§ MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN (Mayo, S.)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits have been made by any person or persons on behalf of the Times to P. W. Nally, during his detention at Millbank Prison, from 20th November, 1888, to this date; did one or more of the visits take place in the presence and in the hearing of a warder or warders; at what dates were the visits made; has the application of a friend of P. W. Nally's family for a visit been refused, on the ground that the prisoner had forfeited his right to a visit by misconduct; what misconduct is alleged against P. W. Nally, and in what prison; was it at Millbank; what is the date of the report against him; will visits from persons acting on behalf of the Times to P. W. Nally, and other similarly circumstanced prisoners, continue to be permitted, regardless of the wishes or without the consent of such prisoners; and, are such visits counted against the very limited number of visits due to the prisoners?
§ MR. MATTHEWSThe prisoner Nally has received one visit. It was in view of a warder, but not in his hearing. It took place on the 4th of February last. A visit has been refused on the ground that the Prisons Board in Ireland reported that Nally had forfeited by misconduct the right to receive a visit at present. This report was communicated from Dublin Castle to the Home Office on the 18th of January. The misconduct did not take place at Millbank, but in Ireland, and was reported to the Governor of Downpatrick Prison on the 27th of November last. Prisoners are not and will not be compelled to receive these visits if they object. Such visits are not counted against the ordinary visits due to a prisoner.
§ MR. SEXTONI wish to know whether before the visit is made the pri- 1137 soner is warned and has an opportunity of objecting?
§ MR. MATTHEWSThe practice is to announce the visit to the prisoner, who then has an opportunity of objection.
§ MR. MATTHEWSNo, Sir; the practice in English prisons is to have the warder in sight, but not within hearing distance.
§ MR. J. E. X. O'BRIENI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Governor of Downpatrick Prison in any way whatever gave P. W. Nally, being a prisoner in his charge, reason to think that if he, P. W. Nally, would give evidence before the Special Commission in support of the Times case, he should soon be released from prison; and, has P. W. Nally been reported for misconduct during his detention at Downpatrick Prison; if so, what was the misconduct, and the date of the report?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe General Prisons Board report that the allegation in the first paragraph is absolutely without foundation. The prisoner was reported for misconduct, which consisted of shouting in a loud and disorderly manner, and calculated to create a disturbance on the 19th of November last, when being conveyed to the railway station at Downpatrick. The report was made by the officer of the escort on the 27th of the same month, after his return from London.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)I beg to give notice that on the Prison Votes I will call attention to the persecution of this particular prisoner because he refused to make himself an informer for the Times.
MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Prison Commissioners, before giving permission to the agent of the Times to visit P. W. Nally in Millbank, secured the assent of the Secretary of State in this particular case; and, whether it is the rule of the Prison Commissioners to allow every solicitor who may choose to apply to visit any prisoner in Millbank; if not, what principle governed their assent in this instance; and I should also like to know whether permission to visit Nally 1138 has been refused to everyone excepting the agent to the Times?
§ MR. MATTHEWSThe permission which was refused to Nally was to receive a private visit coming under the ordinary prison rules, which he was not entitled to receive. In answer to the Question on the Paper, I have to say the assent of the Secretary of State was not asked for the visit referred to. It is the practice of the Commissioners to satisfy themselves that the applicant is a solicitor, and that the application is made bonâ fide for some stated business in which the prisoner is concerned, before they give their assent. They acted in accordance with this practice in the instance referred to. Nally had been brought over from Ireland under an order of the Special Commission issued at the instance of Mr. Soames, and the object of the interview sought by Mr. Soames was to take his proof.
MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle)Are we not to understand that the rule that the prisoner is entitled to receive a visit from a solicitor in a matter in which he is concerned means "concerned in his own defence;" and in what sense was Nally concerned with the Commission and the Times?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI have made inquiries to-day on that very point, and I am informed that the practice has not been confined to cases in which the solicitor interviewing the prisoner was acting in his defence. I think, however, it is a matter worthy of consideration. There is a good deal to be said on both sides—whether the privilege of a visit not in the hearing of a warder may not properly be confined to cases in which what passes between the prisoner and his visitor would be privileged from being in evidence in a Court of Law. Nally was concerned in this visit, inasmuch as he was under the orders of the Court to give evidence. The person calling a witness before a Court of Justice invariably obtains beforehand information of what the witness is about to say—in other words, he takes his proof.
MR. J. MORLEYIs there any means of ascertaining whether it is true that the agent of the Times on his visit produced a letter purporting to be written by Nally's brother?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI have made inquiries on this subject, and the informa- 1139 tion given to me is that the warder saw no letter produced.
§ SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)At what date did the practice first commence of the Prison Commissioners allowing solicitors in a hostile position to foist themselves on prisoners without those prisoners' wish or assent?
§ MR. MATTHEWSThe right hon. Gentleman is importing into my answer what I never said. If the prisoner objects, he is not compelled to receive the visit.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTWhat opportunity had this particular prisoner accorded to him of objecting?
§ MR. MATTHEWSHe had the opportunity afforded him by the announcement of the visit?
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to ask whether the announcement that the Times' case would close on Tuesday was known to the right hon. Gentleman before he made the announcement that the rule was to be changed; and whether that altered rule is to be applied to the "defence" of hon. Members of this House?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI know nothing about the closing of the Times' case, and I have not made any announcement that the rule would be altered.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton)I should like to ask how the right hon. Gentleman himself construes the rule that any solicitor is entitled to visit a prisoner.
§ MR. MATTHEWSThere is no "rule" on the subject. I have said so more than once. It has been the practice of the Prison Commissioners for many years. That practice, although it is liable to abuse, does not appear to me to be in itself objectionable.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREwill the right hon. Gentleman inquire if, when Nally was informed that the representative of the Times intended to visit him, he was also informed that he might, if he wished, refuse to see the visitor?
§ MR. MATTHEWSCertainly.
§ MR. J. F. X. O'BRIENWill Nally be afforded an opportunity of proving that attempts were made to tamper with him by the Governor of Downpatrick Prison since it has been denied?
§ MR. MATTHEWSWhen Nally appears before the Special Commission 1140 those questions can be put to him in cross-examination.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to ask the Attorney General whether he intends to call Nally?
§ The Question was not answered.