The Papal Rescript
Above : Portrait Of Pope Leo XIII
It now struck the Government authorities that the power of Rome might be enlisted on their side. Negotiations were opened with the Pope (Leo XIII) through some secret agent, and as a result, a Papal Rescript appeared in April, 1888, condemning the methods of the ” Plan of Campaign ” and the practice of boycotting, as immoral, unjustifiable, and incompatible with the laws of Christian charity. This pronounce¬ment produced little effect. Now, as in the days of O’Connell, the Irish Catholics refused to accept Vatican dictates in affairs other than spiritual.
The increasing friendliness of a large section of the English Liberals with Parnell and his followers was a source of no little annoyance to the Conservatives of the Old School. Their organ was The Times, a news¬paper which had always shown itself virulently anti-Irish. During the time that the Coercion Bill was before Parliament, that is to say in the spring of 1887, The Times had published, under the title of ” Parnellism and Crime,” a series of articles in which it endeavoured to connect the Irish Parliamentary Party, at least indirectly, with the perpetration of outrages in Ireland. On the very day that the Bill was to be read for the second time, it printed what purported to be a letter written by Parnell himself to a friend, in which he excused himself for his public con¬demnation of the Phoenix Park murders, as being a necessary piece of policy, but added that, in his opinion, Mr. Burke, at least, had got ” no more than he deserved.”
Below : Illustrating Picture Of Richard Pigot
That same day Parnell himself, speaking in the House of Commons, declared the letter to be a forgery. The Times however, insisted on its authenticity, and was pretty generally believed. Other letters were produced or stated to exist.
At first Parnell did not appear inclined to take much notice of the but finally he applied (July, 1888) for a Parliamentary inquiry. .,. request was granted, and the Commission began its sittings in October 1888, and continued them for over a year.
It was not long before, by the aid chiefly of Michael Davitt, the true origin of the letters became known to Parnell. The agent of The Times had it appeared, bought them for the sum of £2,500 from a certain Richard Pigott, who had formerly been the proprietor of an Irish paper of extreme views, but who had got into pecuniary difficulties, and had lived for years by the writing of begging letters and kindred devices. Pisott was known to be a man of low character and in desperate straits for money.
The story which he told of the manner in which the letters had come into his possession was improbable to the verge of absurdity. The letters themselves were not convincing ; they contained mistakes in spelling unlikely to be made by any man of education. All these circumstances should have made those acting for The Times at least wait for some proof of authenticity, but this they did not do. When (February, 1889) Pigott was placed in the witness-box, his story did not long withstand the cross examination of Sir Charles Russell. His confusion, his contradictory statements, soon made the true state of the case apparent. Finally, during an adjournment, he betook himself t& the house of Mr. Labouchere, a leading Liberal journalist, and there, in the presence of a witness, made a full confession of hit guilt, telling how he had forged the letters, copying, so far as he could, the handwriting of Parnell and of Egan, Secretary of the League. The confession was written out by Labouchere and signed by Pigott. The wretched forger fled to the Continent ; a warrant was issued for his arrest, but he shot himself in an hotel in Madrid (March, 1887).
The Commission continued its sitting for several months. Early in 1890 it issued its report, exonerated ” Parnell and the other respondents ” from the charge made against them of complicity with the Pho-nix Park murders or connection with the Invincibles. It added, however, that they did ” enter into a conspiracy by a system of coercion and intimidation to promote an agrarian agitation against the payment of agricultural rents.” That they had done this was scarcely denied or deniable, and their acquittal on the other charge was regarded as practically a complete victory. That it was so regarded in England was evident from the enthusiastic reception accorded to Parnell in the House of Commons on his first appearance there after the verdict had been made public. Against The Times he threatened an action for libel, which the proprietors settled out of court by the payment of £5,000.
