TRIAL OF LARKIN, MANNING, AND OTHERS, AT-BOKITIKA.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 2003, 1 June 1868, Page 5

TRIAL OF LARKIN, MANNING, AND OTHERS, AT-BOKITIKA.

Monday, May 18th. (Before Mr Juiitico Kichmond and a Special Jury.) Willinm Joseph Larkiu, John Manning, Jones Clarke, John Diirrett, William Melody, Thoruas Hurron, and Denis ilannon, were iud:cted for having, on iho Bth March, held im unlawful racmbly in Ilokitika, and for taking foxciblo possession of tho Mokitika Cemetery. Tho-indictment, which was very voluminoH3, contained eleven counis. Tho following counsel npprured:— For tho Crown : The Attorney-General {Mr Preudcrgast), with him Messrs JUar- ; Ttsy and Bj\t<on. Mr Ireland, Q.C., xrith hiju Mr South, Mr Itees, and Mr Guinr>es3 t Sor defendants Larkin, Maimiug, Ciarbc, Barrett, and Harrou. '. lilr Itcea, with him Mr Giijnn jh, for i defendants JMelod^ and Haimon. | Tho pmonera "pleaded not guilty. V'iiU the principal fac ;s detailed in tbcciidencc our readers &pj ooqiiainteil The y>rianne p<i were clof|uor,tly defended byilr Ireland, who spoko jit great length. V/t extract the foUowlna summing np, by \Yv< Honoi Mr Jtialicci Richmond, from the Wctllawl Obezrvrj- ;„- Geatlemeit—Whatever n«ij In; tho tor ouli of tljja triaj, tjjejrp can, nj .*3l &'s&#{

j bo no dispute, that tho defendants haver had tho advantage of a most su'tle and eloquent defence. I luvvo rcricl and. studied iho defences in the recent trials at Dublin to charge of the same nature, nnd I t«ko it upon me to say that not one. of those defences, powerful as they were,, surpasses in force and subtlety that which, has been made to-day, lam put under no ordinary difficulty. lam naked here, and now, to di.sentnrigle a web of meat able reasoning. It is my duty to endeavor to do this, and in so* rioim;, it is not only with tho legal points winch have arisen that 1 have to do, bu*. I must also deal with tho social and ethic; 1.! considerations which in reality form a main ji.irfc of tho defence. 1 must do iliis in order that you may fully understand both Hides of tho •iiKstion. My task is- v heavy one, .-.ml I undertake it with a fitl) cun.■wioufinrss of my own fallibility. lam thankful that the decision rests with you, and not with myself. It is my btiufuena to-pul before you both sides, to renew in. your minds tho effect of the ."momenta | used by tho Attorney^Jt-neral, in his. lucid and tempo-rate statement.', arguments, wliich may have boon oh.senred'by what yon have sinco heard from the. counsel for the defence, and to «ivo fulL weight to whatever sound argument has been used on the other side. I shall take tlio unusual course of not rcadin;,' over to yon tho evidence. Ido ho became there has been no real difference upon tho material facts of the case, and because thoevidence must ! c inrito fresh in ymir memories. If, on either »ido, or by yourselves, I am asked to recur to any part of the evidence, I shall, of course, do so. ft has been contended on behalf o£ twoof thedefendants, Ifannonand Harron, that there is no evidence connecting them with the procession. Yon will remember, however, that they were seen byone of the constables arranging tho banners before or during the erection of the cross. If the evidence is stronsj enough to convict one of the defendants, it is, 1 think, enough to convict all. Tha case may seem somewhat stronger ntiainsfc two of the defendants —tho Rev. Father Larkin, whom I mn sorry to see in such .% position, and Mr Manning. If, hereafter, in speaking of t.Jio defendants, I rofer to them in the manner usual in courts oF law, they will understand that I imply i<-> disrespect to them in so doinjj. Before I deal with tho main i|ucstion, I will gives you a few short directions on the f:< n< rat nature of tho evidence requisite to sup— port tho different counts of tho indictment. And, first, as to the. third count. This count charges that tho procession was Mtch as to create a'arm among Her Majesty's lingo subjects. Hut, there is no> evidence of any open breach of tho peace, in the ordinary Hense. The evideneo of a, manifest seditious intent hours, however, on this count; for tho notoriety of such, an intent mi;jht make that, nlarming which, in mere externals, had nothing menacing: about it. I now pass to Iho seventh count, which charges forciblu untry at conimon law; nnd with regard t<i this, I think, on consideration, that E ought to lay down the law in tho way stu^ested by tho Attorney-General. It does not seem to mn Tieccncnry that anygreat actual force need be used. If anyone como with a multitude— with a show of overwhelming fores, and flu'.n, under this shadow (ho to epeak) of the power o£ that multitude, make tho entry, a slight actual force following a show of that kind; and supported by it, ia sufficient. In this case it is alleged that there was such 3k show as to induce- a reasonable, belief oF the possibility of a mortal result, so muck so that the appropriate guardians of tfm peace abstained from tho uso of the small force at their command. If, therefore,, you are satisfied with the evidence of this, you will convict. Wo now como to the threo counts, the first, second, and eToTen'h, which nllerre seditious act a.-. T. must; give you a caution not to be deterred by Afr Ireland's facetious observations ok the absurdly rcdnndiint phraseology, from considering iho substance, of tho chargea. The Attorney-General had no alternative, but to draw tho indictment in the form in. which you find it. Unfortunately, tint style of criminaf pleading is still snich as; 'o 1.0 most obscure to ordinary men ; and tho approved' terms in which the motit serious charges aro preferred' are often exaggerated, and even ludicrous. You may convict under tiiesc crutnta if you nro satisfied of the necessary tendency of the acts proved to have bcett dono to excite, armed resistance to tho Government in this conntiy or in England. Wo naW- -t > right in this remote corner of the world to any greater license than in any- other pnrt of the Qneen'B dominion/*.. Sedition ia implied in spreading tho sentiment that if iVa ri«Mcous thing to resist the British Government ; to make one man feel it ivlicn he did not feel it before is enough to comritiito sedition. Mr Ireland would prefer to wait until there had been some overt act, some; actual experience of mischief. But, in a» case of this kind, a Government cannot wait until it has had cxpcricnccof mischief. The fact that no open breach of/tho peaces bos occurred, does not-Enow-that great, nctwii harm has not-been done, that worse may not bo apprehended. Any act which tends to excite a spirit of disaffection towards tho Government rends, however remotely, towards treason. With regurd to tho proclamation ' which was irsum! on tho day before tho ' procession, it is not my busiiHinsto defend that proclamation : it appears to have been inlendcd'to prevent opon breach r,£ the peace occurring at tho tijne of tho procession ; end ■to leave the persona engaged in it in the legal consequences involved in their net. It is not the duty of the Government tc, lay down <ho law, hut to pee that the. law- is obeyed. Wo live under law admimstored by the judges of tho land-—not imtlcr law created by proclam:^oi)H and despatches. Xor is tho Government lw>iind to tnvo warning to thono who arc about to break tins law. We arc detmed to know- tho law, which is our palladium. . Ft would roe.n tint botog 'hink, -t-nl »> Las to-i-av Jw n ar«iut'd. almnub .n {etinH i''i^ ibe Te> '<■ rois-po' "/timentofTi'olrLjjslotcn'csatdihovL hi Jr'ithir.nn. Bni, by tin- same yer.Ki>* - inp:, iYi*i vast majorit?' <>f linztit-htncn wnW bo jußlified in<ft'tition, On aoconnfe :-f th« tvron«« «.«ffrrMl i*> r.v-jrma ojtcb, from the mis-government o!E<iclnml; on account of the mfr»i« us tyrannic «»f-the fMirHal ?.«#, O>o inhtjhiUMi <--!' l<Vi»ojJb^c,'* mid, iy lalCTlinieß, ivch citAclmmts a<» ibe Btatwtcn o£ '•'^<al*/rcil»." II *!'« ilomnn Catliplicß lia«<o f^fiTtTcc! wicTet itmttmtionK (itA «3i(j;tl>rK<S^s r tst) al«ft ls*v* ~" gnglbh I'roLcßtnnt, j^te«»»

':}'"'

pea! ot the Test and Corporation Acts, almost th(-> last remnant ot thc-KC unjust rcfltrintioriß on the Nonconformista, took place only tlio year before Catholic Kmaneipation. But no one in England «uppo»e» th.it the memory of a bad past justifies sedition ; and aa to the future no man who looks on the algnnof the tiroes will say f hat the hopelessness of peaceable reform**! in Ireland is such as to justify Jrbhnnm in rebellion. J'»t it is said that very violent agitations, even verging on civil war, have been tolerated by Government; such, for instance, a« those which obtained Catholic Emancipation, Ihe Inform Bill, and tho repeal of the Com Lava. IJnt the fact that prosecutions wertj not instituted docs not prove that nothing illegal was done. !>o prosecutions were instituted, bwauiio the Government admitted tho drums made to bo substantially jnut, and proposed legislalion to meet fhorn. Jn truth, tlic two former a^it*ition« fell very little Hliort of revolutionary action. And now, gentlemen, I reach tlio main question, and I nnk yon to concent rate your attention on the eleventh count, because that seta forth thi« charge of petition with tho greatest degree of particularity. Tho question rained by tlio eleventh count in, Did 01 did not that procession, with its array of cmbleuw and banner;:, its religious service, and its final ant of erecting the cross, pecuniarily, by inevitable inference, testify approval of artwd resistance to tho law, as administered by the British Government. In my charge lo the Grand Jury, I said that "the reasoning which establMios that tho net imputed to the defeiifliiutu w;iH an act of sedition, would bo perfect if it could * o shown that tho act of Allen, Larkin, and Omld was an net of resistance to tho law of tho land ; more especially if it could be shown that tho resistance was <;n political grounds." Now, the on') thing which I there supposed might bo wanting to c mplote the proofs, has been admitted by the defence. Mr Ireland hsm said, meeting tho ense against hi:i clients boldly and frankly, in tho spirit of 'a true udvocrt*-. that the defence would lie ineaiiinglej'.fl, that it would be deprived <>f all irs Btgnilicancc, if it worn not admitted that ihe act of the three men was dono in resistance to the law. Tint, I. do not auk you to adopt my conclusion until you have yourselves applied to it the most rigorous tests ; and for thin purp"t;o (> let us try whether any other in-aning than a seditious one c»n bo attached to ihe procession ; whether this and no other is the real significance of the defendants' act. It may be Haid that this procession was a legitimate expression of opinion. Now, I will lay it d..wn broadly that opinion is free, absolut'-ly, and that for nets alone are m< n amenable to the Inw. Was tho proc-R!jion intended as a mere expression of opinion on tho legal merits of the verdict at tho MaucliMter trials '! Wo know that it lias by n<<ma boon contended that the three men were in law guilty only of manslaughter, or, not even of manshuiyhter, l-.ut of a mere asaault on the p'ltice. No doubt Home such opinion may have been held by persons talcing part in the procession. But was this the only thing they intended to express? Did they call tho men patriots—did they call the ni'sn martyrs—because instead of death they deserved penal servitude ? Gentlemen, tosayso would betoinsultyotir tinderst.-nidingr.. The demonstration bad nothing to do with the technical merits of tho verdict. It admitted tho verdict. Tlio shot, no doubt, was fired. Brett, no doubt, wan killed in the affair; but Allen, Larkin, and Gould were nol merely criminals, but praiseworthy, and in tlio highest degree. They intended then to express no opinion on the dry legal merits of tlio verdict. They did not aflirm that tho men were legally innocent; they, on the contrary, admitted that, in tho dry, barren view of English law, the men woro guilt}'. Was it then, secondly, a legitimate expression of opinion on the conduct of the Government, in carrying out tho extreme penalty of the law, looking on tho murder aa only constructive murder? It was more than this. Tho procession did not mean that tho punishment was excessive ; it attributed to the men absolute moral innocence, and high political merit. Nothing k'KH than this is implied in tho words "martyr" and "patriot," two of tho noblest terms that men can use of their fellow men. But, again, was it a justifiable demonstration of grief for the sad fato of theso nmiv—of admiration for tho fortitude with which they faced death —of religious joy that they died in tho true faith I If this woro an adequate account, there might bo tho aamo ceremonies on the death fof every repentant murderer who bravely met his fato in the faith of the Catholic Church. Everyone knows this in not so. It was not their death, nor tho way they met it. It was tho causo in which they suffered. As Larkin puts it in his gpeech in tlio cemetery, " Wo respect, too, tho sacrifice they made fortheir country." So then, this demonstration was no more criticism by assembled citizens of the jury or the Homo Office. Tho act of resistance is not denied; tho shot was fired. On tho scaffold Allen said, "I die in defence of my country, proudly and defiantly. 5' This defiance is tho thing approved of. Doea not this character of defiance, I ask, color tho whole proceeding I That is tho question for you. Tho men, they say, died martyrs. Thereby it, is affirmed that'they witnessed by their death to a great causo or principle. Tho men, they say, died patriots. Thereby it ia affirmed that the causo they died in was that of their country. There is no getting over tho import of those two words. No one suppo«i>a that the sympathy was with the killing of Brett. "Who would meet to glorify murder per m'{ Such a thing is inconceivable, except in a country whore Tlmya make a religion of murder. Tho sympathy was with tho act of resistance to tho British Govfifoment. No one nays they woro glorifying murder. It was something much less than base, but much more dangerous—rebellion. Itifs thedefianco thatisapplauded, it is tlto resistance that ia honored and canonised. And, of course, I quite agree with Mr Ireland wlion ho aays that it was not tho legal but tho moral view ■which those who forme! tho procession look of tho Manchester affair. Quite.w ; and herein precisely lies the danpr and the illegality of what was done. There is but one more view I can suggest, on which it might bo said that tho procession was not Knttti^na. It may bo said that tho three men woro honored as mis<mided enthusiasts. This, indeed, would

give all sections of the people a common ground on which they could honorably itunit. I suppose no one in this Court in not content to take tbatticw of the act of those- thrco poor Irish lads. But upon this view, whilst wo make allowance for, and can even yield a certain honor to, tho feeling? which mißlcl them, wo may, and must strongly, condemn, their act rt» fatal to social order. This, again, is not tho position taken by tlio defendants. And her* observe, that in such a case as this, absolute approval of one side is absolute condemnation of the other. If tbo men were patriots, the English Ministry were tyrants. If tho men were martyrs, those who put them to death are persecutors. The same act expresses sympathy and antipathy: tho words of lovo are words of hatred. This in tho reason why men aro bound to a* stain from making a parade of opinions and feelings which necessarily carry with them insults to their fellow-citizens. It is, indeed, no treason to love Ireland : the treason is in | hating England. It ia not penal t« defend Ireland, but penal it is to attack Great Britain. We may all say from our hearts, "God save Ireland ;" *;tit let us see that in tho blessing there in no curse implied. Ebai, tho mount of cursing, stands over against Gerizim, the mount of blessing; and but'a narrow vale divides them. Gentlemen, that funeral cortege wan, depend upon it, quite in earnest. It was no mere mockery — no holiday tomfoolery. I afik you—under tho cutward aspect of grief—nndcr the ashes—did there not lurk a dangerous lire / We should all desire to indulge each other in tho free expression of feelings not condemned by reason or religion. I, for my part, do not doubt the full sincerity of those weeping, praying, women. But wrath and hatred are correlative to all this lovo and grief, and arc tho moro dangerous from their association with such high principles as patriotism and religion. To mako plainer the soiircea of this danger—to show that it is no unreal phantasm, conjured up by the fonrs of over-tiiuid people — to show, also, that it ia a double danger, arising from antagonistic passions — let mo just sug'/est to you the way in which j Englishmen must view the deed for j which the three men su(fared at Man- j Chester. I say Englishmen, because Englishmen it moro particularly affects, an the deed waa done in an English city. We aro told it waa nn act of warfare It is justified as tho resource of the weak in a war against tho strong. But how did it appear to the inhabitants of Manchester? How did it Bcern to them when, in tho busy thoroughfares of the crowded city, they heard the sudden report of fire-arms, and saw brought forth tho corpse of the peace-officer, thus suddenly set upon and slain in the execution of his duty I Surely, to the people of Manchester, an act like thin-could not appear an act of war, but simply as an audacious crime. And may not all peaceable people ask, how far is sympathy with such matters to go? Shall we not yet, have to add to the Manchester martyrs the patriots of Clerkenwell 1 Will not the same reasoning apply to tho act of these latter also ? Let us see how it fits. Hut first I will describe tho act in words used by tho Bishop of Cloyno in his late Lenten Pastoral. In evident allusion to tho Clerkenwoll explosion, the Bishop speaks of " These outrageous crimes which sent a thrill of horror thronghont tho civili.so.rl world — crimes which scatter death broadcast among innocent and unoffending children —crimes which mako desolate the widow's and the orphan's homo, and crowd the public hospitals of London with mutilated and dying victims." Such, then, was the act. But did those who fired tho train intend the death of these helpless beings? No! Then they, too, were no murderers. Again, what was the motive 1 Doubtless, the liberation of tho Fenian prisoners. Ireland's cause again! They, too, then —these wretches whom no one vindicates —have in that case jeopardised themselves, will witness for it on the drop, aro patriots and martyrs. Understand, I impnto to no one this conclusion. But I put it to you as a fair reductio ad (djsurdum. No doubt thero is a difference between Clerkenwoll and Manchester. It is just tho differenco between a pistol fired into a prison-van, with men inside it, and a barrel of gunpowder exploded in the streets of a crowded city. The difference is in degree only, not in kind. It ia impossible that, to Englishmen, acts like these can seem acts of warfare. Such acts bolong rather to tho class of those which, in past centuries, robbed Europe of some of its most enlightened, tolerant, and liberal statesmen—of William the Silent, founder of the Dutch Republic; of Henry IV., of Franco ; and which, in our own times, in. the name of Liberty, cut off tho simple-minded and pious Lincoln. Courage such acts show, but brigands and pirates aro courageous. Bravo they ai-o ; but it is tho bravery of Bedlam. In this light Her Majesty's peaceable subject—l have said in England, but now I say throughout her Empire—must needs view the act honored by this ceremony. They may play the misguided enthusiasm ; evqn honour, in a way, tho self-oblivion ; but doing this, they must emphatically condemn tho act as an act of barbarism, and repudiate its authors as tho enemies of social order. This is the light in which tho act must bo regarded by Her Majesty's loyal subjects everywhere ; and hence it follows, that to pay ostentatious honour to tho memory of tho three men ia dangerous to the peace. It is said, indeed, "Lot the Mother Country tako care of herself. Keep you clear of State prosecutions, and tho enmities they provoke. Don't havo yourselves spoken of as a divided people." No doubt, if addressed to tho learned counsel's own clients this would bo excellent advice. But, on the part of the Government of this Colony, may it not be said that wo aro bound up with the Mother Country ? Tho sections of our population correspond with like sections in hers. The Crown complains that the defendants at tho bar have done an act certain to inflame, and which has inflamed, against iKich other those different classes ; and gladly as we would avoid State prosecutions, we havo had one forced upon tis (say tho Government) by the act of tho defendants. Gentlemen, it will be for you to consider whether tho learned counsel's very just remarks on this head afford logical ground for a verdict of acquittal On each side powerful feelings

arc arrayed. On tho part of the Irish sympathisers are feelings not immoral, not disgraceful, yet not justifiable, it seems to me, on a calm review of tho facts of the case. On tho other aide is an indignation justified, I think, equally by law and by reason. Thun have I endeavoured to present to you every aspect in which the act of taking part in this procession can possibly bo viewed : and for my own part, I frankly my, it does appear to me, that it did imply a most solemn and, at tho snme time, a most offensive approval of an act condemned by the law of the land and by right reason—an act of armed and defiant resistance to the Government of the Country and to its, law. Lastly, gentlemen, I warn you against the advice of the counsel for the defence to let motives of public policy mvay your decision. You and I, t;entlemen, have no concern here with the policy of Government. It in law we are administering hero now, and not Government. It is not for you to consider the effects of your decision on tho country ; and still less on yourselves, your families, or your trade. Leave all this to those to whom, by the voice of tho people, the Government of the country is for tho time committed, and upon whom alone the responsibility duly rests. 130 jiiot usurp their functions, but keep within tho limits of your own, and do your duty therein ; and that you may do your duty, bo animated bythat thorough love of fair play which is common, I hope, to Celt and Saxon—(if wo must uso these misleading terms) —common, I hope, to sill the races of tho Mother Country. If you can by any possibility regard the acts of tho defendants as of innocent tendency, by all means do so. If you cannot, the Crown, upon your oaths, in entitled to your verdict. Gentlemen, I have done, and you may now withdraw to the jnryrooni. WEfljfKsnAV, May Iflth. On the opening of the Court Mr Ireland moved that the plea of Not Guilty recorded by, tho prisoners might be rescinded, and a plea of Guilty recorded. He said as each of the defendants wished to address the Court, he would not anticipate them. The prisoners Larkin and Manning addressed the Court, after which His Honor passed sentences as follows :— John Manning : The course you have tnken, under the judicious advice of your counsel, happily enables mo to deal leniently with you. Had you made a display of contumacy—had you instructed your counsel to take a defiant position on this charge, the case would have been different. You say that no original article in tho C<-ii newspaper advocates the shedding of blood or tho taking of lifo. I cannot say what may be original matter, but on a cursory view of the articles impugned, it seems to me that very many, not to say all, are of what I must call a truculent character. As to what you have said about "extract matter," as editors call it, it is clearly the law that for matters extracted from other papers the re-publisher is answerable. I agree with you, that nothing you have published could possibly rouso an intelligent people. But such publications do undoubtedly act upon unintelligent individuals —they are capable o* acting espeially on moody, half-saneminds; brooding, as one such lately expressed it, on the wrongs, or fancied wrongs, of Ireland. A recont lamentable occurrence in a neighboring colony has shown this. I take no notice of what you have said respecting the limits of fair discussion. I feel it needless to add anything to rirhat has already been said upon the subject at this Circuit Court; and if I wished to add anything, thia is not the proper time to do bo. I understand that you undertake to act hereafter upon the law, as it has been laid down at this assize. ("The defendant bowed assent.) This being so, I shall not call upon you to enter into recognisances. I take your pledge, made thus publicly, as a better guarantee than the coarse method of subjecting you to pecuniary liability. Your writings (if I may take the leading articles as from your pen) display considerable literary ability—considerable powars of reasoning, and also of imagination. I trust you will for the future employ your talents to better purpose. Tho object of the penal law is mainly to protect the public ; neither ihe court, nor, I am sure, the Government, has any desire to inflict unnecessary suffering. Looking to tho course you have taken, I am able to inflict a very lenient sentence, namely, that you be imprisoned in tho Hokitika lower gaol for one calendar month. William Joseph Xiirkin—Before delivering the judgment of the Court upon you, for the offence charged in the indictment, to which you have to-day pleaded guilty, I have a word to say in reference to the other indictment (for the procession. The offence there charged was not that you have celebrated masses for the three men as private persons ; nor is the chnrge that any rite of Roman Catholic Chnrch has been celebrated with tho same publicity as is used in other towns of this Colony. Tho offenco consists in the celebration of tho obsequies of these men as public characters entitled to veneration. The Court abstains from all moral comment upon the part you have taken in these matters. It leaves you to the admonitions of your own conscience, and of those to whom yon own obedience in spiritual things. . The judgment of the Court upon you is, that you be imprisoned in the Hokitika Lower Gaol for the term of one calendar month. Had your attitude before the Court been different —had you not dutifully submitted to the law of the land—l must have required from you heavy recognisances for future good behaviour. With them I can now dispense; trusting, as I do, in your present professions, and that you will go out again amongst yovir fellow-subjects in a truly Catholic spirit—in that spirit of Christian charity which transcends the narrow bounds of mere national and clannish feelings. The defendant Larkin being called upon the other indictment, His Honor said—Upon this indictment,, the Court will make no difference between you and yourco-defondants, who received judgment last night. The necessary difference is already sufficiently marked by the judgment just now pronounced upon you. The judgment of the Court is, that you do forfeit and pay forthwith, to Her Majesty, the sum of L2O. The defendant Manning was then called on the indictment for the procession, and fined L2O. The Court was then adjourned.