New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-02-22
PIGoTT ON THE STAND.
Continued IRON First Page.


80 ,ho declined 10 reveal his name, offered to
render them for 500 pounds. He was paid 200
notfnds of which sum inc WITNESS 10
ro,vod 10 mounds back Pigott denied that
no had forged any part OF the second OF third batch
of letters. He destroyed Houston's ltters when he
changed his address In 1857 inc "''neSS' previous
20 uouston,s taking him to Mr. soamess ofdce, bad
ooD.od nv Mr. Lewis, Of counsel for the Par
nellites
-, ,o,,,,rpr,ycr, At MR. I.ABoUCHEREs HOUSE
p,oott continued: "A man named oBren visited
,,o ,r DublIn undeP the alias Of Sinclair. He said
that Parnc had sent him to try 10 get mo 10 assist
Egan Mr. Iabouchere, he said, was acting for Egan,
and would nav me a very high price II had any
letters of Parnes 10 sell Sinclair suggested that
should see Mr.. Labouchere In Lonuon' anu gave
~. 4 rounds with which to pay my passage
In compliance with a telegram won't 70 i4Onooh 0h
october IL Sinclair appointed rendezvous Tor
0ao,,no with Mr.. I,abnuchere. / went to the place
msntloned. but was disappointed, as Mr. LAnouchere
was mot there declined 10 hold conversation with
Sinclair, who pressed me TO 80 10 Air haooucheie
bouse refused. and at Houston's instance. ceased
negotiating with Sinclair. afterwaru wrote 10 MT.
Iaboucbere without sInclalr's knowledge. Mr. Labou-
chorc replied and had an interview WIN MT fafneil
AVID Mr. Labouchere at the latteFs house,
Continuing picott saId that at the meeting referred
IN Mr. Paruell tod him that he held prima facie evil
dcnca that the witness had forged the letters. and
Mr. Labouehere proposed that the Witness ADMIT the
forgery Tho witness could haruiy DeheVe thst Mp
Iahouchcrn was serlous Mr. Lewis entered during
the interview and said that II the witness followed
directions he would be his best friend ow that he
,.lIod N obey instructions, he Lowis) would prose
cute him mercllessly for perjury and forgery Aftes-
waad the witness saw Mr.. Labouchere alone outside
Of the ROOM when Mr.. Labouchorc said he was pre-
pared 10 paw ] 600 pounds but that money matters
must not be mentioned to Mr.. Parnen.
The witness Induced Mr. Labouehere TO think that
no would accede 10 this proposal but on returning TO
the room he said that nothing would induce him to
swear that the letters forgcrios. Mr. Lewis then
asked witness to write TO Tho Tines that he winessl
believed tho letters TO be forgorcs when Tho Tines
would withdraw the letters The witness sSed for time
20 consider this proposal Mr.. Lewis visited him tho
following day when the witness s d SsHed W we Mr
induced The Times" to withdraw the letters Mr.
Lewis said Yes
notes OF the interview. Tn. witness challenged their
accuracy, and denied having said that be believed
the letters were not genuine
MR.. PARNELHs MANNER WAS THREATENING.
On the day after Mt Lewis's visit the witness acct
dentally met Mt Parnen and Mr. LOWS. Tho latter
denied that he had given the witness any assurance
Mr. Parnells manner threatening He reiterated
that witness had forged the letters and also accused
him OF having committed mercantile forgones Tho
witness denied these allegations and said no courted
'no Attorney adHcS GENERAL webster now read long
correspondence between Fgott and lewis. In
his letters Mr. Lewis ayerrcd that no and his as.
sociates were aware that Pg9ti was forser before
PaFnell again. Ptgoit replied that LowiSs letters
confirmed bis conviction that when no aeceded 20
Ead ho ~ p Tor re- %s pepad 70 m. g
proceedings, and 10 declined TO meet Mr. Psnel
again.
Tho witness. continuing, said that Mr. LsboucheEe
repeatedly wrote 10 him In Dublin, pressing him 10
Of January he received a letter containing 10 pounds
lIe was anxious 10 avoid tesuying ic wss aware
that Il dangerous 10 offend the CiaRnSGael, aud
that he might be murdered
THE WITNESS UNDER FIRE.
Sir Charles Russell eross-cHamIned PigOtt lie
asked the witness to write tho words livelihood
likelihood "Riohard Pigot' ~proselytkm. Pat
rick Egan,' @P Egan" ard @hesItancy." This the
witness did. Pgott said he had eorrspondcd with
Mr.. Forster from 1851 10 1884 Tic denied that be
had communicated with every irish Secretary since
1870. To the best OF his belief he did not write 70
Earl Spencer IN 1879 offering valuable Information
ior money. lie wrote 70 Sir Q. Q. Troyelysn sshlns
ment, but be did not Offer 70 furnish information.
lie denied that IN bis statement 10 Mr. Lewis he said
that the publication o. tho letters by STho Tines
lad alarmed him and that no had therefore asked Arch
bishop Walsh 70 place him n Communication With Mr.
think that Sir Charles Russell ought to quesuon him
regarding the letters @ archbishop walsh because s
denied that be know that the articles on Parnel.sm
and Crime were being prepared
Sir Charles Russell here produced
hitter from Pigott 10 Archbishop walsh, dated March
4, 1887, and marked private and confidential
In the letter PlgOtt told the Archbishop that no
aware that PROCEEDINGS wcrs contemplated with the
object Of destroying tho PaIneites' Influence IN Par
lament All that he could indicate was that the pro
ceedngs would consist OF the publication Of statements
tending 10 show The completely IN crime of Pancl and
his colleagues lie assured the Archbishop that he
wrote with fun knowledge OF these designs and
could Indicate how they could DO successfully com
bstod aud defeated.
SIR Charles Russell pressed the witness 10 explain
how these designs could have been defeated II the
Letters were genuine.
Pigott replied that no had not the slightest rec0l.
lection Of writing anything OF the Kind. Ho did not
rccoSct what charges were meant In the leter, aud.
could not have had The Parncll letters IN mind when
Ing OF other charges but he could not say what those
charges we're.
SIR Charles Russell then read the postscript to the
letter, as follows:
need hardly say that ara consider the parties really
guilty should dream that your Grace would partako
In effort 10 shield them. My only wish Ia impress
your Grace that the evidence Is apparently convincing
and probably sufficient u conviction by a
English jury.
Pigott reiterated that the Parnen letters
not In his mind when be wrote the postscript Ho
added that DO never thought the lettes In themselves
constituted = serious charge. lilo asked for the
Archbshop's reply, which Sir Charles Russell pro
euccd. Pgott, after inspecting the Archbishop's