THE PARNELL COMMISSION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1858, 26 February 1889, Page 4

THE PARNELL COMMISSION.

London, February 21. Houston stated he purposely remained ignorant of the source whence the letters were obtained, and trusted entirely lo Pigott. Ho casually learned that the Fenians obtained the first batch from a bag left in Byrne’s lodgings, and sold them to Pigott. The witness denied that he offered the letters to the Pall Mall Gazette. He did offer them to the Marquis of Harliogton, but ho refused to have anything to do with then?. Latterly Houston had given instructions to Pigott as to the course he was to follow. In consequence of his parleying with Mr Labouchere, and demanding £SOOO to give evidence, the Times compelled Pigott to make a statutory declaration, otherwise they would pay him nothing. Eugene Davia obtained the confidence of Eg an, and attended the conspirators’ meetings at Paris. He also did duty in Ireland in the disguise of a priest. Parnell was the instigator of two murders while ho was in gaol. He was enabled to do so through the connivance of Kilmainham warders, Mr Kerry, and his doctors. It was understood that anybody denounced by the United Ireland would be murdered. Tynan plotted the murder of the Prince of Wales and Mr Gladstone during the carvival at Rome.

Pigott, examined, said ha was the proprietor of the Irishman and a Fenian organ which was merged into t,ho United Ireland. He was a member of the Fenian Association, and had served two sentences. He opposed the Laud League at first, but afterwards the League and Fenians became affiliated, and mutually assisted each other with funds. This was done with Parnell’s knowledge. Davis in a letter repudiated Ptgotl’s notes. [The Davis of this message is evidently the same as the Eugene Davia from whom Pigott is stated in the massage of February 18th to hare received the letters. The other name mentioned iu that telegram is J. J. Brealin, member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. The message was mutilated in transmission.] At the Times-Parnell Commission 10-dny Sir Cbas. Russell, counsel for the Parnellites, produced a letter addressed by Pigott to Archbishop Walsh, of Dublin, written just before the Tunes published the fac simile letters, In this comrnunichtion Pigott staled that there was a plot, having the object of discrediting the Paroellito leaders, which he alone was able to frustrate. Being unable to give any explanation of this letter, the evidence given by Pigolt is much discredited, and is, it is thought, jeopardises the Times’ case. Later, Pigott deposed that he went to Lanaanne in January, 1881, and saw Davis, but his negotiations met with no success. He reported his failure to Houston, and returned in February. This time he was more successful. Dayia made a statement which witness wrote out in his presence and afterwards forwarded to Houston. Pigott went to Paris in April and there met Murphy, to whom ho was formerly unknown. Murphy produced a bag containing a dozen letters of Egan’s and Parnell’s, for which he wanted £IOOO. After some haggling he agreed to accept half this amount, provided the authority of the American Clan-Na-Gael Society could be obtained to the sale. Houston accordingly despatched Pigott to America, carrying with him a sealed letter from Murphy introducing him to J. J. Breslin. Breslin was a member of the J.R.8., and Hospital Superintondant of Richmond Gaol. In July he again visited Paris, and there Murphy introduced him to five unknown Fenians at a cafe. Pigott swore upon a Roman Catholic prayer book that he would never reveal the scource whence ho obtained the letters. At witness’ request Houston himself went over to Paris and received the letters through Pigott. Ha give Witness £IOOO, of which the latter roatined £IOO for himself. The vendors refused to see Houston or reveal their names or addresses. Witness was ignorant of the source whence the letters were obtained, beyond statements made by the anonymous vendors. He denied that they were forged, and was positive that the signature of Parnell on the letter addressed to Egan was authentic. A month later Murphy offered to refund the money if the letters were returned, but Houston refused. In January, 1888, a Fenian named Brown called on witness in Paris, and said that he bad hoard that the latter was buying letters. He offered two, which had been found among the papers of the convict Mullet, explaining »t tb© same time that one was known to be a fac simile. Witness paid £SOO to tbe same man in a cifd. An unknown man called on Pigott iu Paris in July of the same year, and, ufioi stating that ho had heard that he was buying letters, offered three for sale, for which he wanted £SOO. Finally, he consented to give £2OO, out of which ho retained £SO for himself. Mr G. Lewis, solicitor for the Parnellites, subpoenaed witness in September last. Pigott ininquired who would pay his expenses, and be said he was afraid his admissions would be damaging to Parnell. Mr Lewis replied that the matter of expenses would be arranged if he would only speak the truth. Afterwards Sinclair, an emissary ot Egan, arranged that Pigott should have an interview .with Mr Labouchere for the purpose of assisting Parnell. Sinclair gave Pigott £3. He informed Houston, who induced him to cancel hia engagement. Pigott afterwards wrote a letter to Mr Labouchere saying lhat ho was not selling his evidence, and was unable 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 ha was being watched. Witness met Mr Laboochere and Mr Parnell at the formei’s house in October. Mr Parnell asserted that he possessed proofs that Pigott was forging letters. Witness stipulated that Mr Lewis should withdraw the subpoena in order to ayoid being obliged to give evidence. To this Mr Parnell did not agree. Mr Labouchere demanded that be should enter the witness-box and admit that he had forged the letters in order to secure a certificate from the Commission to escape punishment. He took Pigolt aside and forbade him to mention money in the presence of Mr Parnell. Suddenly Mr Lewis entered and denounced Pigott as a forger, accusing him ot receiving letters from Mr Parnell in 1881 and 1882, from which ho had copied words and phrases and concocted letters in the possession of 1 The Times. He threatened that unless Pigottjaccedod to MrLabouchere’s request i

he should be prosecuted for forgery and perjury. Mr Labouohera again took Pigott aside and offered him £IOOO to admit the forgery. Witness admitted that possibly he mentioned they were forgeries, but he required £SOOO to do what he was asked, and the matter was not settled. In the meantime The Times served him with a subpoena. Another interwiew took place at a later date, but without any result. Under cross-examina-tion by Sir Oharias Ruasoil, Pigott pleaded the inviolability of the confessional with regard to the admission made to Archbishop Walsh, and refused to divulge what had taken place between them. Tha witness was staggered by &ir Charles Russell producing an admittedly authentic letter from Pigott, informing Archbishop Walsh that an attempt would be mad© to wreck the Irish party upon evidence quite sufficient for an English court, but lhat nevertheless he would be able to defeat it and prove their innocence on condition that the Archbishop guaranteed secrecy. The witness admitted sending a second letter assuring Archbishop Walsh that he had not assisted in the attempt to prejudice thoParnellites. He had received a letter in reply refusing to interfere. Sir Charles Russell quoted sentences from Pigotl'a letter seriatim , Pigott became flustered and hesitated and vacillated in hie answers, and at last helplessly con fessed that he had forgotten subjects indicated in the letter, and was unaware of his purpose in writing. A great sensation was cuised iu the House of Commons and London generally by the turn affairs have taken. The Parnollites are jubilant, and consider that the collapse of the Times’ case is assured. Sir Charles Russell compelled Pigott to write in Court several words occurring in the letters; including ‘ hesitancy* and ‘likelihood.' Pigott misspelt both in the same « ay that they appear in the letters. Mr Balfour was received in the House of Commons by the Irish members with hisses and cries of ‘Pigott.’ Mr Parnell was absent. Feb. 22. In bis examination before the Parnell Commission Pigott swore that he received letters from Murphy, the compositor, and other Fenians, only after he had been sworn by the Clan-no-Ctael agents not to disclose the source from which he obtained them if be subsequently became a witness. Afterwards the Clan-na-Gael offered to refund 500 dollars if the letters wore returned. Witness added that Mr Labonchore had assured him that the admission that he (Pigott) had swindled The Times would secure' him a seat iu the British Parliament, also that he would receive an ovation in America, without any personal risk, since an indemnity was obtainable. Pigott said lie had disclosed to Mr Lewis, solicitor, the whole of Houston’s case, but denied having admitted he believed it was not genuine. Witness said his objection to seeing Labouchere was a desire to escape giving evidence, as he feared he might be murdered. In cross-examination by Sir Charles Russell, ligott admitted that he had informed Archbishop Walsh, of Dublin, that he was not a parly lo Iho attacks on Parnell, and he utterly failed to explain the overtures he made to the Archbishop. Pigott was made the subject of an exhibition while under cross-examination, In cross-examination before the TimesParnell Commission, Pigott admitted that the statements he had made in the letter to Archbishop Walsh were entirely unfounded, aod that ho had told Houston that the Parnell loiters were possibly forgeries, and ho further stated that he had written to MrForsier, Irish Secretary, in 1881, asking for £ISOO for services rendered to Government, and admitted writing at the same time asking for £SOO to stop publication of a pamphlet damaging to the League. February 23, In cross-examination to-day, Pigotl’a evidence before the Commission was further discredited. He admitted that his actions had been systematic black-mailing of Forster and Egan, He had, he said, tried to obtain £2OO tor tire purpose of visiting Australia, hoping lo receive assistance of Sir Gavan Duffy. It was shown to the Commissioners that whole passages of the letters alleged to have been written by Egan and Parnell were identical with letters Pigolt received from them in 1881, and habitual mistakes in spelling made by Pigott were reproduced in those passages. February 24,' The Daily Telegraph, in referring to Pigott’s evidence, said lhat he had collapsed hopelessly, and that his evidence was both degrading and disgusting. The sequel, it says, is obvious.