THE PARNELL INQUIRY PIGOTT'S EVIDENCE, DEALINGS WITH BOTH SIDES. CHARGED WITH FORGERY. CONFUSION OF THE WITNESS. London, February 21.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 346, 27 February 1889, Page 5

THE PARNELL INQUIRY PIGOTT'S EVIDENCE, DEALINGS WITH BOTH SIDES. CHARGED WITH FORGERY. CONFUSION OF THE WITNESS. London, February 21.

In his evidence before the " Times''-Par-nell Special Commission Pigott deposed that Mr G. Lewis, solicitor for the Parnellites, subpoenaed him in September last. Pigott inquired who would pay his expenses,and said he was afraid his admissions would be damaging to Parnell. Mr Lewis replied that the matter of expenses would be arranged. He must speak the truth. Afterwards Sinclair, an emissary of Egans, arranged that witness should have an interview with Labouchere for the purpose of assisting Parnell. Sinclair gave witness £5. He informed Houston, who induced him to cancel his engagement. Witness afterwards wrote letters to Labouchere saying that he was not selling his evidence, and was unwilling to become a witness; nevertheless he would not object if it was made worth his while. He also asked that he would arrange a safe interview, because he believed he was being watched. Witness met Labouchere and Parnell at the former's house in October. Parnell asserted he possessed proofs that witness was forging letters. Witness stipulated that Mr Lewis should withdraw the subpcena in order to avoid being obliged to give evidence. To this Parnell did not agree. Labouchere demanded that he should enter the witness-box, and admit ho had forged the letters in order to secure a certificate from the Commission to escape punishment. He took witness aside, and forbade him mentioning money in the presence of Parnell. Suddenly Mr Lewi? entered and denounced Pigott as a forger, accusing him of

receiving letters from Parnell in 1881 and 1882, from which he had copied words and phrases and concocted the letters in fclie possession of the " Times." Ho threatened that unless witness acceded to Labouchere's request he should be prosecuted for forgery and perjury. Labouchere again took witness aside and ofleied him £1,000 to admit the forgery. Witness admitted that possibly he mentioned they were forgeries, but he required £5,000 t1)t 1 ) do what he was ssked, and the matter was not settled. In the meantime | b'ie "Times" served him with a subpoenr. Anothei interview took place at a later date, but without any result. Under cross-examination bj> Sir Charles Rus&ell, Pigott pleaded the inviolability of the Confessional with regard to the admissions made to Archbishop Walsh, and refused to dhulge what had passed between tlioni. The witness was staggered by Sir Chailes Itussell pioducing an admittedly authentic letter from Pigot'j, informing Archbishop Walsh that an attempt would be made to wreck the Irish party upon evidence quite sufficient for an English jury, but that, nevertheless, he would bo able to defeat and prove their innocence, on condition the Archbishop guaranteed secrecy. Witness admitted sending a subsequent letter, assuring Archbishop Walsh he had not assisted in the attempt to prejudice the Parnellites. He had received a letter in reply, refusing to interfere. Sir C. llusseil quoted sentences from Pigotl's letter seriatim. Pigott became flustered, hentatcd, and vacillated in his answers, and at last helplessly confessed he had forgotten the subjects indicated in the letters, and was unaware ol his purpose in writing 1 . He admitted that the statements he had made in his letter to Archbishop Walsh vveic entiiely unfounded, and that he had told Houston that the Parnell letters were possibly forgeries. He stated further that) he had written lo Mr Forster, the Irish Secretary, in 1881, asking for £1,500, for services rendered to the Government, and admitted writing to Egan at the same time, asking for £500 to stop publication of a pamphlet damaging to the League. A great sensation was caused in the House of Commons and London generally by the turn affairs has taken. The Parnellite3 are jubilant, and consider the collapse of the "Times" case is assured. Sir C. lltpsell compelled Pigott to write several words in Court occurring in the letters, including " Hesitancy " and " Likelihood." Pigott misspelt both words in the same way that they appear in the loiters. Mr Balfour was received in the House of Commons by the Irish members with hisses and cries of "Pigott." Parnell was absent. London, February 23. In cross examination to da}', PigoWs evidence before the "Times"-Pai nellCommssion was further discredited. He admitted thati his actions had been systematic black-mail-ing of Forster and Egan. He had, he .«aid, tried to obtain £200 for the purpose of visiting Australia, hoping to receive the assistance of Sir Gavan "Duffy. Itwas shown to the Commissioners that whole passages of letters alleged to have been written by Egan and Pai nell were identical with letter? Pigott loceived fiom them in 1881, and habitual mistakes in spelling made by Pigott were rcpioduced in these passages. The " Daily Telegraph," in lefctring to Pi<rott'fc evidence bcfoie the Commission, sa\ s he calhipsed hopelessly, and his evidence was both degrading and disgusting. The sequel, it says, is obvious.