Cross-examination by Sir Charles Russell of Pigott

before the Parnell Commission

Chapter Notes by Uma Gopal*

Sir Charles Russell1 - (1832 - 1900). He cross-examined Richard Pigott, the chief
witness in the investigation growing out of the attack on Charles S. Parnell. He was
the Lord Chief Justice of England from June 1894 till his death. He was also known
as Baron Russell of Killowen. He was an Irish statesman of the 19th century. In his
career he proved himself to be a masterful lawyer, judge, and parliamentarian. He also
maintained a strong loyalty to his Catholic faith and to Ireland. Despite this, he
achieved widespread popularity in England.

Charles Steward Parnell2 - (1846 – 1891, A man accused of being involved in the
murder of Lord Cavendish and Mr Burke. He was an Irish Nationalist, a member of
the British Parliament (1875–91), and the leader of the struggle for Irish Home Rule
in the late 19th century. He was defended by Sir Charles Russell.

Richard Pigott3 - The witness who was suspected to have forged the letter that was
published by the Times.
Archbishop William Walsh4 - Pigott addressed his letter against Parnell to
Archbishop Walsh.

Patrick Egan / P. Egan5 - One of the Irish members of the Parliament.

Lord Frederick Cavendish6 - (Chief Secretary of Ireland) - Murdered in Phoenix

Park, Dublin , on May 6, 1882.
7

Mr Burke - (Under Secretary of Ireland) - Murdered in Phoenix Park, Dublin, on

May 6, 1882.

Mr Houston8 - Secretary of the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union, who had bought the
incriminatory letter from Pigott.

1
Retrieved from http://www.askaboutireland.ie/narrative-notes/sir-charles-russell/index.xml
2
Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-Stewart-Parnell
3
Retrieved from
https://seamusdubhghaill.com/2017/02/10/richard-pigott-exposed-as-forger-of-phoenix-park-letters/
4
Retrieved from https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/under-a-bad-spell-1.170430
5
4 above
6
4 above
7
Capital of Ireland
8
4 above

*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 1

Important Dates:
Date of Murder: May 6, 1882.
Date of 1st series of letters to Archbishop Walsh: March 4, 1887.
Date of the 1st publication of the articles on “Parnellism and Crime”, in
the Times: March 7, 1887.
Date of cross-examination: Around 2 years after the publication of "Parnellism
and Crime"- Between January and March 1889.

SUMMARY

Lord Frederick Cavendish (Chief Secretary of Ireland had taken an oath on May 6,
1882) and Mr Burke (Under Secretary of Ireland), were murdered in Phoenix Park,
Dublin on May 6, 1882. Charles S. Parnell and sixty-five Irish members of the
Parliament were suspected to be involved in the murder. The suspicion arose because
of a facsimile letter that was published in the Times, that suggested Parnell supported
those who carried out the brutal Phoenix Park murders Lord Frederick Cavendish, and
Thomas H.Burke in May 1882. The question that arose in people’s minds was: Was
Charles Parnell responsible in some way for the murder?
Parnell vehemently denied the veracity of the letter. His involvement in the murder
was first brought to public knowledge by the publication of Parnell’s letter, a
facsimile one, in which the sentence. “I cannot refuse to admit that Burke got no more
than his deserts”, seemed to ascertain his involvement in the crime. Whether the letter
was actually written by Parnell, as was claimed by the Times was a matter to be
debated upon, as Parnell stated in the House of Commons, that the letter was a forged
one. The Government, much against its wishes, eventually relented to appoint a
special committee that had three judges to investigate all the charges on Parnell, as
was made in the facsimile letter published by the Times.
Sir Charles Russell, an eminent lawyer, undertook the defence of Parnell. In the
process, he cross-examined Mr Pigott, who had sold the damaging letter, supposedly
written by Parnell, to Mr Houston, the secretary of the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union,
who had, in turn, sold it to the Times. Pigott claimed that he had been employed by
the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union to hunt up for the documents which might
incriminate Parnell. So, through his sources, he had bought the letter from an Irish
republican organization in Paris, Clan-na-Gael9. Since Pigott had the answers to these
questions, he had to be cross-examined which proved to be one of the most dramatic,
successful and celebrated cross-examinations in the history of English Courts. The
common people looked forward to the day when Pigott would go into the box and tell
his story about the letter in question published by the Times in facsimile.
The first evidence that Sir Russell established was the spelling of the word, hesitancy
which was misspelt as ‘ hesitency’, in the facsimile published by the Times. The
suspicion that Pigott was behind this forgery was ascertained because Pigott in one of
his letters to Patrick Egan, a member of the Irish member of Parliament, had misspelt
the word hesitancy as ‘hesitency’.
Egan believed that the letter in question had been forged and had conveyed this to
Russell. Russell began his cross-examination in a very suave and assertive manner

9
A secret society of Irish Fenians founded in Philadelphia in 1881.

*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 2

and established among other lies, that Pigott knew when the facsimile letter, as part of
the series of articles on “Parnellism and Crime”, was to be published by the Times, i.e
on the 7th of March, 1887. When the cross-examination started, Pigott denied having
any knowledge about the letter's publication on the 7th of March, 1887.
In the process of gaining evidence to defend Parnell, Russell had managed to gain
access to a series of letters written by Pigott, addressed to Archbishop Walsh. These
letters were written three days before the 7th of March, (that is the on the 4th of
March). The letters were accessed by Russell from the Anderton's Hotel. In these
letters, Pigott claimed that he was aware of certain proceedings that were in
preparation with the object of destroying the influence of the Parnellite party in the
Parliament. Upon cross-examining Pigott, he first feigned ignorance about the matter
but eventually gave in and acknowledged to have heard something about the
publication of the Times articles.
In one of the letters written by Pigott to the Archbishop, Russell read out that Pigott
claimed to have evidence to prove the complicity of Parnell and his supporters
regarding the murders and outrages in Ireland. Pigott also claimed to have the means
to combat and finally defeat the designs made by Parnell and his supporters. However,
each time when Russell asked Pigott to elaborate or provide evidence on his claims he
was unable to do so.
Instead, Russell had the evidence in the form of the series of letters written by
Pigott to the Archbishop which proved to be very crucial in the investigation. When
asked, Pigott flip-flopped in agreeing to have written to the Archbishop and at times
not being able to recollect that he had written letters to the Archbishop. Russell was
also able to bring out in court that, Pigott, upon having received no reply from the
Archbishop on whether his evidence against Parnell would be considered, pleaded
with the Archbishop that he had no other motive other than the welfare of the state in
mind and was merely doing his duty. He added that, however, if the Archbishop
wanted to shield the guilty or decide not to interfere in the matter, he/Pigott should be
allowed the liberty to take up the matter further with other sources. He also pleaded
with the Archbishop, (as read by Russell), that his name should not be made known to
anyone. He didn’t want anyone to know about his letters that were addressed to his
grace, Archbishop Walsh. He further claimed that he had no prejudice against the
Parnellite party but was doing it out of his sense of duty as he had become acquainted
with all the details of the Phoenix Park murder.
Till the first day of the cross-examination, Pigott maintained that he had no
knowledge of the facsimile letter that was going to be published in the Times on the
7th of March, 1887. Pigott’s stance was very confusing; at times he acknowledged
knowing answers to questions asked by Russell and at times denied having any
knowledge. What he, however, acknowledged was, being privy to something more
serious with respect to providing some ‘incriminating evidence’ about the
involvement of Parnell and the Irish members of the British Parliament of activities in
preparation to overthrow the English rule through lawless and even murderous
activities.
Eventually, after having being cornered to having a role in falsely involving Parnell
and other 65 Irish members of the Parliament with the Phoenix Park murder and after
being unable to explain the authenticity of the facsimile letter published by Times,
Pigott disappeared entirely after two days of cross-questioning. He later sent a

*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 3

confession from Paris, admitting to his perjury10 and gave details of how he had
executed it. After the Parnell commission evaluated the confession and concluded that
the so-called damaging letter was indeed a forged11 one, the Times withdrew the
facsimile letter. A warrant was issued for Pigott's arrest on a charge of perjury. When
the police went to arrest him in a hotel in Madrid, Pigott asked for some time to
collect his belongings but after retiring to his room, shot himself dead.

Comprehension:

Question 1: What is meant by the expression, ‘a damaging letter’? To what use

is it put by Sir Charles Russell during Pigott’s cross-examination?

Answer 1: The ‘damaging letter’ in reference was the letter allegedly written by
Charles S. Parnell, an Irish member of the British Parliament, which was published by
the Times. The letter indicated that Parnell supported and justified the Phoenix Park
murders.
Parnell and sixty-five Irish members of the Parliament were said to be involved in the
murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish (Chief Secretary for Ireland) and Mr Burke
(Under Secretary for Ireland) for having justified the murder. Their involvement in
the murder was first brought to public knowledge by the publication of Parnell’s letter,
a facsimile one in the Times, in which the sentence, “I cannot refuse to admit that
Burke got no more than his deserts.”, pointed a finger at Parnell. Whether this letter
was actually written by Parnell or not was questionable, as Parnell stated in the House
of Commons that the letter was a forged one. As per Pigott, Parnell and the sixty-five
Irish members of the Parliament were also believed to have belonged to a lawless and
even murderous organization, whose aim was to overthrow the English rule in Ireland.
The first evidence that Sir Russell established in the so-called ‘damaging letter' that
was supposedly written by Parnell was the spelling of the word, hesitancy which was
misspelt as ‘ hesitency’, in the facsimile published by the Times. The suspicion that
Pigott was behind this forgery was ascertained because Pigott in one of his letters to
Patrick Egan, a member of the Irish member of Parliament, had misspelt the word
hesitancy as ‘hesitency’. Pigott, a former newspaper editor by profession, had a
history of using atrocious spellings in his writings. Russell in a very suave but firm
manner cross-examined Pigott and established among other lies that Pigott knew
when the facsimile letter as part of series of articles on “Parnellism and Crime” was to
be published by the Times, i.e on 7th March 1887, which he had denied initially.

Question 2: How did Pigott say he came by the letter written by Parnell?

Answer 2: Pigott claimed that he had been employed by the Irish Loyal and Patriotic
Union to hunt up for documents, which might incriminate Parnell. So, through his
sources, he had bought the facsimile from an agent of Clan-na-Gael, an Irish

10
the offence of willfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath

11
the action of forging a copy or imitation of a document, signature, banknote, or work of art.

*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 4

republican organization in Paris, who had no objection in injuring Parnell for a
valuable consideration.

Question 3: Why did Lord Russell ask Pigott to write a number of words?
Answer 3: The suspicion that Pigott was behind this forgery was ascertained because
Pigott in one of his letters to Patrick Egan, a member of the Irish member of
Parliament, had misspelt the word hesitancy as ‘hesitency’. There seemed to be a
similar error in the facsimile letter published in the Times, in the way the word
hesitancy was misspelt. Moreover, Pigott had a history of using atrocious spellings in
his writings while he was a former newspaper editor. To establish in the court, that it
was indeed Pigott who had forged the ‘damaging letter’, Sir Charles Russell in an
unassuming way, without making it evident to Pigott, asked him to write the spellings
of the words, livelihood, likelihood, proselytism, Patrick Egan and P. Egan one after
another. At the end of the cross-examination, almost as an afterthought and very
apologetically, Russell asked Pigott to write the word hesitancy. Then to divert
Pigott’s attention, Russell asked Pigott to write the word hesitancy with a small ‘h’.
Pigott looked relieved. In doing so, however, little did he know that it was Pigott’s
spelling of this word that put the Irish members on his scent. This was the main
evidence Russell looked at procuring in the court to incriminate Pigott..
Earlier, Patrick Egan, in one of the incriminatory letters, written by Pigott, on seeing
the word hesitancy spelt with an ‘e’, had written to Parnell, saying in effect, “Pigott
is the forger. He said, “In the letter ascribed to you hesitancy is spelt ‘hesitency’. That
is the way Pigott always spells the word”. This was the clinching evidence that
Russell wanted to gather, which he did successfully during his cross-examination in
the court.

Question 4: What tactics and to what effect did Lord Russell use in his
cross-examination of Pigott in order to discover the truth?
Answer 4: On the 7th of March 1887, when the Times had published the damaging
letter, as claimed to have been written by Charles Parnell , the trail of events led to the
Times having accessed it from one Mr Houston, the secretary of the Irish Loyal and
Patriotic Union, who had in turn bought it from Pigott who had sourced it from an
agent of Clan-na-Gael, functioning out of Paris. Parnell stated in the House of
Commons that the letter published by the Times was forged and after much
deliberation, the Government appointed a three-judge committee to look into the
matter. Sir Charles Russell took up the case to defend Parnell. Prior to taking up this
responsibility, Russell first returned to the Times the retainer fee he enjoyed from
them for many previous years.
The biggest evidence that Russell had against Pigott, who had forged the facsimile
letter was as follows.
Pigott was not quite good at spellings contrary to what one might have expected a
former newspaper editor to be. In one of his previous correspondences with Patrick
Egan, a member of the Irish member of Parliament, Pigott had misspelt the word
‘hesitancy’ as ‘hesitency’. In the facsimile letter published in the Times too, the word
‘hesitancy’ was misspelt. To establish that it was indeed Pigott who had forged the
‘damaging letter’ in the court, Sir Charles Russell in an unassuming way, without
making it evident to Pigott asked him to write the spellings of the words, livelihood,
likelihood, proselytism, Patrick Egan and P. Egan one after the other. At the end as

*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 5

an afterthought and very apologetically, Russell asked Pigott to write the word
‘hesitancy’. Then to divert Pigott’s attention, Russell asked Pigott to write the word
‘hesitancy’ with a small ‘h’. Pigott looked relieved. In doing so, however, little did he
know that it was Pigott’s spelling of this word that had put the Irish members on his
scent. Patrick Egan, seeing the word hesitancy spelt with an ‘e', in the incriminatory
letter, had written to Parnell, saying in effect, "Pigott is the forger. In the letter
ascribed to you ‘hesitancy’ is spelt ‘hesitency.’ That is the way Pigott always spells
the word.” A few primitive points against Pigott were thus established by Russell.
All the while when Russell questioned Pigott, he was very courteous, relaxed but
assertive using his Ulster tone at times. This laid-back attitude of Russell put Pigott at
ease.
The next evidence Russell managed was, to access a series of letters written by Pigott
to Archbishop Walsh, (who had a say in the administration), three days before the
Times publication, that is, the 4th of March, 1887, from Anderton's Hotel. In these
letters, Pigott claimed to be aware of certain proceedings that were in preparation
with the object of destroying the influence of the Parnellite party in the Parliament.
Russell being very good at the art of cross-examination, read to Pigott only parts of
the letters he had written to the Archbishop. He placed the letters, retrieved from
Anderton Hotel, in Pigott’s hands and got Pigott to first agree that those letters were
indeed written by him. He then announced in the court to the Judge that those letters
had been written on the 4th of March, three days before the damaging facsimile letter
had been published by the Times.
Pigott in his defense said that his letter to the Archbishop was written because he
wanted to draw the Archbishop’s attention to the fact that he had been made aware of
details of certain proceedings that were in preparation with the object of destroying
the influence of the Parnellite party in the Parliament.
Russell’s tactics were very clear. He wanted to peel Pigott’s lies layer by layer,
reading to him only a few parts from the letters addressed by Pigott to the Archbishop,
on purpose to confuse him and because these parts had all the evidence to nail Pigott.
Pigott first feigned ignorance and then claimed that he could not recall about what he
exactly meant by the details of the certain proceedings when asked about it. Not to
forget, he completely denied having any knowledge about the publication of facsimile
in the Times. Eventually, he gave in and acknowledged that he had indeed heard
something about the publication of the Times articles.
While reading out the letters written by Pigott to the Archbishop, Russell also read
out the part that indicated that Pigott had evidence to prove the complicity of Parnell
and his supporters with the murders and outrages in Ireland. Pigott had claimed to
have the means to combat and finally defeat these designs made by Parnell and his
supporters.
Pigott was cornered again when questioned regarding how he had sourced the
information of Parnell's involvement in the outrages in Ireland. He used his old
armour of defence by feigning ignorance about the matters, coupled with memory loss.
Pigott flip-flopped in agreeing to have evidence in proof that would prove Parnell’s
complicity in the crime.
Russell at this point was able to get Pigott to admit that he had made false claims
when he wrote to the Archbishop that he had incriminating evidence against Parnell.
Russell also read the part to Pigott wherein Pigott mentioned that he had evidence

*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 6

against Parnell which was very convincing and would be sufficient to secure the
conviction of Parnell’s role in the crime, if submitted to an English jury.
All these tall claims in the letter to the Archbishop were trashed and Russell cornered
Pigott, who tried to reverse his claim and began to fumble. After each part of Pigott's
letter to the Archbishop was read, Russell was able to knock down Pigott’s claim
about Parnell’s involvement in the crime. It appeared to be like a boxing match where
after each round, Pigott got knocked further and further down.
Russell, eventually, was also able to bring out in court, that Pigott upon having
received no reply from the Archbishop, pleaded with the Archbishop that he had no
motive but the welfare of the state in his mind and was only doing his duty. He
maintained that, however, if the Archbishop wanted to shield the guilty or decide not
to interfere in the matter, he/Pigott be allowed to take it up further with other sources.
He also pleaded that his name not is made known to anyone. He further claimed that
he had no prejudice against the Parnellite party, but was doing it out of his sense of
duty, as he had become acquainted with all the details of the murder. These
revelations proved to be major pointers to Pigott, that he had a lot of involvement to
drag Parnell’s name in the Phoenix Park murders.
Till the first day of the cross-examination, Pigott maintained that he no knowledge of
the facsimile letter that was going to be published in the Times on the 7th of March,
1887. He at times acknowledged and at times denied to having written to Archbishop
Walsh about the incriminatory evidence he had against Parnell. What he, however,
acknowledged was being privy to something more serious with respect to providing
some incriminating evidence about the involvement of Parnell and Irish members of
the British Parliament. The evidence supposedly was activities in preparation to
overthrow the English rule through lawless and even murderous activism. But he
continued to maintain the denial of the fact that he had knowledge of the Times
publishing the article on 7th of March, 1887.
Russell, however, had Pigott in such a spot eventually that there was no way Pigott
could prove of being ignorant of the publication or presenting in the court that
‘conclusive evidence’ that he claimed in his letter to the Archbishop, against Parnell
and other 65 members. Russell cut Pigott into pieces and ensured that there was no
way Pigott could escape admitting to his crime. Of course, Pigott eventually did that.
He also admitted to committing perjury and to forging the ‘damaging letter’, that he
had sold to Mr Houston for £605. This admission made by Pigott forced the Times to
withdraw the facsimile letter. Eventually, Russell was able to prove the innocence of
his client Mr Charles S. Parnell.
The tactics used by Russell were:
 allow Pigott to feel at ease before the cross-examination;
 never to read the entire content of the letters
 to put Pigott in a spot using sharp points of his questions, wherever there was
ambiguity in claims made by Pigott.
All these tactics caught Pigott unawares, confusing him most of the times. Pigott
fumbled to give answers, which would be but natural because this entire accusation
against Parnell was done intentionally with a criminal bent of mind. Pigott would
have thought that he had laid his trap very professionally. However, his forgery and
concocted accusations fell flat under the sharp cross-examination of Russell. His lies
and malicious intent got completely exposed due to Rusell’s clever thinking and good
clinching evidence that he could gather against Pigott.

*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 7

Question 5. How successfully and in what ways did Pigott try to escape being
implicated in forgery?

Answer 5: Pigott first denied that he was aware of the publication of the facsimile
letter that was published in the Times on the 7th of March, 1887, which implicated
Charles Parnell’s hand directly or indirectly in the murder of Lord Frederick
Cavendish (Chief Secretary of Ireland) and Mr. Burke (Under Secretary of Ireland),
who were murdered in Phoenix Park, Dublin on May 6, 1882. In fact, Pigott denied
being aware of the intended publication of the correspondence too. He claimed that he
was not aware of the grave charges to be made against Parnell and the leading
members of the Land League12 until the time when the article first appeared in the
newspaper.
When Pigott was questioned about the details of certain proceedings that were in
preparation with the object of destroying the influence of the Parnellite party in
Parliament, that he had claimed to be aware of, as per the letter he had written to
Archbishop Walsh, which was dated 4th of March, 1887, three days before the
publication of the Times article on “Parnellism and Crime”; Pigott told Russell and
the court that he could not recollect what he meant by certain proceedings. Upon
being repeatedly questioned by Russell if the certain proceedings referred to the
incriminatory letter against Parnell, Pigott in his defence replied in the negative. Later
he admitted that some of the letters had been obtained from an agent of Clan-na-Gael.
He changed his stance and admitted that he had heard rumours about the letters that
were to be published after the 7th of March, 1887. All the while he maintained that he
had no knowledge of the damaging letter, as claimed to have been written by Parnell,
the facsimile of which was published in the The Times on the 7th of March, 1887.
Though Pigott claimed that he was not aware of the facsimile letter to be printed in
the Times, Russell caught him red-handed, as in one of his letters to the Archbishop,
he had specifically written, mentioning about how Parnell and other members would
get implicated once certain statements would be published for the public to consume.
Upon getting caught, Pigott tried to escape from the situation in vain.
Pigott in the process of cross-examination also admitted to writing an untrue
statement to the Archbishop about the involvement of Parnell in the murder just to
add strength to his earlier claims of how Parnell was a dangerous man. When
questioned about the reason for writing to the Archbishop and if he had written to
assure the Archbishop that he/ Pigott had the wherewithal to successfully combat and
defeat Parnell’s designs in conspiring against the British Parliament, he could give no
explanation. He sought his defence in the fact that his memory was blank on this
aspect. Pigott couldn't really defend himself properly. When Russell asked him to
explain what he meant by that he could furnish details and exhibit proofs against
Parnell and party, he took the refuge of memory loss yet again!
His noose was further tightened when Russell read out the part of the letter where
Pigott had subtly indicated to the Archbishop when he received no response from the
Archbishop to his letters, where he mentioned there was no need for the Archbishop
to shield the accused Parnell as all the evidence pointed against Parnell. He also had
written saying that should the Archbishop not want to act upon advising legal action

12
Irish political organization

*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 8

to be taken against Parnell, then Pigott may be allowed to present this case before
other authorities as his only intention was to avert a great danger to England. He also
categorically mentioned that his name should not be allowed to transpire anywhere.
He added that he had no prejudice against the Parnellite party.
During the cross-examination, when he had no other way out, Pigott eventually
agreed to writing all these facts in the letter to the Archbishop. However, he still
maintained that he had no knowledge of the date or the content of the facsimile letter
to be printed in the Times.
To the reader, Pigott seemed very confused and kept spinning a web around him,
He thus had to get caught red-handed during the process of the cross-examination, as
he seemed to be contradicting many of his statements when put in a spot by Russell.
Although he admitted that he knew details of what the Parnellite party was up to,
against the state, as he had gained knowledge in Paris from an agent of Clan-Na -Gael,
he claimed that he had no prejudice against the Parnellite party. When asked by
Russell a number of times what information Pigott had that would prove Parnell's
involvement in the crime, he just mentioned that he could not mention it openly as it
was classified information.
Pigott, however, had no such information as one can observe that this entire
conspiracy theory was made up by him, his only aim being to make fast money by
selling among other things the forged letter too, which he sold to Mr Houston for
£ 605.
After two days of cross-examination, Pigott was left with no choice but to run away
from the cross-examination. The odds were completely against him. At least one must
give it to him for having had the courage to confess his guilt and admit that he had
committed the act of perjury and forgery, with the details of how it was done. He also
made it known to the court through a confession sent from Paris, how he had traced
words and phrases from genuine Parnell letters which he observed to forge the letter.
The genuine Parnell letter were available publicly. While forging he tried to maintain
Parnell’s style of writing. He also admitted that he had sold the forged letter for £ 605.
Obviously, Pigott could not successfully carry out his sinister motive. In fact, he
failed miserably, more so because of the clever and intelligent cross-examination by
Sir Charles Russell. His confession, however, cleared Parnell and the other 65 Irish
members of the Parliament of the Phoenix Park murders. The accusation of them
belonging to a lawless and murderous organization, whose aim it was to overthrow
the English rule in Ireland, was also nullified to a large extent.
Pigott’s Achilles heel in the entire episode of forgery was his atrocious command
over his spellings. He also left behind blundering loopholes in his plan to hatch a
conspiracy against the Parnellite party, which was skilfully handled by Sir Charles
Russell. The cross-examination by Russell is a textbook example of how to destroy
the credibility of a lying witness.

References:
1. Bhatnagar, R.P., (2016), Law and Language, “Cross-examination of Pigott before
the Parnell Commission”, ISBN: 978-93-5138-012-2, Bangalore, M.P.P. House,
pp. 59-108
2. Wellman Francis H. © 2005-2009. Trial Theatre, Orlando, Florida. Chapter XIII

*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 9

3. The Cross-Examination Of Richard Pigott By Sir Charles Russell Before The
Parnell Commission. Retrieved from
http://www.trialtheater.com/cross-examination/Art_of_Cross_Examination_Chap
ter_13.htm

*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 10