A DISTURBER OF THE PEACE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18508, 20 March 1922, Page 6

A DISTURBER OF THE PEACE

OR LISTON’S BITTER ADDRESS. AUCKLAND PRESS COMMENTS. (From Ocb Own Cobbispondint.) AUCKLAND, March 18. A speech on the Irish question by the Homan Catholic Coadjutor Bishop, Dr Listpn, at §t Patrick’s Day concert in tho Town Hall last evening has created considerable comment. Dr Liston said his Irish descent, and the position he held in the Church, gave him the right to speak to an audience on a subject which interested them all. He said his parents were driven from the country in which they were born, and in which they would have been content to live, but their foreign masters did not want Irish men and women peopling their own land, but wished to use it as a cattle ranch for the snobs of the Empire. He was a native of New Zealand and loved his country. On this, St. Patrick's Day, the children of Ireland in every land were gathered by some common impulse to rejoice that at last they had won some measure of freedom, and to hope for complete deliverance from the house of bondage. A year ago they had lived in hope only. They could not say that Ireland had got all she asked for, and all that her sons had died for. but she had got the first instalment of her freedom and waa determined to have the whole of it. (Applause.) The omnipotent hand of God had made Ireland a nation, and while the grass grew and the water flowed there would bo many to fight, and even die, in order that God’s desires might be realised. He said that many were thinking that the difficulties in face of the Irish Free State were almost insuperable, but he thought that wellwishers should not be dismayed. They had gone through their worst trials, and, despite many claims in the past that Ireland as a nation was dead, she was still there. There was a mighty Empire, still claiming to be the greatest in the world, which also had its difficulties. Iks rulers expected to overcome these difficulties, and if they hoped to do this, why should not the rulers of their little nation expect to be able to meet *heir difficulties? It. seemed to him providential that the men who had faced difficulties, and carried them so far, were there to see that the rulers of Ireland were not duped by England. He referred to men and women who, in the glorious Easter of 1916, were proud to die for their country, and were murdered by foreign troops. They could not forget these men and women, but in order that their dream about Ireland might come true, they could forgive. Neither at the beginning nor at the close of the concert was the National Anthem played or sung. Instead, at the end of the programme, the whole audience rose and sang “God Save Ireland.” The Herald says editorially“lt is difficidt to see how the cause of Irish freedom is advanced by such speeches as that delivered by Bishop Liston, and it is certain that such utterances do much to disturb the peace of New Zealand and to encourage religious intolerance and racial antagon- , isms. Bishop Liston’s reference to his parents may be pardoned, but his glorification of the Easter rebellion of 1916, and his sneering allusions to the country and the Empire _to which the great majority of his fellow-citizens are proud to owe allegiance, are _ not so easily overlooked. Irish patriotism may be a beautiful thing, but when prominent and high-placed Irishmen go out of their way to make their expression of it an offence to other people, they must expect protests, and occasional retaliation. That Bishop Liston acknowledged New Zealand as his birthplace with pride will not, to the most of us. soften the harshness and disloyalty of the remainder of his speech. On the contrary, it will arouse in many New Zealanders a feeling that they are' not proud of him.” The Star also comments on the speech in strong terms. It says“ When Archbishop Redwood received the Irish Agreement with the comment that England had made peace because she had no money with which to continue the war, we hoped that he would prove to bo alone among the Roman Catholic hierarchy in our attitude that lacked both wisdom and charity. Unfortunately, by liis speech at the Town Hall last evening the Coadjutor Bishop of Auckland outdid his chief. Having regard to the state of Ireland and the perilous possibilities of religious strife in New Zealand, we cannot regard Bishop Liston’s rasping and bitter address as anything but i deplorable. We say this as a newspaper that' has fought Ireland’s battles for a much longer period than Dr Liston. It has been said most truly that what is required of Ireland is forgiveness and of England. repentance. England is doing her park Will Irishmen not do theirs? Dr Liston used the word “forgive,” but there was little spirit of forgiveness in his address. The most _ deplorable of all, however, waa Dr Liston’s reference •to the 1916 rebellion. While Great Britain and the Empire were fighting for their lives, a section of the Irish people stabbed them in the back. Yet Dr Liston, himself a British subject, refers to the ‘glorious Easter of 1016’ and to Irishmen murdered by foreign troops. Seeing that the rebels started the fighting, the word murdered has stark humour about it. Has Dr Liston forgotten that at the very moment New Zealand soldiers, including, men of his own Church, were giving up their lives in France, in company with other units of this so-called foreign army? Dr Liston and the loca’ Irish community generally may fairly be asked whether they wish to be considered British subjects, and whether they are for . Mosers Collins and Griffith, or for the irreconcilable*. At the outset wo invited our Irish friends to place themselves publicly behind the Treaty, but we have never heard that they did so. Their silence breeds suspicion that they are either vacillating, lacking moral courage to declare them■elves, or that they secretly wish that De Valera may prevail.” PROTEST BY MAYOR. ' MB GUNSON’S DENUNCIATION. NOT TO BE TOLERATED. SEDITIOUS AND RUINOUS SPEECH. (Pm United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, March 19. The Mayor (Mr J. H. Gunson) publishes ‘he following:— The speech of Bishop Liston calls for immediate action on my part as Mayor. On behalf of our citizenship I wrote to the bishop on Saturday morning asking him to advise me whether he hud been correctly reported, though mv long experience of the press in Auckland gives me no cause to doubt the accuracy of the report. The speech as reported is avowedly and openly disloyal to King and country, and is an affront, to our citizenship. It is seditious and designedly calculated to cause disintegration of all that Britishers hold dear. It is a studied insult to the citizenship of the Empire to which New Zealand is proud to belong. The repudiation of England, tho sneering . reference to her as “a foreign nation,'’ and the entire dissociation with disdain of the speaker, and those for whom he spoke as “a right,” from all that pertains to the Empire challenge all loyal citizens lo raise their voices in protest. The reference to British soldiers as foreign murderers is especially offensive and unwarrantable. I take this first, public oppor tunity of saying with all the emphasis possible that the citizens of Auckland will not tolerate for one minute such a studied and deliberate act of disloyalty and of insult to British manhood and •. womanhood, and in making this intima•tion I wish to say that such a seditious .and ruinous speech will not be allowed m the ■Auckland Town Hall, or in any place which the city administration controls or licenses. The bishop and others holding views such a« those reported are not fit to longer enjoy the privileges and rights of our British commonwealth and the protection of the British flag. This speech will be hi ought under the notice of the Attorney-general, and it will be my duly ■to advise the City Council to take other •-•appropriate action. In the ■ meantime, on behaH of the citizens of Auckland. I enter an emphatic protest in the foregoing ' terms. '