Pigottism and Crime. THE LATEST DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARNELL COMMISSION. ASTOUNDING REVELATIONS.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 359, 13 April 1889, Page 6

Pigottism and Crime. THE LATEST DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARNELL COMMISSION. ASTOUNDING REVELATIONS.

London, March 1. lAvent up to the Commission Courton Monday expecting to spend an exciting day, but by no means prepared for the startling news "of Pigott's* escape. "The 'Times' learned Pig-ottgot puch a roastingonThursday and Friday that it's molted away," said one of tho junior bar, but we were all too much taken aback to laugh. Tho dismay in the Home Kule camp was unmistakeable and complete. Sir Charles Russell jumped to his feet white with passion, and his voice shook as he demanded a warrant for the witness's arrest. Sir Richard Webster was equally flurried and annoyed, but from somowhat different causes. The President alono remained aggravatingly placid and conventional. Sir Charles Russell, it soon became evidonb, was burning to communicate to the Court a piece of all-important intellifence. "Why not affidavits?*' asked Sir ames Hannen quietly. "Tho news won't keep," Sir Charles urged imperatively, 11 the Court must know it at once." But still the President murmured gently, " Affidavits." "Oh, affidavits be ," growled counsel t,otto voce, and the President gravely reproved him, but nevertheless gave in. Then Sir Charles told the story you all know. The miserable Figott had oi his o»vn free will called on Mr Lnbouchere on Saturday morning, and in tho presence of our mutual friend, George Augustus Sala (who was hurriedly sent for), made plenary confession of the forgeries. He told Labby lie forged all the letters, but subsequently, in a communication to Mr Soames, and in conversation with Soanies's clerk, he protested that the first and third batch of letters were genuine, but admitted that, in conjunction with a man named Casey, he forged the second lot, including Parnell's famous fac simile letter. In the multitude of "shadowers " there is safety apparently. Pigott was nominally watched by four or five people, yet gave them all the slip. " Did you expect him to be here after Saturday's confession?' asked Judge Day, shrewdly. " Why, certainly," replied Sir Charles ; "we believed he was securely watched by the 'Times' people, and couldn't stir." Mr Parnell returned Pigott's confession to him on Sunday, with an intimatiou that he could have nothing to say to him. Yesterday morning, had the wretched man appeared in the witness-box, it was Sir C. Russell's intention to make him repeat his confession in open court, and then give him into custody for forgery and perjury. Pigott, no doubt, realised this, and resolved to bolt. He was in low spirits on Sunday, and said things to Soame3 and Shannon (another " Times " solicitor) which ehould have aroused the two gentlemen's suspicions, but bomchoiv (so they solemnly swore) didn't. It seems Pigott was not exactly 11 shadowed" by the " Times." Two constables lived with him at Anderttwi's Hotel for the sake of protection, but when on Saturday he complained of their supervision being irksome, they i-elaxed it. Three private detectives employed by parties interested in the case had also been " shadowing " Pigottall the week, but on Sunday and Monday they too were, strangely enough, "off colour." Mr Shannon said Pigott could not go far, as he had no money, but that fact remains to be proved. Both Mr Soames and Mr Shannon were very closely cross-examined with regard to their knowledge of Pigott's antecedents. Soames explained a strange lack of curiosity on the aubject by the fact that he had been working twelve to fourteen hours a day since the Commission commenced sitting, and had bad no time to inquire into the questioD. On Mr Shannon (a Dublin attorney in the employ of the " Times ''), Sir Charles Russell pressed even more uncomfortably " Was it possible," he asked, " that a Dublin man didn't 'know certain facts which were of common talk in the Irish capital about Pigott ?" Mr Shannon opined Figott's character was not so well known in Dublin as Sir Charles seemed to think. " Why not?" " Well, because tradesmen gave him credit, and people generally treated him as a person of good repute." When at home Pigott lived at Kingstown. He is a widower with four boys under the care of a housekeeper. Four other children are dead. On Monday morning the housekeeper had a letter from Pigott instructing her to burn a number of papers in a certain black box, and warning her to "prepare for the woist." The woman burnt the papers and wrote Pigott she had done so. This communication was found amongst his things in London and read to the Court. At Anderton's Hotel Pigott bore the reputation of being a very quiet old gentleman of retiring habits. He seemed quite cheerful on Friday and Saturday, and even went to the Alhambra on Saturday evening. If ever he talked about the Commission, it was to grumble about money matters and the illiberal way he was being treated by what he called "our side." Throughout the case tho tr Times " seem (whatever their other faults may have been) to have acted cautiously in promising none of their witnesses money. Pigott hinted to them some time a^o that it would be wise to get him out of the way, and that his cross-examination might lead to uncomfortable disclosures, but Soames stoutly refused him funds for the purpose. The suspicion on Tuesday was, naturally enough, that the "Times'* had spirited their false witness away, but I never for a moment believed it.

ARRIVAL OF THE CONFESSION. Wednesday's proceedings were brief, bu conclusive. An unopened letter from Parisi addressed in Pigotb's hand to Shannon, was handed to the President, and proved to contain the missing witness's confession to Labby, together with Lewis, and Lewis's letter returning it, and refusing in Wr ParHell's name to have any dealings with the miserable man. These were read aloud by the Clerk of the Court with much unction. I need not repeat either, as you will have heard most of the main points by cable. Then Sir Richard Webster, blushing and hesitating, painfully made a sorb of halfapology on behalf of his principals, who could, he said, no longer aflecb to consider the letters genuine. It was an ungracious speech, ungraciously spoken, and another great blunder on the " Times' " part. Sir Richard wound up by pooh-poohing Sir Charles's reference the previous day to there being a conspiracy behind Figott.. His cHenfcs, % he implied, might be fools, bub were certainly not rogues. « Sir Chaa. Ruesell now called upon the Court to clear Mr Parnell's character by formally pronouncing the letters forgeries. He regretted the mean and partial tone of the "Times'" withdrawal, but declared that whatever they had chosen to say would have made no difference in the line the accused Parnellites meant to adopt. • There was a conspiracy — yes, he repeated it— a shameful conspiracy behind Pigott, and they meant to probe it to the bottom. Moreover, it was in Houston's direction they proposed to look. Who vr ere the parties (this very ominously and

significantly) who inspired this young man to take up the work of trying to ruin Parr.elland Co.? (N.B.— Many in Court here remembered the rumour of two yeais back that the Duke of Westminster and a syndicate of noblomen were finding money for the purpose of hunting up evidonco to in■criminate and discredit the Parnellites, ) Thi Court resolved to mako an interim report on the letters, after hearing any evidence Sir C Russell had to offer about them. Mr PavneU was thereupon called, and formally repudiated the correspondence, Sir R. Webster not evon offering to crobs-ox-amino him. Oh ! What a collapse was here ! Par noli in the box ready, anxious, waiting to be turned inside our, and exposed, and the j "Times" unablo to ask a single question, j After this the Cjuit adjourned till to- j day. Yostevday morning the " Times " re- ' peated Sir R. Webster's statement in its leading article, adding: — "Wo heaid on Tuesday of ' a conspiracy behind LMgott and Houston, 1 but it must be evident to ! all reasonable persons lhafc, if a conspiracy existed, the * r limc3 ' wa<* victimised by it and not a party to it. Errors in judgment may have been committed, and for them the penalty must be paid. What we have done, it must bo clearly understood, has been done by us in the publio interest alone. Ifc has been done, moreover, altogether of our own motion and upon our own responsibility. Wo regarded the undei taking on which we entered is ouo of national importance, but we must enter an emphatic protost against attempts to make any statesman or any political party conjointly responsible with us for acts which were exclusively out own. We may point out, further, that it is absuid to take us to ta«k for not having at once abandoned the portion of the case dependent upon Ihe letters at an earlier stage of Pigott's examination. We wero responsibly advised that it was not within our right or power to express any opinion on the evidence of a witness still under examination, and could not offer any view of our own until that witness's cross-examination was concluded. As soon as the incidents affecting Pigott's flight had been inquired into, our counsel at once asked for an adjournment for the purpose of considering the most proper form in which to present our withdrawal of the letters from the consideration of the Commission. This withdrawal, of course, refers exclusively to the letters obtained from Pigott, and not to the other portion of the case embraced in the ' charges and allegation?,' which still remain the subject of judicial inquiry. Our desire is simply to express deep regret for the error into which wo were led, and to withdraw unreservedly those paits of our original statements which we cannot honestly continue to maintain "

HE SIC. NED HIS SAMK, beneath which I wrote my name as a wife ness.