Yesterday week, Mr. Parnell made a statement in the House
of Commons with relation to the case of the Times in the trial of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another." His statement came to very little except positive denial that any of the important letters produced by the Times were his own, and a declaration that the signature of the famous letter of which the Times produced a fac-simile was not, as he stated a year ago, wholly unlike his signature, and one which only a ready writer could have produced, being in a hand quite unlike his cramped writing, bat, on the contrary, that it had been his usual signature in 1879 and earlier, though he had never " used " it since 187E). Farther, he stated that the cheque for 2100 given to Byrne just before his flight, was not given by him at all, but by Mr. Justin McCarthy, who confirmed this statement. He spoke with the utmost scorn of the probability of his having sent out from gilmainham a letter virtually instigating to an attempt on Mr. Forster's life, when such a letter would have put him in the power of his enemies. His statement was made with the utmost coolness, and was received in silence except by his own party. The Times, in criticising it, drew attention to the extraordinary contradiction between the account which Mr. Parnell now gives of the signature of the letter which stated that Burke had received no more than his deserts, and the account which he gave of it a year ago. By-the-way, is it common for gentlemen to discontinue deliberately particular signatures, and adopt other signatures in their room? We should have supposed that if it be so, it would at least be un- common enough in any individual life, not to be forgotten in three years' time.
