CHARGE OF SEDITION

Southland Times, Issue 19517, 17 May 1922, Page 5

CHARGE OF SEDITION

TRIAL OF BISHOP LISTON ACCUSED GIVES EVIDENCE NEWSPAPER REPORT IMPUGNED. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 16. The charge of sedition against Bishop Liston came before the Supreme Court today. When the case was called accused stepped smartly from one of ths side doors into the Court and took his stand in the dock with bowed head and hands clasped behind while the indictment was read. Sixteen jurors were challenged by the Crown and five by counsel for the defence. At counsel’s request accused was permitted to take his seat at the barristers’ table. Mr Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, opening the case, said it was for the jury to consider whether the words alleged to have been used came within the categories prescribed by the law, and if so, was accused guilty of the charge preferred? There was a further provision, that no One could be deemed guilty in this connection if it could be shown that there was merely an endeavour in good faith to point out that Mis Majesty had been mist alien or misled, or if there were pointed out defects in the constitution or the Government which subjects were urged to have changed by lawful means. Mr Meredith w r ent oh to explain what was seditious utterance. If such utterance were made, it was imperative that the tranquillity of the State should be preserved and that the people responsible for civil government should see that such utterances were not repeated. Evidence followed oh the lines of the preliminary' hearing. The first witness was Gordon Stanbrook, a reporter. Answering Mr Justice Stringer, he said what he wrote for the paper was practically a verbatim copy of that part of his notes, changed from the first person into the third person. His Honour asked: Are you sure of the expression “murdered by foreign troops?'’ Witness: Yes. In reply to Mr Meredith, witness said he did not 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 use of the words “murdered by foreign troops,” referring to “the glorious Easter of 1916,” and of ‘ ‘men and women willing to die.” Mr Meredith: What did you mean when you said you only took what you wanted? Witness: What I considered of public interest. I did not take a shorthand note. Counsel: Is it not risky to say that part of a speech is verbatim when you took it in longhand ? Witness: It is possible to remember some passages. He admitted that some of his evidence differed from that given in the Lower Court. He had to rely almdst 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 died after Easter, 1916. Do you say that the Bishop said women during Easter week were murdered by foreign troops? Witness: Yes, he had a list in his hand. The remaider of the evidence for the Crown was on the lines of that at the lower Court.

For the defence Mr J. O’Regan said that in a charge of sedition based on newspaper reports the accused was usually confronted with a shorthand note. In this instance a newspaper report was used, He had never heard of a case of the kind where a longhand report was used supplemented by the recollection, hazy in many cases, of the witnesses, some of whom were obrioualy biassed. He submitted that the Crown, had not made out a case to answer. The Judge eaid the proof of the words used was a matter of evidence. It would be impossible for him to withdraw the case from the jury when there was direct evidence that certain words had been used which might in the opinion of the jury convey a seditious intention. Supposing there had been no reporter present and no report made might the seditious words not be proved by those who heard them? In this case there was something a little better than that. There ww a skilled person present taking notes, though not in shorthand. Though there had been very serious discrepancies in the evidence as to what the Bishop actually said, that was a matter for the jury, not for the Bench. Mr O’Regan, continuing, said the jury must have been satisfied that the report on which the charge was based, which wm admittedly brief, was also inaccurate. Bishop Lison had preserved notes of his speech, and they would be put in. The jury would have no difficulty in deciding after hearing the Bishop that he had no seditious intention, and that the words, if properly reported, were not capable of that interpretation. The words had to be taken in their setting, and it was altogether unfair to do as had been done by the press throughout New Zealand, to publish what the Bishop had said in one paragraph isolated from the context and makn drastic comment upon it. He had no hesitation in saying that this was a class of case which put the jury system to the severest test

Giving evidence, Bishop Liston said he was not a member of the concert committee nor of the Self Determination League. He had never been a member of the League, and had never attended a political meeting. This was the first public meeting he had addressed in Auckland. He spoke a little longer than twenty minutes. It was about a week before the concert that he agreed to speak. He was asked a fortnight before it to speak, but he was not out for the limelight. He prepared some notes, which he produced. He was born in Dunedin. His parents came to New Zealand in 1863 or 1864. They were born in 1847 and 1849 respectively. He admitted that the report of his speech regarding their being driven from Ireland and “snobs of the Empire” was substantially correct. He was referring to the eviction of his parents and the three-quarters of a million evicted with them. He was recalling what eviction in Ireland meant. Mr Meredith asked whether this evidence was admissible, and whether words should not speak for themselves. His Honour said it was a question of intent and witness was entitled to explain what his intent was. Continuing, Bishop Liston said his reference to “foreign masters” was to the land lords, who were mostly absentees and in that sense were foreigners. They were both English and Irish, The report of his remarks about Ireland having had an instalment of her freedom was substantially correct in that he gave an historical statement of fact referring to the whole history of Ireland. “The first instalment of freedom” referred to the treaty, in his opinion a gift of God because it gave political freedom to Ireland. By “determined to have the whole of it” he meant that though relations had been adjusted by the treaty between England and Ireland there was still a great deal to be done, for instance, th© union of the two Parliaments. This could be achieved by friendly agreement without any force. He had not mentioned force, and he failed to see how his words could infer the use of force. He had in his mind a parallel between New Zealand and Ireland. The relations between New Zealand and the Mother Country had changed and were changing in a quite friendly way. The report about there being plenty to fight and die for Ireland did not accurately represent his statement. Quoting from his notes, he declared his words to have been: “God has made Ireland a nation, and while grass grows and water runs there will be men in Ireland and women too, to fight and even die that God’s desire many be realised.” He had no intention to infer that physical force should be used. Hm reference to Ireland as the Empire builders had been very briefly reported but ac-

curately in the main. The same applied to his remarks concerning Ireland s achievements in art and literature, on which he had dwelt at considerable length. The comparison between the difficulties of the Empire and of Ireland was in the main correctly reported. It referred to the situation which constituted the main reason why he spoke at all. Many of their people were growing anxious about affairs in Ireland, and he wished to give them a word of encouragement. Two things had happened to raise hope, the conference between Michael Collins and Sir James Craig, and de Valera’s statement at Paris that he would not oppose the Free State. This was what he had meant when he said Ireland’s troubles might be overcome. He had no seditious intent whatsoever. The passage in his speech about the man who had stood by Ireland was in the main correctly reported. He referred to de Valera. Everybody knew de Valera did not agree with the form the treaty was taking. He thought it a good thing in view of past history that there should be a man on watch to see that Ireland got all she was entitled to. Coming to the passage about “the glorious Easter of 1916,” Bishop Liston said the passage did not accurately represnt what he said. It was inaccurate, misleading, and hopelessly bungled. He thought it was taken down by a man who, however honest, was as competent to take down a report on Irish affiairs as he himself would be to report a lecture on engineering. The document from which he read that portion of his speech had come to him through the mail in the afternoon just before the concert. His words were: “I have here a list of men and women who were proud to die for Ireland during and since 1916. Of these sixteen were executed by shooting in 1916, 52 were killed while fighting during Easter of 1916, including Terence McSweeney, Lord Mayor of Cork, who died of hunger strike, eight were executed by hanging, twelve were executed by shooting, and 57, including three priest- were murdered by foreign troops.” “Those,” said Dr Liston, “were the exact words I used. Only those in the last category were meant to be described as murdered by foreign troops.’’ He did not speak of the Easter week people as being murdered at all. H-. 'lid not refer to any women as being killed in the Easter week. Nothing would be further from his thoughts than to refer to those killed in Easter week;, as being murdered. Tbe word ‘ihurdered’ referred only to these killed in 1920 by the Black and Tans, when tbe policy of reprisals was in full swing It would have been better to have mentioned the Black and Tans instead of using the word “troops,” but he took it bis audience knew the word “murdered” was used because leading statesmen and Anglican clergy in England employed it. It referred to the Black and Tan reprisals. The words “glorious Easter” he thought were used parenthetically. 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 the lapse of time it was felt that those who had died had passed beyond criticism. The conclusion of his speech about “forgiving but not forgetting” was reported briefly, but very correctly. He spoke without any show of feeling, and there was no disorder in the audience. He had no seditious intention whatsoever, that he would say most emphatically. The first comments he read on his speech were in the Herald on Saturday morning and the Star on Saturday evening. His first thought was that the report was grossly misrepresenting, and he made up his mind to deal with the matter fairly quickly. On Monday morning he got the Herald about 8.15 containing a statement by the Mayor, criticising the speech. It was not until about an hour later that he received a letter from the Mayor, asking if he had been correctly reported. He then wrote to the Mayor declining to reply as his protest had already been made public. There the matter ended. Criminal proceedings were threatened and he was advised to keep silent. Otherwise he would hav given the public of Auckland the explanation he was giving in that unhappy position. After the proceedings were announced he wrote to the Prime Minister in terms already published. Thai letter set forth the teachings of the Church and his own personal sentiments. To Mr Meredith: When he first saw the report he felt himself grossly misrepresented. He would not cax-e to be responsible for the remarks as reported. The speech as reported, had it been made, could be very well criticised. He felt that the words as reported would be improper as coming from a prominent man, and but for the Mayor’s letter he would have made a statement clearing up the misunderstanding. In face of the threat of criminal proceedings, he was advised to keep silent. Mr Meredith: Did you not feel it was due to the public and your church to clear the matter up forthwith?—Not in view of Mr Gunson’s letter. When you wrote to the Prime Minister the position was the same?—Substantially the same. Yet you altered your mind in writing to the Prime Minister?—My letter treated of different things. Your letter did not say: “The words reported to have been used” ?—I had nothing to retract. Did you not think it due to the Prime Minister?—Not at that time.

Did you not notice the turmoil which followed your speech?—l saw the newspapers were excited, but I did not know the people were. Seeing the way the papers 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. Did you not consider it might have obviated these proceedings —We decided against that course. The term “Glorious Easter” was used in connection with the Easter of 1916-7. Ya. It was the occasion of an insurrection in Dublin in which there was considerable damage to property and loss of life?—Yes. It was ultimately quelled by bringing in troops—troops from England?—Yes. In what respect do you suggest it was glorious?—Because of the manner in which young men of the highest probity died trying to do something for Ireland. Men of the rebel party —Yes. In using those words do you support them —I admired them. When you used those words did you support and advocate their action? Witness: Must I answer that question your Honour? Mr O’Regan objecting, his Honour said he thought it was hardly a proper question. Witness was being asked if he supported rebellion. Mr Meredith said that intent was under considerat&n. He was asking Bishop Liston what he had in his mind in using the words just as he had explained himself regarding other phrases. His Honour: If witness objects to answering 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 the word “foreign” would be less offensive. This concluded the examination of Dr Liston, and the. defence having other witnesses to call the case was adjourned until to-morrow.