New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-11-01

the negotiations were that the League should I've
broken up If the Irish landlords would reduce
their rents and receive compensation from the
EXchcquer. Many of the memoranda which he
had made were destroyed in 1883, when there
was danger of a select committee of Parliament
| beng appointed to inquire into the kllmanham
treaty. and it was intimatcd to him that the ut
most reticence ought 10 be observed on the
subject
Sir Charles Russell-Intimated by whom?
| Witness-By Sir William Vernon Ilarcourt who
said it the opinion of another person, namely,
Mr.. Gladstone.
This statement caused sensation in the court,
and Justice Eannen asked that everybody alb
stain from manifesting his feelings during the
proceedings
Sir Charles Russel-Was it then you de-
stroyed the Memoranda?
Witness-Yes Certain mem moranda which were
in another box and which included some of Mr..
Chamberlain's letters, escaped destruction 1t
was Mr.. Gladstones wish that / should he as
reticcnt possible from motives OF political ex-
pediency.
The fac-simile Of "The Times letter was
was decidedly of the opinion that it was Mr..
Parnelrs writing. He had never discussed the
question as to show The Times became possessed
of it, because he did not know, When he first
saw the letter in " The Times" he did not think
it was genuine. This was not because OF any
popularity in the writing, but because ne could
not understand why Mr.. Parnell should say: You
may show him this, but do not tell HIM my ad- -
about the signature. He had had numerous let
ters from Mr.. Parncll of about the same date as
the letter referred 10, and could not mistake the
writing
Under crossexamnaton by Mr.. Hcaly, wit
ness stated that when he contested Galway Tor
Parliament the Parncllites attacked and denounced
him in every way in thtir power
The court then adjourned until tomorrow.
KEEN INTEREST IN THE TESTIMONY.
The proceedings were enlivened by O'Shea's eX-
animation The court was crowded. the Par
nellites being present in full force. Messrs Par
nell, I. Harrington DavItt, Arthur OConnor l.
NJ. Healy and Biggar kept close watch over the
proceedings OShea proved good witness, giving
his evidence in calm. matter-offact way lie
was clear on the smallest detail, and equally cool
and precise during cross-eXaminatOn. HIS mar
rative of the kimainham negotiations, though
largely matter OF history, was listened to with
rapt attention. Expectation was at its height on
the production of the alleged forged letters Would
the witness show any hesitance regarding the
signature? He must know 1t well; Taxing up
a letter. he scanned it with careful dcliberatlon
for few moments. and then said IN distinct
tone without over-cmphasis 1t IS Mr. Parnells
signature"
Several other letters were scrutinzed in the
same way, and evoked the same unquallfled state
ment II is Mr. Parnel's signature The most
striking point elected by the crossexamlnation
was his cha .Ag Sir William 1larcourt with COM
ing as an emissary from Mr.. Gladstone to warn
him TO preserve the utmost reticence III regard to
the Kilmainham treaty: Although the witness
did not allege that Sir William Ilarcourt advised
the destruction of the memoranda, he cXpllcltly
stated that it was the hearing OF Mr.. Glad
stones wish that he destroyed the documents
Sir Charles RuSselrs cross-examinaton was eX-
pected to elicit the for the rupture between
OShea and Parnell but both sides chose to leave
this unrevealed. The witness stated that up 10
lime 1886 he believed in ParnelPs honor, and
knew that he was opposed to outrages., Neither
Sir Charles Russell nor Sir Richard Webster pro-
ceeded to inquire 90 what caused nm 10 as
believe in Parnells honor. Whatever was the
cause of the rupture, the animns OF the witness i
was apparent. The Parnellites probably ieit tle
ouiet malignity of the evidence more keenly than
the bcst-informcd outsider.