BISHOP LISTON.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume XXIII, 17 May 1922, Page 7

BISHOP LISTON.

CHARGE OF SEDITION. SUPREME COURT HEARING. (Per Press Association —Copyright.) AUCKLAND. May 16. The charge of sedition against Bishop Liston began before the Supreme Court to-day. 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 If so, was he guilty of the charge preferred ? There was a further provision that no one could be deemed guilty in this connexion if it could be shown that there was merely an endeavour in good faith to point out that His Majesty had been mistaken or misled, or if there were pointed out defects in the constitution of the Government, which the subjects were urged to have changed toy lawful means. Mr Meredith went on to explain what was “seditious utterance” if such uteerances were made . It was imeprative that the tranquility of the State should be preserved, and the people responsible for civil Government should see that such utterances were not repeated.

Evidence followed on the lines of the preliminary hearing. When the case was called, the accused stepped smartly from one of the side doors into the Court and took his stand in the dock, with bowed head and hands clasped behind him, while the indictment was read.

Sixteen jurors were challenged by the Crown and five by counsel for the defence.

At counsel’s request the accused was permitted to take a- seat at the barister’s table. The first witness, Gordon Stanbrook, reporter, answering Mr Justice Stringer, said what he wrote for the paper was practically a verbatim copy of the part of his notes, changed from the first person into the thiro

person. His Honour asked: Are you sure of the expression “murdered by foreign troops.” Witness: Yes.

In reply to Air Meredith, witness said he did not take 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. He was in no doubt about the use of the words “murdered by foreign troops,” when 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 took only what you wanted.

Witness: What 1 considered of public interest, I did not take a shorthand note.

Counsel: Is it not risky to say “part of the 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 almost entirely on memory’. Do you still think the people referred to by the Bishop died at Easri er, 1916? Witness: On consideration, I think the reference also coricemed people, who had died after Easter, 1916. Do you say the Bishop said that women during Easter week were murdered by foreign troops?” Witness: Yes. He had the list in his hand. THE DEFENCE. For the defence Mr G’Regau said that the jury must have been satisfied that the report on which the charge was based, which was admittedly brief, was also inaccurate. Bishop Liston had preserved the notes of liis 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 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 has said in one paragraph isolated from its context and to make a 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. BISHOP IN THE BOX.

Giving evidence, Bishop Liston said that he had never been a member of a Self-Determination teague. He was a native of Dunedin. His parents arrived in 1863 or 1864. They were lorn in 1847 and 1849 respectively. He admitted the report of his speech regarding their being driven from Irelan, and “snolis of Empire,” were substantially correct. He was referring to the eviction of his parents,

and the 3,750,000 evicted with them. He was recalling what eviction in Ireland meant.

The passage about “the glorious Easter of 1916,” did not acurately represent what he said. The document from which he read that portion of his speech had come to him through the mail 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 16 were executed py shooting in 1916, 52 killed while • fighting during the Easter of 1916, including Terence McSwiney, Lord Mayor of Cork, who died of hunger strike; eight were executed by hanging, 12 wbre executed by shooting and 57, including three priests, were mur-

dered by foreign troops.” “Those,” said Bishop 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 Easter week people as being murdered at all. He did not refer to any women aS being killed in Easter week. Nothing would be further from his thoughts; than to refer to those killed in Easter week as murdered. The word “murdered” referred only to those killed in 1920 by the Black and Tans when the policy of reprisals was in full swing. It would have'been better to have mentioned Black and Tans instead of using the word troops, but he took it his audience knew the word “murdered” was used because leading statesmen and Anglican clergy in England employed it. Referring 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 made enterprise, but with the lapse of time it was felt that those who had died had passed beyond criti-

The “first installment of freedom” referred to the Treaty, in his opinion the gift of God, because it gave political freedom to Ireland. By “determined to have the whole of it” he meant that though the relations had 'oeen adjusted by the Treaty between England and Ireland, there was still a great deal to be done, for instance the 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 report about there being plenty to fight and die for Ireland did not accurately represent his statements. Quoting from his notes lie declared his words to have been: “God has made Ireland a nation and .while the grass grows and the water runs, there will be men in Ireland and women to fight and even die that God’s desires may be realised.”

He had no intention to infer thai physical force should be uned.

The case was adjourned.