SUPREME COURT—WESTLAND CIRCUIT.

Grey River Argus, Volume VI, Issue 367, 21 May 1868, Page 2

SUPREME COURT— WESTLAND CIRCUIT.

THE POLITICAL TRIALS AT HOKITIKA

Monday, May 13. I (Before his Honor Mr Justice Riuhmoud.) The trials of the pri.suiijii-jj Larkin, Manning, Melody, Barrett, Clurlie, II u--I'itn, ami Mannon commenced on Ivlom.iiy. The Court yrtis crowded, but there was no confusion. The cq.se for the Crown waa conducted by the Attorney-General, with whom were Messrs Harvey and Button ; and the prisoners were defended by Messrs Ireland (Q.C.), South, Rees, and Guinness. The. indictment against the prisoners contained eleven counts The iivst charged them with unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously intending and devising to disturb" the public peace, and to excite discontent and disaffection, and to excite her Majesty's subjects to contpmpt of the Government and Constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The second count contained the additional charge that great alarm had been caused to clivers peaceable and well-dis-posed subjects of the Queen. The third charged them with meeting and going in procession in an unlawful and alarming manner — not as in the two former ones, maliciously and seditiously. Tiie fourth charged them that thej r , with a large multitude of people, to the number of six and more, to wit seven hundred, unlawfully and injuriously entered into a certain close (i.e., the Hokitika Cemetery), and put out her Majesty from peaceable possession thereof. TheJii'th was like the fourth, except that the defendants were charged with forcible entry, and putting her Majesty out of possession of the said close with a strong hand, instead of with a multitude of people. The sixth laid tho property (in the cemetery) in the Governor, and charged defendants with forcible entry at common law, and putting his Excellency out of popscssion.* The seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth also charged forcible entry. They did not j say to whom the cemetery belonged, but laid tho possession of it respectively in the Corporation of the town of Holdtika, in William Shaw and others, in G. S. Sale, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and in the Governor. The eleventh and last count charged the defendants with unlawfully assembling, and with setting up in the cemetery a cross, in memory of Allen, Larkin, and Gould, executed at Manchester ; and that tiiereby, and by means of inflammatory speeches, they raised and excited discontent and disaffection, and scandalised and brought into contempt the administration of justice in England. Mr Ireland applied to have the fourth count quashed, as it disclosed nothing beyond a nioro trespass. After some argument, the Attorney-General consented to enter a nolle prosequi on the fourth and fifth counts. The following gentlemen were drawn as the special jury, and no challenges were made on behalf of the prisoners; — William Evans (foreman), Robort Eccleslield, Alexander Mcc, Charles Burge Edwards, John M'Beath, Samuel Garf or th, Francis Lee Clarke, John White, Benjamin Osborne, Thomas Hungerford, William Fisher, and Daniel Bunting. Tha prisoners all pleaded not guilty. The Attorney-General opened the case for the Crown, and drew special attention to the remarks made by his Honor the Judge in his charge to the Grand Jury. After explaining tho law that applied to the various counts in the indictment, he proceeded to read from the Celt newspaper of the 6th March the advertisement of the meeting to bo held that evening at the Munster Hotel, and also several articles in the same number of that journal, shewing the intent and purpose of the procession which that meeting was called for the purpose of organising. The proceedings at the meeting at the Munster Hotel were passed in review, more particularly the definitions there given of the emblems on the banner?, and the purpose avowed of exalting as martyrs the three men who j had been executed at Manchester for the I murder of Sergeant Brett. At this meeting, he said, the defendant Larkin had, on receiving a note intimating the refusal of the Municipal Council to permit the entry of the procession into the Cemetery, for the purpose of erecting a monumental cross to these men, announced his intention of effecting an entry without such permission, using these words, - 'Go back to the Council and tell them, that the priest from Stafford Town will open the gates and let the procession enter." The Attorney-General then described the proceedings of Sunday, the Bth of March — the procession, the dislodgement of the gates by Melody and Clarke, the entry into the Cemetery, the mock funeral ceremony — (and here his Honor observed that it was not unusual in the Catholic Church to perform ceremonies of the kind even in the absence of any corpse) — the gathering together of the banners round the place where the cross was erected, and the address of Father Larkin. The charge, he continued to say, was not that they had committed any breach of the peace, but that the course of their conduct was calculated to lead to its commission. The law presumed that tho man intended that which was the natural result of his actions. The learned Attorney-General concluded a most eloquent and lucid address, by exhorting the jury not to permit their minds to be influenced and misled by theeloquent and impassioned addresses of the counsel for the defendants— particularly alluding to his learned friend Mr Ireland — as nothing could be more disastrous than that they should disregard their oath, and for any reason whatever, withhold themselves from doing their duty. The following witnesses were exa.mined : — Detective Dyer, who deposed to having been present at a meeting at tho Munster Hotel, on the 6th March, and seeing Larkin, Manning, Melody, Clarke, and Barrett there. The meeting was for the purpose of getting up a procession in honor of Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien. The designs of the flags to be carried were decided on and explained — the letters I. R. when used were to mean " Irish Republic." At that meeting Father Larkin said that a note had just been put into his hands from a person who had been at a meeting ef tho Town Council, and that permission had been refused for tho procession to enter the cemetery and plant the cross ; and he said, "Go back, and tell tlwm that the priest from Stafford Tow* will opot) the gates and admit the

procession." The witness described the < procession, which took place on the Sun- '. day, to the cemetery, and the opening of i the. gates by Clarke and Melody, and the < planting of thp memorial cross. He did '. not oiler any opposition to the procession i •tf the cemetery, because his instructions were not to do so. The procession caused ■/i'«:it alarm amongst many people in town . In class examination by Mr Ireland this witnwsT said that at the meeting at the Minister Hotel the prisoner Larkin said that the procession was not intended to offend amy one. Detective Browne gave similar evidence as to the forcing the cemetery gate and the planting the cross. He described the various designs on the banners in the procession. In cross-examination by Mr Ireland, the witness said : Yes, I have been in the Melbourne police force, and yon and I have met before a good many times. I came from Dublin. I am a Roman Catholic. I have never seen emblems such as the Irish wolf-dog in the church, nor have I ever known of a funeral ceremonial taking place without the 'presence of a body. There were about six persons in the cemetery when I first got there, and about 100 before the procession got up. I cei-tainly was apprehensive of a breach q" the ] ea,ce occurring on tlnit day, though i certainly was not frightened for myself. I was told that tho letters " I. R." meant "Irish Republic," by persons around; they did not say " Irish Rebellion," and ''Ireland Revived." I myself believe them to stand for "Irish Republic." Well, I was not frightened. [Mr Ireland : 1 thought not.] There was music. Yes, I have a taste for music myself. I don't know whether it was solemn music. No, I was not a bit frightened. It. was, I believe, generally known that^the public houses would bo closed on that day; but it was known that the. police would b$ kept in barracks. C. E. Sherlock, reporter for the Wess Coast Times, proved the accuracy of his. report of certain expressions made use of bj r Larkin at the planting o,f the cross. Inspector Broham deposed that gre.a,t alarm was felt in Houtika on account of the procession. G. S. Salo gave evidence as to the possession of tho cemetery having been handed over by the Government to the Municipal Corporation. He said he was. alarmed lest the procession would lead to a disturbance, and so was Father M'Donogh, for he had told witness so. William Shaw deposed that he remembered a meeting of the Municipal Council held specially to consider a letter asking for a plot of ground ; Barrett was there. After the meeting he had some conversation with Barrett. He a,dvised him to dissuade his friends from the course they we,re about to pursue, as it was quite certain that the Council wo>nld never accede to their request. Barrett said — "I am sorry we asked your leave, for we will take it whether you give it or not." He also said — "He did not care a d — *™> for the Council," or words to that effect. Cross-examined by Mr Iceland : My alarm continued for two or. three days after the procession. I went out to see the procession with some friends also. I thought it better to put on a good show, than to step at homo. The moral effect of the demonstration made by numbers of the respectable inhabitants of the town lining the streets, acted as a salutary check on the procession, just as it did at O'Connell's great meeting at Clontarf, if you remember, Mr Ireland, when the respectable inhabitants of tho town turned out in thousands and lined the road. Mr Ireland : Yes, *I remember, but a regimen t of the li n c had previously marched up, and that had a "great moral effect." (Laughter.) Cross-examination resumed : I had half-a-dozen friends, with me. I gaw; a great many arms that day — not in the procession — many private individuals showed me they had revolvers under their coats in case they should be called upon to use them. Alfred Cleve, J. C. Harris, G. S. W. Dalrymple, and J. M. Higgin gave evidence of the alarm felt in town caused by the procession. John Lazar, Town Clerk of Hokitika, proved the possession of the Cemetery by the Corporation. This closed the evidence for that day, and the Jury were allowed to go to their respective homes. Second Day — Tuesday. The evidence taken on this day chieflyrelated to the proprietorship of the Celt newspaper. The purchase of the plant by the instructions of the prisoner Larkin and Manning was proved, as also the printing of the paper at the Star office under an agreement entered into by the defendants. The case for the Crown having been closed, The Attorney-General having summed up the evidence for the proseoution, Mr Ireland addressed the Court for the prisoners. He said : May it please your Honor and Gentlemen of the Jury — Apart from the peculiarity of my having come from a distant land, being interested in the defence of some of your fellow citizens, I feel an additional awkwarduess from the circumstances in which I am placed in being in some measure unac-. quainted with the practice of the Nev Zealand Courts. Before I proceed to enter upon the task of defending the traversers, I must take the opportunity of expressing my thanks to my hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General, for the very ftreat courtesy I have received at his hands, and also at the hands of his Honor the Judge, and also forthe facilities which my learned friend has afforded me in conducting the defence of the traversers. I will now gentlemen proceed to make a few observations on the case which you have to consider, but before doing so I may state that I certainly do feel honored in being selected to come here on the present occasion— not, as I believe, on account of any superiority of intellect, but because it is probable I am considered to be neutral — a man unacquainted with local politics. I may however express my regret that in a new community like this, where the utmost unanimity should prevail—where English, Irish and Scotch should live together in the greatest harmony, that the traversers should stand before you on the offence with which they are charged. Originally the indictment found by the Grand Jury contained eleven counts. As the case now stauds, the Ist, 2nd, and 11th counts are those on whish my learned friend principally relies, fc#d they charge the traversers with holding an unlawful assembly. The Crown, too, relies, with regard to two of the defen-

dants, on certain alleged inflammatory language contained in a newspaper article, and thus connecting them with the pro-* cession which took place on the Bth March last. . There is, also, a count based on a statute passed in troublous times, I mean in the time of Kichard IJ., and I will yen* ture to affirm that that Monarch never thought for one moment that the provi-> sions of that statute would be applied in this remote part of the British dominions. That statute was, however, intended to enable thosg who ha,d been wronged by having their property seized and taken possession of by the barons of those days, to. recover compensation, but with regard to its applicability to the present case, I do, under the direction of the learned Judge, submit that its effect is entirely swept away. I may also state, gentlemen, than . you are entirely rid of the counts laying the s,ie2;eing in the Governor.' We are, therefore, now brought down to the forcible entry of V*nd in the. possession of the Corporation, by erecting a raonur mental cross on the Bth March last, in the. Hokitika cemetery, and out of this simple circumstance my learned friend has been able to lay to the charge of the traversera a host of criminal offences, They are oharged with having attempted to incite disaffection against the Government of the United Kingdom, of endeavoring to bring into contempt the Constitution and institutions of Great Britain, and with also endeavoring to asperse thVadminis-. - tration of justice. Now, I may say, tha,t it is most infrequent for us to find an. English Government, attempting to main? tain the Constitution of England by pro^ seditions lik.e this — charging certain of the citizens, who have engaged in a peace* {\ble procession, with holding a seditious, a.nd unlawful assembly. And now I must stale that there is. no doubt tb,e traversers. —the Rev Mr Lajkin, Mr Manning, with others, were concerned with getting up an assembly ; but I would submit, under the, ruling of his Honor, that it was not an assembly calculated either to incite disr aSectionto the Government — that it waa not unlawful, or to cause alarm and pro? yoke a breach of the peace. I contend, gentlemen, that it was not unlawful, and further, that even if was intended to sympathise with Allen, Larkin, and Gould, that according to British practice it was. lawful to critise pr to pass an opinion pa the aces of the Government. For instance, supposing certain parties called a, public meeting to review certain acts of the Government^ would the parties who convened or attended that meeting be, liable to a charge of an unlawful assembly ? I apprehend not. Having premised thus much, I would gall your attention to the circumstances under which the procession, took place on the Bth March. ;- and here I ni,ay direct your attention to the very lucid manner in which his. Honor has laid down, the law dra_w\ng the line of dem«rca« tion between treason and sedition. His. Honor has rightly defined treason as levying wax against the Spvevojign. No, doubt his Honor is correct in this definition j hut, gentlemen, I would remind you that in former times, when the Judges, were, not, as they are now, impartial and righteous exponents of the law, but mere, creatures of the executive, there would be, a danger of a man being convicted fortreason for the act of making counterfeit coin, and thus he would be levying wan against the sovereign. But even outside/ this there are a number of offences which, fall under the category of sedition, qr, in other words, the doing of acts intended to incite to disaffection against the Government. T.his, how? ever, I trust, I shall be able to prove to you has not been the case, with the pre-. sj;nt traversers. Various definitions as to unlawful assemblies have been laid down, some of which are highly criminal. The. offence of "riot," or the holding of an assembly for an unlawful purpose, and in doing which great violence was used, isi one of this, class ; but there is a milderform, one in which, although the meeting is unlawful, no great degree of violence ia used, and this, ag being in a nylder fo?m, is termed "rout." But outside of this] there is what may be called an unlawful assembly, which ia most difficult to deal with, and this, is the holding of an asn se.mbly similar to that with which the de-. fendants are charged "with holding. Of course, gentlemen, some of the traversers have formed part of the procession — of; course they might have attended the, meeting at the Munster Hotel at which that procession was arranged. They might, as has been alleged in the case of the "Reverend Mr Larkin and Mr Man-v ning have been concerned in the publics tion of certain newspaper articles, but, gentlemen, you are not trying a case of seditious libel^ you are inquiring into a. procession that took place on the. Bth of March last. You, gentlemen, will all. remember what gave rise to this proces-> sion — you will bear in mind that these circumstances, if considered in the light which I shall place before you, will de-. prive this trial of all its present signifi-. cance. It was undertaken but of respect, to the memory of Allen, Larkin, and Gould, who were executed at Manchester; having been convicted on a charge of murder. You will bear in mind that these three men were tried and convicted of the murder of a police serjeant named Brett and you will also recollect the circumstances under which they were so convicted. Certain persons named Kelly and Deasy had been arrested on a charge of Fenianism — or rebellion against the, Govern men tj and the three men to whom I have alluded joined in attempt to rescue them from the police as they were being conveyed to prison. I, as a lawyer, will not at once hesitate to state that beyond all doubt Brett's death was. a murder, and that all persons engaged in the act of violence which led to his death were responsible to the law as murderers, even though the shot which occasioned that death was. not fired by them, I for one, standinghere as I do, to defend the traversers in the present action, do not hesitate at onca to affirm that according to law all the persons aiding and abetting in such an unlawful act, were legally guilty of murder, and as such were responsible to the law. But now let me call your attention to the impression which the traversers, and especially the proprietors of the Celt might have with the parties who accomplished such an act, although they might feel a detestation of the crime of murder, yet they might feel a sympathy with men whom they considered had suffered wrongfully in endeavoring to redress the wrong* of Ireland ; and, moreover, it was not proved that Brett came to his death at the hands of either of those men who were, executed for his murder. His Honor ; I understand you to say, that it was. not proved that Brett came to,

his death by the hands of either one of these men. Mr Ireland : I refer your Honor to the dying declarations of those men. His Honor : lam not acquainted with that, although I believe it to be notorious that none of the men actually killed Brett. Mr Ireland : It appears in the article in the Celt of the 6th March, which has been put in evidence by the Crown. If this were contined to the mere fact of the jmmler of Brett, I should be in no position for advocating sympathy with the murderers, but tliiit, I believe, was not the intention of the writer. This paper however which has been put in evidence by the Crown against the travorsers, contains an Argument to the effect that no murder was committed, and with which I do not agree, inasmuch as it states that Brett's death was merely accidental, inasmuch as the shot which killed him was not fired with the intention of effecting that object, but this 1 know to be wrong, inasmuch as where a number of persons assembled to do an unlawful act— an act by which another person comes by his death — each person so assembling is in law guilty of niurder, although they might not have actually a hand in the person's death. I now come to the law as laid down by his Honor. (Here the learned counsel read pertain extracts from his Honor's charge to the Grand Jury. ) Gentlemen, I would submit that there was no seditious purpose on the part of these men in assembling And joining in procession on the Bth March— they did not meet for the purpose of testifying their sympathy with the act of murder, but with the men whom they considered had fallen in an abortive attempt to remedy the wrongs of their country. Their view of the case was that for centuries the Irish people had been pubjected to oppression ; that for six or seven centuries the people of Ireland had suffered for wrongs done by the English.; that a people consisting principally of Roman Catholics had l.Qjn thus subjected by having another Church forced upon them ; that this people had at times risen against that oppression, which at times had broken out into open rebellion — a circumstance which had occurred in IGB9 but which, however, was a rebellion of a Protestant character — it is not, I say, that under these circumstances that at times the population of Ireland should have striven against these wrongs, and that the defendants, believing that the three men who were executed at Manchester did not intend murder, but to rescue those from custody who wished to redress these wrongs, should wish to evince | their sympathy with them-— not as murderers — but as men who had fallen in their attempt to redress the wrongs of Ireland. I contend, therefore, gentlemen, that the demonstration which took place op the Bth March was not got up for the purpose of sympathising with the acts of the assassins, but to show respect to the memory of men whom they believed to have lost their Jives in endeavoring to redress the wrongs under which their country labored. Ido not agree, gentlemen, with, that portion of the article in the Gelt which states that "if an English vagabond had been tried for the offence for which the men J hava alluded Iq were executed, he would have got off." But still I will contend that, from the dying declaration of Larkih, of Gould, and qf Allen, that murder was not their intention, although in law they were guilty of murder ; and I will also urge upon you the necessity of considering that those who took part in the procession did not desire to sympathise with murder, but with the attempt they had made to redress Irish wrongs, and no doubt they intended to erect the memorial cross with that view, You know, gentlemen, that from time to time large bodies of men have advocated the repeal of the Union. It may be that the only object of the Fenians is to redress the wrongs of Ireland, although the means they take to effeot their object are illegal; and 1 would submit to you, gentlemen, that the object of those who joined in the procession was not to sympathise with the means by which the mean, who wore executed, attempted to carry their object into effect, but with the •bject itself. His Honor had, in his charge to the Grand Jury, referred to the sentiments expressed ! by Bishop Moriarty, a prelate of the Roman Catholic Church, with respect to the j sympathy expressed with those who had j paid the forfeit of their lives having been convicted of the murder of sergeant Brett, but the fallacy in the Bishop's reasoning was this — that he assumed that those who took part in the processions having for their object honor to the memory of Allen, Larkin, and Gould, sympathised with murder, whereas they only deshje to honor those whom they had believed had fallen in attempting to redress the wrongs of their country. I now wish to call your attention to the facts connected with the procession which was the cause of the present indictment. You have had called before you Richard Dyer, who has given evidence of what he saw. He tells you, also, that the procession was of a peaceable character, and, judging from what took place, I should say that it was not intended by its promoters to be offensive to their fellow citizens, and I may say that from what you have heard you will learn that such funeral processions are by no means uncommon in Catholic countries, and that similar obsequies were performed with regard to the death of the late Emperor Maximilian. You must know also, thatgreatchanges are frequently advocated which at one time would be regarded as offences against the State. For instance, Earl Russell had been proposing in the Heuse of Lords the confiscation of the revenues of the Irish Church, a measure which thirty or forty years ago would have been regarded as a grave offence, and even Mr John Stuart Mill, one of the greatest political economists of the day, had been advocating the establishment of reforms which only a comparatively short time ago would have been regarded as crimes. With these examples, what wonder is it that men who endeavored to jpedreas what they thought to be the wrongs of their country, although in carrying out what they believed to be right, were yet nevertheless guilty of, and suffered for unlawful acts, should be regarded as patriots by those who, although they did not. sympathise with tho means which these men had used, yet nevertheless did approve of the object they had in view. I should like to ask you, gentlemen, what cause there was for alarm in this procession 1 It is true that my friend, Mr Shaw, who, by-the-bye, admitted that some twenty years ago he attended a seditious meeting in Clontarf, and some others had stated that there was alarm felt ; but I must remark, that the alarm described by the various witnpsses was

affirmed by them not to be felt by themselves, but to be felt for others. I may, howfever, ask — what was there to cause alar£ ? it was a peaceful, religious cereupny, accompanied by solemn music. Where^ then, was the cause for alarm] And now, gentlemen of the jury, it was stated that there was inscribed on one of the banners the name of R-aberfc Enunott, who was executed for the part he took in the rebellion of '98 — that gentlemen, as I have told you before, was a Protestant rebellion, and the very fact of Ennnett's name being inscribed on that banner proves those who arranged the procession, which took place on the Bth March, had no other object than of expressing their admiration of those who had fallen in an attempt to do away with the injustice and oppression to which Ireland has so Jong been subjected. I will, now, gentlemen, state that in England the Earl of Mayo | said, in the House of Commons, that tiie Government would take no action with regard to similar processions to tho one for which the traversers were indicted, without due warning being given, by proclamation or otherwise, not to hold them. I may also mention that similar statements were made by Lord Derby in the House of Lords, and yet in Hokitika, when a like peaceful demonstration was made, those who took part in it were indicted for holding an unlawful assembly. These expressions were made use of by the noble Lords in Parliament at a time when all Ireland was in a flam j — when disbanded soldiers from America were inciting the people to open rebellion. You will recollect, gentlemen, the melancholy event of the attack on tho Duke of Edinburgh, and was first supposed for sometime, that act was connected with an organisation which was alleged to have prevailed even in Hokitika; but this, I think, was not the case ; for those who joined in these processions hold here had no wish to sympathise with murder, but to perform a solemn ceremony, in accordance with the rites of tho Roman Catholic Church, in loving commemoration of those who had not hesitated, even on the scaffold, to lay down their lives for what they believed to be the cause of their country. After reading again from the Celt, of the 6th March, an article referring to the propriotor and writers in the West Coast Times, tho learned counsel said — I dare say, that my friend Mr Shaw gave as much as he took, and 1 can only regret that the subject of a newspaper quarrel should be introduced into a state trial. The proclamation which was issued here was one which .only cautioned persons not to disturb the pence by interfering with the procession, and that was duly observed, for the procession was not interfered with by those who might even have disapproved of it, On the contrary, many other persons than those belonging to the Roman Catholic Churchwere present at the Cemetery, witnessing the ceremony. Gentlemen, I again affirm, that often, in carrying out great reforms, very strong measures are used. Look, for instance, at the struggle which took place before Catholic emancipation was passed ; look at the agitation which prevailed in England at the time of the Reform Bill — an agitation amounting almost to a revolution ; look, too, at the Corn Law League agitation, all being acts which re fleeted on the acts of the Government, and then uay whether the act of the traversers was more deserving of jmnishme.nl than the acts of 'the promoters of the movements I have named. Gentlemen, 1 have already told you that, disregarding all the statements you have heard about Fenianism, you should all live together in this community in unanimity and harmony, for rely upon it this will bo the best means of promoting the happiness of her Majesty's subjects, and of promoting the prosperity of the country. At the conclusion of the learned counsel's address, a cheer was heard in Court, which, however, was instantly suppressed. The Jury found a verdict of " Guilty " against all the prisoners, and recommended all but Larkin and Manning to mercy. On being brought up for sentence, Clarke said ho did not consider the jury a jury of his countrymen. Barrett, Melody, Harron, and Hannon said they had not intended to give offence or break tho law. His Honor, in passing sentence, said that he believed their statements, and that it was through, ignorance they had committed the offence, and should pass a light sentence, which was, that they each be fined the sum of L2O, or in default, committed to gaol or one month. The Court then adjourned.