COMMITTED FOR TRIAL

Evening Star, Issue 17957, 2 May 1922, Page 7

COMMITTED FOR TRIAL

bishop ustors case, COUNSEL’S APPEAL. EXPEDIENCY ISSUE RAISED. [Special to the ‘Stab.’] AUCKLAND, May 1. Bishop Liston was committed for trial on a charge of making seditions utterances on March 17., Ho was admitted to bail on Ms own recognisance. Mr Oonlan, counsel for Dr Liston, intimated that ia tho event of His Worship gendinc the case to a jury ho would reeerva his defence. Counsel contended that the evidence did not support the charge of sedition. Ho had undertaken the defence with diffidence, and only after having been convinced of defendant’s loyalty. It was, ho felt, a tragic position for defendant, who held high office and was undoubtedly loyal. Ho knew defendant’s views, and could find no intent of sedition in the reported statements of the speech (although the words were not admitted). Ho pointed out how very wide the right of freedom of speech was made in Great Britain, where the Homo. Secretary had said in the House of Common® that, so long as there was no direct incitement to violence and no breach of the peace, it was unnecessary for the Government to interfere with the freedom of speech of the people. A charge of sedition was once preferred against John Burns, later a Cabinet Minister. The circumstances in that case were much stronger than in the present, and ho read several quotations from the judgment which acquitted Burns, indicating that criticism of political matters was given a very wide latitude among British people. The circumstances hero showed no incitement to disloyalty, though the words as reported might ho classed as indiscreet or unpalatable. Defendant was speaking with close knowledge of affairs, and probably had such things in his mind as were dealt with by Sir Philip Gibbs in his book on Ireland. Although llio words reported were perhaps indiscreet, (hey were not by any means seditious. A great many Irish people disagreed with the words used by defendant, bill, those people Stood solidly behind [lis Lordship in this matter. Ho knew that was not an clement to bo considered, but he mentioned it in the hope that the wide distress which would bo occasioned should the matter go further, would be averted. After Mr Meredith had replied for the Crown, Mr Poynton, S.M., said that it appeared to him that the speech was seditious in four respects. In the words of the Crimes Act it was likely to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty’s subjects or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects. It would ho improper for him to comment at this Stage on the evidence, and defendant would he committed to the Supreme Court for trial, bail being allowed in his own recognisance of £IOO. BE EE SPEECH A SAFETY VALVE. (Pan United Pkess Association.] AUCKLAND, May 1. In the course of his address Mr Conlan said that in the House of Commons, replying to a question as to whether steps would be taken to punish those who made seditious speeches in Hyde Park, the Home -Secretary (Mr E. Shortt) said that so long as there was no breach of the peace caused and speeches did not advocate any direct violence, there was vo need to take any notice of them. He also said that to some extent Hyde Parle had come to bo recognised as a safety valve of London. “May I also suggest.” paid Mr Conlan, “that on a night like this (March 17) speakers might possibly mo words they would not use at other times or on other occasions. I submit it might_bo regarded ns a safety valve of the Irish to speak their own minds and get it over.” In order that a person might be convicted of making a seditious utterance two ingredients had to ho proved. First, that the words must bo seditious, and, second, that there must be seditious intent. There was not the slightest sign of any disturbance on the present occasion, and one must assume the audience simply went quietly home. Nothing was further from the mind of His Lordship than to commit a crime. The speech was made on the night of St. Patrick’s Day. It was made by a bishop, who by virtue of his sacred office must not break the law, but must do all he could to uphold it. The wordjng of the speech would nob appeal (to 'the people in Ireland, who probably would taka no notice of it. If the magistrate was going to hold that the words were used (he, the speaker, was not admitting they were), did it not appeal to him that in making a f-a.nk statement the bishop’s intention was to bring about the solidarity of the Empire. It might be said it was very high duly to speak what was in his mind, and not bottle it up. There wore words of infinite pathos in which the bishop referred to his father and his little Irish mother. These lines would probably to some'extent color certain expressions which earns out_ later. No words in the speech at all incited or moved anyone to violence. NO QUESTION OP EXPEDIENCY. Mr Meredith (for the Grown) said his submission was that the issue was a very simple one. There was no contradiction of the evidence given. He contended that under tho authorities there could be no doubt tho words constituted a seditions utterance. ,Mr Conlan had suggested that on the grounds of expediency tho case should not b© sent on. The magistrate had not to consider tho question of expediency. The second point was that it was an inroad into the rights of free speech. This was hardly a' case of fair or dispassionate criticism. The statement about people being murdered by foreign troops could not be considered a fair reference 'to what happened in Dublin in Easter of 1916. The question was one of fact to go to tho jury, and it was not the function of this court to usurp that duty. Unless tho magistrate vus satisfied 'that twelve reasonable men would not come to a decision (hat the words were seditious tho case must proceed. It was not necessary that thorn (should bo violence as a result of tho words used. The question was whether tho words wore likely to cause ill-will or hostility among any of His Majesty’s s-.dv-jecto. It 'was further suggested that iNlaxch 17 should be regarded as the safety valve of the Irish people, which would simply mean granting a dispensation to tho Irish people to cause a lot of {rouble. Defendant was then commit ted for trial, ns stated.