The Carmarthen Journal and South Wales Weekly Advertiser

THE PA 11 NELL SPECIAL COMMISSION. MR. HOGSTON AND MR. PIGOTT UNDER EXAMINATION. FLIGHT OF ME. PIGOTT. E XT R AO R D IN A R Y CONFESSIONS. The interest in the present, phase of the proceed- I ings before the Commission was in no way abated when the Court assembled on Wednesday morning (iJi)th nIt.) Mr Piiruell was present from the begin- ning1. The cross-examination of Mr Houston was at once resumed, and Sir Charles Russell put. to him a series of searching questions relative to the destruction of the correspondence between Mr Pigott and himself. The witness could give no very definite answers. There was an understanding, implied rather than expressed, that Pigott's letters should never be used apainst him, but Mr Houston could not recollect that his correspondent asked in so many words that the letters might be destroyed. Witness at first, objected to give names of the private friends who had }¿nt him money when he was negotiating with Pigott, but at last he named Sir Rowland Blennerhitssett, who lent him £ 70 Lord R. <.tros>■"nor (Lord Stalbridge), who gave j him £ 450; and .Vlr Hoyle, of Dublin, who advanced I I h">e s uns were in addition to t he £ 850 lent by Dr Maguire. The latter gentleman accom- panied witness to Paris, and there, at an hotel, they saw Pigott, who told Mr Houston that there were persons waiting downstairs with the letters, which would be immediately taken away again if the money was not forthcoming. Witness, in pursu- ance of his policy of self-effacement, did not go downstairs to see who these persons were. The story was that the letters had been left in a bag in 4. a room where Byrne or O'Kolly had lodged, and that it bad got into the possession of some Fenians. When Pigott came back -to Dublin from America they met, and it wai then that Pigott said he had a sealed letter from Breslin authorising the surrender of the letters by some one in Paris. Pigot £ *did not say to whom the letter was addressed, nor did wit- ness ask the question. It did not occur to him that if Pigott was inclined to be fraudulent, matters were being made very easy for him, because he thought that person was acting honourably with him. On this, their first interview after Pigott's return, witness promised him £ 500 for the letters and 100 guineas for himself, the mney being given him by Dr Maguire in Bank of England note." and sent to Pigott in one or two orders drawn on Messrs Cook, of Ludgate-circus. This was the form in in which the money was taken by witness to PHri, and handed over to Pigott. Mr Houston, who at this point of his cross-examination spoke with great hesitation, and was at times hardly audible, ad rnitted that he took no acknowledgement from Pigott. He purposely refrained from paying by cheques, because he did not wish Pigott's name to be IIssociated with his own-not because he was ashamed of such a connection, but because there were personal reasons why he did not wish the society of which he was the secretary to be acquainted with what was being done. He bad never offered the documents to Lord Martington, but he submitted them to his Lordship, and asked his advice as to what should be done with them, which he declined to give. He denied ever having off,-red the letters to the Pall Mall Gazette for £ 1000. He had an interview with the Editor of that paper, but the letters were not at that time in his possession. He swore he did not ask the Editor to suggest any wealthy man who would find the money. The matter bad been discussed between them privately, and with the understanding that nothing should come of it, but the seal of secrecy had evidently been broken. Passing on, Mr Houston state.d that Eugene Davis had ui'ade a statement to Pigott connecting Mr Parnell and Egan with the Pluonix Park murders, and this statement Pigott reduced to writing and gave to witness. Counsel wanted the original, but it could not be found. Pigott told his employer that the fac-smile letter of the 15th May, 1882, signed "Chas S. Parnell," was addressed either to Egan or Byrne, and Pigott further told him that it, had I been shown to several people with that understand- ing. The receipients of the other letters were supposed to be Egan, Brennan, and P. J. Sheridan. With regaid t,) the M letter, said to have been found amongst the convict Mullctt's papers, and to have been given by his wife to a friend, Witness raised a smile by saying that, he pur- posely avoided asking who the friend" as, lest Pigott should tell him. The letter, it will be recollected, was addressed to James Carey, and Witness accounted for Mullett's possession of it by the theory that Carey, wauting money, took it as an order on M.dlett, who was the treasurer of the Iuvincibles. Toward the close of last year a "mysterious stranger" visited him from America,! stated that lie was prepared to give a high price for any of Egan's loiters Pigott might have, and1 also spoke of an interview"at tho°House of Mr Labouchere. Pigott. in communicating this to Mr Houston desired to stipulate that if be gave evid- ence for the Times he should be paid 5000/, as it would be impossible for him to continue to live in Dublin. No agreement of the kind was made with him. and since that Pigott had not named any specific sum but had simply asked that some- j thing should be done for him. Mr Houston's cross-examination closed at a quarter-past-one, and in re-eramiuation the At. torney General proposed to put in a copy of the notes made by Pigott after the statement he re ceived from Eugene Davis. This led to a prolonged wrangle. As narrated above, Davis made com- mnnications connecting the Irish Leaders with the Pbcenix Park murders. These particulars were Houston, who had a copy made, bnt who had lost or destroyed the original, teir Charles Rnssell !¡ strenuously objected to the admission of the copy He asked that, at any rate, he might be allowed time to consult his friends. I will allow time," I said tbe President, "but I bave a very strong opinion." "Then," Sir Charles somewhat pet- ulantly exclaimed, pray let it be read." And read it was. It related at length that Davis had obtained the confidence of Egan in is, and how be had been present at several meetings in that city when Mr Parnell' ard othprs had been present. At these gatherings it was decided that something energetic must be done, and Lyme was ultimately sent over tc Ireland in ¡ order to stir up outrage. Davis himself went over to Ireland disguised as a priest, to take part in the work. The letter in which Mr Parnell excused his public utterances with regard to the Phoenix Park murders was. Davis said, writted to Egan in order to show to Byrne, Tynan and others. Davis said 'I be had heard that Egan arranged for the murder of Carey, the informer, and also that there had «ra,p d,fc"ssed for the murder of the Prince of Wales and Mr Gladstone. After this Mr Houston stated that there was no foundation what- ever for the suggestion that he had destroyed the Pigott correspondence because it cast doubt upon the genuineness of the letters. In reality he de- stroyed the documents because he believed that if they were allowed to exist, and were made public, the lives of certain individuals would be at the mercy of certain assassins. T hen a quarter to three, caine the the climax of this part of the case in tho appearance of Mr hnl0]1! A lX"' a well-dressed white-bearded, bald-headed, benevolent looking gentleman, who gave his age as 51, but looks much alder He stated that he became proprietor of the hishman a Fenian organ, in 18G5 and was sentenced to twelve months'- afterwardis reduced to six- imprisonment in 1868 for an article on the Manchester executions of the previous year. He was a member of the Supreme Council of the Fenian Brotherhood, and he mentioned the names of ST mVT a,ssociated witb h "I iu the same \MOciat2? me,Tnbei's of the Amnesty ;aS one of th^8'^ about l^Jo8; i°R« M Iv™" M.P., Mr Barry M.p and Mr Matt H^is/IfP* were meoibens of the Supreme Council of Vl^ Irish Republican Brotherhood and so were James Carey James Mullet t, and David Murphv. Witne« continued a member of the I.R.B. down to August 1881, but he was never an active one. He remem- bered the release in 1S78 of Robert Kelly, who shot Detective Talbot in Dublin in 1871. There was a reception committee formed to greet him, the chairman of which was Brennan, and the treasurer Carey. Egan told him that if the Land League s'!PPl'essed, they proposed to make the lives nghsh officials in Ireland not worth an hour's P*™ n* and when Witness asked whether Mr cour.fi iWaS aware of ail this- E^n said that of aware '»■ stated that he was uot bat he ri»il',anj intended flight to Paris in 1882, after his l a- from hiin immediately letter E2a« niv 1 t]Je ^reacb capital. Iu that who was a wrft e a^re.33 °f Eugene Davis, previously, „ni, e* OI} t"e Irishman some years for tbe priestho i '°h S0Df> to Paris to prepare I.R.B. Witb that or H "as H 'i-mser of the to b > sli 4 v m to iVitu*"jp continued Some time i. 1880 .Mr Bi'L, «,dr/ol<? hifl PaiJt r and Mr .1 O'Connor resiiS tl' .IIirrls' Mr ESai1' the Supivme Couacil, bu^oniinuerf 'ne1mbe,,8l-ilJ ,,f vviiuQMed to be members of the Brotherhood. Witness first came into communication with Mr Houston in September, 1885, having been sought out by that gentleman Previous toihis, six months before, Mr Pigott had written a pamphlet entitled "Parncllism Unmasked." compiled from various sources of information, and without any knowledge of Mr Houston. Witness sold it to that gentleman for GOt. and it was published immediately after. Mr Hou-ton asked him to try and get documentary evidence in support of some of the allegations in the pamphlet, and was told that it would be extremely difficult, because of the Fenian rule ordering the destruction of all documents. Ultiui- ately, however, they came to the terms which Mr Houston has described. Witness made some investigations in Dublin and London, but found that some who could have given him information had gone to America, some were dead, and some in prison. He therefore felt very dubious of success, but suggested that he had better go to Lausanne to see Davis, who had been so very largely mixed up in Fenian matters. This Mr Houston agreed to, and it was understood that the affair was to be absolutely secret. This was a distinct under- standing on both sides. He and Davis were at this time strangers to each other, Pigott knowing him only as a contributor to the Irishman, under t he name of Owen Roe." At tliid point the Court adjourned. Resuming liis evidence on Thursday morning, Mr Pigott stated that he went to Lausanne in January, 1881, and again in the following month. On the lirst occasion he saw Eugene Davis, and told him what was wanted, adding that anything Davis s,.id must be well substantiated. Davis said he would consider the matter, making no further remark beyond observing that he was well acquainted with all the facts connected with the Fenian Brotherhood and the League. The next day he said he could not do what he asked, be. cause the Brotherhood were bound not to interfere with Mr Parnell for a certain period, which would not expire for some months. Witness returned to England and told Mr Houston the result of his interview. Subsequently Mr Houston suggested that he shoulJ pay another visit to Lausanne. He did so, and again saw Davis, who still declined to render assistance. Then Pigott proposed that he should write a pamphlet embodying all the facts d,re within his knowledge, to be published or used at such time as he himsblf might think expedient. To this- Davis agreed, and then volunteered the statement read in Court on Wednesday, which Pigott took down in his presence. In the follow- ing April Mr Pizott-wliose speech is almost unin- telligible—went to Paris to endeavour to see certain American Fenigns who were understood to have arrived there. Walking one day in the streets, he was accosted by a man who jaid he had had once bten in witness's employment as a compositor, and that his name was Maurice Murphy. Whether this was a fact or not Pigott did not recollect. They met on sevjral occasions, and eventually Murphy said that he had possession of a bag con- taining some old newspapers, six or seven letters of Egan's, five or six of Parnell's and some old accounts. Witness saw thnse letters and made copies, and after some discussion stated that he was commissioned to buy. Murphy asked a thousand pounds for a portion of the letters, but witness said that that was too much, and the sum of fivo hundred pounds was at last agreed upon. Afterwards Murphy said that that the agent of the Clan-na-Gael in Paris claimed the letters as his own property, and that it would be necessary for some one to go to New York to get the authoris- ation of the heads of the Clan for the 1< tters boing banded over. Murphy suggested that Pigott hiuT- self should go, but being very loth, Pigott pointed out that Murphy was the best man for the business. Murphy seem? to have declined in the most emphatic manner, and P'gott returned to London. After some hesitation Mr Houston agreed to send witness to America, whither lie went a few days after, taking with him a sealed letter of introduction from Murphy to J G Breslin. Having received a telegram from Murphy, Breslin called at witness's hotel, the Metropolitan, Broad- way, half-au-hour after his arrival. The letter of introduction was given to Breslin, and a day or two after he handed witness a sealed letter for Murphy. Returning to Paris, he was taken by Murphy to a cafe- in the Hue St. Honoi-c, where he found five men sitting round a table. These he was told werft the representatives of the Clan-na- Gael in Paris. They made him take an oath on the Roman Catholic Prayer-book under no circum- stances to reveal the source from which he had obtained the documents. The next day Mr Houston came to Paris, and at the Hotel des Deux Mondes the eleven letters and scraps of accounts were handed over, and the payment made of X500 by means of a circular note on Cook's. Witness received tIO5 for himself. Then came vital question. "Had you," asked the Attorney General, "anything directly or indirectly to do with the writing of those letters, Mr Pigott?" "Nothing whatever," was tho reply. You know it is suggested that you forged them." "It is quite untrue," answered the witness, who went on to say that he know Egan's writing, and was sure I h letters in his ua-io were written by him. Then I came up the names of J P Hayes, a civil engineer, and alleged Fenian, and J Case), a compositor, and also a suspected Fenian. Witness was about to relate conversations ho had had with these persons, when Sir Charles Russell took objection, and there was a brief legal argument, in the course of which Mr Dilvitt rose and announced that as far as he was concerned he might say that he bad been to P:lris to see Hayes and Casey since the Commis- sion began. Another member of the Irish Brother- hood whom Pigott met in Paris was one Tom Brown, and from him, in February of last year, he got further letters—two from Mr Parnell, and one from Egan to J.unes Carey. He did not know the handwriting of the body of the Parnell letters, but he was sure that the signatures were those of the Irish Leader. The Egan letter was, in his opinion, undoubtedly written by that person. That was got, in the first instance, he was told, from Mrs Mullett. One of the Parnell letters, witness under- "ritte.n to Colbert, and the other to J. O otherwise John O'Connor, or Dr. Clark Mr Houston agreed to pay .£500 for the three letters, and to give witness JE50 for himself. Pigott went to Paris, again saw the five men, took the same oath, paid the money, and brought the letters over to Mr Houston. In July, 1888, Pigott was once more in Paris, and a person whose name was unknown to him came to his hotel. Thia person stated that he had heard from Brown that witness was in search of letters, and had come to offor three for sale. These were the letters—already familiar -from Egan to his place of business, the letter attributed to Davitt, and that of which O'Kelly is said to be the author. These were eventually pur- chased for £ 200. Some time afterwards Pigott leceived a visit from a solicitor, who said his name was Whelan, who told him thpt some one was com- ing to see him from America, and desired to have an interview with him at Mr Labouchere's bouse in London. The next day a person calling himself Sinclair-but whose real name was O'Brien—paid him a visit, said he came direct from Mr Labou- chere, who was acting for Egan, and that ha was desired to come over and to assist Mr Parnell in the case. Sinclair gave him .£5, and a few days after he came to London and went to the address given him, 17, Henrietta-street, Covent-garden. There he met Sinclair, and an appointment was made for him to see Mr Labouchere on the follow- ing morning. The same evening he informed Mr Houston of this. and that gentleman said he had better let the matter drop. Witness went back to Dublin, and from there wrote to Mr Labouchere without the knowledge of Mr Houston. Mr Labou- chere replied, appointing his own rendezvous. He went there on the 24th October, and found Mr Labouchere and Mr Parnell. The latter at once told him that he held proofs which would convict witness of forgery, and asked what he was going to do. Pigott replied that if Mr Lewis could be induced to withdraw the subpeena it might be possible for him to avoid going into the box at all. Mr Parnell shid that could not be done, and then, witness alleged, Mr Labouchere made the plain proposition that witness should say he bad forged the letters, and secure his certificate from the Com- missioners by the simple procedure of going into the box, making such a statement on oath, and walking out again. The member for Northampton added that by doing this witness would become immensely popular in Ireland, and that if ever he wanted to go to the United States he would be received with a torchlight procession. At one portion of the interview Mr Labouchere took him aside and said that he must not mention money before Mr Parnell, because it would be illegal to do so to a principal. Mr Parnell, in the course of this remarkable conversation, was appealing to witness s selt-interest, when, to Pigott's surprise, the door opened, and in walked Mr George Lewis. This showed him tho whole business was simply a "plant. Mr Lewis, "assuming his severest air, at. once denounced Pigott as a forger, and said he had unmistakeable proofs of the fact. He accused witness of having received many letters trom ,-lr Parnell in 1881-82, and of having copiei words and phrases out of them to make up the forgeries. Mr Lewis said they were prepared to offer him £ 1,000. Nothing, however, he now said, I would have induced him to go into the box and swear falsely. Mr Lewis suggested that he should write to thn Times and state that he believed the letters to be forgeries, and that he had forged them himself. Shortly after this the interview came to an end, but it appears that the next day Mr Lewis called upon him at his hotel, heard the statement which he had made to the Times, and took notes. upon the basis of which he drew up a statement which was now read in Court, and all the most important passages in which Pigott denounced as absolutely false. After this came a stormy inter- view at Messrs Lewis's offices with Mr Parnell, who accused him of having committed forgery on a Dublin bank; and a third interview followed, at which suggestions were made to witness that he should write to the Attorney General and Mr Soames, suggesting that the letters might be with- drawn. The reason why he did not want to give evidence, witness said, in answer to the Attorney General, was his well-gronnded apprehension that the result might be very serious to himself. Sir Charles Russell opened his cross-examination somewhat dramatically at a quarter to three. Handing a sheet of foolscap paper to Pigott, he asked him to write on it the words "livelihood," "likelihood," "Richard Pigott," "proselytiIU," "Patrick Egan," "P. Egan," and "hesitancy." Having done this, witness proceeded to say, in answer to ciuestions. that in and about lSSI I." 1"( correspondence with Egan and Parnell, about the sale of the Irishman. He had not communicated with every Irish Secretary since 1870. Mr Forster was the first. He bad also given information to Earl Spencer. He had corresponded with Arch- bishop Walsh under the seal of the confcssional." He did not think he ought to be asked questions about this correspondence, seeing that he regarded tl:e Archbishop as his confessor, but Sir Charles Russell could not undertake to oblige him. Wit- ness insisted for some time that he did not know anything about the articles being in preparation, but Sir Charles Russell produced one of his letters to the Archbishop, marked "private and confi- dential," and dated the 4th of March, 1887, in which he told his Grace that he had been made aware that certain proceedings were contemplated with the object of destroying the influence of the Irish Party in Parliament. All he could indicate was that these proceedings were to take the form of the publication of certain statements tending to show tho complicity of Mr Parnell and his colleague? with crime. Pigott assured the Arch- bishop that he spoke with full knowledge, and that he was able to point out how the design might be successfully combated and finally defeated. Witness, whose voice was getting lower and lower, as he was hardly pressed to show how the design was to be defeated if, as he believed, the letters were genuine, made various explanations, and at last declared that be was not thinking of the letters at the time. It was not that he had qualms of conscience and was afraid of what he had done, and all he could say to the court was that he did not know what was in his mind when he wrote the letter He could not tell what he ment by proposing to show how the "coming blow" could be averted. One way in which this might have been done did not occur to him-not even if the letters had been forged. There were several other passages read to him from this letter to the Arch- bishop, but he was all at sea about them, and, with hundreds of eyes bent upon him, he got more and more confused, and was able to explain nothing. The postcript to the letter was, "I I need hardly say that did I consider the parties really guilty of the things charged against them, I should not dream that your Grace would take part in an effort to shield them. I only wih to press upon your Grace that the evidence is aparently convin- cing, and would probably be sufficient to ensure conviction on submission to an English jury." Again h3 declared that the letters were not in his mind when he wrote this, and, be added, with some animation, "I have never thought the letters in themselves constituted a very serious charge." He admitted, however, that he could not tell what other than the letters could have been in his mind. Pigott asked for the Archbishop's reply, which Sir Charles Russell produced. This he said he believed he had never received, and therefore it could not at that moment be put in. Just before the Court rose, Witness hardly pressed, told Sir C. Russell that he must have contemplated some great danger to the Party, and had kept the secret locked up in his bosom. "And is it still locked up, hermetically sealed, in your bosoin ? asked Sir Charles. No,"was the reply," "because it has gone away out of my bosom," and amidst a burst of laughter, in which the bench joined, the Court adjourned. The appearance of the Court on Friday morning clearly indicated that, so far arf public opinion generally is concerned, the crowning day of the Commlsslon had arrived. Outside the crowd of applicants for admission was greater than ever, and inside not a seat was unoccupied—nay, in a great many instances two seats had to be divided" between three persons. With a somewhat nervous and dejected air Mr Pigot entered the box at half- past ten, and Sir C. Russell at once put into hi" hands another letter, which the witness admitted u he had written to Archbishop Walsh. It was dated from the Hotel St. Petersburg. Paris, March 12th, 1887, and stated that the writer was much honoured by what his Grace had written. He went on to say that he knew certain evidence was to be published which contained an admixture of what be believed to be true and what he suspected to be false, and the effect of this, he believed, might be neutralised if the parties were forewarned. At this point Pigot desired to make an explanation, and at some length muttered, in a rapid and barely audible voice, a statement, the gist of which seemed to be that he contemplated that some further steps were to be taken in which he had nc, part, and that he therefore desired to invoke his Grace's intervention. Do you wish to add any- thing?" asked Sir Charles. And then, amidst a buzz of sensation, witness plainly avowed that all that he had written in the first letter to the Arch- bishop was entirely unfounded, and that he had only desired to write strongly lest his Grace might refuse to move in the matter. Then," said Sir Charles, "you wrote lies?" Well, I should not say lies, bat there were exaggerations," replied the witness, amidst a titter. Further, be said that he had, about the time referred to, written a stion-P letter of remonstrance to Mr Houston against the publication of the letters, and Mr Houston, stand- ing up in Court, said that he did not recollect having received such a letter. In closing the correspondence, Pigott expressed his regre"t ttiat the Archbishop would not accept his latest pro- position." What was this? Here again. in broken, inaudible tones, the witness expressed his inability to recollect. 11 Di you believe the Parnell letters to be genuine?" asked Sir Charles, nnd then followed another remarkable admission— No, 1 do not; because I could not recognise the handwriting of anyone." And the Egan letters ? Yes, they, be believed, were genuine, because he knew the writing. Then he again swore be was not the fabricator of the Parnell letters. The next surprise in store for the witness was the production, under subpoena, by Mr Wemyss Reid, literary executor and biographer of the late Mr W. E. Forster, of a batch of correspondence between that gentleman and Pigott. The letters, which were produced by Mr Reid with the authority of the executors, began in June, 1881. In the first. a very voluminous document, marked Private and confidential," Pigott wrote enumerating the ser- vices which his newspaper had rendered to the Loyalist cause in Ireland, explaining that he was in desperate pecuniary circumstances, and asking that the Government might compensate him for these services by the gift of XI,500 or at least j £ 1,000. Mr Forster wrote bick- a letter marked Private," sympathising with his correspondent, but stating that the Government never subsidised newspapers, and that they could make no exception in his case. In February, 1881, Pigott wrote to Egan, at 99, Avenue de Villars, Paris, stating that, two persons unknown had called upon him and offered him his own terms if he would publish in his papers what purported to bean exposure of the expenditure of the League fuuds. He thought that the document might" be a fabrication, and, in making an urgent appeal for money, he fervently asseverated that bad as I am, I have always been true to those who trusted me." There had already been some preliminary transactions between Egan and Pigott, but on this occasion Egan deeli;i to accede to the demand upon him. Not daunted by this rebuff, Pigott wrote again to Egan, pointing out that the document which ° he was asked to published was, even if a fabrica- tion, of a very serious description, inasmuch as it made grave allegations respecting the malversation of the League funds, and their devotion to the support of members of Parliament instead of to the relief of the people. To come to the point, he said he was in desperate straits, that he must have money somehow at once, and unless Egan assisted him he must close with the other offer. The un- known visitors had offered him X500 but all he asked from the treasurer of the League was X300. In this letter be enclosed what purported to be a communication from the mysterious strangern, stating that his decision as to publication was still anxiously expected, that they would give him £;)00 and would wait another week for the answer. Such a fire of relentless questions as Pigott hadto endurfe 0 from Sir Charles Russell on this poiufc, it rarely falls to the lot of any witness to undergo. Who weiv these mysterious strangers who made the off t ? Were they tall or short, dark or fair; did they wear masks, or had they blackened faces; did he ask who they were ? No the only answer to each query was No. Did he offer them an refreshment ? That he might have done. And then there came, in grave and measured tones, the question, Is not this absurd story the creation of your own brain ?" It is certainly true," replied Pigott, You swear that solemnly before my Lords," I do," muttered ti.e witness. Further questions were addressed to the identification of the strangers. Had Pigott. no due to them ? Well, he thought one might be Michael O'Sullivan, an ex-Secretary to the League in its early days. Did the visitors speak with a brogue ? No, came the answer, they were respectable men. What were the new conditions they imposed? That they should give him their names. Then, j said Sir Charles, the condition they imposed upou you was that they should give their names ? There was almost a feeling of comnuseratiou in the Court as Pigott blundered on in his feeble attempts to pii-vy the blows of his formidable ant*goni t. Several letters followed some months after with reference to negotiations between Pigott, Egan, and Mr Parnell for the purchase by the League ot witness's papers, the Ji ishman and the Shamrock. The chief object iu pnttlllg iu itnli ROALIIII- the numerous letters was to draw attention to the remarkable simi- larity between the phraseology of the letters written by E,tt1 to the Witness d iring the corres oondeuce and that of several of the alleged forgeries in his name. Other a Imittedly genuine letters were read, together with theillegi-d forgeries, and the similarity of the phrases was, in nearly every case, highly remarkable. On Thursday, it will be recollected, Witness was asked to write down certain words, amongst them being the word "hesitancy." Now, Sir Charles Russell asked him if he was aware that he bad spelt the word "hesitency"-with an He" instead of an "a." This was admitted. Did he know also that in the alleged forgery of the Oth of Juue, 188: the word was spelt in the same way ? Grasping the situation, Pigott said that he understood this, but his explanation was that there had been so much talk about the mis-spelling in the forgery that it had got into his brain. He had asked the Rev. Father Meagher, of Dublin, to intercede on his behalf with Mr Parneil, after that gentleman had refused to promise him employment on the Irishman. As a-comparison between letters to this gentleman and some of the forgeries was being instituted, Sir Charles Russell had occasion to ask Witness whethor he was not ashamed of himself, "No, I am not ashamed of myself, under the circumstances," replied Pigott. and, with a sudden outburst, he added, "1 think it scandalous that I should be so questioned. I say I did not forge the letters if I did I should not be here." Not if you could help it retorted Sir Charles. Why could I not help it ? You will see presently," was the reply and the President, moreover, rebuked the Witness for his outburst. Then came a further selection from the Forster correspondence. In one letter Pigott asked for a personal loan. This Mr Forster refused, but, characteristically, be said that if Pigott were obliged to give up his paper he should be glad to let him have GOl. or lOOl., which he would be under no obligation to repay unless the times meaded. Mr Forster added that he was not a rich man, but he had enough to help where he felt sympathy. On 8th August, 1881, Pigott wrote to say that the Land Leagjue had bought his paper from the mortgagees, and that, as there was nothing for Himself, he asked Mr Forster to fulfil his prom ise of lending him A: LOO until things mended. Further, he asked for a recommendation to some position in conuectiou with the newly established L'tnd Commission. Mr Forster wrote, agreeing to lend X50 if that were enough, or, if not, the full sun. ot X[OO. He desired to have a copy of an agreement which, Pio-ott said, had been imposed on him by the purcbaseis of the Irishman that he should do no newspaper work tor two years. S .ch a pro- hibition, Mr Forster supposed, would n. t apply to magazine articles. If not, be should be glad to give Pigott an introduction to Mr lvno • les, the editor of the" Nineleenth Century." In his reply Pigott pressed for the X100, accepted the intro- duction to Mr Knowles, but said nothing about the prohibitory agreement. Mr Forster, writing on the 13th of August, lSSl, enclosed a cheque to bearer on the Bank of England, which would be paid by the Bank of Ireland. The right hon. centleman went on to say that there had oeen so much talk about secret service money that he might as well say that be was lending his own money. Subsequently Pigott wrote to him again, asking for assistance to go to America, and making many protestations of sorrow that lie had in any way lost ground in Mr Forst.-r's good opinion. Mr Forster gr .n cd hi." an interview and give him £ 20, the return for which was that Pigott a short time after wrote to co,uplain that he had beeu badly treated by the riglit hon. gentleman, who, he hinted, had engaged him to write on behalf of the Governm-nt. This brought forward a vigor- ous denial and protest from Mr Forster, who ex- pressed his regret for having wounded Pigott's feelings by giving him the C20. At the same time be sharply reminded the witness that at the time the correspondence commenced and he was de- nouncing Egan. be had practically sold his paper to that person. Before long the irrepressible ap- plicant made another appeal to Mr Forster, asking him either to assist witness himcelf, or to get some of his colleaguts to do so, and putting iu again a moral ciailD on the G )v -rii nu-iit. Mr F >rster, in reply, repudiated such a claim, but off-uvd to lend Pi-ott jC50 to go to America. Pigott was very thankful, took the money, and said ho was going to Cincinnati. At this pgint tbc merriment in Court became quite irrepressible. Pigott did not go to Cineinatti, but wrote some time after to Mr Forster telling him that he had not gone on account of the illness of his sister. In this letter he coolly asked for .£100 in order to start a busi- ness,-and said that a friend would become security. There was much laughter at this, but a graver note wap struck directly, when a letter was read from Pigott to Mr Forster relative to an interview between them at which the Irish Secretary took the precaution of having two witnesses present. This appears to have aroused Pigott's ire, for he wrote a letter which was really of a threatening kind, inasmuch as it implied that all the transac- tions between Mr Forster and himself had been of a compromising kind, and that their revelation might be awkward. He ended by saying that con- fidence being at an end be should regard himself as released from secrecy, that he should regard the money be had received as a loan, and know no peace of mind till it was repaid—a statement at which the cynical laughter in Court was renewed. "Have you ever recovered your peace of mind; have you ever paid a halfpenny?" asked Sir Charles Russell. "You know perfectly well I have not, thanks to your friends," rejoined Pigott. As he was coufrontud with one letter after another (in most cases evidently unexpectedly), the witness seemed to grow more and more dazed, and it was a mercy to him when the Court adjourned till Tuesday, not, however, before we bad heard a final appeal to Mr Forster for 9200 to go to Australia, in which distant laud the tu.-tnory of the Chief Secretary's kindness votil I be ever with him. Pigott has absconded This was the news which spread through the crowded Court on Tuesday morning. Rumours of starting testimony to come had gone abroad, and statements were freely made that much more important people than Mr Houston or Mr Pigott were to be impli- cated. Mrs Gladstone was present, and so were Mr Childers, Mr Parnell, the Earl of Aberdeen, Mr Dryce, Mr Labouchere, Mr Jacob Bright, Mr T. Healy, Lord Castlerosse, and a score of other notabilities, all eager and expectant. But the hero of so many days was absent. When the Commissioners took their seats at half-past ten Richard Pigott was called, and he (lid not respond. Then, after a pause of two or three minutes, Sir Richard Webster rose and gravely announced that, as he was instructed, Pigott left Anderton's Hotel, in Fleet-street, at eleven o'clock on Monday night, and had not returned. At once Sir Charles Russell applied for a warrant for the witness's arrest, before granting- which the Court heard the evidence of Mr George Weir, clerk to Mr Soames, who stated that he had called at the hotel at twenty minutes past ten on Tuesday morning, and found the bird had flown. Then the warrant was granted, and the Attorney General stated that, in view of what had occurred last week, he and his friends must consider what course they would take with regard to this portion of the case. Thereupon, pending the possible appearance of the witness, the President said the Court would adjourn for half an hour. Before their Lordships retired, Sir Charles Russell stated that, whatever course the other side might take, he and his friends were determined to sift the wholo mattcr to tho bottom, because they deliberately charged that, behind Pigott and behind Houston, there were other persons who had been enaged in a "fonl conspiracy." He was i-pf--rrned, too, that on Tuesday morning tht"- liti(I -amytd at AndortQnls Hotel a bundle J' of papers addressed to "Pigott care of Houston.' and he applied that an officer of the Court might be sent to impound them. When the warrant had been formally made out, the Secretary, .11 Cunynghame, brought it into Court, and I announced that it would be delivered to Mr Monro, Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, and to an ofheer to be named by Sir Charles Russell, who, after consultation, nominated Inspector Shore, of the Criminal Investigation whom all constables in the United Kingdom art enjoined to assist. Their Lordships returned into Court at a quarter to twelve, after an absence of over an hour, and, Pigott being still absent, the Attorney General said he thought it right, to inform tin Court that on Monday morning Mr Shannon, the solicitor, received a letter from the Witness which ought to be in their Lordships' hands, in order that all the information which his clients could produce should be made available. Sir Charles Russell, following, said that lie had to ask permission to make a statment, and went on to say that on the 27th of July last year, some days after the conclusion of the O'Donnell v. Walter case, Mr Patrick Egan wrote a letter to Mr Labouchere at the House of Commons. Here the learned Counsel was interrupted by tin. Attorney General, who objected that no commun- ication in writing ought to bo received by the Court in the absence of Pigott. The objection, however, came to nothing, and Sir Charles pro- ceeded to state that, consequent upon the letter, a number of documents were handed to Mr Labouchere, this being before the question of the appointment of the Commission had arisen. Asked to state at once what his application was, Sir Charles said that it was that he should be allowed at once to call certain witnesses, who would put their Lordships in possession of certain information, which they ought to know, bearing upon Pigott's disappearance. The President's observation that the proper method of procedure was by way of affidavit, aroused Sir Charles's anger, and, with considerable emphasis, lie demanded, solemnly and in the interests of justice," that lie might be allowed to make his statement. Again Sir James Hannen pointed out the necessity of putting in affidavits, and, (highly nettled, Sir Charles Russell replied that he had practised before their Lordships for many years, and might, he thought, be trusted, especially when he spoke, as he was doing, under the gravest sense of duty. In mild tones the President said that he was only endeavouring to ensure regularity, and again he wanted to know why a statement of the facts must be made. Because, replied Sir Charles Russell, in a tremulous voice, the interests of justice required it. Then he went on to relate that Pigott called uninvited at Mr Labouchere's house on Saturday, and stated his desire to confess that he had forged the letters. Mr Labouchere refused to listen to him except in the presence of a witness, and subsequently, in the presence of Mr George Augustus Sala, Pigott wrote out the confession. Once more came a remark from the President touching the question of affidavits, and, losing his temper, Sir Charles made an impatient motion of his hand, which drew down upon him the rebuke from the Bench 1 that such gestures were not seemly, and that the Court must conduct the business in a regular manner. Sir Charles, of course, disclaimed any intention, to affront, but having a strong sense of iniquity of the whole affair, he was, he said, determined, whether it pleased their Lordships or not, to take every step in his power to unmask the conspiracy. Here the President got warm, and replied, That is not addressed to this tribunal, or, if it is, it ought not to be. I alll only pointing out to you what ought to be clear to your large experience, that the proper way of procedure is by way of affidavit." Sir Charles protested that he had come prepared to go on with cross-examination, and that he and his friends had no idea that Pigott would not be there. What ? asked Mr Justice Smith, after his confession on Saturday, did you expect to see him in the box ? Certainly wo did," was the reply. Finally, Sir Charles read a letter from Mr Labouchere to Pigott, returning his confession, and stating that Mr Parnell declined absolutely to have anything to do with him. The Manager of Anderton's Hotel then made his appearance, and handed in a number of letters which had been sent to the hotel for Pigott, who left, he said, at half past four on Monday—not eleven in the evening, as was at first stated. The Court decided that, under the circumstances, the letters should be opened but they turned out to be all of a private nature A letter which had been sent to iNIr Houstou's care was also handed in, to be read later on. Pigott's luggage, it appears, is still at the hotel, and Mr Clemow was ordered to detain it, although the President, in rep y to an ap- j plication, said he had no power to order that it should be examined. Mr Soames next went again into the box, and read a long corres- pondence with Pigott, dating from some months back, the chief point in which was Pigott's pro- test against being brought up as a witness, in spite of the promise that his name should be i kept secret. Mr Soames, in one of the replies, pointed out that witness's own conduct had broken the pledge, and that, in any case, his relations with Mr Labouchere, Mr Parnell, and Mr Lewis, had materially altered the situation, Moreover, ho was told he himself had agreed that the condition of secrecy should be waived. With regard to a hint by Pigott that ho con- j templated leaving the country, Mr Soames strongly advised him to do nothing of the sort, and told him that although the Tini< s promised him nothing and admitted no claim, they would allow him a reasonable sum for his expenses. ) Pigott, in one of his letters, bitterly complained that he had been betrayed by Houston, who, he said, had, in his turn, betrayed the Tun-vs. He added that his evidence would be so weakened in cross-examination that it would prove to be any- thing but valuable to those who called him. Mr Soames closed the correspondence by telling Pigott that he must go into the box and tell the truth about his share in the transactions, what- ever it might have been. Mr Soames was now put in the box, and stated that he did not know the letters came from Pigott till after the conclusion of the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter." When he ascertained the fact he took no steps to ascer- tain what Pigott's character and antecedents were, nor did he depute any one else to do so for him. He was engaged in other busi- ness relating to the case, and had to work twelve and thirteen hours a day, so that he had no opportunity of making personal inquiries. He might have occasionally spoken about Pigott to Mr Walter, but very rarely, and nothing particular seems to have been said. No arrangements had been made for keeping a watch oil Pigott until it was found that he was negotiating with Mr Lewis and Mr Labouchere. Mr Shannon, tho solicitor, was a good deal in Pigott's company, and last saw him on Monday afternoon. There were several questions on both sides as to the date when witness gave Pigott's name to his Counsel, and it was elicited that he did not do this until after the 19th of October, when, as he states, Pigott released him from secrecy. I must put this question to you, in consequence of what Sir Charles has said—have you directly or indirectly done anything to get Pigott away 1" "On the contrary," replied Mr Soames I have done everything I could to get him to the Court at the proper time." Mr Shannon next stated that he was with Pigott on Sunday, and saw him write a letter, winch he gave to witness, who returned it to him with instructions to forward it by post. The letter v as delivered on Monday, and its terms when read in Court were the cause of derisive laughter. After all his prevarications and statutory declara- tions he now stated that he was still lying, that despite w hat lie had told Mr Labouchere only the day before, he had not forged all the letters. The first eleven he declared were given him in Paris by Patrick Casey, whom he had formerly called Murphy. To that person lie gave three- fourths of the five hundred pounds paid him, and it was shared by Kirwan, O'Sullivan, O Donnell and ()'lVTnlinnf»v Tha two ot1wr Parnell letters he and Casey forged, he writing the body and Casey the signatures. Egan's letters he declared to be genuine. Consequent upon this, Pigott on Monday n.ade a sworn declaration as to the truth of the statements in the letter. Mr Shannon knew nothing about Pigott until a few months ago, and then lie was not instructed to make any inquiries about him. He had never heard that he had been carrying <>n a system of forged bills for years in Dublin, and although it might be that the fact of Pigott signing an affidavit on Monday would hardly add to the sanctity or weight of any statement he could make, witness hoped that this time he would speak the truth. Mr Shannon denied that he had had any hand in getting Pigott out of the way, and it did not occur to him after his Sunday night's interview to suggest to Mr Soames that it would be well to keep an eye upon the man. He did not ask him whether lie would come up to the scratch on Tuesday morning, and had no conversation with him on the matter. Sir Charles Russell, in pursuance of his inter- locutory application, was now allowed to exaniino Mr George Lewis, after the Ccurt had ruled that the evidence must be strictly confined to the question of Pigott's disappearance, and that con- sequently a proposed witness from Glasgow, who was to prove a long series of commercial forgeries on the part of that person, could not now be put into the box. Mr Lewis said that he bad not em- ployed detectives to watch Pigott since the 27th of October. The witness was not allowed to go into the whole question of Pigott's relations with Mr Labouchere, but he stated that he had nothing to do with arranging the famous interview. Ho received Pigott's confession to Mr Labouchere on Saturday, and returned it to him. In reply to the Attorney General, Mr Lewis again stated that he had not had Pigott watched of late, and fully expected to see him in the box oil Tuesday morning, despite, as Mr Justice Smith asked, the confession of Saturday. Head Constable Gallagher y was next put into the box by the Attorney General in order that Sir Charles might ask any question. He said that he was only placed at Anderton's Hotel to see that Pigott was not mobbed, and not in order to keep a watch over him. He knew that two men had followed Pigott about, but whether they were detectives or not he could not tell. Witness saw Pigott last at twelve o'clock on Monday. Serjeant Fawcett, also of the Royal Irish, stated that on the evening of the first day of Pigott's evidence, Mr Shannon asked him to see the man safely to his hotel. Witness had lived in the hotel since Friday, and on Saturday he saw two men sitting near Pigott in the smoking-room. Pigott came over to him, and said that he believed these two men were "shadowing" him, and asked witness to look after them. He last saw Pigott between half- past three and four on Monday, when he received a letter, wrote an answer, and went upstairs, after which Fawcett saw him no more. Witness was shown a photograph of a group of three men, and asked if either of them was one of the per- sons in the smoking room but he failed to recognise any likeness. At the conclusion of this evidence the Attorney General said that he and his friends would like to take time to consider what course, in view of the circumstances, they should take with regard to this part of the case and, in order to give the learned gentlemen time for consultation, the Court adjourned shortly after half-past two till Wednesday.