WHAT IS SEDITION?.

NZ Truth, Issue 692, 21 September 1918, Page 6

WHAT IS SEDITION?.

■» ■ — 1 HOW IN AND WOMEN WERE PUNISSIED Tie Mercilessaess ef tbe Law "The Darkness of Tyranny aad Despotism"

Concerning the introduction m the New South Wales Legislative Assembly of an Anti-Sedition Bill, we recently showed that the laws of all countries punishes very severely any man or woman guilty of that offence. We quoted, from Sir Thomas Erskine May's "Constitutional History of England," numerous instances of the merciless punishing of men whom juries declared to be guilty of sedition. The punishments inflicted upon them were not merely harsh, but cruelly severe. Some of the best men m England: clergymen, teachers, medical men, men of light and learning m every walk of life, were, during the war with the French Republic, pounced upon by the authorities and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment or transportation, or to pay away large sums of money m monetary penalties. There was the loosest 'possible de.finition of sedition; to say what was sedition was a matter for the judge or the magistrate. As the word, etymologically, means LITTLE MORE THAN DISSENSION, Or a disturbance of the tranquility of the State, it was open to any judge to declare that almost anything was sedition, and this the judges frequently did. Furthermore, detestable societies were formed consisting of professedly "patriotic" persons, whose object was to spy out cases of unfortunate men who had said something or other that could be tortured into being misrepresented as what a judge or magistrate might define as sedition. Sir Thomas Erskine May thus comments upon the operations of these societies during the war MVith the French Republic: Another agency was evoked by the spirit of the times — dangerous to the liberty of the press, and to the security of domestic life. Voluntary societies were established m London, and throughout the country, for the purpose of aiding the executive government m the discovery- and punishment of seditious writing or language. Of these, the parent was the "Society for the Protection of Liberty and Property against Republicans and Levellers." These societies, supported by" large subscriptions, were busy m collecting evidence of seditious designs — often of the reports of informers, liberally rewarded for their activity. Tjiey became, as it were, public prosecutors, supplying the Government with •proofs' of supposed offences, and quickening - its zeal m the prosecution of offenders. Every unguarded word at. the club, tlie market-place, or the tavern, was reported to these credulous alarmists, and noted- as evidence of disaffection .... In the country, especially, was justice liable to be warped. Local cases of sedition were tried at the Quarter Sessions by magistrates who were leaders of the societies, and by jurors who, if not also members, . were the tenants or neighbors of the gentlemen on the Bench. Prosecutor, judge, and jury being all leagued against the accused m a time of panlo, how could any man demand with confidence to be tried by hiß peers? Sir Thomas Erskine May proceeds to give instances of the sort of thing the administration of the sedition law was at that time. We have quoted some of these instances. It may be well if we refer to some more. There was, for instance, THE CASE OF THOMAS MUIR. This man was a brilliant young advocate of high talents and attainments. He had attracted attention by his activity m championing the proposal to bring about Parliamentary reform, and he was one of the members of the Convention, or Conference, of delegates that was held for tho purpose of disoussing those proposals for Parliamentary reform. He' N was accused of sedition, and was put upon his trial on that charge before the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh. Sir Thomas Erskine May says, "Every incident of this trial marked the unfairness and. cruel- spirit of his judges." May goes on to say: All the jurymen, selected 'by the sheriff and picked by the presiding judge, were members of an association at Goldsmith's Hall, who had erased Muir's name from their books as an enemy to the constitution. He objected that such men had already prejudged his cause, but was told he might as well object to his judges who had sworn to maintain the constitution! The witnesses for the Crown failed to prove any seditious features, while they all bore testimony to the earnestness with which he had counselled order and obedience to the law. Throughout the trial he was brow-beaten and threatened by the Judges. A contemptible witness against him was "caressed by the prosecutor, and complimented by the court," while a. witness of his own was hurriedly committed for concealing the truth, without hearing Muir on his behalf, who was told that "he had no right or title to interfere m the business." In the spirit of a bygone age of judicature, the Lord Advocate denounced Muir as a demon of sedition and mischief. He even urged it as a proof of gilt that a letter had been found amongst papers, addressed to Fyshe Palmer, who was about- to be tried for sedition. Muir defended himself with GREAT TALENT AND COURAGE, and showed that his alleged sedition consisted merely m promoting the agitation for Parliamentary reform. The Lord Justice .Clerk, Braxfield, however, said that "to preach the necessity of reform at a time of excitement was seditious." The jury were quite convinced by this that Muir was guilty, and they brought m a verdict of guilty. The judges sentenced him to fourteen years' transportation. Lord Swinton regretted that the punishment was not. adequate, as torture had been abolished. Lord Abercromby and the Lord Justice Clerk told Muir he was fortunate m having escaped with his life. Here is another sample of the way m which ..the law of sedition was administered during the war with France. A convention of the Friends of the People, had met m Edinburgh; and had issued an address to- the- people. The only object of this address was to secure a reform of the House of Common's. • It -is stated that the strongest sentence m the address Avas the following: "That portion .of -liberty you once enjoyed is fast setting, we fear, m the darkness of despotism and tyranny." In January, 1704, the secretary of the Convention, William Skirving, was accused of sedition for having published this, address. May thus records the result of his trial: He was found gunty, and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation. On hearing his sentence, Skirving said: "My Lords, I know that what has been done these two days will be re-judged; that is my comfort, and all my hope.'' That his guilt was assumed and prejudged, neither prosecutor nor judge attempted to disguise. The Solici-tor-General, m his opening speech, said: "The very name of British Convention carries sedition along with it."— "And the British Convention associated for what? For the pur-

pose of obtaining universal suffrage; m other words, for the purpose of subverting the Government of Great Britain." And when Skirving, like Muir, objected to the jurors, as members of the Goldsmiths* Hall Association, Lord-. Eskgrove said: "By making this objection, the panel is avowing that it was their intention to overturn the Government." The instances that we have given of tho elasticity of tho charge o£ sedition and the severity with which persons convicted of sedition may be 'treated, make it clear that he who sets the law of sedition m motion against an accused person launches against him an engine of the MOST TREMENDOUS FORCE - and crushing character. Moreover, it is evident that almost any form of spoken or written objection to "the powers that be" may be declared by magistrates or judges to be sedition. Indeed, m some cases, the juries were worse than the judges. In these cases the judges pointed out to the juries that they ought not to convict; but to such an extent had their minds been polluted and poisoned by the preachments of politicians, and penmen posing as patriotic, that they disregarded the judges' advice and found the accused persons guilty. A particular instance of this was that of Mr. Winter - botham, a Baptist minister, who was charged with having uttered seditious words m two sermons. Sir Thomas Erskine May says: "So weak waa the evidence for the Crown, and so conclusive his defence, that the judge directed an acquittal; yet m both oases the jury -returned verdicts of guilty." It is quite' true that transportation is not now resorted to; but tho sedition law remains, with the power which it places m the hands of administrators of the law to impose very severe penalties upon men (or women) convicted of that vague and all-embracing thing called sedition.