§ MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he can explain why Mr. J. W. Nally was not placed in the dock at Castlebar with his co-accused at the late assizes, when the Crown applied for and obtained a postponement of the trial; whether this was done to produce amongst his fellow prisoners the impression that he had turned informer; who is responsible for the arrangement; whether he had seen a letter addressed to a local newspaper by Mr. Nally, of which the following is an extract:—
I, as well as the public, feel at a loss to know why I was not brought into court on Monday last along with my fellow prisoners similarly charged with a conspiracy which never, I believe, existed. Why we should be separated is a mystery to me, and was done by no act or choice of mine. Had I the selection of my choice, I would not alone be in court, but on my trial, and have it over;whether a copy of the newspaper containing this explanation, would be permitted to be read by the other conspiracy prisoners; and, whether the Crown would have any objection to permit a letter addressed to each of them, in that sense, to reach its destination?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)Sir, it was not necessary that all the persons charged should be in Court when the trial was postponed; and I am informed that there was no such object as is suggested in the Question for the absence of Nally. I have not seen the entire of the letter referred to; but have ascertained that the extract is correct. I am not aware of any objection to the other persons charged being permitted to see it, nor 1471 am I aware that they have not seen it. This matter, however, would be for the prison authorities to consider under the Prison Rules.
§ MR. HEALYThe right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered that portion of my Question which asks who is responsible for the arrangements?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)I am not aware, Sir, who is responsible.