DR LISTON ACQUITTED

Southland Times, Issue 19518, 18 May 1922, Page 5

DR LISTON ACQUITTED

CLOSE OF SEDITION TRIAL THE SUMMING UP BISHOP CENSURED BY THE JURY. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 17. The hearing of the charge of using seditious language preferred against Bishop Liston was resumed to-day. Dean Liston, a parish priest, gave evidence that he heard the speech in question. It did not give him the impression of suggesting disorder, disloyalty or sedition. The Bishop mentioned several names of those who had died for Ireland. He mentioned several numbers without giving any name who had died in several ways. The last on the list he said were those killed by a portion of troops. Witness understood the reference was particularly to three priests, alleged to have been murdered by auxiliaries in Ireland. It had no reference at all, in witness’s mind, to the 1916 Easter rising. In summing up, Mr Justice Stringer said that if the jury remembered the report was published in the Herald of Saturday, the Mayor no doubt assumed the report to be true. He lodged and had printed a protest that was circulated throughout the land, and a storm of protest arose. He agreed also with counsel for the Crown that it was almost equally unfortunate that, notwithstanding this protest having been published before the explanation had been obtained, the Bishop should still have refrained from replying. He did so under advice and could not be held responsible, but there could be no doubt, he thought, that even after the protest had been made and comments had appeared, if . the Bishop had given, his explanation and had shown at any rate that in what he thought the most vital parfe of the speech passages had been omitted that altogether altered the sense, if It had not allayed public feeling it would almost certainly have prevented proceedings being initiated. It was difficult, he felt, for the jury to approach the case with that judicial calm they might have observed if the question had not been ventilated to freely up to the time proceedr ings were formally initiated. Sedition was ' a serious thing. Tho term was not applied to foolish utterances on various subjects, political, religious, or racial There must be behind the words an intention to stir up strife or dissatisfaction among the people. It was not contended in this case that anything against the Government or the King was intended. The contention of the Crown was that the words used on this occasion were calculated and intended to stir up strife among the people and to set one class against another. That was the question which the jury/had to determine. They had to be satisfied that the language uaed was intended to have that effect. In. the first part of the speech, whatever one might think of it if it were a question of taste, it was necessary to apply a very different criterion. It was not a question of taste in a case of this kind. The question was whether it was seditious. He must confess, though the matter was one for the jury, that it did not seem to him that if this had stood alone any seditious intention could reasonably be attributed to it. It was spoken of things which had happened forty or fifty years ago, and was spoken of historical events. That being so, it seemed to him rather far-fetched to suggest that the mere mention of it to an audience mostly of Irishmen involved an intention to stir up strife among the people of New Zealand. Then, said his Honour, they came to what must be recognised as the crucial part of the allegation of seditious speech, the passage which referred to closer history and to those “murdered by foreign troops.” It was in respect of that that there was a serious contradiction of evidence. The jury would have to make up their minds what were the words actually used. If they came to the conclusion that they were the words stated by the Bishop to have been used by him it put a very different complexion on the passage. The reference was particularly to the allegation about “murdered by foreign troops.” Of course it was admitted that there was a reference to the “glorious Easter.” The Bishop apparently was proud and asked his audience to join him in being proud of the men who died in the rebellion. In the first place the jury had to remember that in matters relating to the so-called Irish rebellion very different considerations had to be applied from those of rebellion in the ordinary sense of the word. There had been a great many rebellions in Ireland, and it was reasonable to suppose that Irishmen considered those who died in fruitless rebellions were entitled to respect because they died not for themselves but in the endeavour to free Ireland from what was considered oppression. The passage in the speech with regard to the list, was the most important, for as it stood in the indictment it would be open for the jury to say that it was exceedingly provocative and calculated to cause disaffection and ill-will. If the words actually uttered were as stated by the Bishop, however, it put quite a different complexion on the matter. There was no doubt, he thought, that people killed by the Black and Tans were in law murdered, said his Honour. That was recognised by the British Government itself, so that if the Bishop’s reference was to be interpreted as referring solely to the Black and Tans and reprisals it was stating what was actual fact. It might bear a different interpretation, but it would be no more inciting to disaffection and strife than many speeches made in the British Parliament drawing attention to murdens of Irishmen nor in a gathering ot Englishmen met to discuss the murder of policemen by Irishmen. That was the most important point to consider. They had to decide if the Grown had proved what were the words used. If that were left in doubt they had then to determine what the words were. Then they had to decide if the words actually uttered were used with seditious intent. In considering this they had to confcider the whole speech. They were entitled also to consider the occasion on which the words were used. It was a gathering of Irishmen, and if a few Englishmen strayed in they would be very few. The speech was made to Irishmen, and if the jury were to look at these tnings in ■ fair, broad, and liberal spirit they must not criticise them too closely. They might think that some of the things would have been better left unsaid, they might think some were more provocative than they might be, they might think it far better in New Zealand, where Englishmen and Irishmen dwelt together in amity that the memory of these wrongs or supposed wrongs should fall into oblivion and that it was unfortunate that such an address should be made, but they must go a good deal further than that before they decided that the Bishop had in his mind the stirring up of strife. Unless they came to that conclusion they could not find him guilty on that indictment. Still, said his Honour, he would have thought it better if the Bishop in his last words had, in the words of the King at the opening of the Northern Parliament, speaking of the wrongs and injuries of the people, said: “Let us forgive and forget.” Unfortunately the Bishop said, “Let us remember and forgive.” The summing up occupied an hoflr. A verdict of not guilty was returned, the jury adding the following rider: “We consider that Bishop Liston was guilty of a grave indiscretion in using words capable of an interpretation so calculated to give offence to a large number of the public of New Zealand, and we hold that he must bear the responsibility in part at least for the unenviable notoriety that has followed his utterances.” His Honour: Thank you, gentlemen. That is a very sensible rider. The announcement of the verdict was the signal for an outburst of wild cheering and hand-clapping, the shrill cries of women in the gallery being particularly prominent. When order was restored the Judge said that if the police could find any who took part in the demonstration he would commit them for contempt,