The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-02-22

but was disappointed, as Mr. Labouchere
was not there. / declined TO hold O con-
go TO Mr.. Labouchere's house. l refused,
and, at HoustOn'S instance. ceased negOtiat-
ing with Sinclair. afterward wrote to
Mr.. Labouchere without Sinclairs knowl-
edge Mr. LabogsheEe re- replied: and id had Mr
Labouchere at the latter's house."
Continuing, Piggott said, that at the
meeting referred to Mr.. Parnell told him
that he had prima facie evidence that the
hqd SGsss the bs the %nss;
hardly belive that Mr.. Labouchere was
serious. Mr. Lewis entered during the in
terview, and said that if the witness fol
friend, but that if he failed to obey instruc-
tions he ILewis1 would prosecute him ner-
cilessly for purjury and forgery: After
ward the witness saw. Mr.. La
bouchere alone outside OF the room;
when Mr.. LabOuchere said he was prepared
not he mentioned to Mr.. Parnen. The wit
ness induced Mr.. Labouchere to think that
he would accede to this proposal, but on
returning to tho room he said that nothing
were forgeries. Mr.. Lewis then asked the
witness to write to the Times that he (the
wltness) believed the letters to be fOrgeries,
when the Times would withdraw the let
ters. The witness asked for time to con-
slider this proposal. Mr.. Lewis visited him
the following day. when the witness asked
whether Mr.. Labouchere's offer would hold
good If the witness induced the Times to
withdraw the letters. Mr. Lewis said
''yes."
Attorney general Webster here read Mr..
Lewis's notes of the interview.
The witness challenged their accuracy.
and denied having SAID that he believed
the letters were. not genuine On the day
after Mr.. Lewis's visit the witness acci-
dentally met MIR. Parnell and Mr.. Lewis
The latter denied that he had given the
witness any assurance. Mr.. ParnelPs man
ner was threatening. He reiterated that
the witness mad forged the letters, and also
accused him of having committed mercan-
legations and said he courted the full
est inquiry.
Acknowledgement Webster now read
long correspondence between ,Piggott and
Lewis. In his letters Mr.. Lewis averred
that he and his associates were aware that
Piggott was forSer before they. saw him:
He suggested that PiggOtt meet Mr.. Parneu
again. Piggott replied that Lewiss letters
confirmed his conviction that when he ac-
ceded to Labouchere's wish for a private
was prepared to meet any proceedings, and
he declined to meet Mr.. Parnell again. The
witness, continuing, said that Mr. La
bouchere repeatedly wrote to him in Dub
pay his passage. At the end of January he
received letter containing 910 He was
anxious to avoid testifying. He was aware
that it was dangerous to offend the Clan
na-Gael, and that he might be murdered.
Sir Charles Russell crOSs-examined Pig
words livelihood" Likelihood" Richard
PiggOtt," 'proselytlsm," Patrick Egan,"
'.P. Egan," and "hesitancy." The witness
did. Piggott said he had corresponded
with Mr.. Forster from 1881 to 1884. He de-
MED that he had communicated with every
Irish secretary since 1870. 10 the best Of
his belief he did not write to Earl Spencer
In 1913 offering valuable information. for
money. He wrote to Sir G.. o. Trevelyan
of the government. but he did not offer to
furnish information. 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, there
in communication with the parties con-
cerned. He denied that he knew that the
articles on 'Parnellism and Crime" were
being prepared.
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 contemplated with the
object Of DESTROYING the Parnellites' intiu-
dicate was that the proceedings would con-
sist of the publication of statements tend
ing to show the completely in crime of Par
nell and his colleagues. He assured the
Archbishop that he wrote with full
knowledge of these designs, and could in
dicate how they could be successfully COM
batted and defeated.
Sir Charles Russell pressed the witness to
explain how these designs could have been
defeated if the letters were genuine.
Piggott replied that he had not the slight
est recollection of writing anything of the
kind. He did not recollect what charges
were meant in the letter. and, in fact, he
did not recOllect the letter at all He could
not have the Parnell letters in mind when
he wrote to the Archbishop; he must have
been. thinking of other charges, but he
Sir Charles Russell then read tho post
script to the letter, as follows: II need
hardly say that, did consider the parties
really guilty, Sc ould not dream that your
Grace would partake in any effort to shield
them. My only wish is to impress upon
your Grace that the evidence is appare ntly
convincing and probably sufficient to secure
a conviction by an English jury"
PiggOtt reiterated that the Parnell letters
postscript. He added that he never thought
the letters in themselves constituted seri-
Gus 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 re-
ceived it.
The commission then adjourned.
The Daily News understands that while
IN the witneSs-bOx PigOtt wrote some mat.
ter. in which he msspelled words, and that
the same words appear misspelled in like
manner i'm the alleged Parnell Letters.