The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-03-26
He Is at Last Forced to Acknowledge that His
Statement to Russell About the PiggOtt
Letters Was Without Foundation.
Serious Depression at Panama, Caused
by Suspension of Work on the Canal.
Dundee Officials Prohibit the Holding of So
cialiSt Meetings-Alarm at the Vatican
yerthe Painting Fits OfthePope.
wEBsTER,s MISTAKE.
The British Attorney General Admits Thai
He Was Wrong In at Least One Instance.

The British Attorney General Admits That
He Was Wrong In at Least One Instance.
LONDON, March 25.-In the House of Com
mons, this afternoon, Sir Charles Russell,
who, upon rising, was loudly cheered,
said he desired to make statement regard
ing the speech made by Attorney-general
Webster in the House on Friday last. He
read letter which he had written to Mr..
Webster, in which he said that he did not
believe that Mr.. Webster had been correct
ly reported. 1t was absolutely incorrect to
say that before Piggott's examination, or
before Piggott fed, he (RusselD had re-
ceived information, direct or indirect, to
the effect that Piggott discredited the value
of his own testimony. 1t was absolutely
incorrect to say that he had either called
for or referred to letters conveying such in
formation; Attorney:-geeneral Webster, in
that he believed he hadhanded such letters
to him, but that he would have to refer to
his shorthand notes for confirmation.
The Attorney general was mistaken
in supposing that he had given. him,
five days before Piggott testified, letters
discrediting Piggott's evidence. The let
ters in which PiggOtt confessed his fear of
q crOss-eXaminatiOn had come upon the
speaker and his colleagues as complete
surprise. After Piggott's flight they had
repeatedly made open complaint IN court
regarding the manner in which the Attor
ney-general had conducted the case. He
did not impute dishOnOrable motives to the
Attorpey-general, but he thought that Mr..
Webster had been led away by the politi..
cal character of the case into a course of
conduct which. on reflection and in less
exciting circumstances, he would not have
pursued. Continuing, Russell said that
even when Piggott had testified he did not
get the letters to which reference had been
produce the letter of Nov. 5. He asked the
Attorney-general either to admit that he
was mistaken or to point out in the official
report any reference to the letter of Nov.
Is.
Mr.. Webster admitted that, relying upon
memory, he had erred when he wrote to Sir
Charles Russell. He argued that, in any
case, the matter was unlmportant:
The Attorney-general persisted that if
Sir Charles Russell had consented to have
the letter from Mr.. Soames to PggOtt read
IN court, he tRussell) would have been in u
position to demand the correspondence to
which it referred
Mr.. Asquith, who is one of the Parnellite
counsel, followed. He asserted most pos
itiyely that neither he nor Sir Charles Rus
sell had the ghost or glimmerlng of notion
that letter of Piggott's existed in which
he announced that his testimony would be
d1Scred1teQ.
Sir William Vermont -Harccurt contended
that no answer had been given to his charge
that Mr.. Webster, knowing PiggOtt to be q
doubtful witness, had allowed the Times
for two months to repeat its odious charges,
and, further, had sat silent while Houston
affirmed that he had complete trust in Pig
gott which statement Mr.. Webster knew
to be false.
Mr. Webster-I have protested that had
no means of knowing that Houston's state
ments were untrue.
Sir VIM. Harcourt, resuming said that an
attorney might weave the cOb-webs of mis-
cradle professional etiquette about the
matter, but the common sense of the nation
would revolt against the keeping alive to
the last moment of charges known to be
false-an act of professional cruelty and
injustice.
Sir Edward Clarke, Solicitor-general,
spoke in defense of Mr.. Webster.
Mr.. Labouchere said that Mr.. Houston,
Mr. Soames and Mr.. Webster had all avoid
ed asking questions concerning Piggott.
He attacked the Gladstonian lawyers who
abstained from voting when the division
was taken on Friday.
Mr.. Morley said he had not word to
withdraw from what he had said in Fri
days debate.
The subject was then dropped.
The Daily News. in a scathing leader,
points out that the utter collapse of Sir
Richard f. Webster is glaringly shown by
the fact that Mr.. Charles Hall, Q. c., Tory
member for Chesterton, is the only lawyer
in the House of Commons who ATTEMPTED
to defend him. 1t is noticeable that the
the position in which the Attorney general
is pIaced