Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-02-22

On the day after Mr.. Lewis visit witness acci-
dentally met Mr.. Parnell and Mr. Lewis The
latter denied that he had given witness any as
surance. Mr.. Parnelfs manner was threaten
ing. He reiterated that witness had forged the
letters, and also accused him Of having COM
mitted mercantile forgeries. Witness denied
these allegations, and said he courted the full
est inquiry.
Acknowledgement Webster now read a long
correspondence between Piggott and Lewis.
WALKED INTO TRAP.
In his letters Mr.. Lewis averred that he and
his associates were aware that Pigott was q
forger before they saw him. He suggested
that Piggott meet Dir. Parnell again. Piggott
replied that Lewis letters confirmed his convic-
ton that when he acceded to Laboucheres
wish for private interview he had walked into
trap. He was prepared to meet any proceed
ings, and he declined to meet Mr.. Parnell
again. witness. continuing, said that Mr.. La
bouchere repeatedly wrote to him in Dublin,
pressing him to testify and offering to pay his
passage. At the end of January he received a
letter containing f10. He was anxious to
avoid testifying. He was aware that 1T was
dangerous to offend the Clan-na-G Gael, and that
he might be murdered.
A cMRoGRAPHIc TEST.
Sir Charles Russell cross-examined Piggott.
He asked the witness to write the words "live-
hhood, likelihood, Richard Piggott; prosylit-
ism, Patrick Egan, P. Egan. and hesitancy."
This the witness did. Piggott said he had cor
responded with Mr.. Forster from 1891 to 1884.
He denied that he had communicated with
every Irish secretary since 1870 To the best
of his belief he did not write to Earl Spencer
in 1873 offering valuable information for money.
He wrote to Sir G.. o. Trevelyan asking for
money on account of his support of the gov
eminent, but he did not offer to furnish infor-
nation.
PIaeoTT's COMPRESSOR.
He denied that in his statement to Mr.. Lewis
he said that the publication of the letters by
the Times had alarmed him, and that he had,
therefore, asked Archbishop Walsh to place
him in communication with Mr.. Parnell in Or
der to expose the forgeries. He did not think
that Sir Charles Russell ought to question him
regarding the letters to Archbishop Walsh. be-
cause he regarded the archbishop as his con-
lessor. He denied that he knew that the arti-
cles on "Parnellism and Crime" were being
prepared.
LETTER TO ARCHBISHOP WALSH.
Sir Charles Russell here produced letter
from Piggott to Archbishop Walsh dated March
4, 1887, and marked private and confidential"
In this letter Piggott told the archbishop that
he was aware that proceedings were contem-
plated with the object of destroying the Par
nellites' influence in parliament. All that he
could indicate was that the proceedings would
consist of the publication Of statements tend
ing to show the completely in crime of Parnell
and his colleagues. He assured the archbishop
that he wrote with full knowledge of these
designs. and could indicate how they could be
successfully combatted and defeated
Sir Charles Russell pressed the witness to
explain how these designs could have been de-
feated If the letters were genuine. Piggott re-
piled that he had not the slightest recollection
of writing anything of the kind. He did not
recOllect what charges were meant in the let
ter, and. in fact. he did not recolect the letter
at all. He could not have had the Parnell let
tiers in mind when he wrote to the archbishop.
He must have been thinking of other charges,
but he could not say what those charges were.
Sir Charles Russell then read the postscript
to the letter, as follows: II need hardly say
that did l consider the parties really guilty
should not dream that your grace would par
take in an effort to shield them. NY only wish
is to impress upon your grace that the evidence
is apparently convincing and probably suffi-
cient to secure a conviction by an English
jury"
Piggott reiterated that the Parnell letters
were not in his mind when he wrote the post
script. He added that he never thought the
letters in themselves constituted a serious
charge. He asked for the archbishop's reply,
which Sir Charles Russell produced. Piggott
after inspecting the archbishop's letter, said he
believed that he never received it.
The commission then adjourned.