BISHOF LISTON.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 May 1922, Page 5

BISHOF LISTON.

TRIAL IN LOWER COURT. ALLEGED SEDITIOUS UTTERANCES. SPEECH ON IRISH QUESTION. SENT TO SUPREME COURT. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, May 1* Dr. Liston, Catholic Coadjutor Bishop of Auckland, appeared in the Police Court to answer a charge of having made seditious utterances in the Town Hall at an Irish concert on March 17. Mr. Poynton, S.M., was on the Bench. Mr. Meredith prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr. Conlan appeared for Bishop Liston. Mr. Meredith, said fortunately charges of this kind were few in this country, and it was seldom necessary to take down this weapon from the armoury of Government defence. This speech, was made when the Irish difficulty was in the melting pot and was exercising tlie public mind considerably. This had some bearing on the effect 'and importance of the words uttered on such an occasion. There was also the fact that Bishop Liston’s prominence in the church gave the words a weight and bearing that would not be given to them if uttered by a person of little or no responsibility. Gordon Stanbrook. a reporter on the Herald, gave evidence that he took a long hand note of the Bishop’n speech and destroyed his notes after the report was written. The report was written in the first person. He was not quite sure of the phrase about the dismemberment of Ireland, but was certain the Bishop-/used a phrase indicating that Ireland had been dismembered. Tlie Bishop also referred to several defeats of England. He (witness) did not remember the actual words used in his reference to Easter of 1916. The Bishop used the phrase murdered by foreign troops as well as the reference to the hunger strike. Witness could not remember every word said, but rein inhered distinctly the phrasing of certain passages, such as the reference to the cattle ranch and the house of bondage. The words “murdered by foreign troops” were . Verbatim. He took this to refer to the troops brought in from England to suppress the rebellion of Easter Monday, 1916. Frank Baller Usher, gave evidence. He remembered the Bishop saying that his father and mother and many others were driven by their foreign masters from the land they loved as the country was wanted to be used as ranches for the snobs of England. Referring to the Easter of 1916 the Bishop said so many people had been murdered by foreign troops “we must not forget their people. Their memory will live for ever in the hearts of Irishmen.” Robert Beswick, Customs officer, gave evidence that the remarks that impressed him most were the reference to the Bishop’s father and mother, and that Irishmen had received the first instalment of their freedom and were determined to have the whole of it. The rulers of our little Empire should be able to get over its difficulties. They must not forget the martyrs who died in 1916—155 men and women, including three priests, who were proud to die for their country. Some were shot, some were hanged, some died in the hunger strike murdered by 'foreign troops.

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH. WHAT IS SEDITION? Auckland, Last Night. At the trial of Bishop Liston, Mr. Conlan (counsel for the Bishop) said that when he perused the reported statements, and knowing what his lordship’s feelings toward his country were, he could find in the report no seditious word'.or no seditious intent. He referred to the Tight of free speech as one of the finest privileges of the 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, thr Home Secretary (Mr. E. Shortt, K.C.) said so long as there was no breach of peace caused and the speeches did not advocate any direct violence there was no need to take any notice of them. He also said .that to some extent Hyde Park had come to be recognised as the safety valve of London. In order that a person might be convicted of making a seditious utterance two ingredients had to be proved. First, the words must be seditious, and, second, there must be seditious intent. Th er if* was not the slightest sign of any disturbance on the present occasion, and one must assume that the audience simply went quietly home. Counsel said a criminal intention on the part of the accused had to be shown. Nothing was further from the mind of his lordship than to commit a crime.

Mr. Conlan said he wanted to mention some of the special circumstances which might appeal to the Magistrate. The speech was made on the night of St. 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 unpalatable, but however much the Magistrate might think that so counsel hoped he would agree with him that there had been no great illwill or any disturbance.

After Mr. Meredith had 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, it is likely to raise discontent or disaffection among His Majesty’s subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects. It would be improper for me to comment upon or attempt to analyse the speech as it might' prejudice the case in the higher Court.”

Accused was committed for trial, bail being allowed in his own recognisance of £lOO.