DR LISTON'S CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 17977, 25 May 1922, Page 9

DR LISTON'S CASE.

SO. HOWARD ELLIOTT'S GOPfIMEHT LEGISLATING ,?OK INDISORETIONB. lu 111- coni'so of a Protestant demonstration at U eilnigton on Monday evening, (lie li-v, Howard Elliott- commented upon the trial of Dr Liston at Auckland. Ho elated that the. opinion of New Zealand still was to-day as it was (he thought) on the day that they first read those remarks, that Dr Liston 'hail let the lid oil thy kettle, that lie had really spoken out of the fullness of his Roman Catholic, heart, and that they now understood exactly where the Hietareky of thy Roman Catholic Church officially stood in rcgaial to the Empire and in regard to Irish questions. (Appleused '■ I think (ho went on) that it is a matter for congratulation that \vc- have, hero in Mew Zealand a Government that had the moral courage to institute that prosecution. {Applause.) A great many Irish bishops within the British Empire have during the last six years given utterance to some very startling state incuts, hut not one Government has yet had the moral courage to prosecute them except the Government hare in Xew Zaa land. (Applause.) And am I claiming too much for the Protestant Politcal Association when I -say that it is tho knowledge Unit tlicre is that great organisation of Protestant influence, backing thy Government in action «t that kind, that enabled the Government to do its duty on this occasion? (Applause.) I am quite sure that there must have been the most intense pressure put upon mom hers of Cabinet, and upon the Government as a whole, lo indue- them to withdraw the proceedings, to hold them in check, I do not know of my own knowledge, liecause I have not been ab!o to he about at all, but I. am sure o t tills: that, knowing Romo as 1 do, i know that no smallest stone would ho left mi turned in order to go i- that awful thing—a summons against a bishop—withdrawn. ... A bishop is supposed to be a. Prince of tho Church, .supposed to bo one of tho directors and the rulers of tiro people, to be ahow- ail the s-mlnr hue in any country, and where Romo rules, that, is (he case. But Judge Strin,,-r in Auckland said that a, bishop was no more and no less, than any ocher mrm—(uppla ijsei-—and so, though there may have been—there, must have been—the nm. 4 intense* pressure, wo arc glad to know that tho Cabinet and tho officers of the Crown, particularly tho Attorney .General, who was most concerned. did imt move from the decision that had been arrived at —that Hint prosecut ion had to proceed in the ordinary way." The gji-aker thought that any man who had read the reports of the trial would recognise that no man ever had a. fairer trial than Bishop Liston. Probably few men who had bo.-n tried in (his dominion had had so great a concession made tej him a,-, did Bishop Liston. And, when lie reminded them -that the majority oi the jury were Prof cut arils, then he thought It could be said that there was no bigotry in Protestantism, and there was no fierce ifanaSicism ilhat would, down Romanists because they were Romanists. The jury gave Bishop Liston every con-side-ration, and they allowed him to escape tho verdict of guilty because there was some uncertainty as to tho precise words used bv him. That wa» a tribute to their Protestant fairness, "If it had been the reverse,” proceeded Mr .Elliot t, “had that trial been that of some Protestant in Ireland umler Sinn Fein—well, suppose I had been in Ireland a.nd charged with sedition. (Loud laughter.) ' Hero in Xew Zealand, this Protestant country, even a Protestant jury can bo fair to a Roman Catholic bishop."