PARNELLISM AND CRIME

New Zealand Tablet, 2 June 1910, Page 851

PARNELLISM AND CRIME

THE ANDERSON EPISODE As we learned by cable at the time, the admissions mas by Sir Robert Anderson in Blackwood's Magazine that he was the author of some of the articles on * Parnellhjgi and Crime’ which appeared in the Times whilst he held, an official position under the Government, created no small sensation in the United Kingdom at the time. In the House of Commons- on April 11, Mr. MacVeagh asked the _ Secretary of State for the Home Department , m- er . his attention had been -called to the statement of Sir Robert Anderson that he was the author of the Times newspaper articles under the title.* Parnellism and Crime’ what official position he occupied at the time: whether he subsequently was promoted to the post of political adviser to the Home Office ,and Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department at Scotland Yard; whether he was aware that there was not any precedent for such conduct on the part of an official of a Government Department, and whether, under the circumstances, he would consent to lay upon the table of the House all Home Office documents bearing on the Parnell Commission or the Times articles. • • Mr. John Redmond had a similar question on the paper, but addressed to the Prime Minister, namely—whether his attention had been called to the statement made by Sir Robert Anderson that while he was a servant of the Government, as adviser to the Home Office in 1887, he wrote the articles entitled ‘Parnellism and Crime,'’ which appeared in the Times newspaper ; whether shortly after the articles appeared Sir Robert Anderson was promoted to be head of the Criminal Investigation Department of Scotland Yard, and during the years 1888 and 1889 placed the resources of the Department at the disposal of the Times to support the articles he had himself written was there any record to show whether the Government-of the day were a party to this action; whether such conduct had any precedent; whether it was possible under existing conditions to-day, and whether he would cause inquiry to be made into the matter. . . -■ .. ..., . ■ ' Mr. Asquith will answer this question, and at the same time the question of the hon. and learned member for Waterford. In 1887, when the articles on ‘Parnellism and Crime’ appeared in the Times, Sir Robert Anderson was Secretary to the Prison Commissioners and was also employed by Mr. Monro on secret - service work. He was promoted to be head of the Criminal. Investigation Department in August, 1888, but he never held that which could be described as political adviser to the Home Office in 1889. During the sitting of the Commission he placed certain documents which he had obtained when employed in the secret service at the disposal of the witness Le Caron for use in the evidence which he gave before the Statutory Commission, but in doing so he acted without' the previous consent or knowledge of the then Home Secretary, and I can say with some confidence that the Home Secretary had no knowledge of his being or claiming to be author or part author of the Times articles. If ; Sir Robert Anderson wrote the Times articles— he did— any part of them his action was contrary to the rules and traditions of, the Civil Service, and so far as I know entirely without precedent. I cannot conceive that such a thing could happen under existing conditions. After a lapse of more than twenty years I do not think the suggested inquiry would serve any useful purpose, and I am informed that the papers in the Home Office bearing upon the Parnell Commission are few and unimportant, and that there are none, which could properly be laid on the table of the House. Mr. Redmond May I ask the right hon. gentleman, in view of the extreme gravity of the question, whether he really thinks that the lapse of time is a sufficient reason for refusing an inquiry ? It is impossible for me to enlarge upon it now, but the gravity of the question must be apparent to the House. 1 submit to the right hon. gentleman, is it not apparent, on his own statement, that an officer of the Government in the employment of the Home Office was secretly engaged in supplying - confidential documents belonging to the Government to the Times in a private prosecution against Mr. Parnell and his colleagues, and I would ask him, in view of the natural suspicions which must arise as to the way in which these attacks on Ireland are made, whether he does riot think it would be wise to institute an inquiry into the whole circumstances? ; Mr. Asquithl am sure I shall not be suspected of any desire to shield Sir Robert Anderson or any of the parties in this matter. , The lot which fell to me in connection with that case is sufficiently, well known, and I cannot use language sufficiently, strong to express my condemnation of the admitted breach, of official duty of which Sir Robert Anderson was guilty. The only question the hon. gentleman puts to me is whether now at this distance of t’me any useful purpose will be served by an inquiry. I confess at the moment I do not see how it could. We must prevent —I do not see that it is necessary to do so, but every step

that can be taken will be taken to prevent— recurrence of any such gross breach of official confidence.' Unless the hon. gentleman suggests that some useful purpose can now be served, I do not myself propose at this moment to take the responsibility of embarking upon it. Mr. Redmond—l should like to ask the right hon. gentleman is it not a fact that Sir Robert Anderson is at present in receipt of a pension of four hundred a year paid under the Police Vote? I wish to ask the right hon. gentleman also if Sir Robert Anderson is in receipt of any pension in conection with the Home Office; and, finally, whether the right hon. gentleman will give facilities to us in the. next Vote on Account or on the first opportunity that arises for discussing the whole matter and pressing the desirability of ending his pension or having a full inquiry?. Mr. Asquith should like notice about the pension. lam not sufficiently^informed on that. On the Vote on Account I should think there would be an opportunity to discuss the whole.matter. ~

■~ Mr. won't be such an opportunity except by the assistance of the Government and arrangements being made. : As the right hon. gentleman is aware, a discussion on the Vote on Account would not necessarily include all the points I desire to discuss. I should like to ask whether he will do his best to afford us every facility on that occasion?

Mr. Asquith Certainly. I think this is a very grave matter. - '

Interviewed by a Morning Leader representative on Sir R. Anderson's confession, Sir George Lewis, the famous solicitor, who acted for Mr. Parnell and the other Irish members at the time of the Parnell Commission, said: ' The only statement I can make about these revelations concerns the assumption or suggestion that Sir Charles Russell knew that Sir Robert Anderson was the author of the articles in the Times. I was on the most intimate personal terms with Sir Charles Russell, quite irrespective of my professional relations with him. During the twenty months that this case lasted I was in daily communication with him. The subject of a forged letter was a matter of grave consideration, in which he took the liveliest interest, particularly when the discovery had been made that Pigott was the actual forger. . I was perfectly convinced I say without the least hesitation, from my intimate professional relations with Sir Charles Russell during the whole of the Parnell Commission— which I represented the Irish mem-, bers —that Sir Charles Russell never had the faintest notion or suspicion that the articles in the Times had been written by Sir Robert Anderson or any other official in the employment of the Government. lam further convinced that if Sir Charles Russell had had the least reason to imagine such a state of things, he would have challenged the Government, challenged the then Attorney-General (now the Lord Chief Justice), and would never have been content till he had unmasked the part played by Sir Robert Anderson, and commented in the severest manner on an official, still in the service of the Government being permitted to attack members of Parliament, whether Irish, English, Scottish, or Welsh. If the truth as to the authorship of the Times articles had been known it would have created the greatest indignation in Ireland, as it has to-day, and might have cost Sir Robert Anderson his position.' You may have noticed,' ; remarked the Leader representative, 'that Sir Robert still believes that the Pigott letter was not a forgery.!e 'I had the most .conclusive proof,' replied Sir George Lewis, 'that the letter was a forgery before the trial actually commenced and that Pigott was the forger. The only persons to whom I communicated the facts and proofs of the forgery were Mr. Parnell's counsel (Sir Charles Russell) and the present Prime Minister, who was also counsel for Mr. Parnell. That evidence never was published, but it was quite conclusive. As a matter of fact, Pigott confessed to me that he was the author of the forged letter at a Strand hotel, where he was stopping. He would not speak to me in the coffee room, but took me into his bedr °oni, where he was in possession of the loaded pistol with which.. he later on shot himself in Spain. My position in his bedroom was possibly one of personal risk. All this I may say, was long before he gave evidence. J 'I should like to say one thing of Mr. Parnell in reference to Pigott,' continued Sir George, ' and that is that Mr Parnell never wavered in denouncing the letter as a forgery He was convinced before the trial commenced that Pigott was the actual forger. Sir Robert Anderson may hold any opinion he chooses, but the best proof that the Times which had published the libel, knew that the letter was a forgery was that it consented to a verdict for damages in an action in which the. sole question was whether or not the letter was a forgery.'. . •-- •••