Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-03-26
HOUSE OF ConMONs.
Discussion Continued on the Parneii
Commission.
By Anslo-Amsrcau cable 70 the Dispatch.l

yAnsIo-Americau cable 70 the Dispatchl
LONDON. March 25.-In the House OF Com
mons this afternoon Sir Charles Russell,
who upon arising was loudly cheered, sara
he desired TO make a statement regarding
the speech made by Attorrey-Genersl "eo-
ster In the House on Friday last. lie resd
letter which be had written to Mr.. Webster,
in which be said that be did not believe tnst
Mr.. Webster had been correctly reported
II was absolutely incorrect to say that before
Pieeotps examination, or before PiRgott
fed. he (RusselO had received information,
direct or indirect, 10 the effect that Piggott
discredlted the value OF his own testimony
II was absolutely incorrect TO say that ne
had either called for or referred 10
the letters conveying such Information.
Mr.. Webster, in reply to the speaker ;
letter. had written that be believed he bad
handed such letters 10 him, but that be
would have 10 refer TO his shorthand notes
for confirmation. The Acknowledgement
was mistaken in supposlng that he bad gwen
h,rn five DAYS before Piggott testified the
letters describing Piggotts evidence. Inc
letters IN which Piggott confessed his fear oil
cross-exsminaiion had come upon the speak
or and his colleagues rs complete surprise
After Piggotps flight they repeatedly mace
omen complaint In court regarding the man.
ner IN which the AttOrney-GeDeral had con-
Quoted the case. He did not impute ols'
honorable motives TO the Attorney-GeneIal,
but he thought Mr.. Webster had been LED
away by the political character OF the case
into course Of conduct which on reflection
and in less exciting circumstances he would
not have pursued. [Cheers.l
Continuing, Mr.. Russell said that even
when Pigzott had testified be did not get the
letters to which reference had been made,
although Mr. Webster offered to produce
letter OF November 9th. lie asked the Al
orney-General either 10 admit that be was
mistaken or to point out in the official re-
port any reference 10 the letter OF November
9th.
Mr.. Webster admitted that, relying upon
memory, be had erred when he wrote to Dir.
Russell. lie argued that In any case the
matter was unimportant.
The Attorney General persisted that II
Mr.. Russell bad consented 10 have the letter
from Mr. Soames 10 Pigg0tt read In cour'
be lMr. RusselD would have been ia posi-
ton to demand the correspondence to which
il referred
MIR. Asquith, who Is OF the Paruellte coun-
eel. followed. He asserted most positively
that neither be nor Dir. Russell had ghosl
or glimmering OF notion that the letter oil
Piggolts existed in which he announced
that his testimony would be discredited.
MIR. HarcOurt contended that 20 answer
bad been given to bis charge that Dir. Web
ster, knowing PiggOtt TO be doubtful wit
ness, had allowed the Times for two months
TO repeat its odlOus charges. and further,
had sat silent while Mr.. Houston affirmed
that he had complete trust In Piggott, which
statement AIR. Webster knew 70 be false.
Mr.. Webster: have protested that had
no means OF knowing that Mi. Houston's
statement was untrue.
Sir William Harcour, resumiBg, said thai
an attorney might weave cO9webs OF misera'
bic professional etiquette about the matter
but toe common sense Of the nation would
revolt against keeping alive to the last
moment charges known 10 be false az an
act Of professional cruelty and injustice.
Sir Edward Clarke, Soiicitor-General,
spoke IN defence Of Mr.. Webster.
Mr.. Labouchere said that Messrs. Hous'
ton, soames. and Webster bad all avoided
asking questions concerning Piggott. He
attacked the Gladstonean lawyers who alb
stained from voting when the division was
taken on Friday.
Mr.. Morley said he had not q word to
withdraw from what he bad said in Fridays
debate. The subject was then dropped.