The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-02-22
previous to Houston's taxing him to Mr..
Soame's office, had beel subpmnaa1 by Mr..
Lewis, of the counsel for the Parnelhtes.
A VISITOR AT DUBLIN.

F1ggott continued: IA man named
OBrien visited me in Dublin under the alias
of Sinclair. He said that Parnel had sent
him to try to get me to assist Egan. La
bouchere, he said, was acting for Eyan aud
would pay me II very high price il had
any letters of Parnell's to sell. Sinclair
suggested that l should sec Labouchere in
London and gave me G5 with which to pay
my passage. In compliance with telegram
| / vent to London on Oct II. Sinclair APP
| pointed a rendezvous for meeting with
Labouchrre. / went to the place men
| toned, but was disappointed, as Labouc1ere
was not there. / declined TO hold any con-
| versation With Sinclair, who pressed me
| 10 go go Labouchere's house. l refused,
and at Houston's instance ceased negotiating
| with Sinclair l af erward wrote to La
| bouchere without Sinclair's knowledge.
Labouchere replied, and had an interview
with Parnell and Labouchere at the latter's
| house,
CHARGED WITH FORGERY.
Piggott said that at the meeting referred
| to Parnell told him that he held prinld
| fdcie evidence that the witness had for ed
| the letter. and Labouchere proposed that
the witness admit forgery. Tue witness
| could hardly believe that Labouchere
was serious. Lewis entered during
the interview and said that if the
| witness followed directions he
would be his best friend but that IL he
| failed to obey instructions he Qewis) would
| prosecute him mercilessly for perjury and
| forgery. Afterward the witness saw La
| bouchere alone outside of the room, when
| Labouchere said he was prepared to pay
| 9l,010, but that money matters must not
| be mentioned to Parnell.
FOOLED LABoUCHERE.
The witness induced Labouchere to think
| that he would accede to this proposal, but
| on returning to the room he said that
| nothing wonld induce him to swear that the
| letters we're forgeries. Lewis then asked
| the witness TO write to the Times that he
| (the witness) believed the letters to be for
| geries, when the Iimss would Withdraw
| the letters. The wituess asked for time to
consider this proposal Lewis visited him
| the following dav, when the witness asked
| whether Labouchere's offer would hold good
| If the witness induced the Times to with
| draw the letters. The answer was "Yes."
LEWIS NOTES READ.
The attorney general here read Lewis
| notes of the interviews The witness chal-
| lenged their accuracy, aud denied having
| aid that he believed that the letters were
not genuine.
On the day after Lewis visit the witness
accidentally met Parnell and Lewis. The
| latter denied that he mad given the witness
| any assurance. Parnell's manner was
threatening, He reiterated that the wit
ness had forged the letter, and also ac-
| cused him OF having committed mercantile
| forgeries The witness denied these allie
| cations and said he courted the fullest in
| quiry.
THE PIGGoTT-LEwIs CORRESPONDENTS.
| Attorney General Webster now read a
| long correspondence between Piggott and
| Lewis. In his letters Lewis averred that he
| and his associates we're aware that Piggott
was forger before they saw him. He sug-
| gested that Piggott meet Parnell again.
| Piggott replied that the Lewis letters con-
| firmed his conviction that when he acceded
to Labouchere's wish for a private inter
view he had walked into a trap. He was
| prepared to meet any proceedings, and he
| declined to meet Parnell again.
| The witness, continuing, said that
Labouchere repeatedly wrote to him in
| Dublin, pressing him to testify and Offering
| to pay his passage At the end Of January
he received letter containing el0. He was
anxious to avoid testifying. He was aware
that 1t was dangerous. to offend the Clan
na-Gael, and that he might be murdered.
DENIES HAVING BEEN ALARMED
| Sir Charles Russell cross examined Pig
| gott. Piggott denied that in his statement
| to Lewis he said that the publication Of the
| letters by the Tires had alarmed him, and
| that he had therefore asked Archbishop
Walsh to place him in communication with
/
| He did not think that Sir Charles Russell
ought to question him regarding letters to
| Archbishop Walsh, because he regarded the
archbishop as his confessor. He denied that
| he knew that the articles on ''Parnellism and
| Crime" was being prepared.
LOOKS LIKE A CONTRADICTION.
Sir Charles Russell here produced letter
from Piggott to Archbishop Walsh, dated
| March 4, 1897 and marked "private and
| al In cold
the archbishop that he was aware
that proceedings were contemplated
with the object of destroying the Parnellite
| Influence In parlia nent. All that he could
| indicate was that the proceedings consist of
| the publication Of statements tending to
| show completely in crime of Parnell aud his
| colleagues lie assured the archbishop tnat
he wro, o with full knowledge of these
designs and could ildicate how they Sould
| be successfully combatted and defeated.
IN A CORNER.
| Sir Charles Russell pressed the witness 10
| explain how these designs could have been
| defeated if the leteers were genuine Pig
| gott replied that he had not the slightest
| recollection OF writing anything
Of the kind. Ho did not recollect what
charges were meant in the letter, in
fact, he did not recolect the letter at all.
| He could not have had Parnells letters in
mind when be wrote to the archbishop; he
must have been thinking Of other charges,
but he could not say what those charges
were.
| A SIGNIFICANT POSTSCRIPT
Mr.. Russell then read postscript to the
letter, as follows: IL need hardly say that
| did | consider the Parnellites really guilty
should not dream that your grace would
partake In an effort TO shield them My
| only wish is TO impress upon your grace
that the evidence is apparently convincing
and probably sufficient 10 secure conviction
| by an English jury"
Piggott reiterated that Parnell's letters
we're not in his mind when he wrote the
postscript. He added that he never thought
| that the letters in themselves constituted
serious charge. He asked for the arch
bishops reply, which Sir Charles Russell
produced. Piggott, after inspecting the
arcbbishop's 10 ter, said he believed that he
never received il.
The commission then adjourned.
A SUSPICIOUS COINCIDENCE.
FoNDoN, Feb. %, 4 A. M--The Neics
understands that In the witness box Piggott,
when asked to write the words hesitancy
and likelihood. spelled them "he itency"
and "likelehood Both misspellings oc-