BISHOP LISTON

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2423, 2 May 1922, Page 2

BISHOP LISTON

CHARGE OK SEDITIOUS UTTERANCE. COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. Auckland, Last Night. At the bearing of the charge of alleged seditious utterance against Bishop Liston, Mr Coulan, counsel for the Bistjop, said that when he perused the reported statements, and knowing what His Lordship’s feelings towards his country were, lie could find in the report no editions word or no seditious intent. N tie referred to the right of free speech as one of the finest privileges of a nation, and said that perhaps the reason of this right was that those who ruled our destiny considered it much better that men should speak their own minds, and not bottle their views up. In the House of Commons, replying to a question as to whether steps would be taken to punish those who made seditious utterances in Hyde Park, the Hi me Secretary, Mr E. Shortt, had said that so long as there was no breach of peace caused, and the speeches did not advocate any direct violence, there was no need' to lake any notice of them. He also said that to some extent Hyde Park had come to he recognised as the safety valve of London. In order that a person might he convicted of making seditious utterance, two ingredients had to he proved—-first, lhe words must he seditious, and second, there must lie seditious intent. There was not the slightest sign of any disturbance on the present occasion, and one must assume that the audience went quietly borne. Counsel said criminal intention on tin* part of the accused had to be shown. Nothing was further from the mind of His Lordship than to commit crime. My Conlan said be wanted to mention some of the special circumstances which might appeal io the Magistrate. The speech was made on the night of Rt. Patrick’s Day to Irish people, on the Irish question, by a Bishop who, by virtue of his sacred office, must not break the law, but must do all he could to uphold it. The wording of the speech would not appeal to the people in Ireland, who probably would take no notice of it. No words in the speech at all incited or moved anyone to violence. The words might be considered indiscreet and impalatable, but however much Ihe Magistrate might .think that so. counsel hoped lie would agree with him that there had been no great disturbance.

Mr Meredith having replied, the Magistrate said: “Following authorities on the offence of sedition, it appears to me that in four respects at. least the speech is seditious, that is, in the words of the Crimes Act, likely to raise discontent or disaffection among His Majesty’s subjects, or to promote feelings of illwill and hostility between different classes of such subjects. T( would l>c improper for me to comment on, or attempt to analyse the speech. It might prejudice the case in the higher Court.” The accused was committed for trial, hail being allowed in his own recognisance of £IOO.