt ib was my positive duty to addiess you at considerable length on the subject, in order to show, as fai as I humbly can, to the world at laigo that you will be amply justified in throwing out this indictment, and that you will not be justified in taking any other couiso. Now, another poition of the subject is) the captuie of Hoii Tupaea. We have had one witness bcfoie us who was absolutely present ab the captuie of IToii Tupaea, and who was the only witness in company with him ; .and is theie any evidence to fellow that Uoii Tupaea was against the Queen or thab his captuio was justified? Nob a tittle. 110 was taken unarmed and alone by another portion of the Araw.i tribo. What was the justification of that? To use a common oulinary exptession, it is a clear ordinary caso of tiespass, assault, and false impiisonment. Wheio was the AVioug in complaining of tins'? And fuithev than that, we say the airest w.is evidently a wiougful ono, for when the Governor himself was spoken toaboubib, he ab once disclaimed the act, and ioleased him. So far we know from the evidence, and was thcio anything wumg in speaking of it? If that man had been a traitor, fighting against us, would the Governor have leleasod him? If he did, it could not bo said to ho treasonable or seditious for Mr. Davis afberwauls to complain that he had been wiongfully appiehended and tieated. With legard to the unifier I sba'l say no ltoro, bub ask you to remember tho obseivattons I m.ido about it. With legard to tho captuio of Hori Tupaea, I say again it was of a wrongful character, and it was nothing but fair comment to describe ib as such. Ihon tho only othci pait of the document descubed as a libel is the last one, which I may say my learned fnend veiy shortly after tho commencement of the case piactically abandoned. From the evidence almost at the end of tho case, lie finished by asking, supposing the words pai mariic weie good and innocent, whether it would affect tho other pait of the document. My fuend saw ftom the commencement that he musb abandon that portion of the case about the woids pai maiiie ; and, theiofoie, having laboured it so much in his open- I ing speech, and seeing that ho must abandon it, ho puts the ca^o thus : supposing these words aie omitted, is the doaument itself libellous ? lie must abandon that poition of the case also, when he comes to addicss you. Now, gentlemen, you w ill see something about the words. Some of you may know aud some be equally ignorant of the Maoi i language as myself. 1 will come to the expression of his Loulship the Bishop of Waiapu upon it. He states that the woids pai manic meant something in 01 u than the literal mtei|>retation. Now, I appiuhcud this, thab if words of bhab soit wcie intended to be u«od in a different sense from tho oidiuary — if intended to allude to individuals or a sect — they would have been punted with capital letters. I need not address you for one moment on that subject. If you were to use any word in older to individualise a sect or make use of it — for instance, when wo wnte murder as individualizing ib we always begin it with a capital letter. ]f any one wiibmg these woids pai mime intended to allude to the sect they would have used capital lebtois. All the other names in the document are prefixed with capital letteis, and, therefore, it is peifectly plain and cleai- that if Mr. Davis in using those woids had meant to use them in a difTeient sense, to individualise a sect-, he would have capitalized them The Bishop of Waiapu «,,iys — " Return them back m Pai Mama fashion." I expected that we would have bad some evidence of what was meant by Pai M.irire fashion. The only P.u Maiiie fashion we liuve g^t — 1 don'b need to lcpoat it — is those oxpiessive woids used in win ship when miming lound the polo, looking un and expressing tho^c words in a w.iy far from illegal. If this means to letuui in Pai Maiiie fashion, it makes absuid nonsense of the whole thing; and theio is no evidence of anything else. With legal d to disseminating this paper amongst the natives, after all, supposing no harm in it, what oflonce would there bo in tho way Mr. Davis had treated it? My learned friend at the conclusion of his case last nisjht absolutely fastened an insult upon the juiy, by putting those men (AH wood and Fiench) in the box a second time, to prove what ' — absolutely nothing, (Mr. Wynn hero again adveited at some length to the circumstances of the punting of the document ) Now, gentlemen, I will say a word or two upon the eudence I biought for waul on behalf of the defendant. ] wish to &.iy a woid geneially about the conducb of the caso as ier,aids the interpretation of the evidence. It is true Mr. Preece is a sworn intoipreter to tha Government, and accoidin£j to the piactice of the Comb his Honor didti'b feel himself justified in peimitting me to have an interpreter to mbtii piot the evidence of my own witnesses. 1 must say that I felt myself — I cannot say aggrieved by that couise, yet at the same time it placed me in a vciy disadvantageous posibion— nob having mi mterpieter to interpiet the e\idence in ci oss examination of the wibnesses for the piosecution, and vice versfl. I should nob have complained in any way whatsoever in legard to Mr. Pieece, if this had been a ca«e in which the Government had uo interference or any intciest. Ib is idle for us bo .say that that is not so. It is a Go\ eminent prosecution. The Government have sent my learned friend fiom Wellington to conduct the case for them j and ib was to an officer of thab Government I was bound to on trust; the in tei probation, of the evidence of my oun witnesses. 1 need scarcely lemtnd you, dtuiug tho whole course of this case, how fiequently I had to inteuupt him. I think I made it manifest to you that, when interpreting tho evidence for the Ciown, he appeals to give tho veiy woist interpietation he could of the Maori wouls that wcie suscepbible to more than one moaning. On the contraiy, when ho came to inteipiet the statements of the wibnesses for the defence, more than two oi thiec tunes he not only gave a wiong iuteipictation, but absolutely omitted the most material evidenco for the defence. I lecollcct ono timo I was able to detect him, knowing as little as I do oE tho Maori language. It is with extreme i egret I make these lemaiks of Mr. Preece, bub T cannot overlook what must have been manifest to everyone heie. If I had not been kindly assisted by Mr. Buddie, a great deal of material matter for the defence would never havo been kuown to yourselves at all. It is tiue that Mr. Davis was by my side, bub ho was scarcely able to be of any assistance, situated as he was and consbau tly in conversation with others in the conduct of the case. Many occasions might happen, and did happen, when he wns unable to detect tho false interpretation of Mr. Pieece. I think not only, but I say ib ab once, Mr. Preece was unfair in his interpretation : not only was he unfair, bub ho was unable, I think you will recollec 1 : on two occasions lie absolutely expressed himself unable to interpret. Iv that matter, as well asm others, wo have been unfairly treated by the Government. Theie is another matter, gentlemen : I do not kuow why it is that Mr. Munro was not brought heie bo give evidence. Thab gentleman, I presume, you are all acquainted with ; at all events, you know him as a. peison eminently skilled in bhe native language aud customs. His name was on the back of _ the indictment, and ho was examined in the Resident Magisbrate's Court; — I havo a light to 3ay so, as his depositions are iv Court. He was not here yeifcei day, and my learned friend says he has gone to Wellington, where everything else goes. (Mr. Brookfiold : "Mr. Munro wat Tarannki. 1 ') Well, that is on the road to Wollineton. But, gentlemen, is that an excuso in ii piopocution of tiiis description, where a man is piosecufcuil fora crimo which, might brand him for life as absolutely no\t to a tiaitoi ? Why nob send some one else to Taianaki ? Thab was no kind of excuse 'whatever. It appears to me plain aud clear that if Mr. Munro had been heio aud been examined ho would not havo assisted tho proseoutiou. No exertion was made to get him hero. Ido nob say he was sent away on purpose, but he ought not to have been scut away unless there was a certainty that he could have letntned in lime for this trial. If there was nothing more serious in this case than

this I should claim a verdict at your hands on this ground alone, fch.at a material witneas, who had beon. . examined ab the Resident Magistrate's Courb; b«d been dismissed, and sent out of the province, and is not forthcoming at thin (rial. The whole prosecution, fiom beginning to end, showi an unfairness that - no Englishman ought to bo subjected to. A steamer m rived list night, but I do not think Mr. Muriro i« in it. To say that Mr. Munro is kept away by the •teamor not ai riving I do not say is untrue, bufc it is ' cottainly not iv aceoi dance with fact. Well, gentlemen, bo much for the caso for the prosecution. Of' course ib is nob for me for one moment to suggest or suppose what wns the reason or meaning of the jury's couducfc yesterday at the conclusion of the caso for the piosecution, nor shall I anticipate it. But supposing for ono moment that the prosecution had \nade onta piimft, faoio case, how hits ib been answered? I must say that if it was the intention of the jury ab that lime to have dispensed with any further hearing of this case, 'while of course being gratified with a verdicb of acquittal at any part of the case, I felt great satisfaction that tho jury did not tako that course, because I feel that iv a matter of this sort the able address of my learned f i ienil and tho ovidonco given might havo tended to fasten a stigmaon my clienb'scharactcr, which might h.wo attached to him during his life. While it was not my duty to interfere, 1 felt gratified at the determination tho jury came to to hoar tho whole case on the side of the defence. Well, gentlemen, you saw the ovidonco on the other side. Ib is tine that 'Bishop Williams said that doctor* disagreed, alluding to the disagreement between himself and Dr M.iunsoll. Bub it appears that Bishops disagree likewise. My fiiends on tho other side never anticipated the appearance of the Lord Bishop of New Zealand in that box. T claim tho most completa confidence in the Bishop's evidencs, so for as this document is concerned. Ho states very properly that he is not so ■well acquainted with the native language as Bishop Williams .md Dr. Maunsell.) lie is well acquainted with their customs, and habits of action, and he tells you that, without pronouncing himself any positive opinion vith legard to the tendency of this tiling per sc, yet he says it might have a different effect at different times, If the countiy were perfectly peaceable and quiet and this document wore wiitten ib might possibly have a mischievous tendency. And then I asked, if .it the time of the publication there was a state of rebellion amongst the natives of this province. Ho caiofully avoided the woid rebellion ; he said the native race were fk'hting against the English. Then I asked, that being the state of things, what, if any, would be the effeob, if any, of such an insignificant thing as this. Ho said it would not have any effect. They were already fighting, and uo document of this description could possibly make them worse than they were. And then on crossex.imination he went .iluiost further than this, and said tins document was simply an expression of disapproval of acts which he himself disapproved of. That was the substance of the evidence of the Bishop of New Zealand. With that evidence of his, 1 do not think it necessary for me to tiouble you with the details of the other evidence. One word about that class of evidence called the scientific evidence— that was, persons acquainted with two languages to tell the effect of a document among poisons who knew ouly one language. Now, as I said before, if you wanted to know what effect it hud on the native mind tho best possible way was to biing the native mind here, and let these men tell us what effect it has had upon their minds. If the whole native race were in an absolute state of rebellion, and you could not bring one of them here to testify aboub ib, there might be need for these witnesses ; but it appears to me that all bishops, doctois.and deacons, were absolutely valueless in compaiison with the natives themselves. They leceivcd tho document, and could best say the effect it had upon them. With the exception of two witnesses, one of whom expects to geb £100, and the othei is a native assessor, they tell you that ib is you pakehas and Wellington Government that are making much of ib— they themselves care nobbing aboub ib, bub you pakehas are making a fuss about it. On the othci hand, take the scientific evidence, and wo are better than they on that point. Dr. M.innscll tells you theio is nothing in the document whatever, and so does the Bishop of Now Zealand. Theie are thice scientific witnesses — Bishop Williams, Dr. Maunsell, and Mr. Edmonds. The two Bishops were clearly at variance, and £ put Dr. Maunsell as against the Bishop of W.iiapu. The Bishop of Waiapu'a evidence was altogether against u"», except on the part of the Hauhaus. Thcie I claim him as a witness ; his evidence was in favour of the defendant. Gentlemen, I do not know tint I can bay anything more with advantage lo my client, or to assist yourselves in coming to a conclusion on this case. It is unnecessary for mo, I am sure, to proceed in detail thiongh the wholo of the evidence I adduced before yon. It w.is before you dming the whole of yesteid.iy and must be freih in your niemoiies. It appeals to me that if tlieieever was anything in this case it has been the result in the fiist instance of piejudice and suspicion. If it had been any one of you, or any other peison, that printed that document, no man in bis sane mind would have over conceived the idea of treating it iv any way except as a mere trifling squib That, gentlemen, is one view I take of it. 'lhe other is that it is a mere political move on behalf of the Government— an attempt to bmigapui-ou lcsidingin this portion of the colony into contempt as a disloyal and trnitoious subject. I can conceive no other reason whatever th.it could have given lise to this piosecution but one of these tw o, and I prefer the latter. I I could nob conceivo that the Attorney-General and the Government would ever have given way to such a paltiy and adiculous motive as prejudice and^ suspicion. How it \v<i3 that they became acquainted with this niatt-r, of com se I cannot say. We first hear of ib thiough Mr. Mackay, Civil Commissioner, in the Government seivicc. I need not tell you, as experienced jurymen, that_ you must not Jet yourselves be aftected by suspicion. It has been wisely said that " Suspicion sleeps at the gates of Wisdom," and although you may not possibly have entered into the gates of Wisdom, you havo entcied into tho Temple of Justice, and there also suspicion must lie dormant. Neithorthe suspicions of the weak nor the prejudices of tho vulgar must enter that box. You aie sworu to give a verdict accotcling to the evidence before the Court. You must nob say theio is ill wlipienoillis- said, nor think any ill, till you find thnt ill is proved. You have gob to say whether that ill is pioved, whether thnt oviltbat lias been so much spoken of is pioved to your satisfaction beyond a doubt of suspicion ; whether Daus is traitorously guilty of sedition against the Queen. It is not far shoib of that, for tho evil mind of the man who conceives sedition against his Queen or King is morally guilty "i the cnmo of high treason itself — excepting that ho has nob committed the act that ho in his own mind conceives, and induces others to commit. And after all, gentlemen, what is this document? Is it anything moie thau a fair comment, a fair wilting expiessing the disappioval to Ills Blind of nets wliicli so higk a person as the Bishop of New Zealand expi esses his disapproval of? Does it go any fuither than that? If you are to find that wilting a seditious libel, you would be taking away that coi nerstono we enjoy — the piido of evciy Englishman and the envy of the whole world. lam peifectly persuaded that without what I havo said to-day -perhaps at unnecessaiy length— [ am peifectly peisuadod that without any woid froinme, without a single syllable beyond tho evidence, that you will acquit my client — that you will by your verdict icstoic him to the dignity of his freedom, the enjoyment of which a venal Govornmenta'temptedjbyagross prosecution, todopiivehiin. Mr Hait then leplied for the Grown. He said that he must confess ho rose to answer his learned friend with considerable difficulty after the cousidelations which he had impoited into the case. He protested as a. matter of fact that his coming hero was not at all attributable to tho ciicuuistances to which his learned friend had adverted. Ho was further somewhat cmban assed by the consciousness that his learned f i iend had lefened to matters and imported them into thi* case of which he was euliiely ignorant, how far they were capable of being influenced by the suggestions his friend had put foith, namely, because there was some difleience between Auckland and Wellington, which had nothing to do with tho - matter before them, which was puiely a question of. fact. Ho did not consider himself oue of the most astute or learned men at the bar, but admitted that he had many .faults of education. A fewenors might bo made in such a long speech, and ho rather felt complimented that in nn address of such length one word nlono had been noticed as being mispronounced His f i lend never himself made an orror,and tberefoio the coi rectinn came Horn him with a good piace (Gieatlaughtoi.) [Mr. Hint, no doubfc^ alluded to tho fact that Mr. Wjmi throughout his addiess pro- , nounced tho woid fanaticism us fanatism] Before going into the evidence he might ndveit to tho comments that had been made upon Mr Pieece, as intei'pietcr. Ho was bound, on his bohalf, to &tat© that that gentleman was no moio a Government ' - officer than so far as it was necessary to have a ' Governmenfcinterproterattaclied to this Court aud the - -, Police Com b for examination of native witnesses.' If the "3 Government had gone out of their way to get an in

terpreter, liw ftieud would have been still inoro 1 elqquent on that fact, and would have said that they I went out of their way to get oxio who would rather favour them than entiust the matter to tlio ordiuary officer of the Court. He was utterly iguoiaut of the Mami language liiinselt, but he saw nothing in Mr. Preeco'a manner beyond what was natural under tho ciroumstances, when a long sentence or a number of sontonces came boForo him. For difficulties of this kind every allowance must bo made, and I think his conduct by no means justifies the imputations that liavo been made. They must have noticed that the witnesses came into Court— those wituesses who, his fiieud said, represouted the native mind, after having had much conversation amongst themselves, at all events, about this case, for they bad beard them say that a number of others would tell the same thing ; and ono said that was nil, and tho others would toll the rost. Wituesscs came out with a number of sentences' in such ft way as nlmost to defy piompt, easy, or accurate mtorprotation. They woie not witnesses who answeied by li single word ; and when a witness poured out his Ulo just as he undorstood before bo camo into couct ho was to say, the interpretation was a very difficult matter. Ho (Mr. Hart) thought so much wns due to an officer of tho Court who had done his duty frankly and honestly. He was btlieved by the Goterument to bo competent for his position, and be (Mr. Unit) thought that such an iinptitatiou as that cast by his learned friend was a most unfair one His frioud hud veiy wisoly jjouo vory lightly ovor tho evidence. It reminded him of the old saying with inference to a defendant's case in which the attorney had a doubt of his client's position, and instead of going into the moiits he shortly put it into a lino— "No case ; abuso the plaintiff's attorney ;" here it was -" N? case ; abuse Hie Government." He bad been reminded of one piece of evidence given in the case, which might almost have justified him m considering his duty at an oml— he meant the evidence given by his Loidslnp the Bishop of New Zealand. The literal tianslatiou of the document they had cleaily hud befoie them, and its effect they would sco fauna eompuison of the evidence given by theother witnesses beingof a peculi uly irritating kind : they nil coincided that it wns of an nutating character, a-id calculated to incite in the minds of persons in the ciicumsUnees in which they were placed a feeling of anger and irritation, to incite them to dcs-roy and exterminate. A document of that kind conveyed to his Lor iship no meaning of that kind He merely '•aid that it cousin es tilings which he hunsslf disapproved of. He (Mi. H.ut) did not doubt that not one woid fell fiora his L»idship but what he fully intended. He stopped at that point; be could not go into the grounds of hu Loidship's opinion, or enter upon the di-cussiou of the political history of the conflict in which this couutiy had been engaged He could not hive analysed his Lordship's meaning without enteiing into matters which were altogether beside the question befoie them. '1 hey could haully ascei tain what had caused his I.ordi-bip to come to that couclusiou. His Loidslup had certain \ie»s with rcfeieuco to the war and the position of parties which might affect las impiession of that document, and they c >ul 1 haully as-ceitain tthathad canoed his Loid- hip to come to that conclusion with respect to the m.itteis contained iv that libel. The same colour would not be gnen by at who hold different views. They must dismiss fiom their minds what had been said about the authorship of this document. it was quite tine that if Mr. Davis weie not the author of tlu document some portion of the disgiace attached to its publication would bo removed fiora him. The etidence on that point was given by tlnee witness, all of whom differed as to their testimony. The} said they went into the punting office, and «aw tin two printers about it. .Now th y had put the printers into t'»e box, and thry distinctly denied that these men ha I ever pit sent.d the im.nus.cnpr tfl them Tho mvmiei m w lnch Mr. Ficnch h.idgnen his evidence \v.\s such as to cany conwrtion. He hae not the slightest interest in the ca^e— was in no way pledged by any foi mer examination, and ht. told then that the document bt ought l>y M.v >h and the otbei s w a' add i ess to his Excellency the Governor, and had foui or five signatures to it, so that they could e.i-uly satisfy themselves it was not the document th« i j wero considering. Mr. Fiencli might hive beon subpoenaed foi the deienue, and might ba\e giver the tiue statement ot thu case ; but uo doubt thej bad ascertained from, him w hat he could stat. 1 , am wisely declined to cill him. With lespect t:> the evidence given by Alt wood, he was asked it ho dv not me some expiession about tbe sum which. woiiU induce him to a;o out of the country. He i-ani that if be naspa'd £500. .md In-, passage to Sy(lney,b( would clear out ; but that was the expiessiou of . man who named a mm lie knew it \vv utterly impossible for him to get. JJvcn ll Allwoodhad gone away that would not have affoctei tho case, as they would have uacl Ins deposition! given iv the Police Court, which would liava bjcn moie damaging to the defend int. So th.it thai suggestion thiowu out with respect to Allwood wa; utteily gioundless. bupposim; Mr. Davia not to b( tho authoi of this documeut, he hid c<-it-uuly taker a woudeiful mteieat in its diffusion. One of tin witnesses for the defence said bo leeeived most ol the copies, and distributed them about tho countiy, and had done what was done in the way of dislnlnr tionj whereas we and by U'linistak.ible cudente tli.it Mr. Davugave a copy to To Whetuki, on the lCtl; of February; be has two copies at least at Matamatain May, a pait of the couutiy uheic he himself »tates that no European had gone siuce the beginning of the war, aud wheio they did not date l<igo until the) hid sent up a mes*eugei to abceit.un nhethci they could safely go tbeie. And among those per•ons at that time — not immediately after their capture of Hou Tupaea, but neatly three mouths afterwards — they found the defend mt distiibutiug these papers among those lebel natives, who had been, tlnee mouths before, in conflict With tho Arawas, the partli-f> affected Ly it. There they found bun nibbing noses with the Maous, and going through tbf-ir ceremonies for the put pose oi I'igiatiatiug himself with them, and giving them a little memorandum for tbe purpose of getting himself appointed agent for the sale ot then lan Is, and thus gptting himself a footing ami afFvubing their minds. They did not Know whether he actually did anything to Stir up tbe natives theie ; peihapslmo'.ject was only to flatter them, to ingratiate himself in order to get their wgnatuies to the document about the sale of their landa. The publication of the document was abundantly pioved, and the defendant was trinity of the chargo tmle-iS he could show that the construction that had besn put upon this document was not a fair one. The prosecutor alleged that this was a documeut which bad a tendency to deter loyal natives fiom suppoi ting her Majesty's forces, and to incite thoso who are opposing them to join together aud attack the Arawas ; and all the witnesses accept the last, agreed that it would ha\e a bad tendency. Tbe learned couusel, after commenting at borne length upon the evidence of the witiic-aes, said that they had heaid a great deal of evidence having been tendeied upon the simplicity and meaningless and innocent character of the document, and that inuendoes bad been inserted >n the ludictineut; but he contended that those inuendoes weie nece->*ary to enable them to judge of tho efleot of tho document. Excep 1 ; they hid averred those facts in the indictment, they would not have been able to bung evidence to show what impression it would citafce. After a few fnrtliei l^-inarks, Mr. Halt concluded by aiyiug that if th y were convinced that the document was perfectly innocent and harm le^s it would be their duly to find a veidict for the defendant. Qnlesi' they came to th.it conclusion in their own minds, hetould not help thinking that it would be their duty to find a veidict £<n the prosecution. And with that verdict all questions about Auckland and Wellington, aud whether that was a Government prosecution, were eutitely beside the case, because their decision was to be arrived at from the evidence given in tbe case, subject to such information as his Honor might give them as to the law of the case. He was quits sure they would dismiss from their minds all the suggestions thrown out on the part of the defendant, which they knew as well as he did bad nothing whatever to do with the matter. The community as represented by the Crown had just as much interest in the acquittal of a mau who might have been unjustly accused as it had in the conviction of one guilty of crime. His duty was to see that the jmy bad placed before them all that was necessary to eDable them to consider their verdict as fully and fairly as possible. All animus in tho case, when that was done, was at an end— the duty of those who were counspl for the Crown, and noted for tho prosecution, ■was at an end. With these remarks, and apologising for thsm, after the length of timo they had been detained in listening so carefully to the evidence, lie left the case in their hands. His Honor entered at some length into the law of the case, and stated that he consideied the publication of the document by tbe defendant proved. He alluded to the different interpictations of ifc, and read over tbe evidences on thm point, nnd also the evidence of the native witnesses as to the effect of the paper on their minds. His Honor concluded by a baef statement of what in a case of this kind tbe prosecution was bound to make out to the satisfaction of tbe jiuyi

Thoituyiefcireilab twouty minutes befoio seven o'clock, a.icl returned to Court at ft few minutes PB Ou tho"'o«miau beingasked by Uio Rogwtni it tlio iuiT h.ul a«re«» on their vcnliot, tlinfc gontlonwn replied, "Wo luve ; wo (iud a veidiot of not guilty on both counts." j. i. n wftß On tlio announcement o£ tlio verdict tliere was some applause . „ . . „_ His Uonor then informed the prigouor that lie was discharged.

Monday. . . His Uonor Chief Justice Aruey took his seat i" court at ton o'clock this moiuing.

DI'.FAM.UOIIY LIUCL. Adam Elliott, fnimoi, wai placed in the dock to receive sentence. It will bo leoollcctod that in the ..aily lurtoE the icsaion 11 10 prisoner pleaded guity to air indictment charging him with having, on HtU August List, published a faN\ malicious, and dcf.u fttoiylibolagauwt a young uoman named MatiUU Craig, Onrilmiga, and tho Kov. A. G. PurohM, ° f "Tho'pnsoner, on being asked « ho Md anything to say why tlie sentence of tho Court <0 ould not .be passed upon him, made a rambling and somo«h*t unintelligible statement Ho said that Ins lawyei had told him to pl.ia«l uuilly, and Hint he won but httle punishment ; and thai, he did not w.s him to expo* tho Rev. Mr. Pi.rtlm j liiew ou ' * f.dse statement and wanted l.i.n to "wear ■ aea. n b anotlurinan, but h« (tho p.isoner) refund t do bo and told him h.' Avould ondu.olhe punish n o i ho Com t would inttiofc m.on him inther tl.an do sno a thing. Out of the (if. con guineas his law y« had received, ho had nnee leUrned him five, of them. Ihe Court asked the prwoner if ho had anything to say in mitigation of pumaluneut, but he made no "ft Beveri'lije here said ho wished to say somethinc with leferenre to what tho prisoner had stated. His Honoi said ho hal m-iely made a noto in i his book that the pmonor hnd been leeommendod to plead guilty, as tho pum-luueut he would iccone Would to le,i ; but he had n » wish to pivveut him (Mr. Be* Bridge) from nukiug any obsmvahons lie 1U Mr. BeviMi'dglTsaid ho Had consulted with Mr. Wynu ab.uitthe matter before anything was done, and ha.) stated tho circumstances fully I o him, an. ho highly approved of the ndvioo ho (Mr. ii ) nail given the piisoner. • , , . i i i Mi Bio«.kii Ul sai.l.if the piisoner hid not pleided guilty to tho charge, he hud been instructed bv the piosecntors to recommend him lo mercy, as it, was believed the prisoner was not h.nnelf so guilty as some othar person. The pn-oner had, however, refused to give any information übout tho mattei, and ho (Mi. B.> did not foci tint he would be acting according to instructions by rrr.ilung any reeoin-mend-rtrou to tho Coiiifcon his bfhdf. Hi-. Tloiioi (addressing the pnaonei) "aid ho coukl not dispose of that or.so s»hoi tly, without bhowinu its importance, arid the class of offence of which the pnsonei had been gudty. He would re.id the ht.tl itself, in oidei that the professional gentlemen tli.mmight be vinrficUul for tho judici.nn advice thoj ha-l given him, and also the depositions m tho case, in or.lv thit tho public miuhtknow thocl.i«sofofl:eneo of which he had been guilty Hl-< Honor ivid the hbol uiwhithlho pnsonei stihedto the \.olicr at Onohmigii fch.ifc he felt it to l>c his duty to inform them that Milil'h Ci.u,', sen.rnt to tho Wv\. Pi. Puivlias, had cormi-aled the birth of bor child, ot which ho said that gentlcmm wastl^ f.ithfi ; that she bad lived in his home for ei^ht mouth* as niuse, and tint he hxd uiged upon her lo Like meiUcii.o to piocnre aboition; that t-lie took the m-dii'ine, .md in consequence g.ue piemat-ue bath to ,i child ; that the Hey. Ur I'urch is had tried •' thu s.mc g.i'no ' urth other gnh in UN scimc", .iml that it was hi«h time lie should be brought to just-ce ; .mil he (the pihmei) lioi'ed (he police would be siicccsful, and aiiggcied Ui.it tho bp-t way to obtain that object would be to have Mitijdn Craig examined by a doctor. The prisoner, bis llcnoi hid stated to the constable when apprehended, that ho had lecenel infoim.itioii, and that whit he liw wiitten was tr.ie, and yet he had th- efF.onteiy to put upon two gentlemen the imputation that they had ady«pd him to per jure himself for tho purpose of having tke charge brought agiiust othoi prisons. His Honor comsneutsd strongly on tho serious nat.ueof tho offence. Tl.e poor gnl sii'omitt<-d tn the ex|>o3iue of apptaiina; in the liosidnnt Magistrate's Court t> clear herself <>£ the attack made upon her character. Tho meie imputit'on of tiut crime would wei^h up<»n lier feeling,, and m tire minds of cvil-dispo«od prisons lea\e a stigma of siis picioti against her Fiom the evideuce adduced in the Ke-.idpnt Magistiate'sCouit, unless the witnesses had pel juied theinselvea, it was impossible not to find the pi it oner guilty, because there was as clear a case ngainai; him as ever was produced befoje a tiibunal From the evidence, he (Ins Honoi) must sly t|, it the gentlemen who advised him not to exaspeia'G tho Com t and public feeling by an attempt to set U|> an aiiSA-ei, unless lie had new facts to pime in it, had given him sound advice. The chu^e he brought against 'he poor gill, tint of in sdeme.iuoiu, of concealment of birth, if tine, would have subjected hci to along peiiod of hard labnui ; and ihe diw«o he had made a:amst the Rev. Dr. Puiehicof admmiHteiuig to her a noxious ru.ittci for the puijiose cl jijocuring abortion — that was au offtuuc of a veij serious chdiaclcr, t«)i which h«" would, if guilty, be liable to be transported bejond the seas for tin 1 teini of his life, or for .>ny period of rrot lesd than tiftcpu jears, with baid labour. Jt was impossible that the Court could pi«s o' er the offence as a meic oidinary pqmb 01 ordinaiy libel tint wmoyed prisons 01 brought them into disrepute. lie [\\u Honoi) vvjs uot ltifoimed of his cucumstiures, or v\ bather he could pay a certain fine; but he would -lot pass n Stfiitcucu of fine, but tne sentence of tho Cmut would be that he be imprisoned foi twelve calendar months, and it Die end ot that timo to fiud sureties to be of good bihavioui, himself 111 £200, and two suretio* of £100 each. I fe would obseive that, .lUhough tho ciiine was agamsf. two mdividii -N, yet it whs IdoL< d upon as one offence agmist tin- laws of the c uintiy The piiioner wished his Honoi to coin|Mii' thiwriting of some pipers he held m his hand with the lettei or libel with the \iew of asceitainiug that the document was not in his handwriting. His Honor ordered him to bo removed. INTniIPKBrATION OF NATIVE I-VIUUNCB. Mr. J. W Pivtce, aildie-siii» hi-. Houoi, «aid, before he should be sworn as liitei piefcer in the nexL case to be called on, lit' wished to be peumttud to ascertain the apiuiou of the Court with respect to tho integnty and fairness of his interpretation of the n.itive evidence given dining the tiul of Mi. Davis, for seditious libel. He f<-Ifc it to be due to himself to do so after the stringent lem.nks that had been made bv the counsel in his addivss to the juiy for the defence. H's Honor said ho could ivell uud<iisfcand counsel addiessing a j.uy on behalf of his client malcin^ U-e of strong expressions, lie could .tlso well under stmid the difliculty iheie vvas m lnteipreting the statements of Uip various native witnesses, owing lo the picnliai way iv which th»y give their evidence The difficulty would also be mcie.ised from the natuie of the pvitience mveu to slwv th it ceitam words had difli'i out moaning-. Mr, I'lG'-ce wa^> .ipponited an officer of the Goveinmcnt of the colony to lntai piet toi hci Mijr'sty's subjects between ihe piisoner and the O'iowii, and tho Court had not the slit;hte<fc uuson to ili-.t'ii-t him as to Ihe mt gury of hi-, niti-i-prctaliou. Mr. \V\un iaid he had nifiely inadt' the ohyi vi t.on<- th it iia'l ocomred to bun win u adilussing th^ jmy .nil if Ali. Pieei'i' fi'lt aggrieve 1 at ..nythnii,' that had occur i ed hi" (Mi Wynu) ipgutled it lie did not mean to impute to him any kind of wilful <u wrontf motive whatever.