TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— As one of your constant admirers for many years, and considering the almost professional art of development to which agitators have attained, is not your leader in to-night’s Star a little severe ? You, sir, I am certain, would not have been led into the trap which Pigott prepared for ‘ The Times,’ and his only redeeming act was his last one —blowing out his brains (and without the benefit of clergy, too). Sir William Gregory ■tells the following interesting reminiscence of the late Daniel O’Connell, which seems equally true in this century as in the Inst “ Sir William’s grandfather was at one time Under-Secretary for Ireland, and has in his possession the accounts of the secret service money disbursed from the Castle. ‘On running my eyes recently over them,’ he writes, ‘ I was surprised to find the name of a newspaper editor, a supporter of O’Connell, who seems to have secured a regular yearly stipend for some value received. In fact, while vigorously advocating in his columns tho repeal of the Union, ho was furnishing the Castle with the fullest information of the intentions of the leaders of the movement. So it has always been in Irish upheaving, and so it seems it always has to be,” —I am, etc,, New Zealander. Dunedin, June 6. TO THE EDITOR, Sin,—ln your article upon AttorneyGeneral Webster of last evening you do not, I think, do him justice. You invite an unfavorable judgment upon his reply to the charge of unfairly conducting the case of ‘ The Times 1 by stating that he “ had to eat humble pic, and to admit that the letter he offered to Sir Charles Russell was one from Soames to Pigott, which by no means^cou-
tained evidence of the latter’s incredibility. 11 Sir R. Webster made no such admission in the sense you imply. Tho letter of Soames toPigottof November 15, to which you refer, acknowledged receipt in express terms _of Pigott’a letter of the 11th November with enclosure, and that enclosure (which was a copy of Pigott’a letter to Houston) contained admissions of Pigott’s incredibility. It is idle to suggest that had the letter of 15th November been read by Sir Charles Russell, Pigott’s letter and enclosure would not also have been read.—l am, etc., J.R.S, Dunedin, June 7. [Sir C. Russell says: “It is absolutely incorrect to say, or in any form of words to convey, that before Pigott’s examination, or indeed before his flight, I had called for, or indeed been referred to, or bad hid the slightest intimation, direct or indirect, that Pigott had, in letters to Mr Soames or to Mr Houston, discredited the value of his testimony.” This is sufficiently explicit, Surely “it is idle to suggest” that Sir Charles Russell would have remained utterly ignorant of PigoU’s iniquity had there been any serious desire on the part of tho Attorney-General that be should know of it.—Eh. 8.5.)
Permanent link to this item
ATTORNEY-GENERAL WEBSTER., Evening Star, Issue 7929, 10 June 1889
ATTORNEY-GENERAL WEBSTER. Evening Star, Issue 7929, 10 June 1889
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.