THE FORGED LETTERS

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6518, 10 April 1889, Page 4

THE FORGED LETTERS

PARNELL v. THE TIMES. PIGOTT'S DRAMATIC DISAPPEARANCE. STATEMENT OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL. On Feb. 27 ihe Attorney- General said he need not assure their Lordships that; since the adjournment he and his learned ; friends had communicated with those for ; whoru he appeared, and they had carefully ' and anxiously considered che course they should take with regard to that parb of the . inquiry now under consideration. It wag ; unnecessary to remind then* that the i letters pub in evidence, the authenticity of j which was disputed, including the fac- \ simile letter of May 15, lSS2,and also those which purported to bear the signatures of Mr Egan, Mr O'Kelly, and Mr Davitt, had conic from one scource — namely, from Pigott. He did not desire to say anything respecting this -witness, excepting that he thought that everyone would agree that no one could attach any weight to the evidence he had given. Taking the most lenient view of his conduct, he had certainly confessed to Mr Shannon that he had forged the letters of Mr Parnoll and others. Under these circumstances, it seemed to them that the course they ought to take was clearly.defined, and that was that they would be merely doing their duty on bohalf o£ those they represented if they asked leave to withdraw from the consideration of the genuineness of the letters, the authenticity of which was denied, with the full acknowledgment .that after the evidence given they were not entitled to Bay they were genuine. It was possible that any expression of their regret might be open to misinterpretation ; but those ho represented desired to express their regret that the letters were published, and this regret at a future time would be more fully expressed by the Times itself. He could say much as to the manner in which which those he represented had been imposed upon ; but he abstained from introducing controversial matter. He claimed, however, the right to say a few words aa to what Sir Charles Russell had said, that behind Houston and Pigott there was " a foul conspiracy." He desired to j say that if a foul conspiracy existed those that he represented had no share in it. They had been imposed, upon by lies, and they felt that if it was suggested that their error extended beyond thali scope their Lordships shoiild make the fullest enquiry. Sir Charles Russell said he had hoped the Atto rney- General would have mad stronger statements 5 but whatever course his learned friend and clients took would in no jot alter the case of his (Sir Charles') clients, and that was not only themselves to go into the box at the proper time, but also to ask their Lordships' assistance as far as it might properly be extended to enable, them to see whether the young man Houston, the alleged journalist and Secretary of the Loyal and Patriotic Union, in this matter had acted on his own account. It was in this direction they asked for full consideration. He could not doubt that their Lordships* feelings, one and all, would be to make public the expression oi: their opinion that these letters were forged. It would, at any rate, relieve one man particularly who had suffered what they might conceive, but which it would be difficult to describe, and who had suffered unmerited wrong, and so long laboured under these unparalleled allegations. Their Lordships had power to make reports from time to time on the enquiry. Sir James Hanneh said they were prepared to take the course of allowing Sir Charles to call witnesses at that juncture as to the authenticity of the letter 3, and then they would consider about giving an expression of their opinion. Mr Parnell was then sworn, and the whole of the letfcer3 ia succession were put into his hands. The questions were merely formal, and ho formally denied that the letter of May 15, ISS2, or any of the others were either written or signed by him, by his Secretary, Mr Campbell, or, to the beat of his belief, by Egan or O'Kelly. On personal grounds, the AttorneyGeneral asked for an adjournment. He had felfc this matter o£ tlio letters to be one o£ such extreme gravity that the whole of his time had been given to its consideration, and he was consequently not ; ready with witnesses in the other parts of the case. Sir" Charles Russell raised no objection, and, as neither Mr Campbell nor Mr Davitt could be present until Friday, the Court, ; at the suggestion 01 the President, stood | adjourned till March 1. THE APOLOGY PUBLISHED BY THE TISIEB. The Times, in ite first leading article yesterday, (Feb. 28) after having quoted the explanations and apology o&'ered by the Attorney-General beforo tho Parnell Commission in reference to the publication of the forged letters, said : — <; "Wo desire to endorse and to appropriate every v/ord of the foregoing- statement. Ifc is our wish, as it is our duty, to give expression to that feeling of sincere regret to'which the Attorney-General referred. Ife was obvious that, after Pigott, on hiq own showing, had proved himself to bo a person utterly unworthy of credit, and after he had. made two confesaiona, varying in detail, but both admitting that the letters which he had produced were tainted with forgery our duty was unreservedly to withdraw thoso letters from tho consideration of the Judges. Moreover, Mr Parnell having in the witness-box stated that the letters attributed to him wore forgeries, wo accept in every respect the truth of that statement. ■In these circumstances, we deem it right to express our regret most fully and sincerely at having been induced to publish the letters in question as Mr Parnell's, or to use them in evidence against him. , This expression o£ regret, we need hardly say, includes also the letters falsely attributed to Mr Egan, Mr Davitt and Mr O'Kelly. It is clear now that Pigott was guilty of a gross and disgraceful fraud when he produced the documents which reached our hands * * * "We are bound, however, to point out that, though Pigotb was the source from which the letters came, aud though they were thus contaminated by their origin, he was not the person with whom we communicated, and who placed the documents in our hands. Moreover, we niust add that we firmly believed the letters to be genuine until the disclosures made by Pigott in the courae of his crossexamination." With^regard to Sir Charles Russell's statement as* to the existence of a " foul conspiracy behind Pigott and Houston," the article says,: — "Ifc must be evident to all reasonable persons that, if a conspiracy existed, the Times was victimised by it and not a party to it. Error 3 in judgment may have been committed, and for them the penalty must be paid." What we have done (the article proceeds), it must bo clearly understood, has been done by us in the public interest alone. The article concludes as follows : — " As soon as the incidents affecting Pigott's flight had been enquired into, our counsel at once asked for an adjournment for the purpose of considering the most proper form in which to present our withdrawal of the letters from the consideration of the 1 Commission. This withdrawal, of course, refers exclusively tt> the letters obtained from Pigott, and not to the other portion of the case embraced in tho ' charges and allegations/ which still remain the subject of judicial enquiry. Our desire is simply to expresß deep regret for the error into which we were led, and to withdraw unreservedly these parts of our original statements which we cannot honestly continue to maintain." '