Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1889-03-28
PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.
Sir Charles Russell Denies Many Statement
Imputed to Him!

Imputed to Him!
LONDON, March 25.-In the commons
this a. ternoon Sir Charles Russell made a
statement regarding the speech made by
Attorney General Webster in the house on
Friday last. He read the letter which he
| had wrItteD to Webster, in which he said
he did not believe that Webster had been
correctly reported. 1t was absolutely in
correct 30 say that before Pigott's ex-
animation or before Pigott fed, that he
| (Russeli) had received information direct
or Indirect to the affect that Pigott dis
credited the value of mis- own testimony.
1t was absolutely incorrect to
say he had either called for or
referred to letters conveying such in
formation. The attorney general was
mistaken in supposing that he had given
him five days before Pigott testified to
| he letters discreditipg Pigott's evidence.
| The letters in which Piaott conf ssed his
| feaI of nross-examination had come
upon the speaker and his colleagues as a
com plete surprise. He did not impute the
| dishonorable motives to the attorney
general, out thought that Webster had
| been led away by the political character
of the case into the course of con-
duct which, as a reflection, and
in the less exciting circumstances,
he would not have pursued. (Cheers. J
Continuing, Sir Charles said that even
when Pigott had testified he did rot get
the letters to which reference had been
made. Webster admitted that, relying
upon memory, be had erred when he
wrote to Sir Charles Russell. He argued
that in any case the matter was unim-
portant.
The attorney general persisted that if
Sir Charles Russell had consented to have
the letter from Soames TO Pigott read in
court, he (RusselD would have been in a
position to demand the correspondence
to which it referred.
Asqu1th, who is one of the Parnellite
counsel, asserted positively that neither
he nor Sir Charlee Russell had a ghost or
gliInmering of a notion that letter of
Pigott's existed in which he announced
that his testimony would be discred-
tied.
Harcourt contended that no answer
had been given to his charge that Web
ster, knowing Pigott to be q bad witness,
had allowed the Times for two months to
repeat its ouiOus charge, and further, that
he sat silent while Houston affirmed that
he had complete trust in Pigott, which
statement Webster said he knew to be
false.
Webster have protested that / had
no means of knowing that Houston's
statement was untrue.
Harcourt, resumipg, said that the at
torney might weave cobwebs of miserable
professional etiquette about the matter,
but the common sense of the nation
would revolt against the keeping alive,
up to the last moment, of
charges known to be false as
an act of professional cruelty and injus-
tice. Sir Edward Clarke, solicitor gen
eral, spoke in defence of Webster.
Laboucaere said Houston, Soames and
Webster had all avoided asking questions
concerning Pigott. He attacked Glad
stonian lawy ers who abstained from
voting when division was taken on Friday.
Morley said he had not word 70 with
draw from what he had said in Fridays
debate. The subject was then dropped.