BISHOP LISTON

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 4591, 17 May 1922, Page 2

BISHOP LISTON

THE CHARGE OF SEDITION. THE BISHOP IN COURT. A CROWDED GALLERY. TWENTY-ONE .JURORS CIIAL- ■ LENGED. LENGTH Y CROSS-15XAMI NATION. (Continued from Pago 1.) (Per Press Association.) Auckland, May 16. At the Liston trial yesterday, at Auckland, the Court room was crowded, the gallery being entirely filled with women, as the Bishop, when his nanio was called, walked briskly from a side door and stood in the dock with bowed head and hands behind his back whilo the lengthy charge was read over. ftenvards, by permission of tho Court, he took a seat beside his counsel. The following juiy was empanelled after the Crown had challenged 16 of tho jurors called and the _ defence had challenged five: Frederick W. Jupp (foreman), Guy Pearce, Writ. Nicholson, Lionel Hodder, Alfred E. Goodwin, Win Siniond, Rolber Holmes, Tlieo. Hollis, Win. Richardson. Thos. Henry Chapman, E. N. Oavaye, David Amos. THE BISHOP GIVES EVIDENCE. Bishop Liston snTd lie spoke without any show of feeling, and there was no disorder in the audience He had ilo seditious intention whatsoever. That ho would say most emphatically. The first comment he read on his speech was in tho Herald on Saturday morning and in the Star oil Saturday evening. His first thought was that the report was grossly misrepresenting. He made up his mind to deal with the matter fairly quickly. On Monday morning lie got tho Herald about 8.15. containing a statement by the Mayo: criticising the speech. It was not until about an hour later that-to -c----ceived a letter from the Mayor asking him if ho had been correctly reported. He ilien wrote to the Mayor declining to reply as bis protest had already been made public. There the matter ended. Criminal proceeding" were then threatened, and he was advised to keep silent. Otherwise he would have given the public of Auckland the explanation ho was giving of the unhappy position. ~ After the proceedings were announced be wrote to Prime Alin'ster, in terms already published. That letter set forth the teachings of the Church and his own personal sentiments. THE BISHOP CROSS-EXAMINED. To Mr Meredith: When he first saw tho report he felt himself grossly misrepresented. He would not care to be responsible for tlie remarks as reported. The speech, as reported, had it boon made, could be. very well criticised. He felt tho words as reported would bo improper as coming from a prominent man. But for the Mayor’s letter, lio would have made a statement clearing up the misunderstanding. In the face of a throat of criminal proceedings, lie was advised to keep silent. Mr Meredith: Did you not feel it

due to tho public and your churcli to clear tho matter up forthwith?— Not in view of Mr Gunson’s letter. Mr Meredith: When you wrote to tlie Prime Minister, the position was the same?—Substantially the same. Mr Meredith: Yet you altered your mind in writing to the Prime Minister?—My letter treated, of different things. Mr Meredith: our letter did not say “tho words reported to have been used?”—l had nothing to restrict. Mr Meredith: Did you not notice tho turmoil which followed your speech?—l saw the newspapers were excited, but I did not know tho people were. Mr Meredith: Seeing the way the newspapers treated the matter might you not have given the Prime Minister the explanation you have, given to-day?—That is a matter of opinion, and I had good advice. Mr Merodith: Did you not consider it might have obviated those proceod|ngSp_Wo did not consider that, hut wo -decided against the courso. Mr Meredith: Tlie term “glorious Easter” was used in connection with Easter of 1916?—Yes, it was tlie occasion of the insurrection in Dublin. Mr Meredith: In which rising was considerable damage to property and loss of life?—Yes. Mr Meredith: It was ultimately quelled by bringing in troops—troops from England?—Yes. In what respect do you suggest it was glorious?—Becauso of the manner in which young men of the highest probity died trying to do something for Ireland. Mr Meredith: Men of the rebel party?—Yes. Mr Meredith: In using those words did you support them?—l admired them. Mr Meredith: You used those words, did you support and advocate their action? Mr O’Regan objecting. His Honour said he thought it was hard'y a proper question. Witness was being asked if he supported the rebellion. Mr Meredith said that intent was under consideration. He was asking Dr Liston wliat he had in his mind in using the words, just as ho had explained himself regarding other phrases. His Honour: If the witness objects to answer, he is entitled to do so, and he has objected. Dealing with the list of those who had died, Dr Liston said he had changed “murdered by British troops” to “foreign troops” because, he did not care to use the word ‘ British.” He thought tlie word “foreign” would be less offensive. This concluded the examination of Dr Liston. Tho defence having other witnesses to call, the case was adjourned till to-morrow.