to the Parnell party and causing the passing of the Coercion Act. Archbishop Walsh, mentioned in the examination, was an intimate friend of Mr. Parnell. Pigott, in his prior examination, had claimed that he had handed the letters to the "Times" merely for the latter's protection, to substantiate the articles, and that the publication of the letters came upon me by surprise"; the falsehoods exposed in the following answers were in a sense partly immaterial, but they served all the more to show the man's thoroughly false character.]

66

Q. You were aware of the intended publication of that correspondence? A. No, I was not at all aware.

Q. What? A. Certainly not. . . . Q. You have already said that you were aware, although you did not know they were to appear in the "Times, that there were grave charges to be made against Mr. Parnell and the leading members of the Land League? A. I was not aware till the publication actually commenced.

Q. Do you swear that? 4. I do.

Q. No mistake about that? A. No.

Q. Is that your letter (produced)? Don't trouble to read it. A. Yes; I have no doubt about it.

from

Q. My Lords, that is Anderton's Hotel, and is addressed by the witness to Dr. Walsh, Archbishop of Dublin. The date, my Lords, is March 4, 1887, three days before the first appearance of the first series of articles known as "Parnellism and Crime." (Reading.) "Private and confidential. My Lord, The importance of the matter about which I write will doubtless excuse this intrusion on your attention. Briefly, I wish to say that I have been made aware of the details of certain proceedings that are in preparation with the object of destroying the influence of the Parnellite party in Parliament." (To

witness.) What were these certain proceedings that were in preparation? A. I do not recollect.

Q. Turn to my Lords, Sir, and repeat that answer. A. I do not recollect.

Q. Do you swear that, writing on the 4th of March and stating that you had been made aware of the details of certain proceedings that were in preparation with the object of destroying the influence of the Parnellite party in Parliament less than two years ago, you do not know what that referred to? A. I do not know really.

Q. May I suggest? A. Yes. Q. Did that passage refer to these letters, among other things? A. No, I rather fancy it had reference to the forthcoming articles.

Q. I thought you told us you did not know anything about the forthcoming articles? A. Yes, I did. I find now that I am mistaken, but I must have heard something about them.

Q. Try and not make the same mistake again, if you please. (Reading.) "I cannot enter more fully into details than to state that the proceedings referred to consist in the publication of certain statements, purporting to prove the complicity of Mr. Parnell himself and some of his supporters with murders and outrages in Ireland, to be followed in all probability by the institution of criminal proceedings against these parties by the government." Who told you that? A. I have no idea.

Q. Did that refer, among others, to the incriminatory letters? A. I do not recollect that it did. Q. Do you swear it did not? I will not swear it did not. Q. Do you think it did? A.

No.

A.

Q. Very well; did you think that these letters, if genuine, would prove, or would not prove, Mr. Parnell's complicity with crime? A. I thought they were very likely to prove it.

Q. Now, reminding you of that opinion, and the same with Mr.

-

Eagan, I ask you whether you did not intend to refer - I do not suggest solely, but among other things to the letters as being the matter which would prove, or purport to prove, complicity? A. Yes, I may have had that in mind.

Q. You can hardly doubt that you had that in your mind? A. I suppose I must have had.

Q. (Reading.) "Your Grace may be assured that I speak with full knowledge and am in a position to prove beyond all doubt or question the truth of what I "Was that true? A. It could hardly have been true.

say.

Q. A designedly untrue statement, was it? A. Not designedly.

Q. Try and keep your voice up. A. I say, not designedly.

Q. Accidentally? A. Perhaps so. Q. Do you believe these letters to be genuine? A. I do.

Q. And did at that time? A. Yes.

Q. (Reading.) "And I may further assure your Grace that I am also able to point out how the designs may be successfully combated and finally defeated." (To witness.) Now if these documents were genuine documents, and you believed them to be such, how were you able to assure his Grace that you were able to point out how the designs might be successfully combated and finally defeated? A. Well, as I say, I had not the letters actually in my mind at that time, so far as I can remember. I do not recollect that letter at all.

Q. You told me a moment ago without hesitation that you had both in your mind? A. But, as I say, it had completely faded out of my memory.

Q. That I can understand. A. I have not the slightest idea of what I referred to.

Q. Assuming the letters to be genuine, what were the means by which you were able to assure his Grace you could point out how the designs might be successfully combated and finally defeated? A. I do not know.

Q. Oh, you must think, Mr. Pigott, please. It is not two years ago, you know. Mr. Pigott, had you qualms of conscience at this time, and were you afraid of the consequences of what you had done? A. Not at all.

Q. Then what did you mean? A. I cannot tell you at all. Q. Try. A. I cannot. Q. Try. A. I really cannot. Q. Try. A. It is no use.

Q. Am I to take it, then, that the answer to my Lords is that you cannot give any explanation? A. I really cannot.

Q. Now you knew these impending charges were serious? A. Yes. Q. Did you believe them to be true? A. I cannot tell you whether I did or not, because, as I say, I do not recollect.

Q. First of all, you knew then that you had procured and paid for a number of letters? A. Yes.

Q. Which, if genuine, you have already told me would gravely implicate the parties from whom they were supposed to come? Yes, gravely implicate.

A.

Q. You regard that as a serious charge? A. Yes.

Q. Did you believe that charge to be true or false? A. I believed that to be true. .

Q. Now I will read you this passage: "P.S. I need hardly add that did I consider the parties really guilty of the things charged against them, I should not dream of suggesting that your Grace should take part in an effort to shield them. I only wish to impress on your Grace that the evidence is apparently convincing, and would probably be suffi

Icient to secure conviction if submitted to an English jury." What have you to say to that? A. I say nothing, except that I am sure I could not have had the letters in my mind when I said that, because I do not think the letters convey a sufficiently serious charge to warrant my writing that letter.

Q. But as far as you have yet told us the letters constituted the only part of the charge with which you had anything to do? A. Yes, that is why I say that I must have had something else in my mind. which I cannot recollect. I must have had some other charges in my mind.

Q. Can you suggest anything that you had in your mind except the letters? A. No, I cannot.

[On the next day, when Pigott resumed his examination :]

Q. Then I may take it that since last night you have removed from your mind I think your bosom was the expression you used that this communication of yours [to the Archbishop] referred to some fearful charge, something not yet mentioned? A. No, I told you so last night, but I am sure that it is not So. I will tell you my reason.

Q. You need not trouble yourself. A. I may say at once that the statements I made to the Archbishop were entirely unfounded.

Q. Then in the letters I have up to this time read or some of them you deliberately sat down and wrote lies? A. Well, they were exaggerations; I would not say they were lies.

Q. Was the exaggeration such as that it left no truth? A. I think very little.

Netherclift, who was the chief expert in the days when Lord Brampton was at the bar, had such faith in his methods that finally he came to believe that he could never make a mistake. This belief received an amusing check in a case in which he was under cross-examination by Lord Brampton (then Mr. Hawkins). Netherclift had claimed that his system gave infallible results, and had further stated that his son, whom he had trained, made use of the same system. "Then," said the wily advocate, "your son working on your system is as good as you are?". "Yes," replied the

father with some pride in his voice, "he is." "That is to say, he, too, is infallible?" "Yes," again replied the witness. "Well, now, Mr. Netherclift, was there ever a case in which you and your son appeared on opposite sides?" Netherclift tried to evade the question, which, he complained, was an unfair one, but on being pressed was forced to admit that on a certain occasion he had given evidence on one side and his son upon the other. Swift came the unanswerable retort, "How comes it then that two infallibles appeared on opposite sides?"

CASE. (ANSELM VON

p. 116.)

[The facts of the assault on Rupprecht are set forth in No. 159, ante.] Something, it was hoped, would be learned from the wounded man himself when he should have recovered consciousness. On the

evening of the following day, the 8th of February, the judge and two other officers of the court visited him... The judge asked him the following following questions, which were thus answered by the wounded man :

"Who struck you the blow? "Schmidt." "What Schmidt? "Woodcutter." Where does he live?" "In the Most." "With what did he strike you?" "Hatchet." "How did you recognize him?"-"By his voice."

The first though not the sole object of the judge now was to discover the Schmidt of whom Rupprecht was thinking. But in this town, as everywhere else, there were a vast number of people called Schmidt, several of whom were woodcutters. Three of these especially engaged the attention of the court. The first was a certain Abraham Schmidt, who lived in the Hohes Pflaster. The second was one John Gabriel Schmidt, commonly known as "big Schmidt," who lived in a street called the Walch. The third was big Schmidt's half-brother, distinguished from him. by the name of "little Schmidt."... As equal suspicion attached to the three Schmidts above named, Abraham, as well as the big and the little Schmidt, were arrested that evening. . . . Abraham Schmidt behaved far differently: when asked whether he knew the man in bed, he at first answered, "I do not know him," but immediately added, "That is Mr. Rupprecht, I know him well; what is the matter with him?" When asked why he at first said he did not know him, he answered, "Because that is Mr. Rupprecht." He was then desired to give a proper answer, but only exclaimed, "I can give no answer; I did not do it; ah! good Lord! I did not do it; I am not the man; as I hope for mercy, I am innocent. I am a poor woodcutter. You may ask my neighbors, my wife, and my mother. On Friday night I was cutting pegs at the house of my mother-in-law till eleven o'clock, and on Saturday and Sunday I was at home." On On being asked at what hour he had gone home on Friday night, he said, "I stayed until past nine with my mother-in

law." When the manifest contradiction in his statement was pointed out to him, he only repeated, "From nine to eleven."

on

Meanwhile suspicion strengthened against Abraham Schmidt. The police handed the hatchets belonging to the three suspected men into court and that of Abraham Schmidt was spotted apparently with blood.. . . He asserted that he was perfectly innocent of the murder of Rupprecht, whom he had neither known or seen. Hereupon he was reminded that when the wounded man was shown to him, he had at first said that he did not know him, but had immediately after recognized him as Rupprecht: how was this? He then replied," "I do not know why I said that, and I said it was Rupprecht directly, but I never saw him in my life before!" He was asked how then he had recognized him, and answered that "every one was talking of the murder, and that he had heard of it at the public house." Whenever he was questioned as to where he was Friday evening at the time of the murder, he invariably involved himself in contradictions. The judge questioned him as follows: "Where were you last Friday?” — “I went to the house of my motherin-law at nine o'clock in the morning, to help her cut pegs. I dined with her, and did not leave her house till nine o'clock at night, when I took my little boy home, went to bed directly, and did not get up again. until seven o'clock Saturday morning." "When did your wife leave her mother's house?"-"At ten o'clock." "Why did you not go together?" -“Because she was still at work, and as the boy would not go to sleep, she asked me to take him home, which I did." "At what o'clock then did you go home on Friday?"-"At nine o'clock." "Yesterday you said it was at eleven; how is that?"-After some hesitation, "I don't know what you want of me; I went home with my wife

at eleven." "Just now you asserted that you went home at nine?" "All my neighbors can testify that I always come home at nine."-"That answer will not suffice; first you say nine, and then eleven: which is the truth?”—“At nine o'clock

66

with my wife and child. No, my wife stayed a little longer with her mother.' "Who took the child home?"-"I took him home with me at nine o'clock." "When did your wife come home?" — " After ten o'clock." "How do you know that?" Because she always comes home at that time; I was asleep when she came, and can't tell exactly when it was. I did not wake, though I sleep in the same bed with her and the child." "Have you a key of the house?" my mother has got it." did your wife get in?"-"My wife took the key with her." "You said

"Yes, but "How then

at first that your mother had the key the whole night through?" "Yes, it lay upon the table." "Then your wife could not have used it to let herself into the house?" -"So I said, for my wife went home with me and put the boy to bed, and then she took the house-door key and went back to her mother." "How long did she stay there?"

-"Till eleven." "You said before that she came home at ten?"—"I was asleep, I can't tell whether it was ten or eleven when she came home.".

...

[But Abraham Schmidt, nevertheless, was quite innocent.] The evidence of one Anna Keinitz, an

old woman of seventy-eight, proved that on the eighth of February Abraham Schmidt was in all probability ignorant of the murder committed on the previous evening. . . . His strange conduct in the presence of the dying man, and his contradictory statements, were thus accounted for. According to his mother's testimony, he was hard of hearing, timid, and awkward. The smallest trifle made him lose all presence of mind, and he was often so confused as to say the very opposite of what he meant about things the most familiar to him. "I believe," said the magistrate of his district, "that there is not any one in my whole district who is so blundering. For instance, he seldom calls any one by his right name; and when he does not understand what is said to him, or cannot express his meaning, he is apt to be angry." . . . The contrary statements which he made concerning many important details, were manifestly the result of the prisoner's habitual confusion of ideas and defective memory. His recognition of Rupprecht, joined to his declaration that he did not know him, would have appeared perfectly consistent had he possessed the power of expressing himself intelligibly; without ever seeing Rupprecht he must have guessed that the wounded man lying before him could have been none other than the Rupprecht whose accident was in every one's mouth.

[The defendant was charged with riot and sedition. The rioters pulled down meeting-houses and made bonfires of them. The leader was seen jumping hilariously about the bonfire. He was said to have worn a footman's dress with green coat and brass buttons, and was waving a flag made out of a curtain. The

accused's mistress testified that she had sent him out merely to find where the fire was, after it started. The principal witness for the prosecution was one Grove.] Then William Grove was sworn.

Atty.-Gen. Pray, acquaint my lord, and the jury, whether you saw the prisoner the first of March last.