Account of the Pigott Forgeries trial in the wake of the Phoenix Park Murders.

**

THE FORGERIES COMMISSION**

Early in the year 1887, *The Times *newspaper published, under the heading, *Parnellism and Crime, *a short pamphlet, now very rare, charging Mr. Parnell, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Healy, and other Members of Parliament with participation in outrage and murder, and declaring that in a more robust age their heads would have adorned the spikes at Charing Cross. “The Crimes Act,” known in Ireland as “The ‘Jubilee’ Coercion Act,” was at the time in progress through Parliament, and it was thought in some quarters that these articles were intended to facilitate its passage. But the pamphlet fell quite flat, and on Monday, April 18, 1887, the eve of the second reading of the bill, *The Times *published what purported to be a facsimile of a letter of Mr. Parnell, implicating him in the Phoenix Park murders

“In view,” *The Times *wrote, “of the unblushing denials of Mr. Sexton and Mr. Healy on Friday night; we do not think it right to withhold any longer from public knowledge the fact that we possess and have in our custody documentary evidence which has a most serious bearing on the Parnellite conspiracy, and which, after a most careful and minute scrutiny, is we are satisfied, quite authentic. We produce one document in facsimile to-day by a process, the accuracy of which cannot be impugned, and we invite Mr. Parnell to explain how his signature became attached to such a letter :- *

“May *15, 1882.

“DEAR SIR - I am not surprised at your friend’s anger, but he and you should know that to denounce murders was the only course open to us. To do promptly was plainly our best policy, but you can tell him and all concerned that though I regret the accident of Lord Cavendish’s death I cannot refuse to admit that Burke got no more than his deserts. You are at liberty to show him this and others whom you can trust also. But let not my address be known; he can write to the House of Commons.

“Yours very truly,

“CHAS. S. PARNELL.”

On May 3, 1887, Sir George Lewis, one of the Ulster Unionists most bitterly opposed to the Irish party, raised the question as one of privilege in the House of Commons. If, however, he or the Unionist party expected that Mr. Parnell or the Irish members would shirk the issue they had a woeful disappointment. Mr. Parnell and his followers at once availed themselves of the opportunity to vehemently demand a Parliamentary Committee to investigate the truth or falsehood of the charges. But the Unionists at once showed an equal eagerness to evade the inquiry.

It was in vain that Mr. Gladstone declared:- “I do affirm before this assembly, as an assembly of English gentlemen, that it is impossible to resist an immediate trial if the parties who are accused of the basest and vilest offences that can be committed by Members of Parliament against the House of Commons demand an immediate trial.”

Mr. Sexton, on behalf of the Irish party, offered to accept a committee on which the government would have a majority.

The debate was adjourned to the following day, and meanwhile *The Times *in a leader wrote that it “did not think the House would be well advised in dealing with the question as one of privilege.”

When the House reassembled, the government was found strongly against a Parliamentary Committee, but in the alternative it made the offer of a criminal prosecution against *The Times, *offering to lend the Attorney-General (Sir Richard Webster) to Mr. Parnell to conduct the prosecution.

The generosity of this offer may be fairly estimated from the fact that Sir Richard Webster was, later on, chosen as the leading counsel for *The Times *in an action brought against it by Mr. Frank Hugh O’Donnell.

Early in July, 1888, Mr. Frank Hugh O’Donnell brought an action for libel against *The Times, *claiming that, as a follower of Mr. Parnell, all its strictures applied to him.

Sir Richard Webster, in a three days’ speech, reiterated all the charges, and produced a number of additional letters purporting to be written by Mr. Parnell, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Egan, and other members of the party, amongst them the following:-

“DEAR E.- What are those fellows waiting for?

This inaction is inexcusable. Our best men are in prison and nothing is being done. Let there be an end of this hesitency. Prompt action is called for. You undertook to make it hot for old Foster and Co., let us have some evidence of your power to do so.

“My health is good, thanks.

“Yours very truly,

“CHAS. S. PARNELL.”

At the close of the trial, in which none of the Irish party were represented, the Attorney-General asked for a; direction on the ground that none of the charges applied to the plaintiff; the direction was granted, and the plaintiff’s action was accordingly dismissed.

A few days later, Mr. Parnell in the House of Commons, while indignantly denying the truth of the statement in *The Times *and the authenticity of the letters, again demanded a Special Committee of the House.

This time the Government did not offer him the services of Sir Richard Webster, but suggested a Special Commission of three judges to be chosen by themselves on a reference which the Government should determine. Mr. Parnell was invited to say, without debate, whether or not he would accept the offer.

Mr. Smith, in reply to a question of Mr. Parnell in the House of Commons, said- “We are willing to propose that Parliament should pass a hill appointing a Commission to inquire into the allegations made against *Members of Parliament *in the case of O’Donnell *v. *Walter.”

But, as Mr. Parnell pointed out two days later, the Government having in the meantime had the opportunity ofreceiving a friendly hint at the Cabinet Council from the counsel for *The Times, *and perhaps the advantage then, or subsequently, of an interview with Mr. Walter, had extended the inquiry by the addition of the words *“and others” *which, as he pointed out, gave the Commission an unlimited scope.

The random shot of Mr. Parnell went home. Mr. Smith, subjected to a pitiless cross-examination, was at last constrained to confess that he had an interview, not merely with “his old friend” Mr. Walter, the proprietor, but also with Mr. Buckle, the editor of The Times.

Mr. Parnell, commenting on the conduct and intention of the Government, remarked that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith) “declared the other day that he had brought this matter forward to give us an opportunity of clearing our character and he repeats that statement to-day. I say he has not brought it forward in response to my request or for any purpose I claim, but for the purpose of casting discredit on a great Irish movement, in endeavouring to traduce a people whom you ought to be ashamed and tired of traducing, and attempting to find a means of escape for his confederates from the break down of the charges which he and his confederates know full well will break down. We are told now that these letters are only secondary evidence, and even if it were proved up to the hilt that each of those letters were bare-faced forgeries the case for *The Times *would not be affected.”

He challenged the Attorney-General to say if he had made any inquiry into the origin or authenticity of the letters before he made an infamous charge against a brother member, and the Attorney-General did not answer even by a motion of his head. “The object of this widely extended Commission,” continued Mr. Parnell, “is clear. The Times and the Government know that the case of the forged letters is going to break down. Therefore they wish to direct the inquiries of the Commission into other channels.” He concluded by demanding that the words “and other person” should be struck out, and the names should be given of the Members of Parliament against whom allegations were made.

Mr. Chamberlain, in reply, said that he had at time friendly relations with Mr. Parnell, but hinted that his suspicions were aroused by Mr. Parnell’s reluctance to go before a British jury, which always could be trusted to give an impartial verdict. If the words, “other persons,” were omitted from the reference it might, he said, be impossible to prove that the Irish party consorted with criminals, and he therefore voted against Mr*. *Parnell’s amendment.

Mr. Healy sardonically reminded Mr. Chamberlain that in the case of the Manchester Martyrs a British jury had in five minutes convicted a man of murder, who it was conclusively proved had never been near the scene of the rescue, arid twitted him with having dropped his action against Mr. Mariott, judge Advocate for England, who accused him of adopting dishonourable methods of crushing his rivals in the screw trade. In conclusion, he declared that he would sooner tear his stuff gown from his back than be guilty of the unprofessional and dishonourable conduct of the Attorney-General in the case of O’Donnell *V. *Walters.

Still more deadly was Mr. Parnell’s reply, when he took the opportunity, as he said “of thanking the member for West Birmingham for the kind reference he was good enough to make to him.” “My principal recollections of the member for West Birmingham,” he said, “before he became a member of the Cabinet, was that he was always most anxious to put me forward, and to put my friends forward to do the work which he was ashamed to do himself. After he became a Minister my principal recollection of him was that he was always anxious to bring to us the secrets of the councils of his friends in the Cabinet, and to endeavour, while sitting beside those colleagues, and in consultation with them, to undermine their counsels and their plans in our interest, and if this inquiry is intended to include these matters, and I don’t know why it should not, I should be abundantly able to make good my word by documentary evidence not forged.”

The Government eventually forced their own scheme unamended on Mr. Parnell and the Irish party. The three judges selected by the government to preside at the Commission were Judge Hanen, Judge Smith, and Judge Day, two of those judges were Conservatives and one a Liberal-Unionist; all three, as Mr. Gladstone put it, “deliberately and determinedly opposed to Home Rule and to the Irish party.” But it was only to Judge Day that special objection was taken. He had sat on a Commission in Belfast with Judge Adams, and Judge Adams wrote a letter to Mr. Morley, which was read in the House, in which he declared that Judge Day “railed against Mr. Parnell and his friends, he regards them as infidels and rebels who have led astray a Catholic nation. He abhors their utterances and their acts; he believes them guilty of every crime.”

In spite of the protest of the Liberal and the Irish parties, the Government insisted on retaining the name of Judge Day on the Commission. Ultimately the bill was carried by closure and without any amendment.

The bill empowered the Commission, consisting of Judge Hanen (presiding), Judge Smith, and Judge Day to inquire into the charges and allegations made against certain members of Parliament (60 in all), and other persons referred to by the defendants in the recent trial entitled O’Donnell V. Walter and another.

It gave full power to the Commission to compel the attendance of witnesses, and withdrew from witnesses all privileges, including the right to refuse to answer questions criminating themselves, but entitled all witnesses who answered fully to an indemnity against civil or criminal proceedings.

On October 17, 1888, the Commission opened its proceedings.

Mr. Chamberlain in the House of Commons had said- “I agree that the letters constitute a principal, if not the principal of the charges. If those letters are shown conclusively to be base forgeries the whole of the rest of the case would be so prejudiced that the public would not pay much attention to anything else.”

But the Attorney-General, as leading counsel for *The Times, *from the first evaded this issue. He read at interminable length from the note-books of government reporters smatterings of speeches at Land League meetings, mixing ingeniously together patriotic exhortations by priests and Nationalist leaders and incitement to violence by obscure or disreputable agitators.

One remarkable admission, however, he made in his opening speech. In the trial of O’Donnell V. Walter, he had declared, “though it should cost *The Times *the verdict in this case, we will not reveal the name of the person who supplied us with these letters, nothing would induce us to produce them.” The statement showed the wisdom of Mr. Parnell in not at once appealing to a jury when the forgeries were first published. Plainly, the policy of *The Times *then was to produce the letters and rely on the evidence of experts that they were in the handwriting of Mr. Parnell, while suggesting that the person who supplied them would be in danger of assassination if his name was mentioned, confident that by such tactics they could secure at least a disagreement of the jury, if not a favourable verdict

But in the interval between the first publication and the sitting of the Commission, it leaked out that Mr. Parnell and his friends had a shrewd suspicion as to the author of the letters, and the Attorney-General felt it expedient to change his tactics. “In all probability,” he confesses, “the names of the persons who are connected with the obtaining of those letters will be mentioned.”

There followed a long procession of Irish police witnesses repeating from their note-books the evidence already given in the Coercion Courts in Ireland.

In the second week of the proceedings, Mr O’Shea, an intimate associate of Mr. Chamberlain, was examined and swore that he believed the signatures of the letters were in the handwriting of Mr. Parnell. Thereupon, Sir Charles Russell, who led for Mr. Parnell, pressed for an immediate investigation of the entire question of the letters, but the court refused to interfere with the discretion of the Attorney-General, who still persistently evaded that issue

It happened at that time, that in the absence of Mr*. *O’Brien (for the greater part of the time in prison), I acted as editor and chief leader writer of United Irishmen.

On December 15, 1888, I wrote a leader in *United Ireland’ *under the beading, “Somewhat too Much of This,” from which the following are extracts:-

“The time is come for very plain speaking on the Forgeries Commission, which has now been sitting for 27 days in London, without getting one inch nearer to the subject which the public understands it was specifically appointed to investigate. So far, the evidence has been a meaningless parade of eight-year-old outrages, from all participation in which the victims themselves examined for the ‘Forger,’ concur in emphatically exonerating the League… . We have no intention of waiting till the ‘Forger’ gives us leave to speak. With all respect for the Court, we do not care twopence for the opinion of the three judges specially selected in the teeth of justly indignant Liberal protests by the ‘Forger’s’ friends and accomplices. Assuming - and it is a large assumption in the judge’s favour - that the Coercion Government which specially selected them for their partiality were deceived, their judgment is still beside the question. This is not a matter of judicial decision at all, but of intelligent public opinion. The public is entitled to have the vital facts extracted from beneath the mass of rubbish in which the ‘Forger’ would fain hide them. The Commission was appointed, it will be remembered, many months ago, to investigate the truth or forgery of certain letters attributed to Mr. Parnell, and containing direct incitement to assassination. Mr. Chamberlain declared in the House of Commons, with the approval of all parties, that if these letters were proved to be forgeries, the public would care very little for the rest of the charges and allegations. If these letters were genuine, on the other hand, no further charge is needed to damn the character and career of the Irish leader. The Commission has now been sitting, with brief intermission, for some months, and it has never been let even to approach the one subject which the public regards with intensest interest, and on which Mr. Parnell has a right to claim immediate investigation and prompt decision…

“We should have no reason to complain of this display of impotent malignity. But it is so ingeniously wrapt up in vast volumes of dull, irrelevant evidence, that it is very likely, if comment be silenced, to escape the notice of the reader, who is not prepared to wade through two dull pages of newspaper per day; Besides, it is too dearly bought in time and money. We desire the cheaper, more sudden, definite and overwhelming exposure. The policy of vague malignity and shame-less evasion must not last for ever. The country as well as the accused, is entitled to call on the Court to compel the ‘Forger’ to come to the point.”

In the same issue I published a cartoon entitled, “Smothering the Commission,” in which was depicted a long train of Irish constables wheeling up barrow-loads of rubbish in which the three judges were covered up to their necks, while the forged letters were buried away in a corner.

As I anticipated and intended, the article was made the subject of an application by the Attorney-General for contempt of court against *United Ireland *and a conditional order secured.

Meanwhile I had an interview with William O’Brien, and begged, as a personal favour, that I should be allowed to take the defence of the article I had written on my own shoulders. I assured him that I had written it with the hope of proceedings and with a view to its defence. The gravamen of the charge was that *The Times *had been called the “forger,” and the letters “forgeries,” in anticipation of the decision of the Commission. But I argued *The Times *was guilty of equal contempt of court in constantly alluding to the letters as “facsimiles” of original letters of Mr. Parnell’s.

I urged in vain. It was impossible, O’Brien said, that he could allow anyone but himself to take the responsibility for United Ireland.

Mr. O’Brien’s first idea was to treat the whole proceeding with contempt. “Another imprisonment,” he said, “will make very little difference to me.”

But I urged that we had so admirable a defence it would be a pity to waste it, and that the publicity would compel The Times to come to the point.

After the adjournment, Mr. O’Brien appeared in court to answer the charge of contempt. He eloquently vindicated the article, and the conditional order against *United Ireland *was discharged.

The result was a unanimous demand from the English Press that *The Times *should come to the point. The Attorney-General rashly suggested that the letters would be reached within a week. The President of the Court expressed his approval, but the Attorney-General retorted, “It is only a hope, my lord, it depends on others besides myself”

The case still dragged on for a time, but the pressure of public opinion proved irresistible.

In February 1889, *The Times *took its courage in both hands, and at last brought the question of the letters before the Court.

Mr. Soams, solicitor for *The Times, *proved that the letters were first brought to him by Mr. McDonnell, *The Times *manager, and he took steps to compare them with the genuine handwriting of Mr. Parnell. Some time prior to the O’Donnell and Walter trial, Mr. McDonnell informed him that the letters were obtained from Mr. Richard Pigott, and that they were given to *The Times *by a Mr. Houston of “The Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union.”

At this stage Sir Charles Russell demanded that Mr. Richard Pigott, who sat modestly ensconced behind a curtain, should be put out of Court, and the demand was acceded to.

Mr. Soams admitted many payments to Mr. Houston, the first was for £1,000 on May 4, 1887, and that other cheques to the amount of nearly £2,000 followed as additional facsimile documents were furnished.

Mr. McDonnell, manager of *The Times, *deposed to receiving the letters from Mr. Houston. On cross-examination by Mr. Asquith, then junior counsel for Mr. Parnell, he admitted that, though he gave Mr. Houston £1,000 for the letters, he had not been told, nor had he asked where they came from. It was just before the O’Donnell and Walter trial he learned they were supplied by Pigott.

At the close of O’Donnell’s cross-examination the Attorney-General desired to examine the expert, Mr. Inglis, who was prepared to swear to Mr. Parnell’s handwriting in the incriminating letters. Sir Charles Russell demanded that Mr. Houston should be examined; the Attorney-General persisted in his refusal until the President, after consultation with his colleagues, declared that they were of opinion that the natural course of the inquiry, as it had now developed itself, would be to take evidence as to the source from which those letters were obtained, and the Attorney-General reluctantly called Mr. Houston.

In reply to the Attorney-General, he said that Pigott supplied him with materials from which the pamphlet, *Parnellism Unmasked, *was compiled. He asked Pigott to procure him some documentary evidence against Parnell and others. Pigott consented, but said he would get no evidence in Dublin; he should go to Paris and elsewhere. Subsequently Pigott said there were compromising letters in Paris, but that he should go to America to get the consent of a certain man to receive them. Pigott went to America and brought back, as he said, a letter of authority from J. J. Breslin. Pigott then got the letters, and Houston sold them to The Times.

Cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell, he confessed that after he had been subpoenaed on behalf of Mr. Parnell, he had, at Pigott’s request, destroyed all the letters he had received from Pigott, and Pigott had destroyed his. *

Sir Charles Russell. *At the time of this performance you were aware that it was imputed to Mr. Pigott that he was the fabricator of the incriminating documents?

*Witness. *I was, but I had Mr. Pigott’s sworn statement that the letters were genuine.

You regard this as a serious charge against Mr. Parnell?

I do, distinctly.

Did you consider it fair to him that contemporary written communications relating to the circumstances under which it was alleged these documents had been obtained should be destroyed during the trial?

I did not consider that Mr; Parnell’s position’s appealed to me for consideration at all.

Now, I understand; your object was to fix the charge on him without any regard to him?

Well, considering that I had been assisting *The Times *in making certain charges and allegations against him, I do not think you can imagine I would go out of my way to assist the other side to disprove what I said was a fact.

He then detailed how he and Dr. Maguire went to Paris to obtain possession of the letters.

You mentioned having borrowed some money; kindly repeat the names and figures.

I borrowed £850 from Dr. Maguire for the special purpose of the purchase of these letters and incidental expenses.

Who was the other person from whom you borrowed?

Private friends.

Who?

I got from Sir Rowland Blennerhasset £70; I got from Lord Richard Grosvenor £450; I got from Mr. Jonathan Hogg, of Dublin, £250.

Now, you and Dr. Maguire went to Paris together?

Yes.

What was your object in bringing Dr. Maguire.

He knew I was going for the letters, and I think he displayed anxiety to accompany me, and I brought him.

What did you go to Paris to do?

To obtain the letters.

What hotel was Mr. Pigott staying at?

I think he was staying at the Hotel St. Petersburg.

What hotel were you staying at?

The Hotel du Monde, nearly opposite.

Did you telegraph to say when you would arrive, and where you were staying?

I think I telegraphed when I would arrive.

Did he call on you?

He called upon me on the day of my arrival.

Was it on the day of your arrival you received the letters?

It was.

When he called on you had he the letters, or did he require money to go and get them?

He had the letters with him.

That you are quite sure about?

Perfectly certain.

Then he did not require payment of this considerable sum of money in order to obtain possession of them?

No.

He got possession of the letters without having been required to pay the price?

I understood the people who had possession of the letters did not really let them pass out of their possession, and were waiting for him to return.

Did he not produce them?

He produced them from a black bag in my room.

Then I should say he was in possession of them. How long did that interview last before you paid him the money?

Not very long, because I took the letters to Dr. Maguire in another room; I asked him was be prepared to take them, and allow me to use his money for the purchase of them, and he said yes.

Did the interview last five minutes?

I should think a quarter of an hour. I delayed him while I looked through the letters with Dr. Maguire.

And Pigott told you that there were some people downstairs, and if he did not bring back the letters he should have to bring back the money?

Yes.

Did you go down to see whether anybody was waiting for him?

I did not, because as I explained before, my procedure was governed by a desire to keep altogether apart from these men.

Did you not ask him who the men were?

I said no.

And you did not ask him because you wanted to keep yourself in ignorance?

Yes.

Of what?

Of who the particular men were who had given up the letters.

Did you or did you not think that the quarter from which the letters came might become very material upon the question of their authenticity?

Not so far as I was concerned.

Does that mean so far as you are concerned you had done all you cared about, provided *The Times *were willing to take them and pay for them?

I had no arrangement with *The Times *at this time. The arrangement of Dr. Maguire was that if *The Times *did not take them he would use them for publication in a pamphlet. My part was done without securing, in the event of a question of their authenticity, any means of testing Pigott’s statement, if he made any, as to where they came from.

Or without securing at any future time, independent proof of where they came from?

I understood it would be useless, and that if I attempted to prove it, I could not make a complete case, and I would be handicapped by only knowing a little or small portion of it.

By a complete case you mean a complete case against Mr. Parnell?

Yes Mr. Egan was equally incriminated.

But would you consider him equally important?

Well, I don’t know.

What did Pigott say to you about these letters?

He expressed his strong belief that they were genuine. I don’t think he entered into a lengthened conversation at all, because he produced the letters and left them to me to decide what I would do with them.

Well now, Mr. Houston, will you tell my lords in your own way, without interruption from me, all that Pigott told you from the beginning in reference to this first batch of letters.

I think I have informed my lords as fully as I can.

Do it again. Just tell all that you alleged Pigott told you in reference to this first batch of letters, not only what he told you in that particular interview, but in connection with that batch of letters.

I understood from Mr. Pigott that the letters were left in a bag in a room where I think Frank Byrne or a man named Kelly was arrested, and this bag was subsequently taken possession of by certain Fenians in Paris. These Fenians held possession of them, and they being in communication with certain persons in America, refused to give them up until they got the sanction of these people in America, and I sent him to America, as I understood, to get the sanction. But he returned, and informed me he had with him a letter addressed to a certain person or persons in Paris, and he subsequently travelled to Paris two or three times, and on the morning in question brought me the letters. That is the whole thing.

Did you take any steps to test the truth of any part of that story?

I had largely to depend on the reports furnished to me as he proceeded of what happened in connection with his inquiry, and I had no other means afforded me of testing the accuracy of his statements.

Then I take it you did not, in fact, test any one link in the chain of that story?

I had no means of testing it.

*Sir Charles Russell. *What sum did you pay Pigott that day?

*Witness. *Five hundred for the letters, and a hundred guineas for himself.

He said he had agreed to pay £500 for the letters, and you gave him a hundred guineas for himself?

Yes.

That was in addition to the guinea a day?

Yes

Did you get that money from Dr. Maguire?

Yes.

On Saturday, February 23, 1889, came the exciting climax of the Commission, when Richard Pigott was at last forced into the witness chair. An eye-witness thus vividly describes his appearance in Court.

“The Courthouse was all agog, and necks were craned forward towards the point at which the mysterious Pigott was to arrive. There were several moments during which the excitement was intense. At last there was a movement of curtains, and the theatrical entrance of a greasy man with a dirty grey beard, and an enormous bald head like a brass helmet, who followed the usher towards the witness box. An eye-glass dangled from a black string, puffy red cheeks overhung the ragged beard and sensual mouth.”

Pigott made an elaborate bow to the Court, and in a smooth, gentle voice answered the questions of the Attorney-General, and detailed the finding of the various batches of letters, including the “facsimile” documents of Mr. Parnell, and compromising letters from Messrs. Egan, Davitt, O’Kelly, and others.

The scene changed when Sir Charles Russell rose to cross-examine the witness.

Never in forensic history was there so crushing a cross-examination. Counsel had ample material, and he worked it with consummate skill. No bullying, no brow-beating; calm, gentle, sardonic, he “sounded him from the lowest note to the top of his compass, and plucked out the heart of his mystery.”

Handing him a sheet of blank paper, Sir Charles asked Pigott to write a number of words including “hesitancy,” which had been misspelled “hesitency” in the forged letters, He then cross-examined him at length regarding the purchase of his paper, *The Irishman, *by Mr. Parnell, and the various letters he received on the subject from Mr. Parnell and Mr. Egan, and also regarding the several occasions, beginning so far back as 1873, in which he had offered to sell valuable information, amongst others, to Lord Spencer and Mr. Foster. *

Sir Charles Ri£ssell. *Is it your letter? (handing letter to witness). Tell me if it is your letter? Do not read it. (Witness still examines letter.)

*Sir Charles Russell. *Is that your letter, sir ?

*Witness. *Yes, I think it is.

Have you any doubt about it?

No. *

Sir Charles Russell. *My lords, it is from Anderton’s Hotel to the Archbishop of Dublin, and dated March 4, 1887, three days before the appearance of the first series of articles (reading) “Private and Confidential.

“My Lord - The importance of the matter about which I write will doubtless excuse this intrusion on your attention. Briefly, I wish to say that I have been made’ aware of the details of certain proceedings that are in preparation with *the *object of destroying the influence of the Parnellite party in Parliament.”

What were the certain proceedings that were in preparation?

I do not recollect.

Turn to my lords and repeat the answer, “I do not recollect.” You wrote on March 4, and stated that you had been made aware of the details of certain proceedings that were in preparation with the object of destroying the influence of the Parnellite party in Parliament’. That is just two years ago, and you do not know what that referred to?

I do not know.

Did it refer to the incriminating letters amongst other things?

The letters had not be obtained at that date.

*Sir Charles RusselL *I don’t want to confuse you.

*Mr. Pigott. *Would you give me the date of the letter?

*Sir Charles Russell. *It is March 4, 1887. Is it your impression that the letters had not been obtained at that date?

Oh, yes, some had been obtained.

Did that passage which I read refer to them amongst other things?

No; I rather fancy it had reference to the forthcoming articles.

I thought you told us you did not know anything about the forthcoming articles?

Yes, I did.

Then how did you refer to what you did not know?

I find now that I must have been mistaken, and that I must have known something about them. Pray do not make the same mistake again. (Again reading from Mr. Pigott’s letter to the Archbishop of Dublin.)

“I cannot enter more fully into the details than to state that the proceedings referred to consist in the publication of certain statements purporting to prove the complicity of Mr. Parnell himself and some of his supporters with the murders and outrages in Ireland, to be followed up, in all probability, by the institution of criminal proceedings against these parties by the government.”

Who told you that?

I have no idea.

Did that refer, amongst other things, to the incriminating letters?

I don’t recollect that it did.

Do you swear it did not?

I would not swear it did not.

Did you think that these letters, if genuine, would prove Mr. Parnell’s complicity with crime?

I think they were very likely to prove it.

And you are of the same opinion still?

Yes.

Reminding you of that opinion, I ask you whether you did not intend to refer, not solely, but amongst other things, to the letters as being matter which would prove, and purport to prove, complicity?

Yes, I may have had that in my mind.

*Sir Charles Russell *(again reading from the same letter of Mr. Piggott). “Your Grace may be assured that I speak with a full knowledge, and am in a position to prove beyond doubt or question the truth of what I say.” Was that true?

*Witness. *It can hardly have been true.

Then you wrote that which was false?

I suppose it was in order to add strength to what I had said. I do not think it was warranted by what I knew.

Oh, you added the untrue statement in order to add strength to what you had said?

Yes.

Very well. You believe these letters to be genuine?

I did.

And do at this time?

Yes.

*Sir Charles Russell *(reading)- “And I can further assure your Grace that I am able to point out how the designs may be successfully combated and finally defeated.” If these documents were genuine, and you believed them to be such, how were you able to assure his Grace that you are able to point out a way in which the designs may be successfully combated and finally defeated ?

As I say, I had not the letters actually in my mind at the time. I do not recollect that letter at all - my memory is a perfect blank as to it.

You told me a moment ago that you had both on your mind?

I said it was probable I had, but the thing has completely failed my memory.

I must press you - Assuming the letters to be genuine, what were the means you were able to assure his Grace by which you could point out how the designs might be successfully combated and finally defeated?

I cannot say.

Supposing, for instance, you happened to know that the letters were concocted, that would be a means?

I think that it does not refer, as I said, to the letters at all.

What were the means which you were able to point out as to how the designs might be successfully combated and finally defeated?

I do not know.

You must think; not two years ago you knew. (No answer.)

What did you mean?

I cannot tell you, really.

Try

I cannot tell you.

Try

(After a pause.) I really cannot.

Try.

It is no use.

Am I to take it, then, your answer to my lords is that you call not give any explanation?

I really cannot.

Later on the witness confessed that he thought some of the Parnell letters were not genuine. *

Sir Charles Russell *Which of the Parnell letters did you think were not genuine?

*Mr. Pigott. *None of them, because I could not recognize the handwriting of the body of them.

Then you say you believed none of them to be genuine?

No, none of the Parnell letters.

And the Egan letters you say you did?

I did.

Is that your answer?

My answer at the present moment.

Will you swear that you ever, in any shape or form, communicated to the Archbishop of Dublin that you believed the Egan letters were genuine ?

My strong impression is I did.

Will you swear you did?

I will, to the best of my belief.

Not believing the Parnell letters to be genuine, did on think it right to communicate that belief to Mr. Houston?

I did not state that I believed the letters not to be genuine. (Laughter.) I said that they might possibly b*e *forgeries.

Oh, you said more than that, Mr. Piggott; well, at all events, you were in a state of doubt about it?

I was.

Did you tell Houston your doubt about the genuineness of the Parnell letters?

No.

Never?

Never, beyond stating that I could not identify them.

As genuine, you mean?

I could not prove them.

Did Houston ever express any doubts to you about them?

No.

Are you sure?

Quite sure.

Did you not at this time offer to get back the money?

No.

And never said you did?

No.

What about this letter: “In conclusion, your Grace will do me the justice of believing that I am not the fabricator of the published letters as has been falsely asserted and circulated to my great annoyance and injury.” Who was the fabricator?

I don’t know.

Did you believe there was a fabricator?

No, I did not. (Laughter.)

After cross-examining the witness in regard to the identity in date and phrase of genuine letters he had received from Mr. Egan, with criminatory letters alleged to be Egan’s, found in the black bag.

Sir Charles Russell continued - Now, I will call your attention to another matter. One of these alleged forged letters is dated 11th March, 1882:-

“Dear Sir - As I understand your letter, which reached me to-day, you cannot act as directed unless I forward you the money by Monday next. Well, here is £50, under existing circumstances what you suggested, etc.” Then, here is the genuine letter which you have admitted on the 11th March, 1881, Rue de Rivoli, there is the same date, the same month, the only alteration being the year. Do you notice?

Yes.

Curious? No answer. (Laughter.) The exact wording too:

“SIR-As I understand your letter, which reached me to-day” … in both of them, very extraordinary, is it not-word for word.

I do not see anything extraordinary in it. (Laughter.)

A little later Sir Charles Russell put into the hands of witness copies of the genuine letters written to him by Mr. Parnell, and pointed out that the phraseology closely corresponded with the forged letters. *

Sir Charles Russell. *Assuming the copies are genuine, Mr. Pigott, how would you explain the coincidence?

*Witness. *It is not infrequent that people would write in different letters the same words and phrases.

*Sir Charles Russell. *But supposing you wanted to forge a document - (laughter) - would it be a help to you to have a genuine copy of a letter by the same person?

*Witness *Of course it would. (Laughter.)

*Sir Charles Russell. *How would you use it ?

*Witness. *Copy it. (Laughter.)

How would you proceed to use it; now, Mr. Pigott, I want to know.

I cannot say.

But give us your best idea how you would proceed?

I do not pretend to have any experience in that line.

Well, say how you think you would begin to use the genuine letter, supposing you were called upon?

I decline to put myself in that position.

Well, theoretically?

I do not see any use in discussing the matter.

Let me suggest. Would you put a delicate tissue paper over it and trace on it? How would you proceed then? (Laughter.)

I don’t know.

Never mind, Mr. Pigott, we will get along. You will find out?

I don’t know how you would proceed.

I cannot tell either. With your help we will get on the way. (Laughter.) Supposing you had a genuine letter and wanted to copy it, and supposing you put a delicate tissue-paper over it, would it enable you to trace it?

Yes.

But how would you do it?

I fancy I would do it without tracing.

*Sir Charles Russell. *That would be an advanced stage of skill. (Laughter.) It would take a greater expert. (Laughter.)

*Witness. *Yes.

In fact the tissue paper would be easier than that. Don’t you think so, Mr. Pigott?

I do. (Laughter.)

And why, now, Mr. Pigott, do you think it would be much easier ; have you tried? (Laughter.)

No, I have not, but apparently it would be to anybody.

Sir Charles then adverted to the words which he had asked the witness to write at the beginning of his cross-examination.

You were good enough yesterday, Mr. Pigott, to write down the spelling of certain words, and amongst them there was the spelling of the word “hesitancy.” Is that a word you are accustomed to use?

I have used it.

You noticed that you spelt it as it is not ordinarily spelt yesterday?

Yes, yesterday I fancy I made a mistake in the spelling of it.

What was the mistake?

Using “a” instead of “e.”

*Vice versa

*I cannot say.

You cannot say, but you have a general consciousness that there was something wrong?

Something wrong?

You spelt it with an “e ” instead of an “a.” You have spelt it “hesitency”; that is not the recognized spelling?

I believe not.

Have you noticed the fact that the writer of the body of the letter of January 1882 - the forged letter-beginning “Dear Egan,” spells it the same way?

I have heard that remark made about the letter. My explanation of my misspelling is - having that in my mind I got into the habit of spelling it wrong. (Laughter.)

My lords, did you get the last answer? (To witness.) You saw a long time ago in the alleged forged letters, beginning “Dear Egan,” that the word “hesitancy” was misspelt?

Yes.

And you fancy having had your attention called to the fact that the word was misspelt you got it into your head, which accounts for your misspelling it yesterday?

Yes. I heard so much about it, and really I never met anyone who spelt it rightly. (Laughter.)

It had got into your brain somehow or other?

Somehow or other.

Who was it called your attention to the misspelling?

It was a matter of general remark.

You think that but for the fact of your attention being drawn to it in any way you would probably have spelt it rightly?

Yes, but for that.

You got it into your finger ends.

Yes, I suppose so. (Laughter.)

Sir Charles Russell handed witness an admitted letter of a date long antecedent to the date on which he alleged the forged letter had come into his possession.

*Sir Charles Russell. *Is that yours?

*Witness *(examining letter). Yes, that is my letter.

The wrong spelling had not got into your brain or fingers then?

No.

But it began to operate. Do you notice that “hesi tancy” is spelt in the same way with an “e”

No, I did not notice that.

Well, look at it.

*Witness *(examining letter). There appears to be an in that.

The President asked to see the letter which was dated June 8, 1881.

*Sir Charles Russell *(to witness). How do you account for the misspelling in that letter? Your brain had not been affected in the matter of orthography at the time.

I cannot say.

Do you account for it on the disturbance of brain theory?

Certainly not.

Does that strike you as being a remarkable coincidence or not?

Oh, I think not.

Again Sir Charles Russell examined him as to the similarity of the forged letters to the genuine letters of Mr. Parnell in his possession.

Let me ask you whether this is not a remarkable thing; there are two forged letters, both dated June 16, alleged to be signed by Mr. Parnell?

Yes.

And you are aware that the date of the letter of Mr. Parnell, of which you sent a copy to the Reverend Mr. Maher and the original to the Archbishop, was June 16, 1881?

Yes.

So that the two alleged forged letters of June i6, 1882, so far as the date is concerned, correspond with the original letter, with the alteration of the one into a two?

Yes.

Do you notice that in the first letter of June i6 the phrase occurs, “I have always been anxious to”?

Yes.

Do you notice that the same phrase after the formal acknowledgment, “I am sure you will feel”* *occurs in the second letter of June 16, 1882?

(After a pause.) Yes.

Does that strike you as an extraordinary coincidence?

It appears to be horribly stupid. If I were doing a forgery I am certain I would not make a mistake like that. I think I would not repeat so many words, I am very sure I would not.

Not intentionally with your eyes open ?

I would consider myself stupid if I did that.

You would be rather ashamed of yourself?

No.

You do not feel ashamed of yourself?

*Witness. *I must object.

*Sir Charles Russell *(sternly). Do you feel ashamed of yourself?

I do not.

You do not?

I do not, and I think it scandalous to be so questioned. I affirm distinctly

*The President *(resolutely, to witness). We are the judges of how counsel shall proceed.

*Witniess. *I beg pardon, my lord. I think I ought to be allowed to say at once that I distinctly deny that I forged these letters.

*The President. *Very well.

*Witness. *And if I did I would not be here.

*Sir Charles Russell. *Not if you could help it. (Laughter.)

*Witness. *Why could I not help it?

*Sir Charles Russell. *You will hear presently, I think, Mr. Pigott.

But Pigott never lived to hear. Next day when he was called he failed-to appear, and *The Times’ *counsel could offer no explanation of his disappearance.

Later it transpired that at the rising of the Court Mr. Pigott expressed his desire to make a confession to Mr. Labouchere and George Augustas Sala.

After a sharp altercation with the President, Sir Charles Russell declared there was a foul conspiracy behind Pigott, and insisted on the confession being read in open court:- *

Saturday, 23rd February, *1889. “I, Richard Pigott, am desirous of making a statement before Henry Labouchere and Georgue Augustas Sala; and I make this of my own free will, and with-out any monetary inducement, in the house of the former. My object is to correct inaccuracies in the report of my evidence in *The Thnes, *and also to make a full disclosure of the circumstances connected with the fabrication of the “facsimile”letters published in *The Times, *and other letters attributed to Mr. Parnell, Mr. Egan, Mr. Davitt, and Mr. O’Kelly, and produced by *The Times *in evidence. I stated that after I disposed of my newspapers in 1881, I continued in touch with the I.R.B.; that is not true. I also stated that to my own knowledge Egan and others continued to be members of the I.R.B. after the resignation of the positions held by them on the Supreme Council of the organization. In my account of my interview with Eugene Davis at Lausanne I stated that I made rough notes in his presence of the conversations that took place between us, which were embodied in the statement read in Court. That is not correct, I made no notes. The statement was written by me on the following day from my recollection only. Davis made no statement on his own authority; we merely gossiped. I am now of opinion that he made no reference whatever to a letter of Mr. Parnell, which I stated was left in Paris with the other documents by a fugitive Invincible. I gave the statement to Houston as heads of a pamphlet, which I stated Davis could write at a future time. He did promise to write a pamphlet again the Land League, but not founded on the contents of the statement. I agreed to pay him £100 for the pamphlet. The circumstances connected with the obtaining of the letters as I gave them in evidence are not true. No one save myself was concerned in the transaction. I told Houston that I had discovered the letters in Paris. I grieve to have to admit that I simply myself fabricated them, using genuine letters of Mr Parnell and Mr. Egan in copying certain words and phrases, and the general character of the handwriting. I traced some of the words and phrases by putting the genuine letter against the window, and placing the sheet on which I wrote over it. Those were the genuine letters from Mr. Parnell, copies of which have been read in Court, and four or five letters of Mr. Egan, which were also read in Court. I destroyed these letters after using them. Some of the signatures were, I think, traced in the same manner, and some I wrote. I then wrote to Houston, telling him to come to Paris for the documents. I told him that they had been placed in a black bag with some old accounts and scraps of paper. On his arrival I produced the letters, accounts and scraps, and after a brief inspection he handed me a cheque on Cook for £500 the price that I had told him I had agreed to pay for them, at the same time he gave me £105 in bank notes as my own commission. The accounts put in were the leaves of one of my old account books, which contained details of the expenditure of Fenian money entrusted to me from time to time. These are mainly in the handwriting of David Murphy, my cashier. The scraps of paper which I stated were found in the bag were taken from an old writing desk of mine. I do not recollect in whose handwriting they are. The second batch of letters was also written by me. Parnell’s signature was imitated from that published in The Times’ facsimile letter. I do not now know where I got the Egan letter, from which I copied the signature. I had no specimen of Campbell’s handwriting beyond two letters from Mr. Parnell, which I presumed might be in Mr. Campbell’s handwriting. I wrote to Houston, stating that this second batch was for sale in Paris, having been brought there from America. He wrote, asking to see them. I forwarded them accordingly, and in three or four days he sent me a cheque on Cook for the price demanded, £550. **The third batch consisted of a letter imitated by me from a letter written in pencil to me by Mr. Davitt, another letter, copied by me from a very early date, which I received from Mr. James O’Kelly, when he was writing on my newspaper; and as to the third letter ascribed to Egan, some of the words I got from an old Bill of Exchange in Egan’s handwriting. This third letter has been called the Bakery letter. £500 was the price paid to me by Houston for these three letters.”

After the reading of the confession in Court, the Attorney General confessed that after all that passed, “they were not entitled to say the letters were genuine, and expressed what was, no doubt, the sincere regret of *The Times *for having published them. But even then he could not bring himself to confess that they were forged.

“I claim, however, to remark,” he said, “that some words used by Sir Charles Russell did not escape our attention. He said that behind Pigott there had been a foul conspiracy. I desire emphatically to say if a foul conspiracy existed those whom we represent have no share whatever in it.”

Sir Charles Russell retorted- ” I did hope for a stronger statement at this juncture from my learned friend. But whatever my learned friend may be instructed to say will in no way alter the course my clients will take; and that is that they will not only go into the witness box and submit themselves for examination, but also they will ask your lordships’ assistance, as far as it can be extended, to enable them to see whether this young man, Houston, the alleged journalist, the Secretary to the Loyal and Patriotic Union, went into this venture on his own account solely. It is in that direction that I pointed when I spoke of the conspiracy between Pigott and Houston. I cannot but believe that it would be your lordships’ wish to now make a prominent expression of your lordships’ opinion that these letters, as they stand on the evidence, are clearly forgeries, and if it would be within your lordships’ power I would further ask your lordships to relieve one man particularly who has suffered beyond what may be conceived, what is difficult to describe, who has held an important public position, and who has suffered an unmerited wrong, and who has been lying under this grievous accusation for such a length of time. I ask that he may be speedily relieved by your lordships, so far as it is in your power to relieve him, from such a gross and such an unfounded imputation.”

The wretched Pigott committed suicide by blowing his brains out on being arrested in Madrid, and it was a curious coincidence that Dr. Maguire, who had been so intimately mixed up in the business of the letters, on the same day that Pigott shot himself, died suddenly in London.

The sensation caused by the dramatic exposure of the forgeries was tremendous. Mr. Parnell was enthusiastically cheered in the House of Commons, the whole Liberal Party, including Mr. Gladstone and many Conservatives, joining in the demonstration. General indignation was expresed at the attitude of The Times, the Government, and especially of Sir Richard Webster. His retirement was vigorously demanded by the Liberal Press.

It is hardly necessary to add that Sir Richard Webster was not required to resign either his office or his seat, but, on the contrary, he was awarded by the Government for his services by the high position of Lord Chief Justice of England.

[Final page missing]

General Contents. .