THE "TIMES" FORGERIES COMMISSION.
When the "Times" on the 18th of April, 1887 published what purported to
be the _fac simile_ of a letter from Mr. Parnell, and suggested that it
was written to Mr. Patrick Egan in justification of the Phoenix Park
assassinations, I at once, like many others, guessed who the forger must
be. I had from time to time come into contact with Pigott, and I was
satisfied that he was the one man capable of such a production.
When the company was formed in 1875 for the starting of a newspaper in
connection with the Home Rule Confederation of Great Britain, there was
an idea of buying Pigott's papers, "The Irishman," "Flag of Ireland,"
and "Shamrock," which always seemed to be in the market, whether to the
Government or the Nationalists after events showed to be a matter of
perfect indifference to him. Mr. John Barry and I were sent over to
Dublin to treat with him. Mr. Barry went over the books and I went over
the plant. What he wanted seemed reasonable enough, we thought.
The Directors of our Company did not, however, close with Pigott, but
concluded to start a paper of their own, "The United Irishman," the
production and direction of which, as I have stated, they placed in my
hands.
During these years I had many opportunities of getting a knowledge of
Pigott's true character. From time to time money had been subscribed
through Pigott's papers for various national funds. Michael Davitt told
me that when the political prisoners were released the committee
appointed to raise a fund for them, to give them a start in life,
applied for what had been sent through the "Irishman" and "Flag," that
the whole of the funds subscribed through the various channels might be
publicly presented to the men. There was considerable difficulty in
getting this money from Pigott, but ultimately it was squeezed out of
him.
An employe of the "Irishman," David Murphy, was shot--he survived his
wound--in a mysterious manner. This was ascribed, and from all we know
of the man, correctly, to Pigott, who, it was thought, fearing that
Murphy might know too much about the sums coming into his hands and the
sources whence they came, had tried to get him put out of the way. There
was a still more serious aspect of this attempted assassination. The
revelations of the "Times" Forgeries Commission afterwards proved that
all this time Pigott was giving information to the police and getting
paid for it. To my own personal knowledge David Murphy held an important
position in the advanced organisation, for I once brought a young friend
of mine, a printer, a sterling Irishman I had known from his early
boyhood in Liverpool, from Wexford, where he was at the time employed,
specially to introduce him to Murphy.
From the information given to the police by Pigott, it would soon be
found there was some leakage, which would, no doubt, be traced to the
"Irishman" office. It would, of course, be Pigott's cue to put the blame
on the shoulders of Murphy, hence probably his attempted assassination.
It was not unreasonable, then, in looking round for the actual forger of
the famous _fac simile_ letter, that I and others who knew him should
single out a man with such a bad record as Richard Pigott as the actual
criminal.
The collapse of the conspiracy against the Irish leaders, and the
suicide of the wretched Pigott on the 1st of March, 1889, are matters of
history.
For the complete way in which the conspiracy was smashed up great credit
was due to the distinguished Irish advocate, Sir Charles Russell. In his
early days I knew him well, and was often thrown into contact with him,
when he was a young barrister practising on the Northern circuit, and
making Liverpool his headquarters. He was a member of the Liverpool
Catholic Club when I was secretary of that body. The Club, before the
Home Rule organisation superseded it in Liverpool, generally supported
the Liberals in Parliamentary elections, but on one occasion there was,
from a Catholic point of view, a very undesirable Liberal candidate,
whom it was determined not to support. Pressure had, therefore, to be
put upon the Liberals to withdraw this man. They were obstinate, though
they had not the ghost of a chance without the Irish and Catholic vote,
which formed fully half the strength they could generally count upon. On
the other hand, _we_ could not carry the seat by our own unaided vote.
But, to show the Liberals that we would not have their man under any
circumstances, it was arranged that if he were willing we should put
Charles Russell forward as our candidate. As secretary it became my duty
to ask him to place himself in our hands. He agreed, on the
understanding that he was to be withdrawn if our action had the effect
of forcing the Liberals to get a candidate more acceptable to us. We
succeeded, and, of course, withdrew our man.
When we started the Home Rule organisation in Liverpool, we asked
Charles Russell to be chairman of our inaugural public meeting. He had
been contesting Dundalk as a Home Ruler, so we thought he was the very
man to preside at our meeting, and gave that as our reason for asking
him. He received the deputation--my friend, Alfred Crilly and
myself--with that geniality and courtesy which were so characteristic of
him. As it happened that the three of us were County Down men, who are
somewhat clannish, we soon got talking about the people "at home." He
knew both our families in Ireland, and had served his time with a
solicitor of my name in Newry, Cornelius Denvir, before he had entered
the other branch of the legal profession. We also got talking of the
barony of Lecale, which he, as well as my own people, had sprung from,
and how it had been the only Norman colony in Ulster; how many of the
descendants of De Courcy's followers were still there, as might be seen
from their names--Russells, Savages, Mandevilles. Dorrians, Denvirs, and
others, whose fathers, intermarrying with the original Celtic
population, MacCartans, Magennises, MacRorys, and so on, had become like
the Burkes, Fitzgeralds, and other Norman clans, "More Irish than the
Irish themselves."
This was all very well, and very interesting, but it did not get us our
chairman. Charles Russell was too wary, and, perhaps, too far-seeing,
who can tell? for that. It was quite true, he said, he had contested
Dundalk as a Home Ruler, and, of course, he was a Home Ruler, but he
advised us to ask Dr. Commins to be our chairman, as being so much
better known than himself. We did ask "The Doctor," and, kindly and
genial as we ever found him, he at once consented.
Nearly forty years have passed since then, and I really believe that
these two, then comparatively young men, practically made choice of
their respective after-careers on that occasion.
Dr. Commins, who, like Charles Russell, was a practising barrister on
the Northern circuit, held for some years the highest position his
fellow-countrymen could give him as President of the Home Rule
Confederation of Great Britain, and became a member of the Irish
Parliamentary Party.
Charles Russell, though always a Home Ruler and sincere lover of his
country, made a brilliant career for himself as a great lawyer and
Liberal statesman. I have often wondered since, if he had become
chairman of our meeting in 1872, and had then identified himself with
the Home Rule movement, if his statue would be to-day as it is in the
London Law Courts, or if he would ever have been Lord Chief Justice of
England and Lord Russell of Killowen? I think not.
The "Times" Forgeries Commission, though got up to do deadly damage to
the Irish Cause, had not, even before the final collapse of the
conspiracy, had that effect, as bye-election after bye-election proved.
For instance, when the Commission appointed to deal with the "Times"
charges against the Irish leaders re-opened, after a short vacation at
Christmas, the Govan election was going on, and, on the 19th of January,
1889, the Liberal Home Ruler won the seat by a majority of over 1,000.
After the exposure of the plot, Mr. Gladstone's "Flowing Tide" swept on
with increased velocity, and, wherever there was a bye-election, there
was an enormous demand for our members of Parliament. During this
period, when the Irish vote in Great Britain was more fully organised
than it ever had been before, I attended most of these elections. It was
keenly felt, as had been proved on several occasions, that _no_ place,
however small the number of Irish voters, should be overlooked,
especially at a time when British parties had become once more pretty
evenly balanced.