BISHOP LISTON.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16736, 18 May 1922, Page 3

BISHOP LISTON.

NOT GUILTY OF SEDITION. A CRITICAL RIDER. (Peb. Press Association.) AUCKLAND. May IT. The hearing of the charge of sedition against Bishop Liston was continued to-day. # After counsel on both sides had addressed the Court his Honor Mr Justice Stringer occupied an hour in summing up. In summing up, Mr Justice Stringer said that if the jurv 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 an 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 an explanation and had shown, at any rate, that in, he thought, the most vital parts 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 ventilatedso freely up to the time proceedings were formally initiated. Sedition was a serious thing. The term was not applied to foolish utterances on various subjects political, religious or racial. There must be behind the words 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 cal cuiated and intended to stir up strife among the people and to set one class against another. That was u question which the jury had to determine. They bad to be satisfied that the language used was intended to have that effect. In the first part of the speech, whatever one might thiniv 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 for the jurv it did not seem to him that if this had stood alone that any seditious intention could reasonably bo 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 audi - ence mostly of Irishmen involved an intention to stir up strife among the people of New Zealand. Then, said hi« Honor, 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 i 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 ib was admitted that there was reference to the tf glorious Faster.” The Bishop apparently was proud, and asked his audience to join him in being proud, of the men who died in this 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 ill 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 bul 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 it was exceedingly provocative and calculated to cause disaffection and ill-will. If the words actually uttered were as stated by the Bishon however, it. put quite a different complexion on the matter. There was no doubt, he thought, that people killed by the Black and Tans wers in law murdered, said bis Honor. That was recognised by the British Government itself, sr* that if the Bish op’s reference was to be interpreted as referring solely to the Black and Tans and reprisals it was stating what was actual fact. Tt might bear a different interpretation, but it would be no more exciting to disaffection and strife than many speeches made in the British Parliament drawing attention to the murders of Irishmen, nor if a. gathering of Englishmen met to discuss t.hr? murder of policemen by Irishmen. That was a most important point to consider. The jury had to decide if the Grown had proved what were the words used. Tf 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 consider the whole speech. Thjy were entitled also to consider the occasion on which the words were used. It was St Patrick’s 1 Day. 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 things in a 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 dwell 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 cou.d not find him enilty on that indictment. Still, said his Honor, 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 VERDICT. After deliberating for seventy-five minutes the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. They added a rider:— We consider Bishop Liston was guilty of grave indiscretion in using words capable of misinterpretation and so calculated to give offence to a large number of the public of New Zealand, and we hold he must bear the responsibility, in part at least, for the unenvialjle notoriety that l.as followed his utte-Anco. His Honor: 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, shrill cries of women in the gallery being particuJarly 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.