Collapse of Pigott (1888-9)

Chapter XXIII

Collapse of Pigott (1888-9)

I used to take my family in summer to Biggar’s castle, Butlerstown, Co. Waterford (bequeathed to him by a relative named Ferguson). Thence I wrote Maurice:

31st August, 1888.

“Joe has come from London and says Parnell said something about engaging me to attend the Forgery Commission with English counsel, but I have heard nothing.

Also that Parnell was looking for Chance the night he went away, and in his absence went to Macartan.”

In October I toured Spain and Portugal with John Barry. Before going abroad I received a retainer from Sir George Lewis with this letter:

10 and 11 Ely Place, Holburn, London, E.C.,

4th September, 1888.

Dear Mr. Healy,-

“I have had several conversations with Mr. Parnell, who is strongly of opinion’ that your services before the Commission will be of very great advantage, not only on account of your great knowledge of the history of the Land League and National League movements, but also of your professional knowledge.

My object in writing to you is to ask you whether you would wish to hold, professionally, one of the briefs before the Commissioners, and I need hardly say that if you are of opinion you can do so, nothing will give either Mr. Parnell or myself more satisfaction.

It is fight I should point out that you will he one of the members against whom “charges and allegations” will be made, and that you may therefore wish to appear in person, or may wish to be represented by the counsel already retained. You will also in your own defence be required to go into the witness box, and this fact may enter into your consideration in forming a decision. I do not, however, see any reason why you should not accept a brief, and in the event of your doing so, I should hope to have the benefit of your services some time before the inquiry commences. The Commission meets on the 17th instant for the purpose of hearing preliminary applications. It is my intention to apply for particulars of the members charged, the “charges and allegations” made against them, with dates, also for inspection of the forged documents, with the right to take photographs, or to be furnished with the photographs, also for a Commission to America to examine Mr. Egan, and in addition, for the release of Mr. Dillon on bail to enable him to prepare for and attend the trial. If there is any other point which suggests itself to you will you kindly write to me?

I may mention that I abstain from asking for an affidavit of documents, because the other side might benefit more by discovery of documents than we should.”

Yours faithfully,

George M. Lewis.

T. Healy, Esq., M.P.

I answered accepting the retainer, and got this acknowledgment:

10 and 11, Ely Place,

Holburn, London, E.C.,

7th September, 1888.

Dear Mr. Healy, -

“I am very much obliged to you for your letter of the 5th, and I thoroughly agree with your decision that the fact that you may he an attacked party in no way precludes your giving your professional assistance to Mr. Parnell during the sitting of the Commission. It is a great comfort to me to think that we shall have the benefit of your services.

It was never my intention that all the counsel retained should act in one body for the whole of the parties accused. I think it will be necessary that counsel should separately represent some of the accused parties, but until I succeed in getting the names of the members against whom The Times makes charges and allegations, and the charges that they make, it is impossible to arrive at any conclusion, and even then it will be necessary to have a conference with the whole of the counsel to finally determine how the briefs shall be distributed.

At that conference I hope you will manage to be present. It is not at all necessary for you to come over unless you like to do so, and you will be able to take your holiday, although I fear there is very little chance of my getting any change or rest, which I much need. However, I ignore this, because I am determined to win this case if possible, and have the fullest confidence in establishing that the letters purporting to be written by Mr. Parnell, and by Mr. Egan to Sheridan, are forgeries.

You are perfectly correct that any one party can cross-examine any other party, but no question can arise as to the rights of cross-examination provided you are acting as counsel. The Commissioners cannot limit the speeches to two on each side, because every person accused might, by counsel, solicitor, or in person, address the Commissioners in his own defence, but of course this would not be expedient, still the right exists.

It is essential that a Commission should be asked for the examination of Mr. Egan; there are facts within my knowledge which you do not at present know, which make this step absolutely necessary, and I would only ask you to trust to my experience without giving you further reasons for asking for the Commission.

Sir Charles Russell is of my opinion, so is Mr. Parnell.”

Yours faithfully,

George M. Lewis.

Timothy Healy, Esq., M.P.

I did not keep a copy of my answer, but append that of Lewis:

10 and 11 Ely Place,

Holburn, London, E.C.,

19th September, 1888.

Dear Mr. Healy, -

I am in receipt of your note of the 18th instant. I quite agree with you that it is of great importance that Father --- should make the inquiry referred to in your letter, although I am by no means sure that The Times will produce the witnesses in question. It may be that it was only a piece of by-play, inasmuch as the application followed ours for the release of Mr. Dillon, still it would be unwise not to take advantage of the opportunity of obtaining all the information possible. If, therefore, you are in a position to give some hint in the matter I shall be very grateful to you if you will kindly do so.

I thank you for your kind congratulations upon the results of Monday’s proceedings. They were most successful, and place The Times in an utterly ridiculous position.

I feel every confidence in winning this case upon all the broad issues that may be submitted to the Commission. Although I do not suppose you entertain any doubt, you may rely that the letters purporting to be written by Mr. Parnell and Mr. Egan are forgeries, and will be conclusively proved to be such.

I am looking forward to the pleasure of making your acquaintance, but pray take your holiday, as it is not necessary for you to come to London until a week or so before the Commission meets on the 22nd October. Then I shall be very glad to have your opinion upon the division of counsel for the different parties, and upon the case generally.”

Yours faithfully,

George M. Lewis.

T. M. Healy, Esq., M.P.

The fact of my retainer was made public by Parnell’s advisers, but in spite of this I received on the 3rd October, 1888, the following:

10 and II Ely Place,

Holburn, London, E.C.,

2nd October, 1888.

Dear Mr. Healy, -

“I have had a long talk with Mr. Parnell to-day, and he considers that the case, so far as it affects him, has taken such a turn that it is desirable you should appear only as counsel for yourself, and in that capacity it is Mr. Parnell’s wish that I should deliver to you a brief upon the usual professional terms.

I need not say that I personally regret this turn of matters, as I have anticipated the greatest possible assistance from your knowledge of public affairs and of the matters to be inquired into.

It will be necessary for you to make an affidavit of discovery, and as I understand you have no documents in your possession, nor have had any, referring to the matters in issue in the Commission, I have prepared an affidavit which will be sent to Mr. McGough [Parnell’s Dublin Solicitor], who will communicate with you in a few days’ time.”

Yours faithfully,

George M. Lewis.

Timothy Healy, Esq., M.P.

My comment on this to my brother was:

Kircaldy,

5th October, 1888.

“I suppose you will be as surprised as I was at reading enclosed from George Lewis. I cannot give any explanation of Parnell’s conduct unless he was annoyed at my recent speeches on the Plan of Campaign. I shall not reply to Lewis further than to wire him that I shall be passing through London to-morrow, and ask him to send a clerk with the draft affidavit of discovery to the National Liberal Club. If he sends anyone who can give an explanation my view may be altered, but both Chance and Barry agree that it is at present susceptible of no other interpretation than hunting me from the case.

I could not appear for myself on a brief from a man who regrets he is not to have the assistance of my services, as if I was not being discharged he would have asked me to appear for someone else of the 86, besides Parnell. It may be that Parnell is acting bona fide in the matter, but I doubt it, as I think if he were he would have instructed Lewis to use some other expressions, or would have written to me himself. My present inclination is not to attend the Commission. My name mentioned as counsel was put out from London, and not by me. I will drop you a line to-morrow in case Lewis’s clerk communicates anything of what is in Parnell’s mind, as with a man like that it is impossible to say what he is thinking about, or doing.

Probably we shall leave London for Paris to-morrow night, and are likely to be staying on Sunday at the Hotel Binda, Rue de l’Echelle. Barry seems to think it important to go to Lisbon, and now that I am not likely to be needed for the Commission I hardly feel like returning at once.

Keep the enclosure, as I shall treasure the correspondence.”

On the 6th October, 1888, I wrote my wife from London on my way to Spain a note which she passed on to my brother, who preserved it:

“Lewis sent a clerk with a letter requesting that I should see him. I spent an hour with him, and the result is to confirm my worst ideas about Parnell’s motives. He says the letter was written and the words practically suggested by Parnell, who gave him no explanation. Lewis was most apologetic and friendly, and, I could see, depressed at the turn affairs had taken. whether Parnell gave him any clue to his purposes, and that he concealed it, I cannot fathom. I don’t believe he did. I could extract nothing. I pointed out that Lewis himself had been the man to publish my retainer to the Press, to which he said that he had been delighted to do so, and that Sir Charles Russell was also very anxious to have me, and that my engagement originally had been at Parnell’s own suggestion.

It seems he said to Parnell besides, that it would be unfair not to have an Irish barrister get some fees out of an Irish fund, and that Parnell said he didn’t object to my getting fees, but that I was not to be engaged for any of the Party. “Then,” said I,” may I not appear for any of the 86? “Oh, no,” said he. “Mr. Parnell’s desire was that you should appear only for yourself.” I asked him how I could appear in wig and gown for myself, and he shrugged his shoulders and said he had pointed that out to Parnell, adding, “But can you come over and help us generally? The Irish public will be expecting your presence.”

I replied I could not consent to appear on such terms, and was not so poor as to accept fees under such equivocal employment. He then said he would see Parnell on Monday, but thought I ought to write to him. I said I would not do so, that I had not sought the engagement and was at a loss to know what explanation I could give publicly of the transaction. We then talked generally about the Commission, and he is confident of being able to prove that the letters are Pigott’s. He seems to be solely resting on the letters, while The Times will try to give these the go-by, and enlarge on other matters.

The fact that Parnell has kept the case in his own hands so completely, building solely on the forgeries, will militate against rebutting other important allegations.

Nothing could be kinder than Lewis’s tone towards me, and even from a professional point of view, I could see that his regret was genuine.

John Barry is indignant, and says I am taking things too philosophically. He has written to Biggar saying it is intolerable that Parnell should take the control of the fate of 86 men into his own hands, and assign them their counsel - or rather, reject a particular counsel without consulting them, and without cause assigned.”

Barry O’Brien’s Life of Parnell, vol. ii, page 334 (1898), suggests that my exclusion from the case was due to the “objection of Michael Davitt.”

Fifteen years later Davitt wrote me:

“Barry O’Brien says in his Life of Parnell that it was I who objected to your being included in the Counsel for the defence against The Times charges. This is absolutely untrue. I pressed it and Parnell declared emphatically against you. This is not the only one of B.O’B.’s statements I shall have to nail in telling the story of the Land League fight.”

Davitt’s Fall of Feudalism, published in 1904, states at page 543:

“I strongly pressed for the employment of Mr. T. M. Healy, but Mr. Parnell’s recollection of the Galway election incident intervened, and the able services of one of his most brilliant lieutenants were, in a measure, lost, though Mr, Healy attended the Commission occasionally to watch his own case. The late Mr. J. G. Biggar and myself dispensed with legal assistance and defended ourselves.”

I asked Labouchere to find out why I was retained first and discharged afterwards. He replied:

24 Grosvenor Gardens, S.W.,

10th October, 1888.

My Dear Healy, -

“I have been in the wilds of Wales, so only got your letter yesterday. I saw Lewis to-day. He said that he really did not know - that he had written the letter to you by Parnell’s direction, and he had not told him why. I also saw Parnell. He said that if you would write and ask him, he would be ready to tell you, and I could not well press him to tell me.

I think that we shall smash up the letters. If I had my way after that, the Counsel would all withdraw.

Look me up when you are over here. Come and take pot luck at dinner.”

Yours sincerely,

H. Labouchere.

I never sought to extract from Parnell his assorted “explanations.”

Sir Charles Russell wrote me:

10 New Court,

Lincoln’s Inn,

16th October, 1888.

Dear Mr. Healy, -

“I am greatly disappointed to find that you are not to be instructed by Mr. Lewis. I had fully counted on your valuable help. I hope that even yet you will appear instructed through some other channel, You will have seen that in the “particulars” all the Irish M.P.’s practically are included!

Faithfully,

C. Russell.

No further explanation was forthcoming. I wrote my brother:

Dublin,

21st October, 1888.

“I saw Harrington in London, and he told me he knew nothing of the reasons Parnell had, but that he had several times endeavoured to open a conversation on the subject, without success; and that O’Brien, who had been over, was indignant, and had called to see Parnell at Lewis’s, but Parnell left without giving him an opportunity.

Parnell has not told his solicitor his case, but is keeping it to himself, and has managed the whole thing himself. Lewis is in terror of him, Harrington says.

The brief which was to be delivered to me “on the usual professional terms,” has, of course, not arrived, although one would fancy that some idea of the matters affecting myself or yourself should be furnished by “our solicitor,” from the gentleman instructing him.

Biggar, who had written Lewis refusing to allow him to act for him, writes that Labouchere wired him that Parnell would explain everything on Monday (to-morrow), and that Parnell had written him a private letter of remonstrance at his action, but gave no explanation of his conduct towards me. In Parnell’s career there has been nothing more monstrous than his action in taking this whole business into his hands without consulting anybody. He is the last man I would select to entrust with such a business.

I had a letter from Sir Charles Russell regretting the action taken excluding me from the case, and saying he hoped I would be instructed by some other solicitor, as the whole Party was incriminated, This is pretty plain hinting. Pamell hates Russell, and distrusts Lewis, although that he distrusts him more than he does the rest of mankind I cannot say.

Chance refused to allow Lewis to act for him.”

Biggar wrote:

National Liberal Club,

22nd October, 1888.

My Dear Tim, -

“I to-night saw Labouchere, who thinks you ought to come across.

I think both you and Chance ought to come. Parnell is shuffling. Lewis told Labouchere on Thursday last that Parnell would today satisfy me he was right in refusing to have you in the case. He followed me to the Club, pressed me a good deal to be represented by his gang, but I refused. He also refused to tell you his reason, although last week he told Labouchere he would give you the reasons if you wrote asking for them.

Labouchere thinks if you now write, he will evade giving you any satisfactory reply.

Parnell talked of its being possible you might get into the case when it had gone partly forward.

That pretence is no better than that given to Lynch of Galway, who is now indignant no seat was got for him.

All well, I hope, at home?”

I am, my dear Tim,

Yours sincerely,

Joseph G. Biggar.

John Barry in the same spirit urged me to appear for him. I sent these letters with the following comment to Maurice:

Dublin,

23rd October, 1888.

“I enclose letters received to-night from Biggar and Barry. You will notice Parnell now entirely changes his hand, and refuses to disclose the reasons even to myself, although he promised Harrington to do so as lately as Thursday last, and Labouchere wrote me previously that he had told him he would do so if I wrote and asked him. This is, of course, owing to the fact that, since the trial opened, he has changed his mind on the point as to which he dismissed me, but is ashamed to admit he was mistaken, or else it is that from the first he was influenced by pique alone.

His refusal to tell myself creates a change in my obligations towards him, and I have wired Biggar that I place myself in his hands if he is still of the same opinion to-morrow. Therefore, should I receive a wire from him at the close of to-morrow’s proceedings, I will go over. Barry from the first has been anxious that I should act for him, altogether apart from the present scrape. I fancy Parnell will say, if anything goes wrong, that it was due to the course we have taken. He must be hard set when he can’t invent a lie to explain matters to me, especially as I should be easily imposed upon. If he had come to me, or written cordially, and without assigning any cause said he had reason to suppose it would be a mistake for me to accept the original retainer, I would never have questioned his opinion. It is the naked manner in which the thing has been done that has given rise to suspicion. Wavering often as to this extraordinary man, I am reverting to the notion that it must have been my Wicklow speech as to the “Plan” that provoked the congé.”

I wrote my father:

Dublin,

23rd October, 1858.

“I have heard from Biggar, who says Parnell pressed him strongly not to appear for himself but although Parnell had, through Labby, promised to satisfy him about my dismissal from the case, he refused, and said he couldn’t even tell myself. Harrington four days ago wrote that, in an interview with Parnell, he promised fully to” satisfy “me of his bona fides, and he previously told Labby that, if I wrote, he would reply and tell me. I have therefore no conclusion to come to except that if he had a good reason, he would give it. It is an unpleasant business, but fathom it I can’t. I would not worry you about it, hut that you would know from the papers all was not right.

I enclose Harrington’s letter, which please preserve. He offered to throw up his brief if I wished, but I would not ask such a thing. Still, take his letter as being subject to his anxiety to smooth matters.”

At the request of Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Asquith, his junior, visited Dublin before the Commission opened to see Harrington, Secretary to the National League. At their interview, according to Harrington, Asquith, in the bluntest way, put the question, “How many murders or crimes will be brought home to the League?” “Not one,” was the reply. “Oh, nonsense! “scoffed Asquith, who had recently been elected to the House of Commons, but scarcely knew any of the Irish members. “Will you allow me to inspect your private books?” “Certainly,” said Harrington; “call for any records or letters, on any day, week, month, or year you like.” On this Asquith named the period for which he wished to search, and the covering documents or copies which reached the League (or were dispatched by it) were placed before him. He sat down at a table and was soon deep in his investigations, which he pursued for hours. Finding his quest vain, he rose to leave, saying to Harrington, “Yours is a very much maligned Organization.” Harrington’s smile as he told me this conveyed the amazement he felt at one of their counsel a priori conceiving them guilty.

Spencer Wilkinson of the Manchester Guardian and of the “Navy League” tells in his book that he conducted a similar inquisition. He induced Harrington to accept him as clerk to the Organization so that he might see everything going out and coming in. Wilkinson had written works such as The Command of the Sea, The Brain of a Navy, The Brain of an Army, Imperial Defence, and therefore was not likely to be a biased, much less an incompetent, inquirer. Yet he, too, gave the Organization a “clean bill of health.”

When the Commission assembled, I described its opening in a letter to my wife:

London,

30th October, 1888.

“The Court has just risen at four o’clock, and I have walked down with Biggar, and have to leave the Club immediately to call on Sir Charles Russell at his Chambers at five, so I just send you a scribble. Biggar really had no necessity to bring me across, as far as I can judge, except to talk matters over. He showed me a private letter from Parnell, written three weeks ago, saying that I “knew his views,” and that under no circumstances could he consent to have me in the case, and that it was very improper of me to try to get to act for Biggar and Barry. Joe wrote him back saying that, instead of doing this, I had written refusing to do it; and that it was Chance who initiated the business, and that I had gone away to Spain, and knew nothing of the matter.

Parnell came into court to-day at three o’clock, and sat second next me, but I took no notice of him, although he addressed some words to me while I was making some remarks to the court-by way of giving me assistance, I think. I didn’t, however, hear what he said, and I made no sign. Davitt, who was over in the boat last night, although we did not speak on the way, nodded to me in court and, as I was next him, we became as friendly as if nothing had happened.

You should read the report about the Hibernian Bank bringing over their books within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and the way their English counsel got pranced on. It was the stupidest performance I ever knew. It will be nice to have my bank account, which has nothing to do with politics, investigated by The Times, and for anything I know, published to the world. I was going to say in court that the only thing they would discover was that it was overdrawn, but I did not do so I am glad I came. Lewis was very friendly, and all the counsel were too, and said they were delighted I was defending myself.

From what Harrington says, no fee is marked on any brief, as I suppose they are waiting to see how the “collection” goes. The way they have allowed The Times to do as they like would never have been tolerated by Irish counsel, and even to-day there was no application that the forged letters should be immediately taken up. I have a better opinion of the style in which we should have managed.

I lunched with Harold Frederic, who is doing the correspondence of the Manchester Guardian, and says he wrote a great attack last week because I was left out of the case.”

The Times solicitor expected when the League accounts were disclosed that they would have been fruitful, but a sorrowful letter from him to one of his agents repined:

58 Lincoln’s Inn Field,

30th May, 1889.

“The books which have been produced are four in number - a cash book commencing 8th October, 1881, and ending 12th November, 1881, and three other books which are in effect no more than the transcript of the banker’s accounts with the addition of the names of the payee and of certain branches to whom grants were made. In no instances are the purposes of the payments stated, except in the first-named cash book. No entry in the last three books, if I recollect rightly, is beyond the month of August, 1881. In a negative sense these books will be useful to us, but I fear not otherwise. Not nearly all the money received is accounted for in them.”

Yours,

Joseph Soames.

The Times, through agents in America, tried to sustain its far-flung charges. They even sought to bring members of the American Clan-na-Gael to appear to support the case of a conspiracy against Britain. Sir Robert Anderson, of the Home Office, produced a spy named Beach who, under the name of “Lecarron” or “Howard,” passed himself off as a Fenian in America, and had wormed himself into the counsels of extremists. British interests necessitated secrecy as to spies, but Anderson cared little for that, provided Parnell could be discredited. Beach, therefore, was shipped from the U.S.A., and became the “star” witness at the Commission. To tender such an agent as a witness to help a newspaper was a step unprecedented.

The Times also sought to secure the evidence of P. J. Sheridan, a Land League organizer, who was mentioned in the letter of 1882 which Parnell addressed to Captain O’Shea for submission to the Liberal Cabinet, outlining the Kilmainham Treaty. An envoy named Kirby was dispatched to see Sheridan in Colorado and coax him to come to London. I got hold of the code cablegrams to Kirby and decoded them in the Freeman’s Journal to make his plans known. Barry O’Brien’s Life of Parnell gives their text. They disclose that Sheridan proposed £20,000 as the price of his testimony - half to be paid in New York and hall when he reached England. Sheridan, had he shipped from New York, could have given no evidence of value, but he played on the gullibility of Kirby. When I exposed these activities in the Freeman Kirby sent a cablegram to The Times solicitor worded in a code so difficult that I was unable to decipher it. I asked Harrington for help, and he submitted the message to Dr. Walsh, Archbishop of Dublin. His Grace sat up all night to effect its decipherment, and next day gave us the transcript. The clue he had was that the letter E is the most frequent in English, and he then worked on to the next most-used letter. By this method Kirby’s message became clear - like the Rosetta Stone to Champollion. I published the decoded message in the Freeman.

This decipherment led to a total change in the telegraphic methods employed by the British Army, Navy, and R.I.C. Their codes thenceforward were framed so that no one could make them out unless in possession of the key. That was the sole gain to the State from the Forgery Commission.

Sheridan had no intention of journeying to London and never left Nebraska. Parnell, however, asked Davitt to go to Paris and cable thence to Chicago to Alexander Sullivan, a leader of the Clan-na-Gael, the contents of Kirby’s cablegram. This unwisdom caused deplorable results. Sullivan’s enemies pretended that Davitt’s message was an incitement to the murder of a Dr. Cronin, who had been decoyed to a lonely house on the pretence of a sick call, and slain. A book published in 1889, The Clan-na-Gael and the Murder of Dr. Cronin, by John T. Ennis (chapter ix), bases its narrative on a version of the evidence of Lecarron.

It asserts in a form here condensed and needing scrutiny:

“Lecarron said there were four spies in the Irish revolutionary camp wearing the livery of the Revolution for the purpose of betraying it.

Did Lecarron give the four names? Sir Charles Russell probably saw the names.

Dr. McGahey, one of the men closely associated with Cronin on Sunday, 27th October, 1889, furnished the press of Chicago with a document as an enemy of Alexander Sullivan. A witness testified before the Grand Jury that Alexander Sullivan told him Dr. Cronin was not dead, but was on his way to London, and would be heard from in a few days. Sullivan alleged that he had received a cipher telegram which, as he was unable to understand it, he repeated to Patrick Egan, at Lincoln. Egan translated it and sent him a copy, which read as follows: “Another witness for The Times will leave about the middle of May. This may be your doctor. (Signed) B.”

Sullivan told him that “B.” was an English member of parliament (not an Irish member). A search among the files of the Telegraph Companies failed to show the receipt of any such cipher or any cablegram signed “B.” or of the translation from Egan.

On 6th May Davitt was in Paris, and as soon as the news of Cronin’s disappearance reached him he sent Sullivan a cablegram intended to be used as the basis for the report that Cronin was a spy and had sailed for England-the intention being to have the message repeated from Chicago to Egan. Sullivan received the cablegram and changed two words to make it more plausible before sending it to Egan. It was not signed “B.” The sender feared to sign his name. He, therefore sent it anonymously, viz.: “Paris, 6th May. Alexander Sullivan, Chicago Wire Chancellor [P. Egan ex treasurer, Land League], as follows ‘Reliable information, suspected person taking advantage absence of books offered enemy s agent April 5.

He will come over for £20,000 half payable in advance proposes leaving 12th May. If books could be found his story could be disproved and his coming neutralized. Hope receive further information shortly whether offer accepted. Same agent acted before at Pueblo, 6th April [Sheridan’s ranch] and cabled for £10,000, part payment advance to be sent the Bank Montreal, Chicago, and £500 contingent expenses to be sent to Colorado Springs. The offer made by Buncomb [Sheridan] may be a game to get money, but desirable take precaution. You may buy correspondence of agent with Buncomb at any price you think right. If possible postpone departure [as ambassador to Chile] and send Tom [Brennan, ex-secretary, Land League] or some reliable friend to negotiate for correspondence, otherwise cable London name of representative. Don’t reply until you see “Tom.’” ”

Sullivan had wired to Egan:

Chicago,

6th May, 1889.

“Am directed to repeat important telegram to you. Shall I send it to Lincoln?”

By that date Egan had left New York on his way to Chile, as United States Minister. His son answered:

“Lincoln, Neb., 6th May, 1889. Alexander Sullivan. Send cablegram to Lincoln. I will send it to him. Frank Egan.”

The book further blunders:

“It was the second move in the great conspiracy [to kill Cronin]. Its essential part is in the first few words, “suspected person proposes leaving 12th May.” All the rest is merely padding to make it sound well. 12th May was the day that Long, Starkey et al were prepared to swear that Cronin had left Montreal. The morning papers of 6th May which contained the announcement of Cronin’s disappearance, also contained the announcement that his friends had determined to solve its mystery. Egan read them before he received the Paris cablegram.”

Despite all this nonsense the author confesses:

“There is a possibility that Davitt’s cable meant a well-known Nationalist in Colorado (Sheridan). Time will tell.”

Another book on the Cronin murder by H. M. Hunt, copyrighted in 1889 by Kochsperger, avoided these allegations.

Sheridan, and not Cronin, was the man about whom Davitt cabled. Yet his message was treated in Chicago as a link in the conspiracy leading to Cronin’s assassination.

Sullivan was arrested, but never tried. Egan’s name was dragged in by political enemies, because the Republican President of the United States accredited him as Minister to Chile. Opponents in the Democratic camp, wished to force his recall in order to prejudice the Republican administration. No one in Europe can comprehend politics in the U.S.A. It needs not only a life-study, but a study from day to day.

When the murder of Cronin was reported, Soames, The Times solicitor, consulted the spy Lecarron, who wrote him:

London,

15th May, 1889.

“Dr. Cronin is a man shrewd, intelligent, well educated, possessing a fine tenor voice, known amongst his enemies as the “Singing Doctor,” a good forcible speaker always desiring to be foremost in all-aggressive and quarrelsome to an eminent degree. He is tall, possessing a fine presence, married, and has no family.

He is chronically hard up. He was sued for rent by Dr. L. Burlingham, owner of his late residence, 351 North Clark Street, Chicago, in December, 1887, the suit being settled by his brother-in-law, T. H. Conkwin, who is one of the wealthy saloon-keepers of Chicago, since which date he has resided with his brother-in-law in the Windsor Block, same street.

He was elected Junior Guardian of Camp 96, Chicago, in 1881, and became Senior Guardian. He is Superintendent of the Dynamite School. Being a good chemist, he made it a study and gave lectures on explosives to a class weekly. He was a delegate to the Dist., V.C. Convention in 1883, at which Sullivan and William Mackey Lomasney were elected, made a lying report to his “camp” thereon, and charges were preferred against him through Sullivan, and he being a Senior Guardian at the time, his trial-committee were all Senior Guardians, of which I was one (vide evidence).

They unanimously found him guilty and expelled him from the organization.

While I know that the Chicago “gang” would like to see, and are bad enough to put him out of the way, he has enough friends to post him and thwart their murderous designs.

I don’t think him dead… .

His whole conduct for years past shows him to be bitterly opposed to the acts and administration of the Irish Party in power. Yes, even on both sides of the water, by Parnell and Co., endorsing and not opposing the corrupt party in America.

He is so bitter that, in my opinion, for a money consideration he would be willing to pose as a real friend of the Irish Cause by exposing the true inwardness and corruption of the administration. He is an egotist of the first water.”

To return to O’Shea. At the opening of the Forgery Commission, he swore to the genuineness of Pigott’s handiwork. When his cross-examination by Sir Charles Russell closed I rose. Parnell clutched me nervously. “What are you going to ask?” he gulped. I said, “Don’t be afraid!”

My questions were few: “Captain O’Shea, were you a candidate for a seat in Galway in 1886?” He replied, “I was.” “With whose support? ” “Mr. Parnell’s.” “Who opposed you?

“You and Mr. Biggar.” “Thank you,” I said, and sat down.

O’Shea’s backing of Pigott cannot be palliated as a reprisal for domestic dishonour. The divorce proceedings only began in December, 1889, after Pigott’s attack had failed.

Writing to my wife, I said:

London,

31st October, 1888.

“O’Shea’s examination to-day will repay reading. He has not hurt us, but I don’t think Parnell’s character will be improved by the close relations he has held with the Eltham household. It would have been a great mistake if O’Shea had been allowed to go away without cross-examination on the plea that they were not ready. I told this to Parnell, who was sitting next me, and had made some remark about O’Shea’s evidence previously, but Parnell was against cross-examination on the spot. Fortunately Russell, on account of the judges, went on, and I think, so far as the Cause is concerned, no harm has been done, while some good might result.

Parnell sent George Lewis to me to say he supposed I was not going to cross-examine O’Shea, and I said, “As at present advised, not”; and then he asked, “Is Biggar?” To which I replied that I thought not. When, however, Russell was finished, and O’Shea began to get out of the witness-box, Russell expressed his surprise that I had not asked him anything. I told him why, and he replied Lewis’s remark only applied in case they had not examined him themselves to-day. So I got him recalled, and then Parnell apprehensively asked what I was going to ask. I said, “I shall ask nothing sensational, but merely confine myself to showing that Biggar and I opposed him in Galway.” “But you will confine it to that? ” he asked. And I replied, “Yes.”

I am glad I was there, and am sure every one will appreciate our moderation after the way we have been dealt with. O’Shea gave his evidence with cleverness, but I think, after to-day’s proceedings, The Times, having gone into important evidence, will soon be compelled by the judges to come to the point; and I don’t think they have much point to come to. In fact, I am hopeful that they will get a dreadful smash-up. Parnell and Lewis say that their case on the question of the forged letters is overwhelming, and however far afield The Times may wish to roam, they will soon be brought to a narrower tether by the court. The judges, or at least Hannon, are not courageous. The other two don’t say a word. I shall have a better opinion of Irish tribunals for the future.

Russell’s cross-examination of O’Shea did not astonish me by its ability. Of course-sour grapes! I am satisfied at my exclusion, and feel no regrets. I shall go back and attend to my humdrum cases in Dublin.

Davitt last night and Arthur O’Connor expressed themselves kindly towards me, and strongly disapproved of the way I had been dealt with. I Saw Russell last night at his chambers with reference to the cross-examination of Some of the witnesses. All the others were there, and I shouldn’t have gone if I had known what he wanted me for.

Parnell has not alluded to the withdrawal of my retainer.”

To Maurice I wrote:

Dublin,

12th November, 1888.

“Harrington tells me that Parnell thinks it was a great mistake having English counsel! This is charming, and I have no doubt he would say, if necessary, that this was forced on him by his intrusive followers. Whether like the fox that has lost its tail or not, I didn’t think, with the sole exception of Russell’s outburst last week, that he has much to congratulate himself on.

The tactics displayed, and the submissions without protest, were extraordinary.

Hishon told me to-night that Harrington mentioned to-day that William O’Brien was swearing at Parnell for doing nothing in Ireland, and said he would insist on his moving! If I had said a word, William would maintain that Parnell’s Fabian tactics were the wisest on earth. For years I have never flinched from the opinion that any step would be justifiable to compel Parnell to take action in consultation with his Party, as his unaided evolutions are generally hurtful, and he does hardly anything right. He was disgusted with Charles Russell for “treating O’Shea like a gentleman,” and wanted to cross-examine him himself! He has now re-subpoenaed O’Shea, who is a broken reed.”

Barry O’Brien’s Life of Lord Russell states (pages 216-18) that in November, 1888, a month after the Commission opened, he called on Russell, who declaimed: “Your friend Parnell has been acting very badly. He is a selfish fellow. He thinks only of himself. He takes no trouble about any part of the case except the forged letter. There are specific charges against others, and against the Movement generally which have to be met, and Parnell ought to trouble himself about these charges and ought to help us to meet them, but he will not even come to consultations, except to discuss what directly concerns himself. Parnell ought to throw himself into the whole case, and he does not.”

In saying this, Russell knew nothing of Parnell’s weakening health.

When the case had further progressed a minor incident occurred which urged Parneil to bestir himself. A Times witness swore that a meadow which he had rented on an evicted farm had been “spiked” so that it could not be mown, and that this was done by the orders of a Co. Cork branch of the League, which paid a smith £5 to make the spikes. For these rustic bodies the Central Organization had no responsibility, but the judges ordered that the secretary of the branch should appear before them within 48 hours and produce the books. The “rattenings” in Birmingham and Sheffield by Broadhead and Co. were present to judicial minds, and Parnell, in tremor, came to my brother saying that after a year’s investigation this was the only case in which a crime had been brought near anyone connected with the League. “I want you to go to Cork to-night and examine the books of the branch, and warn the secretary to obey the orders of the Court, whatever the consequences.

Maurice telegraphed the secretary to attend him in Cork next day with the books and set off from London. The “grabber” whose meadow had been spiked was specific as to dates, so when the secretary came to Cork, Maurice was able to con the books for outlay relating to the accusation without disclosing his object. An item of £5 paid about the date to which the witness swore was found marked, “For a charitable purpose.” So the secretary went to London with the books, which were inspected by The Times lawyers and the judges. He was not called, nor were the books put in evidence. Charity covereth a multitude of sins!

Pigott, on the 23rd February, 1889, having been partially cross-examined, fled to Spain.

The letters by which Russell broke him up were preserved by Patrick Egan, who had negotiated the purchase of Pigott’s newspapers on behalf of the Land League in 1882. Later, when Pigott attacked the League, Egan published some of them, and these exposed the wretch so completely that Chief Secretary Forster stopped the payments he was making him as a “loyalist convert.”

The British Government often provided needy journalists with rewards for the defamation of popular Irish leaders from Secret Service funds. In 1848 Birch took action against Lord Clarendon, then Lord-Lieutenant, for an unpaid balance of the “work” he did against John Mitchel and the patriots of that epoch.

Pigott, knowing how profit could be harvested, “collaborated” with the Unionists as soon as he sold his papers to Egan. His new friends included men who, however honest themselves, were prepared to believe any evil of their opponents.

After Pigott was exposed by Russell before the Forgery Commission he spent the evening at the Alhambra Theatre. An acquaintance accosted him, saying, “That was a brilliant cross-examination of you to-day by Sir Charles.” “Ah,” he sighed, “not at all. He had such splendid material!”

Next morning he left for Paris, en route for Madrid. His disappearance startled London, but Scotland Yard remained supine. The judges issued a warrant for his arrest, and two days later it was announced that he had shot himself in an hotel in Madrid.

Shot, indeed, he was. Suicide, I doubt. Although Pigott was a monster of selfishness and immorality, no Extradition Treaty existed between Spain and Great Britain which would have authorized his arrest.

When his death became known, his house near Dublin was raided by the curious. His diaries, books and newspaper cuttings were sent to Michael Davitt by Val Dillon, solicitor. His children were said to have been given names by which their parentage could not be traced. The charitable, headed by the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Walsh, looked after them.

When Pigott confessed that he was the author of the forgeries, The Times apologized. Parnell then recovered £5,000 damages by consent. The Attorney-General, hitherto so confident, became unctuously tearful. The Irish people had raised £42,000 in defence of Parnell and their representatives.

Pigott had been a clerk in the Nation office, like his father, under A. M. Sullivan. Afterwards he started a paper of his own and made it more saleable by libelling Sullivan. When both were sent to Richmond Jail in 1868 for articles on the Manchester executions of 1867 (when Allen Larkin and O’Brien were hanged), Pigott affected friendliness to Sullivan. All gifts or alleviations showered on that popular orator were thenceforward shared with Pigott. After their release the old libels were furbished up, so Sullivan addressed a friendly remonstrance to him. His reply was;

Sir, -

If you wish to know the writer of the comments of which you complain it is”

Yours truly,

Richard Pigott.

After he fled from justice I did not attend the Commission, save to urge that the defendants’ counsel should withdraw. Labouchere agreed with this policy, and so did Parnell. Yet counsel remained.

The victory over The Times was largely due to Pat Egan’s foresight in preserving Pigott’s correspondence.

I may now recall a story of his as Ambassador to Chile. During Balmaceda’s attempt to prolong his term as President, Egan received refugees in the Embassy from both sides. The Chilian Army supported Balmaceda, but the Senate and the Navy opposed him. Egan granted sanctuary to each faction as victory alternated, and I think Balmaceda killed himself in the American Legation. Mobs gathered before it demanding the surrender of prisoners, and Egan’s life was in danger. He sent telegrams to Washington telling of his dire extremity, and a battleship, captained possibly by the famous “cursing admiral,” Bob Evans, hove in sight. Egan’s enemies circulated the lie that when he summoned a warship he did so to affect the “exchange” in Chillan currency. The Admiral on arrival gave notice that if the square in front of the American Legation was not clear by 6 p.m. his guns would play on the rioters. At 6 p.m. the square was free, and Egan sallied forth with the Stars and Stripes on his shoulder to the jetty and put off in a launch to thank the Commander.

On reaching the warship he made an eloquent speech.

To appreciate the Admiral’s reply it should be explained that in Chile garlic is universally esteemed. Young couples who become engaged sometimes exchanged a piece of garlic touched by the lips.

The Admiral answered, “Your Excellency’s words move me. I can only say that if, at 6 p.m., the square in front of your residence had not been cleared, all hell would have smelt of garlic!”

Healy Index. Home.