The Trial of Bishop Liston The Second Day of the Trial

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XLIX, Issue 21, 25 May 1922, Page 18

The Trial of Bishop Liston The Second Day of the Trial

When the case was resumed on Wednesday, the first witness was Jeremiah Cahill, Dean of the Catholic Church „ and parish priest of Parnell, who stated that he was present at the concert on March 17, and heard Bishop Liston speak for about twenty minutes. The speech seemed to witness an appropriate one for an Irish audience, and did not give him the impression of anything suggesting disorder, disloyalty, or sedition. To Mr. Meredith : Witness said he could not remember whether the Bishop used the word “killed” or “murdered” in reference to the three priests. He had not seen the “list” before the speech. Mr. Meredith : Would you consider foreign troops a proper description for the “Black-and-Tans” ? Witness; Foreign murderers was the form used in the list. When you heard that' you knew it was the “Black-and-Tans” that were meant? Yes. Would you call that an accurate description — I don’t care to express my opinion on that. Alfred Hall Skelton, solicitor, and president for the Auckland province of the Irish Self-Determination League, stated that Bishop Liston was not a member of the League. Witness said' ho himself was an Anglican, not „ a Catholic. Witness gave an address in the Town Hall before this speech was made by Bishop Liston, and subsequently discussed the matter with the Bishop. Mr. Meredith objected that evidence by witness on what took place between himself and the Bishop was irrelevant. * Mr. O’Regan argued, quoting authorities, that the evidence was admissible to show the Bishop’s ordinary view about the use of force and. his outlook on questions of the day. His Honor: The purport is to show that the Bishop has used expressions in this interview that will throw light on his expressions now? Mr. O’Regan; Yes, your Honor. After further hearing Mr. Meredith on tho point, and considering the authorities quoted, his Honor said he had very serious doubts about the admissibility of the evidence. Rather than exclude it when it might throw light on tho issue— in a case of sedition the whole question was intentit seemed desirable to have evidence of accused’s views immediately before the speech. bishop’s desire bob peace. Continuing, witness said he was delivering . a series of addresses in the country at the time. The Bishop told witness he was afraid witness would say something that would cause friction between different sections of the community, and he. did not desire to have any such trouble. In asking for an outline of witness’s address, the Bishop pointed out that witness needed to be careful on account of the want of knowledge of New Zealanders on the Irish question. They discussed tho question on the lines indicated, and incidentally the Bishop remarked that the Irish were only a small section of the New Zealand people, hence the need not to cause trouble. To Air. Meredith: This- interview took place about last August. • Mr. Meredith: Didn’t that speech of yours in the Town Hall raise a good deal of., comment? Witness: I 1 don’t think so. I haven’t heard of it. Didn’t the Bishop send for you because he thought you were getting “over the edge”? No, certainly not. James Joseph O’Brien, timber merchant, of Auckland, stated that ho was not at the concert on March 17. He was, however, personally acquainted with' the Bishop. The first intimation of the speech ho had was what he read in the newspapers. Witness was convinced from his personal intercourse with tho Bishop that the latter was as loyal as himself, and a strong supporter of the Free State. This closed the case for the defence.

MR. o’rEGAN'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY. May it please your Honor, Mr. Foreman, and gentlemen of the jury:—The section of the Crimes Act under which the Bishop is indicted is declaratory of the common law. The Crown Prosecutor has already indicated that he relies on the two sub-sections of section 118, which make it a seditious offence to use words calculated to raise discontent or disaffection among New Zealand citizens, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of citizens. The real question in issue is, what did the Bishop intend? Of course, to a large extent, his intention is to be gathered from, the language lie used; but, it is permissible to explain the same by evidence, and that we have done, I think, to your satisfaction. In its very nature the definition of sedition is vague, and is to be gathered often from the damage which follows the utterances, and all the circumstances in connection with . which the words were used. Thus it becomes a question of fact, and hence one solely for the jury, after hearing counsels’ addresses and subject to the assistance of his Honor’s summing-up. Of- course when the language is so plain that it speaks for itself, the duty of the -jury is much easier, and should a person directly incite others to violence or crime of any kind, he will not be allowed to plead the innocence of his motive or the goodness of his object, or to vary the plain meaning of his language. For example, in 1909 Dhingra, an Indian student, assassinated Sir Curzon Wylie in London. A paper called The Indian Sociologist published an article justifying the assassination, and the English printer who republished the article was indicted and imprisoned for the publication of seditious libel. That was the case of Rex v. Aldred, but there the purport of the argument'was plain and unambiguous, and accused was not permitted to vary or explain away the clear meaning of the language ho employed. Here, of course, the case is not so serious, but it will doubtless be agreed that tho language employed, as explained in tho evidence, is very different from that which appeared in the Press reports of the Bishop’s speech. You will agree, with me that, having regard to the high office of the Bishop, his frankness in the witness-box, and the satisfactory manner in which he explained tin* meaning of his speech will' convince you, not merely that he had no malicious intent, but that he has been the victim of much unnecessary and coarse criticism, and that the indictment can in no respect be sustained. In connection with tho speech, v gentlemen, it is not anticipated that you will necessarily agree with all the views therein expressed, nor is it necessary that you should. Every man is entitled to his opinion upon questions of the day, and in this respect one citizen is as good as another. Moreover, he is entitled to attempt to persuade others to share his views, and, as I shall show presently, there is no limit in this respect, save that he may not employ improper language, nor may he advocate violence to attain his end. Having said so much, I. contend that this is the class of case which subjects the jury system to the - severest test. Not only has the Bishop been severely criticised in the Auckland Press, but he has been censured by various*public bodies. Resolutions of these bodies and newspaper comments have been sent from end to end of New Zealand by the Press Association. All this has been done on the assumption that the speech was correctly reported, and, needless to add, -religious bigotry has taken full advantage of its opportunity. I need hardly remind yon, Air. Foreman and gentlemen, that should any of you have adversely criticised the Bishop previously to this trial, you are no longer bound by the opinions so expressed. If in the light of the evidence we have produced, we'' have given you reason to alter that opinion and that I think we have —you are not bound by any conclusion arrived at on the biased comment and criticisms to which you have listened. The speech was first reported in the Herald of Saturday, March 18, and in the same issue there appeared a severe editorial criticism. The Bishop saw that he had been misrepresented, and he had under consideration the making of an explanatory statement to the public, when on the morning of Monday, March 20, he read in the same paper a strongly-worded statement by his Worship the Mayor; in which it was mentioned that the Mayor had written to his Lordship enquiring if he had been correctly repotted, but that with his long, experience of the 'Auckland Press, he felt that the report was accurate. Rather more than air hour later the Bishop received the Mayor’s letter, and having regard to the fact that in the eyes of the Press he was already judged, his Lordship decided to acknowledge the letter without any explanation, and he pointed out that inasmuch as his Worship had assumed the correctness of the report, it was unnecessary to write him at all. Seeing that the Mayor stated that the matter was being brought under the notice of the Attorney-General of course with a view to criminal proceedings—the Bishop has since, on ; legal advice, held his peace, whereat, no doubt, his Worship the Mayor, like Pilate of old, has wondered exceedingly. I think you will agree, gentlemen, more especially as you have now had a very full and reasonable explanation of the utterances given by the Bishop, that the Alavor of Auckland, in acting as he did, disregarded every principle of fair-play. Had he really desired to hear the Bishop, he could have anticipated the post by sending the' letter on

Saturday direct tn the Bishop and making a statement in the Press on Monday to the effect that ho had asked the Bishop for an explanation and hoped the public would reserve judgment in the meantime. Such a course would have deprived many people of a great deal of prominence, but would have prevented tho storm which has since arisen, and would certainly have been more in accordance with the 'responsible position tho Mayor holds, to say nothing of ordinary fair-play. Now, gentlemen, having heard the evidence, I ask you to dismiss from your minds as far as possible the aspersions cast upon the Bishop by the Press and by various public bodies, and to judge him only on what you have heard in this Court. Not only have the witnesses for the Crown been severely shaken in cross-examination, but several of them have admitted that the Bishop, when dealing with the Easter Rising and subsequent events, stated that he was reading from a list, and even they must have satisfied you that when his Lordship spoke about the 155 men and women, including three priests, who, during and since 1916, had died for Ireland, ho was not referring only to those who were killed in the Rising, and that he referred to the “Black-and-Tans” alone as murderers. Coming to the speech itself, as set out in the indictment, it is common ground that it can be read in little more than three minutes, though it took from twenty to twenty-five minutes in delivery. There are a great many omitted passages which would doubtless have had an explanatory and qualifying effect on what has been reported. Even as it stands, however, the speech unexplained by evidence cannot reasonably be said to bear the damaging inferences which tho Crown seeks to draw therefrom. Taking the first paragraph on which the Crown relies, his Lordship early in the speech referred to the numbers of Irish people who had been driven from their homes because their foreign masters did not want the land peopled by Irish men and women, but preferred to make it a cattle ranch for the snobs of the Empire. Here the reference was to a state of things which has long passed away, when the landlords who depopulated the country were literally masters of tho people, and as they were in the vast majority of cases absentees, the Bishop aptly described them, and was certainly entitled to refer to them, as foreign masters. Here the Bishop was alluding to an indisputable historical facta deplorable' 'fact —but one which belongs to the past. You will remember, however, gentlemen, that he was speaking to, an Irish audience on a subject on which the Irish heart feels deeply. It may be difficult for you who are not Irish to understand that feeling. Shakspere says, He jests at scars, That never felt a wound I trust, however, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, you possess sufficient of the dramatic instinct to put yourselves in our place—for I am proud to be of Irish extraction myself—and not. only to make allowances, but to feel some sympathy for tho sentiment of deep indignation with which they recall the evictions which drove such immense numbers of Irish people from their country, and which accounts in no small measure for the abiding affection which many of their descendants still cherish for the land of their ancestors who suffered such cruel and inexcusable wrongs. Rather less than twenty years ago the Nonconformists in England were engaged in a passive resistance movement, and suffered imprisonment rather than pay taxes for the maintenance of schools to which they could not conscientiously send their children. Speaking from his place in the House of Lords in that connection. Lord Rosebery said that, although he could not’ enter into the feelings of the people who objected to Church schools, that was because he was not a Nonconformist, and he confessed that when he saw people prepared to go to such lengths for conscience’ sake, he was bound to say that no civilised Government should subject their conscience to such a strain, and thus he was obliged to respect feelings he did not really share. So, gentlemen, I invito you to regard this particular paragraph in the Bishop’s speech, and though you mav disagree with some of the words employed, you will readily conclude that they ■ disclose no seditious intent whatever. My learned friend, tho Crown Prosecutor, invites you to take seriously the paragraph in which the Bishop states that Ireland has not got all that she asked for, nor all that her sons died for, but that she had secured an instalment of her freedom and was determined'to have the whole. The Bishop has told you that he had here in mind the partition of Ireland and the ultimate inclusion of Ulster, for which the Free State Treaty provides. Tho vast majority of the people of Ireland share the feeling, and it is absurd to suggest that tho view expressed by his Lordship is anything other than that to which any citizen is entitled. The commendation of Mr. de Valera as the man who had carried Ireland thus far, and who would see that the rulers of Ireland were*“not duped by England,” is also well within the limit of free speech, and is a view which he was entitled to express, though the passage would certainly have been less liable to misinterpretationmore especially as there are critics in this country eager to misinterprethad the Bishop made it plain that he referred to the Government, not to the people of England. His Irish audience-understood what he meant, —indeed, they have too many historical reasons for doing " so —and I would remind you that in the last edition of the Nineteenth Century and After, Dr. Addison, until recently

a colleague of Mr. Lloyd George, denounces him as a prevaricator and an expert in duplicity. I submit to you with confidence that his Lordship or any other citizen is entitled equally with Dr. Addison to question the sincerity of Mr. Lloyd George, and my learned friend can hardly bo serious - when ho invites you to believe that this passage of the, indictment is indicative in tho slightest degree of seditious intent on the part of the Bishop. Now gentlemen, 1 invite you to bear with Hie while I refer to that portion of tho Press report which has given rise to the strongest denunciation. i I concede at once that the indictment would be fully justified if the Bishop really spoke as the Press reports him. Assuredly, however, he has abundantly satisfied you —and his own evidence has been fully corroborated by some witnesses for the 'prosecution — he did not apply the word, “murdered” in connection with those who were killed in action in the Rising of 1916, and that ho used the term only in connection with tho “Black-and-Tans,” during 1920-21. Here let mo state that wo cannot recede from our contention that the men and women included in that category were in fact murdered. Speaking from his place in the House of Lords, the Archbishop of Canterbury referred to the work of tho “Black-and-Tans” as the devil’s work. Air. Asquith from his place in the House of Commons has charged them with murder, and Mr. Churchill and other Cabinet Ministers have admitted as much. Such being the fact we invito you to agree that the Bishop was entitled to state that the victims of these men were murdered. We confidently invite you to agree, moreover, that he did not refer to those killed in action or to those who died of hunger strike as having been murdered. I am satisfied that in this connection you are abundantly satisfied with his Lordship’s evidence, and though you may think that the unhappy fact had better not have been referred to, you will, nevertheless, agree that in speaking of it to an Irish audience, he disclosed no seditious intent and was acting within the exericse of the right of free speech which every citizen possesses. The Crown Prosecutor, ever, will nevertheless direct your attention to the- reference made to “that glorious Easter,” which tho Bishon admits using parenthetically, and in that connection I would ask you to bear with me while I direct your, attention to a few historical facts in connection with which this reference should be considered. It has been well said by an English publicist that, though the rising occured in Ireland, it was not an Irish rising; In other words, those connected with it were a small number of young men —Sir Philip Gibbs has described them as “dreamers and patriots”—in the city of Dublin. Brave and courageous though they were, I concede that the British Government was bound to employ force to subdue them, and I freely admit it would be unjust to brand all the soldiers who opposed them as murderers. Let me remind you, gentlemen, that the littoral of history- is strewn with the wreck of such enterprises. History is replete with the records of acts admittedly- illegal, but, nevertheless accounted glorious by posterity. Condemned by their contemporaries, such men soon pass into the martyrology of a nation, and in process of time they become almost deified. Let mo give you some instances. One of the greatest men in English history is John Milton. Certainly he wrote the greatest poem in the language. May I remind you, however, that Milton spent one-third of his life in propagating republican principles, in denouncing monarchy as impious, that lie wrote a pamphlet justifying the beheading of Charles? I invite my friend, the Crown Prosecutor, to read the controversy between Salmasius, the Dutch scholar, who regarded Charles as a martyr, and John Milton, who justified his execution on the ground that the people had the right to' put a tyrant to death. _ My friend knows that the execution of Charles was an illegal act, and that Milton risked his liberty and life defending it. To-day, however, the memory of Milton is none the less cherished as that of a great and patriotic Englishman. Again, gentlemen, may I recall the rebellion headed by the Duke of Monmouth in 1685. Monmouth failed, he was taken prisoner, a fugitive, and after vainly- seeking mercy from an unnatural uncle, James 11, he met the doom of a traitor. We have it on the authority of Macaulay, however, that ’dven in his own day (200 years after Monmouth’s death) in that part of England where brave peasants and miners died in Monmouth’s cause, the memory of the man is held in reverence by the people, and that English mothers tell their children the story of Monmouth’s death. But, gentlemen, I will bring you closer to our own day. You have heard the .story of the American Civil War, and doubtless the story of John Brown. John Brown was a visionary and an enthusiast, whose hatred of slavery as an institution amounted to fanaticism, at least so his enemies said. With a handful of men ho proclaimed a holy war against slavery. His men were routed, defeated, and slain, and he himself _ hanged as a traitor amid infuriated enthusiasm. Very ” soon, however, the public feeling changed; the nation engaged in a death grapple ’ over slavery, and the story of John Brown’s deeds and death, in verse, became a veritable battle hymn of freedom during the war: He captured Harper’s Ferry, with his nineteen men so few And he frightened old Virginny till she trembled through and through. They hung him for a traitor, themselves a traitorous crew But his soul goes marching on. - , ’

To this day, gentlemen, in thousands, aye, millions of homes American mothers tell their children how John Brown, fought and died; how he spurned the ministrations of. a clergyman who supported slavery ; how he kissed the negro slave-child, and how ho faced the gallows with unflinching fortitude. Yet most unquestionably he promoted a rebellion. Again, gentlemen, may I briefly recall the story of the Eureka Stockade? In the month of December, 1854, a bloody conflict took place in Ballarat between the forces of the Crown and a number of diggers who had legitimate grievances. There were faults on both sides, but most undoubtedly the chief fault lay with an incompetent Governor. The removal of their grievances soon vindicated the conduct of tin* diggers, and hv public subscription there was raised a noble monument which excites the admiration of posterity. That monument perpetuates tho memory, not only of the fallen diggers, but of the soldiers who died lighting them. It is freely recognised that there were honest men on both sides, and that the soldiers only did their duty. The folly of officialdom cannot be laid to their charge. Gentlemen, it were idle for me to deny and I do not pretend to deny—that the people of Ireland, and indeed, the Irish race everywhere, hold in reverence the memory of the men who have fought and hied in the cause of nationality. Just as they revere the memory of Robert Emmet, who engaged in a forlorn hc?pe, so they cherish the memories of the young men who died during Easter, 1916. Emphatically, however, I must insist that no Irishman regards the soldiers employed against them as murderers. In quite a different category, however, do they regard the atrocities committed by the “Black-and-Tans,” and we claim the right freely to denounce these, and to characterise them as the Bishop did. Gentlemen, when we recall the historical incidents to which I have referred, when wo gave that noble monument in Ballarat, when we recall the young men who died in 1916 in a hopeless contest, there wells up within us the hope—inarticulate, hut irrepressible —that in another world the men who fought each other will be everlasting friends. May 1 remind you, finally, that one of the men connected with the Easter Rising was Michael Collins, who was subsequently Com-mander-in-Chief of the Irish Republican Army, but who is now a Minister of the Crown a man whom the people of both countries feel and hope will do much to reconcile the two nations? Indeed, I submit, gentlemen, that it requires no effort of imagination, should Mr. Collins ever visit New Zealand, to picture him dining at the Auckland Club, in company with his Worship the Mayor and my friend, the Crown Prosecutor. (Laughter.) So, gentlemen,. I invite you to consider in a manly and generous spirit his Lordship’s reference to “the glorious Easter,” and to bear in mind that in every age and in every country, history records acts of heroism which were admittedly illegal and, at least as far as the chief actors were concerned, futile and disastrous. As showing, gentlemen, what I may call the outlook of law on the question of sedition, I propose referring to the case of Rex v. Burns and others. In 1886 John Burns, William Hyde Champion, Henrv Mayers Hyndman, ‘ and John Edward Williams, were indicted for unlawful and malicious utterances of seditious words of and concerning her Majesty’s Government, with intent to incite' riot and stir up ill-will. You will remember John Burns in that he subsequently became a member of the House of Commons and a Cabinet Minister. He and his friends addressed a meeting of unemployed in Trafalgar Square, and subsequently, Mr. Burns spoke from the parapet of the Carlton Club. You know, of course, that the Carlton Club is the headquarters of the English Conservative Party. As Mr. Burns was speaking, a number of roughs in the crowd smashed the club’s windows, and perpetrated other acts of disorder. You will realise the difference between that case and the one you are now concerned with, inasmuch, it is admitted that hero no disorder ensued. Notwithstanding the disorder in Burns’ case, the jury acquitted all the accused, though I have no doubt the jury comprised no member of the Carlton did). It appears indisputable that seditious words were used by some of the speakers in that case, but even if it is proved that previous to the happening of riotous acts, seditious words were spoken, it is still a question for the jury whether such rioting was or was not attributable to the language used. In that case the jury were satisfied that the accused acted in good faith and had no intention to cause the disturbances, and so acquitted them. The presiding Judge directed them that if under all circumstances they were satisfied that the speakers were actuated by an honest desire to alleviate the sufferings of the unemployed, if they had a real bona fide desire to bring that misery before the public bv constitutional and legal means, the jury should not be too hasty to mark any ill-considered expression which might have been uttered. Mr. Justice Cave went on: I am unable to agree with the Attorney-General when he says that the real charge is that, though these men did not incite or contemplate disorder, yet as it was the natural consequences of the words they used, they are responsible for it. In order to make out the. offence of speaking seditious words there must a criminal intent upon the part of the accused, there must he words spoken with a seditious intent, and although it is a' good working rule to say that a. man must be ' taken to

intend the natural consequences of his acts, yet if it is shown from other circumstances that lie did no act intending this, I do not see how you can ask a jury to act on what has become a legal fiction. . . The maxim that a man intends the consequences of his act is usually true, but it may he used as a way of saying, because reckless indifference to probable consequences is morally as bad as an intention to produce those consequences, the two things ought to be called by the same name, and this is at least an approach to legal fiction. Thus you see, gentlemen, that the whole question is one of intent, and that a seditious intention is not to ho inferred, even when acts of violence have followed the Speech. Hero it is common ground that there was no resulting disorder, or even excitement, and I think we have satisfied you that the speech as it was reallv delivered, can by no stretch of the imagination be taken as even approaching sedition on the part of the Bishop. Now, gentlemen, 1 invite you to consider the supremo importance of the freedom of speech which it your high duty to protect. Speaking in the case of Rex v. Aldred, referred to in an early part of my address, Mr. Justice Coleridge said; It is quite true, as the defendant has just put before vou, that a prosecution for seditious libel is somewhat of a rarity. It is a weapon not often taken from the armoury where it stands, but is a necessary accompaniment in every government. It is liable to be abused, and if it is abused there is one wholesome corrective, and that is a jury of England, such as you. Having said this much I should like to say by way of comment upon a good deal that has fallen from the defendant in his speech which lie addressed to you, that the expression of abstract opinions in this country is free. A man may lawfully express his opinion on any public matter, however distasteful, however repugnant to others, if, of course, he avoids inflammatory matter and if he avoids anything that can be characterised as blasphemous or obscene libel. Matters of State, matters of policy, matters of morals even —all these are open to him. He may state his opinion finely. He may buttress it by argument. He may try to persuade others to share his views. Courts and juries are not the judges in such matters. Tor instance, if he thinks that either a despotism, or a republic, or even no government at all. is the best way of conducting human affairs, he is at perfect liberty to do so. Ho may assail politicians, he mayattack governments, he may insist that the executive should take a certain course, or ho may remonstrate with them for not taking a particular course ; he may seek to show that rebellion, outrages, insurrections, assassinations, and such-like are the natural, the deplorable, the inevitable outcome of the problems which lie is combating. All that is allowed because all that is innocuous; but on the other hand, if he makes use of language calculated to advocate nr to incite others to public disorder— to wit, rebellion, insurrection, asassination, outrages, or any physical force or violence of any kind —then whatever his motive, his intention, there would bo evidence on which a jury would —and I think a jury ought—decide that he was guilty of a seditious publication or utterance. Gentlemen, I am convinced, having regard to his high office, the fact that his co-religionists are a small minority in this country, and the frankness and ready manner in which he has demeaned himself in the witness-box, that you will agree that his Lordship cannot lightly be presumed to have intended sedition, and that the evidence wo have submitted places the fact beyond doubt. Rut, gentlemen, if you have a reasonable doubt —and I submit you cannot have one — I ask you to resolve that doubt in favor of the right of the citizen to freedom of opinion and of speech. Within the limits I have quoted, every citizen is free,to express whatever opinion he pleases. For example, you may or may not approve of an elective Governor for New Zealand, but you cannot deny that any citizen may advocate the election of the Governorthat no citizen who did so would be in peril of his liberty. In this connection may I remind you that within a few hundred yards of this court there stands a monument to the memory of a. man whose name is a. household word in this country, and who not only favored an elective Governor, but repeatedly introduced a Bill to give effect to his'views. I allude, of course, to Sir George Grey. In his charge to the jury in Rex v. Aldred, Mr. Justice Coleridge stated, that every citizen was free to advocate a republic and to persuade others to agree with him, and this reminds me that the Prophet of an Australian Republic was a Presbyterian minister, famous in his day. I allude to John Dunmore Lang, who, having come to Australia in 1823, took an active part in politics and became an elected member of Parliament. As far back as 1852, he wrote a learned treatise advocating a republic for Australia, and in defending his proposal, he argued that the only Divinely ordained__government known in history was a republic—that founded by "Moses in the Wilderness of Sinai. He maintained that, though the institution of monarchy was

later permitted in Israel, yet a republic had been established by a Divine authority. Of course, there were differences of opinion on the question, but no one questioned the loyalty of Dr. Lang, no charge of sedition was ever preferred against him, and no opponent ever suggested that his republican principles disqualified him from taking the oath of allegiance as a member of the Legislature. Dr. Lang lived to a pipe old age, and when in 1878 ho died, there was universal regret, and his memory is preserved to-day* not merely by his writings, but by a statue in Wynyard Square, Sydney, erected by vote of 1 arliament. I recall this fact, gentlemen, because in these days of reiterated protestations of loyalty I have no doubt that were one to propose an elective Governor or a republic tor New Zealand, lie would bo accused bv many, and not merely by religious sectaries, of sedition and disloyalty. No amount of calumny and misrepresentation can alter facts, however, buttressed as they are by historical evidence and the support of legal and constitutional authority. But you will realise, gentlemen, the risk a citizen runs who advocates principles which expose him to a charge of this kind, and hence it is not without reason that May tells us in his Constitutional Hixtovn that the law elating to treason and sedition has ever been the cause of much unjust and unmerited suffering. The chief safeguard—indeed,' I may say, the only legal protection the citizen possesses —is in the jury system. It is your high office, not merely to punish crime, but to prevent the criminal law from developing into the most malignant persecution. Bearing these facts in mind, gentlemen, as I have said, you will resolve any doubt in favor of free speech. I submit, however, that your deliberations will not reach that —that, having heard his Lordship, you _ must have been impressed by his frankness, the simplicity of his manner, and his transparent truthfulness, and accordingly I appeal to you with confidence to return a verdict of Not Guilty. THE TENOR OF THE SPEECH. Mr. Meredith, in his address to the jury, stated that he did not propose to make historical references, but would confine himself to the words at issue in the case. He drew attention to the definition of sedition, which included language likely to promote discomfort or disaffection among the people) or to promote feelings of illwill or hostilities between different classes of the community. There was practically no denial of the speech as reported, except in two particulars. In one instance the Bishop said he did not say “many people” were prepared to fight and even die, etc., but that “there were men, and women, too, to fight and even die,” etc. In the other instance he suggested that the report quite misrepresented his statements on the subject of the people who had been killed in Ireland. The report had been made by a skilled and practised reporter, who had the confidence of his employers, and was, admittedly, correct in all but these two points. At the time it was published there was considerable feeling aroused all over the country, and one would have thought that it would have been wiser if the Bishop had explained immediately. It was unfortunate that, in writing to Mr. Massey, the Bishop did not retract anything there was to retract, or explain anything in which he had been wrongly reported. If he had done so, there probably would have been none of these proceedings. Addressing his remarks to the speech, counsel advised, the jury that the speech should be considered as a whole and not in parts. HIS HONOR’S SUMMINC.-Ur. Mr. Justice Stringer said it had become his duty to endeavor to assist the jury to arrive at a just and proper conclusion. It would be understood that anything he might say was only for the purpose of assisting them, and that they were in no way bound by any opinion which he might see lit to express. 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. Ho 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 ex- * planation, and had shown,, at any rate, that in 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 proceed-

ings from being initiated. It was difficult, lie felt, for the jury to approach the case with that judicial calm they might have observed if the question had not been ventilated so freely u'p to the time that 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 bo behind the words the intention to stir up strife or disaffection 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 thp jury had to determine. They had to lie satisfied that the language used was intended to have that effect. That being so, it was necessary in the first instance to know exactly what the words were, and here there was somethough he did not think, except in some respects, any great—conflict of evidence. It was exceedingly important that they should know exactly what was said when the words were the basis of a prosecution, It was desirable that they should know all that was said, for an abstract of a speech of 20 minutes’ duration into words which could be spoken in three minutes me,ant leaving out a great deal that was said, as well as a great deal of the context of what was reported. This was apt to be misleading in that it might not convey fully the meaning intended by the speaker. The report of the speech, as appearing in the indictment, was then read to the jury by his Honor. As he understood the Bishop’s evidence (said his Honor) it was admitted that this was fairly accurate, with one or two modifications. The tenor of the language must first be considered. The jury, in determining whether it was seditious or not, would have to consider the whole as well as certain passages 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 for the jury, that it did not seem to him, if this had stood alone, that any seditious intention could reasonably be attributed to it. It was spoken of things which had happened 40 or 50 years ago, and was spoken of historical events. Later in his address his Honor said 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 trodps.” It was in respect of that that there was a serious contradiction of evidence. The jury would have to make up their minds what wore 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 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 this rebellion. There could be no doubt that the Easter rebellion was an insane and wicked rebellion. It was certain to fail, but it had to be suppressed, and in that process many men lost their lives. The point made, however, was that this was a glorification of rebellion, and therefore must have been said with the intention of producing disaffection among the people. In the first place, he thought that the jury had to remember that in matters relating to the so-called Irish rebellion, very different considerations had to he 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 that those who died in fruitless rebellions were entitled to respect, because they died not for themselves, but in the endeavor to free Ireland from what was considered oppression. In this connection it appeared not unimportant to look at the programme of the concert. His Honor then referred to and quoted from the two songs “A Nation Once Again,” and “God Save Ireland,” sung by children at the concert, to show that a certain amount of homage was paid by the Irish people to those who had lost their lives in various rebellions at different times. In

the light of that, the words used probably did not convey to an audience of Irishmen the same meaning as they would to a jury of Englishmen. These also showed the atmosphere in which the Bishop was speaking, and the way that Irishmen looked at these things generally. Foi the children to ho singing these hymns together would probably prove much more effective in stirring their feelings than the words of any single individual. All this was quoted to show that the Irish people looked upon those who lost their lives in the rebellion more or less as martyrs. That was borne nut by what the Bishop said. He admitted that the rebellion was foolish and foredoomed to failure, yet the people who died in it were in the eyes of the Irish people, and the Irish Catholics in particular, more or less patriots. That - was the difference in the point of view from an Englishman. 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 lor the jury to say that it was exceedingly provocative and calculated to cause disaffection and ilill. If the words actually uttered were as stated by the Bishop, however, it put quite a different complexion on the matter. Air. Stanbrook, who took the report, and others, agreed that something of the kind was said. The report was exactly as appeared in the ’ indictment. The Bishop’s statement was that ho had the names of 100 people jyho? during and since Easter, had died for Ireland. He proceeded that some were executed by hanging, some by shooting, some died of hunger strike, some were killed during the fighting at Easter, and some were murdered by foreign troops. There was nothing about any being murdered by foreign troops during Easter. Bishop Liston said that he had altered murdered by “British troops” to “foreign troops,” by whom he meant the “Black-and-Tans.” The evidence for the Crown had not disproved the Bishop’s evidence, and it seemed to his Honor that the words were spoken as stated by the Bishop, thus conveying quite a different meaning from the report. Instead of the Bishop saying that 155 people, including those killed in the rebellion, were murdered by foreign troops, he had made mention only of the murder of the last group of 57. If the jury came to the conclusion that * that was what was really said by the Bishop, it very much altered the whole complexion of what was the most objectionable passage of the speech. There was no doubt, he thought, that these people killed by the “Black-and-Tans,” were in law murdered, said his Honor. That was recognised by the British Government itself. It arose from the policy of reprisals which took place and afterwards had to receive a certain amount of sanction from the State itself. His Honor quoted here at some length from a speech by Mr. Winston Churchill, in which reference was made to the fnurder of policemen and soldiers and acts of retaliation, the blame being cast upon the Government and the whole country, while there was also reference to official reprisals under the system of martial law. It went to prove (said his Honor) that there were murders on both sides. That was freely admitted, so that if the Bishop’s reference was to be interpreted as referring solely to the “Black-and-Tans,” and the reprisals, it was stating what were actual facts. That was a point for the jury to decide. It 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 the murder of policemen by Irishmen. That was a most important point to consider. Before the jury proceeded to consider the actual words used, and the accuracy of the statement in the indictment, they had to give the nature of them consideration. That was the preliminary they had to decide if the Crown 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 consider 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 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 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. The speech must bo taken from first to last. 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 jury, were then directed to consider their verdict. Mr. Meredith asked leave to suggest, with -regard to the passage referring to the “Black-and-Tans,” that the words “being true,” did not necessarily affect seditious intent. His Honor said that was so, though the fact that they were true went a long way, he thought, to destroy any seditious intent. Though true, they might have a seditious intent. Still, this would be discounted by their truth. VERDICT OF XOT GUILTY. The jury retired at 3.15 p.m., and stated its decision at 4.30 p.m. Tho announcement of the verdict of not guilty was the signal for an outburst of wild cheering and hand-clapping, the shrill cries of women in the gallery being particularly prominent. Mr. P. 3. O’Regan, one of the counsel for the accused, rose from his seat and motioned to the demonstrators to desist. When order was restored, Air. Justice Stringer said he wished people would he good enough to understand that the Court was not a theatre. If the police could find any of those who took part in tho disturbance, he would commit them to prison for contempt of Court. The foreman of the jury (Mr. T. H. Chapman) then said the jury desired to present the following rider: — “Wo consider that Dr. Liston was guilty of a grave indiscretion in using words capable of an interpretation so calculated as to give offence to a largo 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 utterance.” His Honor: Thank you, gentlemen; that is a very sensible rider. After the Court had been cleared, a large crowd assembled outside the main entrance, waiting to greet the Bishop. After about ten minutes, Air. O’Regan and Air. Conlan, who appeared for the defence, came out and there was a great display of enthusiasm. There were cries for the Bishop and there was some suggestion of “chairing” him, hut finally the crowd was told that Dr. Liston had left the building by a side door, and it relucantly dispersed..