SOME CONSEQUENCES OF BALFOUR'S COERCION POLICY
When Mr. Gladstone's Government was defeated on June 9 by 341 votes
to 311, the Prime Minister immediately dissolved Parliament, and the
General Election was over before the end of July, the Unionist
majority being 118. Mr. Gladstone resigned on July 12, before the
final returns were sent in, and, when Parliament met again in August,
Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Chief
Secretary for Ireland, and Lord Londonderry, Viceroy. The second
great Home Rule battle had been fought and lost.
Of course Irish affairs immediately occupied Parliament, but on
September 21 the Land Bill, introduced by Parnell, and upon which, he
warned the House, the peace of Ireland depended, was rejected by a
majority of 95 votes. On October 23, the Plan of Campaign was
launched and furiously denounced by the Conservatives in the House of
Commons and on every platform throughout the country. Sir Michael
Hicks-Beach resigned the Chief Secretaryship on account of his
failing eyesight, and was replaced by Mr. Balfour. The first
Parliament that met in 1887 was given notice of two measures for
Ireland--a Coercion Bill to be introduced in the House of Commons and
a Land Bill in the House of Lords. The Coercion Bill was the most
stringent of its kind ever introduced. It abridged and destroyed the
{358} constitutional liberties of the people of Ireland and created
new offences. It withdrew the protection of juries, and gave full
powers to resident magistrates of dealing with cases of intimidation
and of holding public meetings against the will of the executive. It
was proposed, moreover, that the measure should be a permanent one,
and not restricted to one or a limited number of years.[1]
Two extraordinary events occurred in that year, in both of which Mr.
Labouchere played an important part. They both had their indirect
origin in the coercive measures which Mr. Balfour succeeded in
passing through the House. The first took place during the spring,
when the _Times_, in order to strengthen the hands of the Government,
in their remorseless warfare on Irish liberties, published, during
the course of a series of articles called "Parnellism and Crime," the
facsimile of a letter supposed to have been written by Mr. Parnell to
Mr. Patrick Egan in 1882, referring brutally to the Phœnix Park
murders. The letter was contained in the fourth article of the
series. The reader will easily perceive from the following short
extracts the spirit in which these articles were conceived: "Be the
ultimate goal of these men (the Parnellites) what it will, they are
content to march towards it in company with murderers. Murderers
provide their funds, murderers share their inmost counsels, murderers
have gone forth from the League[2] offices to set their bloody work
afoot, and have presently returned to consult the 'constitutional
leaders' on the advancement of the cause," occurred in the first
article. The third article declared that "even now" the Parnellite
conspiracy was controlled by dynamiters and assassins, and proceeded
thus: "We have seen how the infernal fabric arose 'like an
exhalation' to the sound of murderous oratory; how assassins guarded
it {359} about, and enforced the high decrees of the secret conclave
within by the ballot and the knife. Of that conclave to-day, three
sit in the Imperial Parliament, four are fugitives from the law."
The first series of the articles finished up with this appeal: "Men
of England! These are the foul and dastardly methods by which the
National League and the Parnellites have established their terrorism
over a large portion of Ireland. Will you refuse the Government the
powers which will enable these cowardly miscreants to be punished,
and which will give protection to the millions of honest and loyal
people in Ireland?"
It is very certain that all Liberal Unionists, and even a few of the
more educated Tory statesmen, realised that the articles were merely
theatrical appeals to the contracted imaginations of those armchair
politicians, whose ways of influencing voters in rural districts were
all powerful, but it was not to be expected that the man in the
street could understand them as such. On him they made a profound
impression.
The first article appeared on March 7, the second on the 14th, and
the third on the 18th. On the 22nd Mr. Balfour gave notice of his
Coercion Bill. "Parnellism and Crime" had prepared the way for him.
The Bill was read for the first time in the beginning of April, and
on the last day of the debate on the Second Reading, April 18, the
_Times_ published its _pièce de résistance_--what has since become
known as "the facsimile letter." It ran as follows:
15/5/82.
DEAR SIR,--I am not surprised at your friend's anger, but he and you
should know that to denounce the murders was the only course open to
us. To do that promptly was plainly our best policy. But you can
tell him and all others concerned that though I regret the accident
of Lord F. Cavendish's death, I cannot refuse to admit that Burke got
no more than his deserts. You are at liberty to show him this, and
others whom you can {360} trust also, but let not my address be
known. He can write to House of Commons.--Yours very truly,
CHAS. S. PARNELL.
I have before me the photograph of the facsimile letter, used in the
Parnell Commission, and also the letters received by Mr. Labouchere
at different times from the Irish leader, and it seems incredible, on
comparing the general style and caligraphy of the former with the
latter, how the _Times_ agents and Mr. Soames could have been
deceived for one moment; but I must not anticipate in this place the
verdict of the Commission on the forgery, in the obtaining of which
Mr. Labouchere played such a characteristic part. The whole of
England was indignant when the issue of the _Times_ containing the
facsimile letter appeared on their breakfast tables, and even
comparatively tender-hearted persons began to think seriously that no
treatment of Ireland by the English could be savage enough to avenge
the cold-hearted, calculating cruelty of Parnell.
Mr. Balfour's Coercion Bill had not, however, yet become law, and the
_Times_ continued its popular articles, which were greedily devoured
by the public, the body of the second and third series consisting for
the most part of an accumulation of evidence to prove that, in the
year of the Land League, the conspirators had succeeded in getting
the American Clan na Gael and the Irish Parliamentary party into
line. It did its work so well that, by the 8th of July, when the
Coercion Bill passed its Third Reading, under which, subsequently,
fully one-third of the Nationalist members charged in its columns
were put into prison, there were very few English people outside the
Radical faction who did not think that Ireland had got no more than
her deserts.
It was, in the _dénouement_ of the series of events, following upon
the publication of Mr. Parnell's supposed letter, that Mr. Labouchere
played such an important part, and, as it was nearly two years before
the mystery was completely {361} unravelled, the story of the forged
letter must now be left, so as to take up in chronological order the
second event of 1887 in which Mr. Labouchere was vitally concerned.
Mr. Labouchere kept himself well in touch with what was going on in
Ireland, and the following detailed letter that he received from Mr.
T. M. Healy towards the end of 1886, gave him a vivid picture of the
state of things there during the first half year of the Conservative
Government, and assisted him much in the line of policy he
consistently followed then and throughout the ensuing years:
The country is really perfectly quiet, and the misfortune is that the
Tories are reaping the benefit of Gladstone's policy, and will, of
course, claim the credit for their "resolute Government." Moreover,
they are putting all kinds of pressure on the landlords to grant
abatements. Buller is Soudanizing Kerry à la Gordon, and giving the
slave-drivers no quarter, so that with the stoppage of evictions
there, moonlighting is coming to an end and the people believe that
Buller won't let them be turned out of their cabins. He has a good
man with him as Sec.--Col. Turner--who was aide to Aberdeen during
the late Viceroyalty. Turner is a staunch Radical and Home Ruler who
sympathizes with the poor, and we know very well that the brake has
been put on against the local Bimbashis. They are cursing Buller
heartily, and yesterday he had to issue an official contradiction of
the undoubted truth that he is obstructing evictions by refusing
police. There are more ways of killing a dog than choking him with
butter. How they would storm against Liberals if any such officer
were sent to Kerry to override the law, and how they denounced Morley
for exercising the dispensing power, because of a few sympathetic
sentences. What I am afraid of in all this is that the tenants
nowhere are getting a clear receipt, and that they will afterwards be
pressed for the balances unless there is an Arrears Act. Probably
the Tories meditate muddling away the rest of the Church surplus in
benefactions to the landlords to recompense their benevolence. Of
course only the September rents are due yet, and September and March
are much less frequent gale months with us than November and May.
The November rents will be {362} soon demanded, and then we shall
really know what the landlords will do. I think they will surrender,
for if they don't they won't be paid. Every one of them is sick of
the fight. Their retainers and bailiffs who made a profit out of
evictions, and the attorneys who promoted them for the costs, have
not been paid for a long time as they used long ago, and like a
stranded vessel on the rocks it is only a question of the fierceness
of the gale how soon the entire system will go to pieces. They were
in much better blood for fighting in '81 and what have those of them
got who stood out? Desolate farms that no one will touch, while the
sight of emergency occupants no longer terrifies the tenants, who
know that they are costing the master three times the rent and that
their labours are as profitless as a locust's. These fellows are the
riffraff of the towns who idle away their time in the next
public-house or play cards with the police sent to protect them.
They burn everything that will light for firing, and their occupation
of the premises is about as husbandman-like as that of a party of
Uhlans. Such is the prospect for the gentry who refuse abatements,
and as they know the people have not got money, I believe they will
make a virtue of necessity. Then the Government are known to be
against them, and they cannot appeal from their own friends to the
Liberals, so what are they to do? They distrust Churchill
completely, and believe he is capable of anything. If, however, they
hold out we shall have warm work. I have refrained from addressing
agrarian meetings so far, though Dillon and O'Brien have gone on the
warpath, because it is not clear to me yet what is the best line to
take, and besides I think Parnell should give the note, so that
nobody may get above concert pitch. What Parnell's views are I don't
know, and he is the man on the horse. The consciousness of the
people that they have Gladstone on their side would in any case, I
think, take all the uglier sting out of the agitation, now that they
feel a settlement to be only a matter of time. It is very hard for
any one to advise them when the responsibility is directly on
Parnell, but if he intervened popular opinion would blaze like a
prairie fire.
Thanks for your enquiry about my return to the House. There are now
three Irish vacancies, but I don't feel anxious to go in now that I
am out of the hurly-burby. It is a heavy {363} monetary loss to me,
still, if it seemed my duty, I would stand again. O'Brien hates
Parliament and vows he won't go back, but if he would consent so
should I. The English have no idea what a beastly nuisance it is,
giving up your work in order to live in London, and then to be
blackguarded as hirelings and assassins for our pains. I cannot
think that there is much chance of turning out Randolph for a long
time to come. Even if we could win over Chamberlain, he has few
followers, and Hartington could still give the Ministry a majority.
I think the pair of them are trying to kill Gladstone, and that this
is quite as much a purpose of their policy as to prevent Home Rule.
I feel sure that no modifications of the late Bill that we could
agree to would induce either of them to come over.
In a Parliamentary sense Mr. Gladstone is a better life than
Hartington, as when the Duke of Devonshire dies his influence will
abate, and his followers in the House cannot be so well kept
together. Joseph and he hate each other too much to agree on
anything else than disagreeing with Gladstone, so that I cannot see
any land ahead just yet. I fear there is nothing for it but to trust
to the chapter of accidents. Cloture cannot, if carried, do us much
harm. If used to promote coercion then you will have outrages and,
for aught I know, dynamite once more in the ascendant, so that while
they may get rid of the pain in one part of the system the disease
will break out somewhere else. Every one here wants peace, and the
wisdom of Gladstone's policy is more manifest to me every day. There
is an entire change in the temper of the people, and it would even
take some pretty rough Toryism to make them take to their old ways
again.
If the present Government were wise they would take advantage of this
frame of mind, but there is little prospect of their doing so.
In the monster demonstration which took place in Hyde Park, after the
reading of the Coercion Bill for the first time, Mr. Labouchere had
been one of the group of eloquent orators, including Mr. Michael
Davitt, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Hunter, and Professor James Stuart, who, from
a long semi-circle of pavilions, had led upwards of a quarter million
{364} demonstrators, poured out from the Radical Clubs and
Associations of London, in protest against the tyrannical methods
contemplated by the Government. A short extract from the speech of
Mr. Baggallay, made in the House of Commons on April 14, gives an
interesting little picture of Mr. Labouchere on the occasion of the
demonstration: "I see the member for Northampton in his place," he
said; "I am glad to see him back again after his short holiday, a
holiday which I was sorry to see that he himself had cut short by
unnecessarily making his appearance on a waggon in Hyde Park. May I
be allowed to tell him that I was in Hyde Park also, although I was
not in a waggon. I am prepared to admit that the crowd there was
orderly. It has been asserted that there were a great many rowdies
present. No doubt there were, but, for a Bank holiday, and for Hyde
Park on a fine day, I think the congregation assembled there was
fairly respectable. But, sir, what did they go there for? A great
many were out for a holiday, but I believe that a very large number
went there in order to see the leader of the Liberal party, or rather
the real leader of the Radical party. I was asked over and over
again, 'Where's Labby?' There can be no doubt that the point of
attraction was the platform at which the member for Northampton
presided. The language Mr. Labouchere used in reference to this
Coercion Bill was not perhaps quite so moderate as it might have
been. He told his audience that the policy of the Government was
like the ruffianism of Bill Sikes, and he added that if the Bill
became law he hoped Irishmen would resist it." (Mr. Labouchere:
"Hear, Hear!") "I do not know if Mr. Labouchere is prepared to
repeat those words in the House--(Mr. Labouchere: "Most
unquestionably I repeat them.)"[3] And so on.
The protest had, of course, nothing but a moral value, minimised as
much as possible by a slashing leading article in the _Times_,
followed by a double dose of "Parnellism and {365} Crime." But, in
the September of that year, Mr. Labouchere, in company with four
other members of Parliament (Mr. T. E. Ellis, Mr. Brunner, Mr.
Dillon, and Mr. John O'Connor), went over to Ireland, in order to
address the historic meeting at Michelstown.
Everybody knows the outline of what occurred--how the police,
escorting a Government reporter, tried to force a passage through a
hostile crowd to the speaker's platform, and how they were eventually
driven back into their barracks, through the windows of which they
fired at random, killing three men and mortally wounding two others.
The meeting occurred on September 9, and on the 12th the matter was
discussed during the debate in the House of Commons. Mr. Balfour
pronounced instant and peremptory judgment, although his information
on the subject must have been obtained with incredible rapidity.[4]
He told the House that he was of opinion, "looking at the matter in
the most impartial spirit, that the police were in no way to blame,
and that no responsibility rested upon any one except upon those who
convened the meeting under circumstances which they knew would lead
to excitement and might lead to outrage."[5] Mr. Labouchere,
following Sir William Harcourt and Mr. Balfour, made a characteristic
speech, in the course of which he gave an inimitable account of what
actually did happen at Michelstown.
"Now, sir," he said, "I was there. I was in a position which enabled
me to see very clearly what took place. I am not a novice in these
matters. I have been in a great many _ententes_ on the continent. I
have been a reporter in some cases, and I have not only been in a
position to see, but I have also been in the habit of chronicling
what I did see.... We went down, and the train arrived at Fermoy.
This is about fifteen miles from Michelstown, and when we were within
a mile of the latter place, we were met by a {366} procession with
flags and trumpets, and a certain crowd accompanying it.... We
entered the town with this procession, and pulled up in the
market-place. Michelstown is a very small provincial town with very
wide streets and few of them. In the midst of the town there is this
marketplace, which is perhaps as large as Trafalgar Square. The
market-place slopes, and at the top, is the main street of the
village, and--I ask the House to remember this--there are two police
barracks. One is the permanent police station ... and the other a
temporary police station, used by the police on this occasion, and
faces the market-place. When we arrived there we got into a brake,
which formed one part of the procession. This brake was mainly
tenanted by priests, the Mayors of Cork and Clonmel, and a few other
gentlemen. Mr. M'Carthy, a parish priest of the neighbourhood, was
appointed chairman, and the crowd naturally gathered around. Mr.
Dillon said to me: 'Let us cut this as short as possible: they will
send the police and military into the town. They will attempt
something, and something may occur if we go on long. I suggest we
say a few words and ask the crowd to disperse.' I at once assented.
Dillon then got up on the front side of the brake to say a few words,
and at that time, or perhaps a few minutes before, I saw a body of
police drawn up in a line in the lower part of the market-place.
They had a reporter with them, and they pushed their way to within a
short distance of the platform.... They could get no further. The
people were so tightly packed. I will give an instance of this.
When we got there we got out of our carriage, and we were all going
on to the brake, which was, I suppose, five yards away. I was
delayed a moment, and I was delayed at least two moments trying to
get through these five yards, the people being so crowded that it was
almost impossible to push through them. How then was it possible for
the police, three abreast, without great violence, to push their way
through such a dense mass as this? Our brake was at the top of the
market-place, {367} the people were all in front. Why on earth did
not the reporter go to the outside of the meeting, and down the other
side? He could easily have got in that way, and we should have been
glad to welcome him there. But the police deliberately tried to
force their way right in front where the people were wedged in as
much as possible. I then saw these dozen policemen, with the
reporter in their midst, stop. I supposed then they were satisfied
and saw they could get no further. Dillon made one or two
observations, and then the police fell back, and I thought perhaps
they were going round. Let me observe we did not see the Resident
Magistrate at all. If the Resident Magistrate had shown himself, and
said he wanted the reporter to pass, one would have let him pass.
The difficulty was that the reporter did not come alone, but with
this body of police. Dillon went on speaking, and the horsemen--not
this wonderful regiment I see mentioned in the _Times_, but some
twenty horsemen--closed round outside the meeting in order to hear.
Suddenly, after the advance guard had fallen back, and joined the
other police, they (the police) all rushed forward. I am told they
came to where these horsemen were, and one of the policemen drew his
sword, and wounded one of the horses. I believe Mr. Brunner saw this
done. Immediately there was a scrimmage.... The police commenced
and continued it. The next thing that happened was that the police
ran away. Captain Seagrove may have been amongst them, but it
appears he deserted them on this occasion, and went to a neighbouring
inn on the right of the market-place.... The police ran into the
barracks.... Brunner and Ellis got on the brake, and joined the
Mayor of Cork in urging the people to clear the streets for fear of
further bloodshed, and I remained on the brake, because I was anxious
to see what would take place." He continued his speech, urging with
great ability the futility of pursuing in Ireland such tactics, which
amounted to nothing in the world but the forcing upon a weaker
country {368} the tyranny of a stronger. "The Chief Secretary tells
us," he continued, "that, by these means, he hopes to create a Union
between England and Ireland. What sort of a Union does he expect to
create? Does he expect to create a Union of hearts and affections?
Does he hope to create an affection for the English Government? I am
happy to see that in Ireland the people are making a wide distinction
between the people of England and the Government of England. They
know their troubles are only temporary, that a new alliance exists
between the democracies of England and Ireland, and that the classes
will not be able to hold their own against such an alliance. I hold
that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Balfour) is indirectly responsible
for what has occurred at Michelstown, and that those who are directly
responsible are R. M. Seagrove and Inspector Brownrigg. I accuse
these men of gross and deliberate murder."[6]
After Mr. Labouchere sat down, there was really very little to be
said on the other side. Lord Randolph Churchill, however,
endeavoured to do his duty by his party, and commented thus on
Labouchere's speech, craftily criticising its style and ignoring its
substance: "And then, Sir, we had the statement of the member for
Northampton, which seems to me to resemble in its nature certain
newspapers which are now current, and, to some extent, popular in the
metropolis, which convey their news to the public in paragraphs. The
statement of the hon. gentleman did not seem to me to be altogether
connected. It was really a series of paragraphs, which succeeded
each other without much connection as far as I could make out. I put
aside the statement of the hon. member for Northampton, because I
have difficulty in regarding him as altogether serious in this
matter."[7]
It is difficult to see why Lord Randolph Churchill did not regard Mr.
Labouchere's statement on the subject as serious. Had he been
commenting on Mr. Balfour's speech on the {369} occasion, one might
have understood a certain amount of scepticism as to the speaker's
good faith.
In the following February Mr. Labouchere, in a speech on Mr.
Parnell's amendment in answer to the Address from the Throne,
referred again to Mr. Balfour's airy dismissal of any serious
consideration of the Michelstown affray: "What the Chief Secretary
had stated in the House about the matter was absolutely incorrect.
He had always thought that the right hon. gentleman would be
especially careful in matters of evidence, for, as a philosopher, he
was his (Labouchere's) favourite philosopher. He had sat at the feet
of that Gamaliel, he had read his _Defence of Philosophic Doubt_,
until he had almost doubted of his own existence. Yet, when the
right hon. gentleman became Irish Chief Secretary, he forgot all his
philosophy. The reason was that there were exigencies required of an
Irish Secretary that were not to be found in the calm fields of
philosophy. It was a melancholy thing for a philosopher to be
plunged by the exigencies of his position into matters like this--to
have vile instruments to carry out his orders, and to believe them or
rather to pretend to believe them...."[8]
The note of persiflage contained in all Labouchere's speeches on the
Michelstown affair may have deceived his hearers as to the
profoundness of his feelings of indignation, but his measured,
well-considered utterances in _Truth_ were for all who read them a
sufficient guarantee of his good faith. Immediately after the
affray, he wrote thus of the head of the constabulary force in Co.
Cork: "I came across a person of the name of Brownrigg the other day.
The ferocity, the insolence, the brutality of this man never were
exceeded and rarely equalled by Cossack or Uhlan in a country
occupied by Russian or German. I strongly recommend him for
promotion. He is a man after the heart of our Tory despots, for he
seemed to me to unite in his person every characteristic that goes to
make up an official ruffian, {370} armed with a little brief
authority. On this man the responsibility of the Michelstown murders
rests. He caused them, either deliberately, or from stupidity and
brutality combined. If he has furnished Mr. Balfour with an account
of what took place there, he adds to his other virtues the capacity
of being one of the best liars that the world has ever produced, for
the statement of Mr. Balfour in the House of Commons of the
Michelstown affair, from 'official information,' is one long tissue
of deliberate falsehoods."[9]
At the inquest which was held upon the victims, the jury returned a
verdict of wilful murder against the chief police officer and five of
his men. _Truth_ pronounced as follows upon the inquest:
"Immediately after the Michelstown meeting I had occasion to call
attention to the conduct of Brownrigg, the chief of the constabulary
there. This ruffian has given evidence, and his evidence is one long
tissue of lies, so impudent that Mr. Irwin, the District Police
Inspector, has borne testimony against him. When Mr. Irwin stated
what the nature of his evidence must be, Brownrigg, it would appear,
called his men together and tried to drill them into perjury, in
order to obtain confirmation of his mendacity. I am not surprised at
anything which this man may do, for I found him vain, irascible,
insolent, and muddleheaded beyond all conception."
Mr. Labouchere's article, called "The Michelstown Murders, "giving in
more detail than he had been able to do in the House, the real facts
of the affray, is a masterpiece of judicial summing up. It is too
long to quote in full, but the following extract will show how close
was his reasoning, and how unanswerable his arguments:
Three men were killed, and two were wounded. Two of the men killed
received each two bullets. This proves two things: 1. That the
police deliberately aimed. 2. That there could not have been a
crowd. Never yet was a crowd fired into, and, of {371} the three men
killed by the discharge, two each be struck twice. Any one can see
that this is mathematically so improbable as to be impossible.
Station No. 1 is a house with an iron door, and iron shutters to the
windows. Even if it had been attacked, an unarmed crowd could not
have got into it; all the more as there were military within call
ready to act, and Captain Seagrove was not in the station, and
consequently could have at once called up the soldiers. It is
admitted that there are 160 panes of glass in the windows, and that
only six of these panes were broken by stones. The police therefore
were not in danger of their lives, nor in any danger.[10]
The verdict of the inquest was afterwards quashed (Feb. 10, 1888) in
the Queen's Bench on the ground that the coroner had perpetrated
certain irregularities of form, and, as Lord Morley remarks, "the
slaughter of the three men was finally left just as if it had been
the slaughter of three dogs." No other incident of Irish
administration stirred deeper feelings of disgust in Ireland, or of
misgiving and indignation in England.[11] Meanwhile the _Times_
articles "Parnellism and Crime" seemed to have been forgotten, except
by Mr. Labouchere, who had in _Truth_ chaffingly suggested to the
_Times_ the appointment of Mr. Brownrigg to write a few instalments
of the sensational serial pamphlet. The poison, however, had worked,
and goodwill towards Ireland had nearly died in English breasts.
Parnell had declared in the House of Commons on the day of its
publication that the facsimile letter was a clumsy fabrication.
"Politics are come to a pretty pass," he said, "in this country when
a leader of a party of eighty-six members has to stand up at ten
minutes past one in the House of Commons in order to defend himself
from an anonymous fabrication such as that which is contained in the
_Times_ of this morning."[12]
{372}
Nobody except his Radical friends believed him, and the affair would
probably have sunk into oblivion if a former member of the party, a
Mr. F. H. O'Donnell, had not, after mature reflection, conceived that
he had been libelled in the famous articles. In the summer of 1888
he prosecuted the _Times_ for damages, and lost his case, for, as a
matter of fact, Mr. O'Donnell had not been mentioned in the articles,
and it almost appeared that something like a guilty conscience had
prompted him to bring the action. But the prosecuting counsel's
method of presenting the case not only compelled Sir Richard Webster
to reproduce and exhaustively comment upon the "Parnellism and Crime"
articles, but furnished him with the opportunity of startling London
and the world with a long series of other letters, some of them more
damning even than the facsimile letter, five purporting to be from
Pat. Egan, the former treasurer of the Land League, addressed to
various agitators and felons including James Carey, the informer, and
three supposed to be from Parnell. It is only necessary to this
narrative to quote one which was read out on July 4, 1888, by the
Attorney-General in his address to the jury. It ran as follows:
9/1/82.
DEAR E.,--What are these fellows waiting for? This inaction is
inexcusable, our best men are in prison and nothing is being done.
Let there be an end of this hesitancy. Prompt action is called for.
You undertook to make it hot for old Forster and Co. Let us have
some evidence of your power to do so. My health is good,
thanks.--Yours very truly,
CHAS. S. PARNELL.
"Dear E." meant Patrick Egan. In January, four months before the
Phœnix Park murders, Mr. Parnell was in Kilmainham Prison. Well
might the Attorney-General say, as he solemnly read out the letter in
Court: "If it was signed by Mr. Parnell, I need not comment upon it."
{373} He also made the announcement that the "facsimile letter," as
the first one published in the _Times_ has always been called, as
well as the ones he had produced in Court that day, had been for some
time in the possession of the _Times_. Presumably the _Times_ had
kept them in the hopes that the Irish leaders would sooner or later
bring an action for libel against the paper, when they would
triumphantly have produced the letters and so confounded the whole
party. As it turned out, their production at that moment rather
resembled the killing of a fly with a sledge-hammer, for Mr.
O'Donnell's case was one of such palpable insignificance. An
important reason may be mentioned here, for explaining what may seem
to be an extraordinary lack of initiative on Mr. Parnell's part. He
had not been willing to prosecute the _Times_ because he was firmly
convinced that Captain O'Shea had been concerned in the production of
the letters, and, to add to his unwillingness, his friends in England
had pointed out to him the immense improbability of a jury of twelve
Middlesex men, being, at that moment, sufficiently without racial
prejudice, to pronounce a verdict in his favour. After the
Attorney-General's declaration that the _Times_ would retract
nothing, and the implied challenge in his admission that, if false,
no grosser libels were ever written, Mr. Parnell took action. On the
day of the delivery of the verdict in the case of O'Donnell _v._
Walter, he formally denied the authenticity of the letters, and asked
for a Select Committee of the House to enquire into the matter. His
request was refused, but finally it was suggested from the Treasury
Bench that the enquiry should be entrusted to a Commission of Judges
appointed by Act of Parliament. A Bill embodying this suggestion was
read for the second time on July 24, and the names of the
Commissioners were added in the Committee stage. Sir James Hannen
was chosen as President of the Commission, and with him were
associated Sir Charles Day, an Orangeman, and Sir Archibald Levin
Smith. Mr. H. Cunynghame, a junior barrister (now Sir {374} Henry
Cunynghame), was appointed Secretary to the Commission.[13]
Mr. Labouchere had, of course, scented in the whole business a
chapter of _chronigues scandaleuses_ after his own heart. He set to
work to study it at once _con amore_, and very soon came to the
conclusion that all the letters had been forged by one Richard
Pigott, the story of whose chequered career was soon to become the
property of a marvelling public. "Immediately on the Egan letters
being produced in the O'Donnell _v._ Walter case," he writes in his
own account of the affair, "Mr. Egan telegraphed to me that he was
sending over Carey's letters to him. (Mr. Egan was then in America.)
These letters followed. They referred to a municipal election, and,
being written at the same time as a forged letter of Mr. Egan to
Carey, they proved conclusively that the latter could not be genuine.
Whilst the discussion was taking place in Parliament about the Royal
Commission, Mr. Egan again telegraphed that he had been comparing the
letters ascribed to him in the O'Donnell trial with the drafts of
certain letters which he had written to Pigott about the purchase of
the _Irishman_,[14] and the letters ascribed to Mr. Parnell, with the
copies of two letters written by that gentleman to Pigott in relation
to the sale, which copies were in his (Egan's) possession. He said
that he had found such a similarity of phrase in the genuine letters
and in the forged letters that he was certain that the latter were
fabricated from the former. An emissary soon after came over with
the Egan drafts and with Pigott's letters (one of which contained
that blessed word 'hesitancy'), to which the former were replies, and
with the copies of Mr. Parnell's letters. One of the drafts had been
{375} published previously as a part of a correspondence between Egan
and Pigott in the _Freeman's Journal_, and the copies of Mr.
Parnell's letters were in the handwriting of Mr. Campbell.[15] Now
it was utterly impossible that the similarities, amounting in one
case to three consecutive lines, could be a mere chance. It was,
therefore, a mathematical certainty that Pigott had forged the
letters, while it was obvious that Mr. Egan's drafts were genuine,
for they could have been at once disproved, if incorrect, by Pigott
producing, at the investigation, the original of them, which, it was
to be presumed, he had in his possession. I showed the Carey letters
to Mr. Parnell alone, and the Egan correspondence with Pigott to Sir
Charles Russell and Mr. Parnell alone, and then locked them up. On
Mr. George Lewis being retained, I handed them over to him, and he
proceeded to get up Pigott's 'record,' only a portion of which came
before the Court, but a portion amply sufficient to show that he had
lived for years on blackmailing, forgery, and treachery."[16]
Mr. Labouchere then went off to Germany for his summer holiday, and,
while abroad, a chance conversation revealed to him that the
incriminating letters had been already shown by Mr. Houston, the
Secretary of the Loyal and Patriotic Association, to Lord Hartington.
Houston was therefore immediately subpœnaed, and it later
transpired that he had offered them to the _Pall Matt Gazette_ before
he sold them to the _Times_. "Two facts were consequently certain,"
said Mr. Labouchere. "Houston had sold the letters, and Pigott had
forged them. Although we were ourselves certain of the latter fact,
it was possible that, as we had only the drafts of the Egan letters,
it might be said (as indeed it was said, by Pigott in the
witness-box) that Egan had written his drafts from the _Times_
letters, instead of the _Times_ letters having been fabricated from
the Egan letters.
"About the middle of October," continued Mr. Labouchere, "Mr. Egan
sent over here a trusty emissary, with {376} orders to report to me,
and to see whether it would not be possible to buy of Pigott the
original of the Egan drafts, for he knew his man, and believed
(rightly) that he would have no objection to sell anything that he
possessed for a consideration. I sent this emissary to Kingstown,
where Pigott was residing. The emissary told him that Egan wanted
these originals. Pigott declined to deal with the emissary, and said
that he must be put in communication with some one whom he could
trust. On this I told the emissary that Pigott could see me at my
house on a certain evening. I went down to the Commission which was
sitting on that day, and informed Mr. Parnell and Mr. Lewis of what
had been arranged. It was agreed that they should both be present."
Mr. Labouchere's letter to Pigott making the appointment for this
interview has, with its hint to come "by the underground," been so
often referred to that it is worth while giving it here in full:
24 GROSVENOR GARDENS, S.W., Oct. 25, 1888.
DEAR SIR,---I shall be here at 10 o'clock to-morrow morning, and
shall be happy to see you for a confidential conversation, which, as
you say, can do no harm, if it does no good. I will return you your
letter when you come. I think this house would be the best place,
for it certainly is not watched, and it would be as easy to throw off
any one coming here as going elsewhere. Your best plan would be, I
should think, to take the underground, and get out at Victoria
Station. The house is close by.--Yours faithfully,
H. LABOUCHERE.
It may be mentioned in parenthesis that Mr. Labouchere had misdated
his letter. It was really written, as was proved by the postmark on
the envelope, on October 24, and the interview took place on that
evening at 10 o'clock, as he changed the time of the appointment by
telegram.
Both Mr. Labouchere and Pigott were very well aware {377} that 24
Grosvenor Gardens, if not being watched at the moment when the above
letter was penned, would be so as soon as Pigott was inside it, for
the unhappy forger was dogged in all his footsteps by the _Times_
agents. Mr. Labouchere had, however, nothing to fear, and poor
Pigott had very little to lose, and a vague expectation of something
to gain. The upshot of the interview was that, in the presence of
Mr. Parnell and Mr. Lewis, Pigott confessed that he had forged the
letters and suggested that he would give a full confession, and write
to the Attorney-General and to the _Times_ that he was the forger, if
Mr. Lewis would withdraw his subpœna and let him go to Australia.
But it was not Pigott's confession that Mr. Lewis and Mr. Labouchere
wanted. It was the originals of the drafts of the Egan letters. Mr.
Parnell and Mr. Labouchere withdrew to another room, leaving Mr.
Lewis to do what he could with the slippery Richard. "Soon," to
continue the narrative in Mr. Labouchere's own words, "Mr. Lewis came
into the dining-room, and said to me, 'Pigott wants to come to me
to-morrow and give me a full statement. He is going away and wants
to speak to you'; adding, 'Mind, whatever you do, don't give him any
money; if you do he will bolt.' I left Mr. Lewis with Mr. Parnell,
and went back to Pigott.
"That worthy at once came to business, and said that the _Times_ had
promised him £5000 to go into the box, and asked what I would give
for him not to do so. I replied that I would give nothing, but that
Egan's emissary had already told him that, acting for Egan, I wanted
the original of the Egan drafts, as these would prove the forgery up
to the hilt, and that if he had them and they were satisfactory, I
would pay for them. He asked whether I would give £5000 for them.
When I declined, he asked whether I would give £1000. I said it
would be more like one thousand than five, but that I must first see
the documents. I then asked whether the signature of the Parnell
letters, which is at the top of a page, was forged, or whether it was
an autograph which had {378} fallen into his hands, and he had
written the letter on the other side. 'Why do you want to know
this?' he asked. 'Mere curiosity,' I replied. On which he said that
it was forged. He then left."
Nothing definite as to the original Egan letters was obtained by Mr.
Lewis when he called the next day, and neither did he obtain the
promised statement. The interview with Messrs. Labouchere, Lewis,
and Parnell at Grosvenor Gardens, and the subsequent private one with
Mr. Lewis, were reported to the _Times_ agents by Pigott with a
fanciful account of what took place at each. He shortly afterwards
returned to Ireland, and Mr. Labouchere continued his efforts to
procure all possible evidence on behalf of his Irish friends. He was
considerably helped by his acquaintances in America, who were able to
furnish him with invaluable details and scraps of knowledge about the
various witnesses for the _Times_, which came in appositely more than
once in Sir Charles Russell's masterly cross-examinations. It is
interesting to notice, in perusing many of the curious letters
received by Mr. Labouchere at this period from Irish patriots living
beyond the Atlantic (what Mr. Labouchere had so often heard from the
lips of Mr. Parnell himself),[17] how far from popular Parnell was
with most of them. He was too meek and mild for them, and they could
not understand his patience under injury and abuse. In one of these
letters occurs the following anecdote about the intrepid Irish
leader: "I want to tell you," says the writer, "something about
Parnell in 1883--ask him: two men called on him when he was in Cork
and said (recollect the two were extremists), 'Mr. Parnell, unless
you give us £1000 for extreme measures we will shoot you before we
leave Cork.' Parnell simply replied, 'Well, I certainly have a
choice, for which I am obliged--to be shot now or to be hung
afterwards. I prefer the former. You will never get £1000 from me
for the purpose you mention.' One and all of these patriots, {379}
however, at this crisis of Parnell's career were determined to uphold
him, and to allow whatever grievances they had against him to stand
over until after his political character had been vindicated in the
eyes of the hated English.
Mr. Labouchere remained in communication with Pigott throughout the
winter. Pigott dangled before him the possibility of further
important communications, and on November 29 Mr. Labouchere wrote to
him as follows:
As I understand the position it is this--Mr. Lewis holds that we can
prove our case against the _Times_ in regard to the letters
conclusively, and this, you will remember, Mr. Parnell told you. We
prove it in a certain way. You say that you wish to be kept out of
it, and not be called as a witness. If such a course can strengthen
our case, and prove it still more conclusively, I do not see why it
should not be adopted, for the object is to prove irrespective of
individuals. Evidently, some one must know how you propose to do
what you want, and what you say you can do. If you like to confide
in me, I will tell you what I think, and, if I agree with you, it
will be then time for you either to assent or dissent to Mr. Parnell
or Mr. Lewis being informed. But you are a practical man--so am I.
Mere assertion, neither you nor I attach much importance to, without
documentary or some other clear confirmation.
Pigott answered as follows:
ANDERTON'S HOTEL,
FLEET STREET, E.C., Dec. 4, 1888.
DEAR SIR,--I have arrived here, and write a line to ask you to make
an appointment, as I know that your house is watched--as is also Mr.
Lewis's Office--and as I am "shadowed" wherever I go outside a
certain limit, perhaps you could kindly arrange that we should meet
somewhere else to-morrow afternoon or Thursday, or in fact any other
day you choose.--Faithfuly yours, RD. PIGGOTT.
What occurred at the meeting which took place as the result of the
above correspondence is best told in {380} Mr. Labouchere's own
words: "Pigott came about ten and stayed till one A.M. Again he
explained that he had forged, and gave me a good many details about
the way in which he had done it, telling me, amongst other things,
that he had given Houston three names as the sources of the letters,
two of which were efforts of his imagination, and the third a real
person. He seemed rather proud of his skill, and by encouraging this
weakness I got everything out of him. I asked him how Houston could
have been so easily fooled, and whether he was an absolute idiot? He
replied that he was clever up to a certain point, but thought himself
twice as clever as he was, and that these sort of persons are easily
trapped. In this I agreed with him, and he told me that Houston had
told him that he wanted letters, because it was intended to publish a
pamphlet, and that the letters were to be held in reserve to be
sprung upon the Court if there was an action for libel, adding that
such an action would be certain not to be brought. Again and again,
with weary iteration, he came back to his plan to confess in writing,
and then to go to Australia. I told him that he surely must be sharp
enough to see to what accusations this would subject me, and how
hurtful it would be to our case, which I assured him was of such
strength that it would smash him, quite irrespective of anything he
might say or do. 'Why, then, do you want documents?' he said.
'Because,' I replied, 'the issue is a political one. We have to deal
with prejudiced Tories who have already compromised themselves by
pinning themselves to the genuineness of the letters, and
consequently our case cannot be too much strengthened. With such
people you must put butter upon bacon.' 'What documents do you
want?' he said. 'Egan's letters, the original signatures from which
you traced those of Egan and Parnell, and a few letters forged in my
presence,' I said. 'I have not got Egan's letters: I destroyed them.
I have not got the signatures. I gave Houston the letter of Parnell
from which I took his signature. I will, if you like, forge the
letters in {381} your presence. I will give you the names of the
three men from whom I told Houston I got the letters, and I will give
you the letters that Houston wrote to me,' he answered. I said that
I would not give sixpence for these without the two items that I had
mentioned, and he reiterated that he had not got them. 'Why,' I
suddenly said to him,' did you write to Archbishop Walsh about the
letters?' 'The Archbishop,' he replied, 'has not got my letters; he
sent them all back; to reveal anything concerning them would be to
violate the confidence between a priest and a penitent.' 'Well,' I
finished by saying, 'think it over. I am going out of town. When I
return, come and see me again, and in the meanwhile try and find the
originals of Egan's letters. I will let you know when I come back.'
He said that he would think it over, and, on wishing him good-night,
I asked him what he contemplated doing? He said that he was in a
terrible mess, but that he saw no other course open for him but to go
into the box and swear that he had bought the letters, and that if
they were forgeries he had been deceived. 'You will be a fool if you
do,' I said, 'but that is your affair, not mine. If I were in your
place I should tell the truth, and ask for the indemnity.' 'That is
all very well,' he said, 'but on what am I to live?' And so we
parted." Mr. Labouchere did not see Pigott again until he saw him in
the witness-box more than two months later. Pigott returned to
Ireland about the middle of December and the Commission adjourned
until January 15. Patrick Egan had written to Mr. Labouchere on
December 2 from Lincoln, Massachusetts saying: "I hope you will be
able to squeeze the truth out of Pigott in the way you say, as I
should dislike terribly to see him profit in any way by his villainy.
I do not believe there is a single thing in the suspicion against
O'Shea.... The fellow is incapable of playing the role of heavy
villain. I am quite convinced that the forgery part of the scheme
was the sole work of Pigott. You will perceive that all your
injunctions with regard to secrecy have been {382} observed on this
side, but everything gets out from London and Dublin. Yesterday we
had on one of our Lincoln evening papers a cable (probably a copy of
a New York Herald cable) giving all particulars about the watch that
is being kept on Pigott and the discovery that C. is doing detective
work for the _Times_, that F. was mixed up with the forgeries and
other matters."
It must be borne in mind that, when the Commission adjourned in the
middle of December, the all-important question of the letters had not
yet been touched upon. "The objects of the accusers," says Lord
Morley, "was to show the complicity of the accused with crime by
tracing crime to the League, and making every member of the League
constructively liable for every act of which the League was
constructively guilty. Witnesses were produced, in a series that
seemed interminable, to tell the story of five-and-twenty outrages in
Mayo, of as many in Cork, of forty-two in Galway, of sixty-five in
Kerry, one after another, and all with immeasurable detail. Some of
the witnesses spoke no English, and the English of others was hardly
more intelligible than Erse. Long extracts were read out from four
hundred and forty speeches. The counsel on one side produced a
passage that made against the Speaker, and then the counsel on the
other side found and read some qualifying passage that made as
strongly for him. The three judges groaned. They had already, they
said plaintively, ploughed through the speeches in the solitude of
their own rooms. Could they not be taken as read? 'No,' said the
prosecuting counsel, 'we are building up an argument, and it cannot
be built up in a silent manner.' In truth it was designed for the
public outside the court, and not a touch was spared that might
deepen the odium. Week after week the ugly tale went on--a squalid
ogre let loose among a population demoralised by ages of wicked
neglect, misery, and oppression. One side strove to show that the
ogre had been wantonly raised by the Land League for political
objects of their own; the other, that it was the {383} progeny of
distress and wrong, that the League had rather controlled than'
kindled its ferocity, and that crime and outrage were due to local
animosities for which neither League nor parliamentary leaders were
responsible."[19] The Nationalists were impatient for the real
business to begin, for it was felt by every one that, if the letters
were proved to be genuine, the case was practically won all round for
the _Times_, whereas, if they proved to be forgeries, public opinion
on the subject could have but one bias. Indeed, Mr. Chamberlain
himself had said: "To lead the inquiry off into subsidiary and
unimportant matters would be ... fatal to the reputation of the
_Times_--fatal to its success." And again, "If the _Times_ fails to
maintain its principal charges, I do not think much attention will be
attached to other charges. Any attempt, as it appears to all, on the
part of the _Times_ to put aside those principal charges or not to
put them in the forefront will redound to their discredit."[19] The
delay, however, gave this advantage to the Nationalist side--they had
more time in which to accumulate confirmatory evidence against the
forger, and the forger was given more time in which to further
involve himself, in the net which his fowler had spread for him, by
writing foolish letters and telling needless lies. Pigott had
promised Mr. Labouchere to return to London whenever he sent for him.
Parnell wrote to Mr. Labouchere during the Christmas vacation of the
Commissioners:
HOUSE OF COMMONS, Jan. 14, 1889.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I am anxious to see you before your Irish friend
returns to London. Kindly give me an appointment, and let it be if
possible after four o'clock.--Yours sincerely,
CHAS. S. PARNELL.
{384}
He wrote again as follows on the 21st:
I do not think you need send for your Dublin friend this time, as the
_Times_ will probably do that for you, and you will hear when he is
in London. Another forged letter of Egan's was produced in Court
last week, and sworn to by Delaney, evidently one of the Pigott
series. I am laid up with a cold, but hope to be out tomorrow, when
I will try and call to see you in the afternoon.--Yours very truly,
CHAS. S. PARNELL.
The Irish friend was, of course, Pigott, and Delaney was a convict--a
witness for the _Times_. He was one of the Phœnix Park criminals,
and was described by the _Daily News_ reporter, present in court, as
of "over middle height, stoutish in build, reddish-yellow haired, and
with features which were more of a Russian than an Irish cast. He
wore a short jacket of check tweed, and a big white cravat about his
neck." He had been brought up from Maryborough prison, where he was
doing his life sentence. His brother was hanged for the Phœnix
Park murders, and so would he have been himself if he had not
confessed, and, in consequence, had his sentence changed from
execution to penal servitude for life. He had sworn to the
handwriting of Patrick Egan on one of the letters produced in court.
"Are you an expert?" asked Sir Charles Russell carelessly. No, Mr.
Delaney was not an expert, but he remembered the signature after so
many years, and he identified it when he was shown it "yesterday
evening" by the _Times_ agent. He was able to identify it because
Carey, seven or eight years ago, showed him three of Mr. Egan's
letters.[20]
Pigott had been subpœnaed by the _Times_ as a witness early in
December. On January 24, Mr. Labouchere wrote to him saying: "I see
that Sir R. Webster talks about soon getting to the letters. When
are you likely to be over? If you wish it, I will send your expenses
to come over." At the end of the month he sent Pigott £10.
Labouchere's letter and the {385} £10 note were confided at once by
Pigott to Mr. Houston, who handed them over to Mr. Soames, and, of
course, they were produced in court and a rather different
interpretation put upon them to the one the recipient knew was
warranted.
Pigott was not called into the witness-box, the ordeal which he so
justly dreaded, until the fifty-fourth day of the Commission's
sittings. He at once gave an account of the way he had obtained the
first batch of incriminating letters. It read like a romance, as
indeed, it was in every sense of the word--how Mr. Houston had begged
him, if possible, to find some authentic documents to substantiate
accusations against the Irish leaders, how he had set forth for
Lausanne, all his expenses handsomely paid, and had met there an old
friend who had told him about a letter written by Parnell which was
in Paris, and might be obtained; how he had then proceeded to Paris
and by a marvellous stroke of good luck had run up against an
Irishman in the street who was able to give him more details about
the Parnell letter, and other documents of a similar kind, which had
been found in a black bag in a Paris lodging-house. He had not
immediately bought the bag and its contents, because there were many
difficulties in the way, but he had gone back to London and told Mr.
Houston the whole story, and returned to Paris ready to clinch the
bargain. But the Irish friend was not easy to bring to terms. He
said Pigott must, before he could get possession of the letters, go
to America and obtain the permission to buy them from the Fenians
there. To America he accordingly went, and returned with a letter
from John Breslin to the Irish friend authorising the sale of the
Parnell letter (afterwards known as the "facsimile letter") and the
rest of the papers. Houston came over to Paris and paid him £500 for
the contents of the black bag, and gave him £105 for his own trouble.
It must be remembered that all his travelling expenses had been paid,
as well as £1 a day for hotels--not a bad remuneration for a needy
man such as Pigott was, who, it turned out later, was making what
living {386} he could by the sale of indecent photographs and books
to all who cared to buy them. Doubtless the black bag was useful to
him in his book and picture business, which was why he did not sell
it with its temporary contents to Mr. Houston. The said contents, as
bought by Houston, were as follows: Five letters of Mr. Parnell's,
six of Patrick Egan's, some scraps of paper, and the torn-out leaves
of an old account-book. The black bag was supposed to have been left
in Paris by an Irish patriot (Frank Byrne or James O'Kelly) and had
been taken possession of by the Clan-na-Gael. Subsequently two other
batches of letters were obtained by Pigott in Paris, and likewise
sold to the _Times_.
The Attorney-General, in the course of his examination of Pigott,
drew from him the following remarkable account of his visit to Mr.
Labouchere's house on October 24:
_The Attorney-General_. Tell us, as nearly as you can, what passed
between you, Mr. Labouchere, and Mr. Parnell, and if, at any part of
it, Mr. Parnell was not present, just tell us and draw the
distinction--what passed as nearly as you can: how did the
conversation begin?
_Pigott_. I think, as well as I recollect, Mr. Parnell commenced the
conversation, and what he said was to the effect that they held
proofs in their hands that would convict me of the forgery of all the
letters, and he asked me, with reference to my statement to the
effect that I wished if possible to avoid giving evidence at all, how
I proposed to do that. I explained that I had not been subpœnaed
by the _Times_ up to that date, that the only subpœna I received
was the one Mr. Lewis had served me with, and it occurred to me then
that probably, if I could induce Mr. Lewis to withdraw his
subpœna, I might avoid in that way coming forward at all. Mr.
Parnell was of opinion that that could not be done, that Mr. Lewis
could not withdraw his subpœna, that I would be obliged to appear.
Then, I think, Mr. Labouchere took up the running, and he was rather
facetious.
_The Attorney-General_. What did he say, please?
_Pigott_. He made a proposition to me right out, that I should {387}
appear in the witness-box and swear that I had forged the letters,
thereby ensuing--entitling myself to receive from the Commissioners a
certificate of immunity from any proceedings, legal or criminal. He
said that was his reading of the law, and Mr. Parnell agreed with him
that such was the case, that it was an extremely simple matter; it
was merely going into the box, taking an oath, and walking out free.
_The Attorney-General_. I want just to get this: did the suggestion
that if you went into the witness-box, and said that you forged the
letters, that you would get your certificate, come from Mr.
Labouchere?
_Pigott_. Distinctly.
_The Attorney-General_. What else, please?
_Pigott_. He urged me, as a further inducement to do this, that I
would become immensely popular in Ireland, the fact that I had
swindled the _Times_ would be sufficient of itself to secure me a
seat in Parliament to begin with, and then, if at any time I wished
to go to the United States, he would undertake that I should be
received with a torchlight procession from all the organisations
there. Of course, I could scarcely believe that he was serious, but
still----[21]
Here almost uncontrolled merriment burst out all over the court, in
which Mr. Labouchere himself joined more heartily than any one.
_The President of the Court_. I must say, whether this is true or
not, it is not a fit subject for laughter.
But whether the President would or no, it was impossible to prevent
constant ripples of laughter from breaking out all over the court
while Pigott was narrating his version of the first meeting at Mr.
Labouchere's house. Pigott told how Mr. Lewis had arrived on the
scene, and had also denounced him as the forger of the letters--"Mr.
Lewis assumed his severest manner," said Pigott. He continued his
evidence after some further questions from the Attorney-General.
{388}
_Pigott_. Mr. Labouchere beckoned me outside the door into the hall,
and he there said--I forgot to mention that in the course of
conversation I stated that I had--I do not know exactly whether I
said I had been promised £5000 by the _Times_ or that I had demanded
it.
_The Attorney-General_. One or the other?
_Pigott_. One or the other. So referring to that Mr. Labouchere
said that they were prepared to pay me £1000--that he himself was
prepared to pay me £1000, but, of course, I was not to mention
anything about it to Mr. Parnell or to Mr. Lewis.
_The President_. One moment before you go further. "He beckoned me
outside"--where was he then?
_Pigott_. That was at Labouchere's house.
_The President_. I know, but where was it?
_Pigott_. Outside into the hall.
_The President_. Was it a whole house or was it a flat?
_Pigott_. It is a whole house. He took me into the entrance hall,
the room that we were in was the front room.
_The President_. A dining-room or library or what?
_Pigott_. A library.
_The Attorney-General_. Is that the end of the conversation that
then took place?
_Pigott_. Up to that time, yes.
_The Attorney-General_. What did you say to Mr. Labouchere when he
said he was prepared to pay you £1000?
_Pigott_. I said I thought it was a very handsome sum; I did not say
whether I would take it or not. As well as I can recollect, however,
I raised no objection. I took it that he understood me to agree to
that sum. Then, on returning to the room, I said distinctly--very
distinctly--that nothing under heaven would induce me to go into the
witness-box and swear a lie--nothing would. Then Mr. Lewis explained
to me the necessity for my going into the witness-box might be
avoided by the course that he suggested: that is that I was to write
to the _Times_ to state that I believed the letters were forgeries,
or that I had forged them myself, if I preferred it. At all events I
was to acquaint the Manager of the _Times_ with the fact that the
letters were actual forgeries, and that thereupon the _Times_ would
naturally withdraw the letters, and the thing would drop, and of
course Mr. Labouchere's {389} offer would stand. Well, Mr. Lewis did
not say that, but of course I understood it.
Pigott proceeded to give his account of his interview with Mr. Lewis
on the following morning. He said that Mr. Lewis had taken notes of
what he (Pigott) said, and he (Pigott) had told Mr. Lewis all he had
told Mr. Soames with reference to the hunt for and discovery of the
incriminating letters in Paris. Mr. Soames's evidence, given in
court on February 15, of what Pigott had told him on this subject
differed very considerably from what, according to Mr. Lewis's notes,
he had told the latter. For instance, Mr. Pigott told Mr. Lewis on
October 25 that he had sold the letters to Mr. Houston, never
believing for a moment himself that they were genuine. In court, on
February 21, Pigott denied the accuracy of Mr. Lewis's notes, made
during his conversation with him at Anderton's Hotel on October 25.
All Pigott's correspondence with Mr. Lewis and Mr. Labouchere was
then read out in court, with the replies of the two gentlemen to Mr.
Pigott. The Attorney-General ended his examination as follows:
_The Attorney-General_. The only other matter I want to put to you
is this: these gentlemen told you--Mr. Parnell and Mr.
Labouchere--that they had copies of letters, which they had written
to you?
_Pigott_. Yes.
_The Attorney-General_. From which it was alleged that you had
copied these documents?
_Pigott_. Yes.
_The Attorney-General_. Did they produce any to you?
_Pigott_. No.
_The Attorney-General_. Did they at any time, either at Mr. Lewis's
office or at Mr. Labouchere's, offer to show you any of them?
_Pigott_. No.
As the Attorney-General, rearranging his gown, was {390} slowly
resuming his seat, a loud murmur of conversation broke out over the
court. It stopped suddenly. Scarcely was the Attorney-General
seated when Sir Charles Russell stood bolt upright. He had a clean
sheet of paper in his hand. There was such a silence in the court
that even the fall of a pin would have been heard. Pigott's little
day of peace was over. Poor fellow! He had done his best to keep
his share of the business in the black shadows where such deeds are
wont to skulk, but the gloom was about to be dispelled by the light
of truth.
[1] Lord Eversley, _Gladstone and Ireland._
[2] The Land League founded by Parnell in 1879 for the purpose of
bringing about a reduction of rack rents, and facilitating the
creation of a peasant proprietary. Egan was the treasurer of the
Land League.
[3] _Hansard_, April 14, 1887, vol. 313.
[4] Morley, _Life of Gladstone_, vol. iii.
[5] _Hansard_, September 12, 1887, vol. 321.
[6] _Hansard_, September 12, 1887, vol. 321.
[7] _Ibid._
[8] _Hansard_, February 14, 1888, vol. 322.
[9] _Truth_, September 15, 1887.
[10] _Truth_, September 22, 1887.
[11] Morley, _Life of Gladstone_, vol. iii.
[12] _Hansard_, April 18, 1887, vol. 313.
[13] The Counsel for the _Times_ were Sir Richard Webster, the
Attorney-General, Sir Henry James, Mr. Murphy, Mr. W. Graham, Mr.
Atkinson, and Mr. Ronan; Sir Charles Russell and Mr. Asquith, M.P.,
appeared for Mr. Parnell.
[14] The Irishman was a Fenian newspaper owned by Pigott, and sold by
him to Parnell in 1881.
[15] Mr. Parnell's secretary.
[16] _Truth._
[17] See letters to Chamberlain in Chapter IX.
[18] Morley, _Life of Gladstone_, vol. iii.
[19] Macdonald, _Diary of the Parnell Commission_, July 6, 1887.
[20] Macdonald, _Diary of the Parnell Commission._
[21] _Special Commission Act_, 1888, vol. v.
{391}