§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Mr. P. Nally was arrested on 23rd May, 1883, and was brought up for trial in July, 1883, but put back for trial at the Winter Assizes, the venue having been changed to a county 100 miles distant from his own; that he was then tried before a special jury under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, and that this jury disagreed; that he was again tried by a special jury under the same Act in 1884, and then sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude; if, between the date of his arrest and final trial, application was made that he should be admitted to bail, and if the presiding Judges of the Queen's Bench, in refusing the bail, remarked that, if he were convicted, the time between his arrest and his committal would be considered in the enforcement of his sentence; if, under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, in answer to a question, declared that all such prisoners kept back from trial, and not admitted to bail, would, if convicted, be allowed a remission of their sentences equivalent to the time of their detention, and considering that the maximum sentence was demanded, the Queen, or his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, will ho advised to remit, in the sentence of Mr. P. Nally, a portion of such sentence as may be equivalent to the period that elapsed between his arrest and conviction; and if he is aware that a considerable number of citizens in the Counties of Galway and Mayo,have expressed their opinion that Mr. P. Nally was incapable of committing the crime laid to his charge, and was convicted on more than doubtful evidence?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe facts appear to be substantially as stated in the first paragraph of the question, with the exception that the proceedings with regard to the jury and change of venue were under the Crimes Act of 1882, and not the Statute of more recent date quoted. There is no ground, so far as I am aware, for believing that the presiding Judge, on hearing the bail application on behalf of the prisoner, and the others who were charged on the same 464 occasion, made the remark attributed to him. I have no information that the then Chief Secretary made a declaration bearing on the case as suggested. Memorials have been received on behalf of this convict of the nature mentioned in the last paragraph. These Memorials have been before successive Lords Lieutenant, including the present Viceroy, and the decision come to has been that there is no ground for a remission of any portion of the sentence.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORIf the remarks attributed to the Judges are correct, will the right hon. Gentleman re consider the matter?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI should be quite willing to consider any new facts that may be brought forward.