BISHOP LISTON

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 4591, 17 May 1922, Page 1

BISHOP LISTON

CHARGE OF SEDITIOUS UTTERANCES. CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. (Per Pres* Association.) Auckland, May 10. The Bishop Liston case opened today. ’J he first wit less was Gordon Stanbrook, a press reporter. Answering J large Stringer, witness said what lie wrote for his paper was practically a verbatim copy of part of his notes, changed from the first person into the third person. Tlis Honour asked: “Are you sure of the expression ‘murdered by foreign troops’?” Witness: “Yes.” Replying to Mr Meredith, witness! said lie did not take the whole of the. speech, but nothing else that was said would have altered the tenor of his report. To His Honour: The expressions were not qualified in any way. There was no doubt about the words “murdered by foreign troops,” the reference to the “glorious Easter of 11)16,” and of “men and women willing to die.” Mr Meredith: ‘What did your mean when you said you took only what you wanted?” Witness: “What I considered of public interest. I did not take a shorthand note ” Counsel: “Is it not a risky tiling to say part of the speech is verbatim, when you took it in long hand?” Witness: “It is possible to remember some passages.” He admitted some of his evkhnee differed from that given in the Lower Court. Flc had to rely almost entirely on his memory. ‘.Do you still think the people referred to by the Bishop died at Easter, 1916?” Witness: “On consideration, I think the reference also concerned people who had died after Easter, 1916.” “I)o you say the Bishop said that women during Easter week werej murdered by foreign troops?” Witness: “Yes. He had a list his hand.” Other evidence for the Crown was mainly on tlm lines of the proceedings in the Lower Court.

THE DEFENCE. For the defence, Mr P. O’Regan said the jury must have been satisfied that the report on which the charge was based, which was admittedly brief, was also inaccurate. Bishop Liston had preserved the notes of his speech and they would be put in. The jury would have no difficulty in deciding, after hearing the Bishop, that lie had no seditious intention and that the words if properly reported, were not capable of that interpretation. Words liad to bo taken in their setting, and it was altogether unfair to do as had been done by the press . throughout New Zealand, to publish what tlie Bishop had said in ono paragraph isolated from its context and to make drastic comments upon it, as a result. He had no hesitation in sayino that this, was the class of case which put the jury system to severest test. Giving evidence, Bishop Liston said lie had never been a member of the Self-Determination League. He was a native of Dunedin, and his parents arrived in 1863 or 1864. They were born in 1547 and 1559 respectively, tie admitted the report of his speech regarding their boing driven form Ireland and “snobs of the Empire” was substantially correct. He was referring to the eviction of bis parents and three and three-quarter millions evicted with them. He was recalling what eviction in Ireland meant. The passage about “the glorious Easter of 1916” did not accurately represent what lie had said. Tlie document from which he had read that portion of his speech had come to him through the mail that afternoon just before the concert. His words were “I bare here a list of the men and women who were pro .id to die for Ireland during and since 1916. Of those, 16 were executed by shooting in 1916, and 52 woro killed while fighting during the Easter of 1916, including Terence McSwiney, Lord Mayor of Cork, who died of a hunger strike. Eight were executed by hanging, twelve were executed by shooting, and -57, including three priests, wore murdered by foreign troops! “Those,” said Bishop Liston, “were the exact words I used.” Only those in the last category were meant to bo described as murdered by foreign troops. Ho did not speak of the Easter week people being murdered at all. Ho did not refer to any women being killed in Easter week, Nothing would bo further from bis thoughts than to refer to those killed iii Easter week as murdered. The word ‘murdered’ referred only to those killed m 1920 by the Black and Tans, when the i>olicy of reprisals was in full swing. It would havo been better to have men-, tioned the Black and Tans instead fo using the word troops, but lie took it his audience knew the word ‘murdered’ was used because leading statesmen and Anglican clergy in England employed it in referring to the Black and Tan reprisals. The words ‘glorious Easter,’ he thought, were used parenthically. It was a common phrase applied to that insurrection.

At the time it occurred many people in Dublin thought it a mad _ enterprise, but with tho lapse of time, it was felt those who had died had passed beyond criticism, tho first instalment ”of freedom. Witness referred to tho Treaty. In his opinion it was the gift of God, because it gave political freedom to Ireland. By “determined to lmvo the wliolo of it/ lie meant that though relations had been adjusted by Treaty between England and Ireland, there was still a groat deal to be done. For instance, the union of tho two Parliaments. This could be achieved by friendly agreement, without any force. 'Ho had not mentioned force and lie failed to see how his words could infer the use of force. Witness had in his mind a parallel betveen New Zealand and Ireland. Tho report about there being “plenty to fight and die for Ireland,” did not acurately represent Ins statement. Quoting from his notes he declared his words to have been “God made Ireland a nation, and whilo grass grows and water runs, there will be men in Ireland, and women, to fight and even die that God’s desires may bo realised.” He had no intention to infer that physical force should bo used. The case was adjourned.