BISHOP LISTON.

Hokitika Guardian, 19 May 1922, Page 4

BISHOP LISTON.

JUDGE’S SLUMMING Ul’.

AUUKI.ANI), May 17

In slimming up. Mr Justice Stringer said, that if the jury remembered the report was published in the “Herald” ,;[■ Saturday. The Mayor no doubt assume 1 the report to lie true. He lodged and had printed a protest that was oil eii la ted 'throughout Hie land and a ignrm of protest arose. He agreed also with counsel for the Crown that it was almost equally unfortunate having hem published beioi e an explanation had been obtained the Bishop should still • have refrained from replying. He did so under advice and could not he held responsible, but there could he no doubt, he thought, that even after the protest had been made and comments appeared if the Bishop had given an explanation and had shown, at any rate, that he thought, the most vital parts of the speech passages had been omitted that altogether altered the sense, it it had not allayed public feeling it would alme.st 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 il’ the question had not been ventilated so 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 w;as not contended ill this ease that anything against tlie Government or the King was intended. The content inn ot 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. T hat was a question which the jury had to determine. They had to be satisfied that the language used was intended to liave that effect. 11l the first part of the speech, whatever one might think of it, il it were a question of taste, it was necessary to apply a very different criterion. It was not a question of taste in a ease ol this kind. The question was whether it was seditious. must confess, though the matter was for the jury it did not seem to him that if this had stood alone that any seditious intention (ould reasonably he attributed to it. It was spoken of things which had happened forty or fifty years ago, and was spoken of historii.il events. That being so it seemed to him rather far fetched to suggest that the mere mention of it to any audience mostly ot Irishmen involved an intention to stir up strife among the people of New. Zealand. TTieiiT said his Honor, they came to what must he recognised as the crucial part of the allegation of seditious speech, the passage which referred to closer history and to those “nturdertd by foreign troops.” It was in respect of that that there was a serious contradiction of evidence. The jury would have to make up their minds what were the words actually used. If they came to the eonchi'i >n that they were the words stated by the Bishop to have boon used by him it put a very different complexion on the passage. Ihe reference was particularly to the allegation about “murdered by foreign troops.” (li course it was admitted that there was reference to the “glorious Easter The Bishop apparently | was proud, and asked his audience to joi n him in being proud, of the men j who died in this rebellion. In the first I place the jury had to remember that in matters relating to the so-called Irish lebellion very different (onsideratioiis had to be applied from those of rebellion in the ordinary sense of the word. There had been a great many rebellious in Ireland, and it was reasonable to suppose that Irishmen considered those who died in fruitless rebellions were entitled to respect, because they died not ! for themselves but in the endeavour to tree Ireland from what was considered oppression. The passage in the speech ■ with regard to the list was the most , important, for as it stood ill the ituli'tf meat it would he open tor the jury to sav it was exceedingly provocative and calculated to cause disaffection and illwill. It the words actually uttered were as stated by the Bishop, however, it nut quite a different complexion oil the matter. There was no doubt, lie thought, tint people killed ly the 111— k and Tans were in law murdered, sail hi-: lloe'.i'r. Tli’t was recognised by the British (iovernment itself, so till! ii' the Bishop's reference was to be interpreted as referring solely to the Black and Ti ,’is and reprisals it was stating what was actual fact. It might hear a different interpretation, hut it wo'J’l ha no more exciting to disaffection and strife than many speeches mad-' ill the British I’lit'iiameiit drawin • attention to the murders of Irishmen. nor if a gathering of Englishmen met to discuss the murder of policemen by 1 1 isbnieii. That was a meat j impai'lent point to consider. ! Tin* jury had to dei ide if the Crown bail proved what were the words used. ‘ ]f that were left ill doubt, they had | then to determine what the words were. | Then they had to decide if the words j actnallv uttered were used with seditious intent. In (uusidering this, they had to consider the whole speech. They were entitled also to consider the occasion on which the words were used. II was SI Patrick’s Bay. It was a gathering of Irishmen, and if a. few Englishmen strayed in they would he very few. The speech was made to liKhmen. and if the jury were to look a.t these things in a fair, bread and liberal spirit they must not crilbise them too closely. They might think that some were more provocative than they might lie. They might think it far better in New Zealand, where Englishmen and Irishmen dwell t yretlier 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 j ilia,do, hut they must <;o a good deal further than that before they decided | that the Bishop had in his mind the stirring up of strife. Unless they came j to the conclusion tlicv could not find i him guilty on that indictment. Still, * said his Honour, he would have thought it better if tlie Bishop in li is j l-'st words luvl, in the words of the King at the opening of the Northern Parliament, speaking of the wrings and , injuries of the people, said: “bet us forgive and forget.” JTnfortnnately , tlie Bishop said : “'Let us remember and forgive.” j