HC Deb 15 February 1881 vol 258 cc1733-5
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that on January 22 a number of men were returned for trial by the Thurles bench of magistrates, on a charge of having "walked in procession round a piece of grazing ground;" whether bail was refused; whether these men were removed to Nenagh Gaol handcuffed in pairs; whether they were kept without food from early on Monday morning till the following morning, and were then informed that they would not breakfast till they worked for it; whether, on their refusal to work, they were kept fasting till mid-day; whether they can see their friends only through an iron gate, and are held during the interview by two warders; whether they are allowed only one hour for exercise during the day, and are threatened with the black hole if they speak to or even smile at each other; whether he will order a sworn investigation into this case; and, if he find that the facts are as above stated, whether he will mark his disapproval of these proceedings, and give adequate compensation to the sufferers? The hon. Member said, that he was not responsible for the terms in which the first paragraph of this Question appeared on the Paper. After the Word "magistrates" the words "in a bailable offence" should be inserted.

MR. W. E. FORSTER,

in reply, said, he should prefer to answer the Question as it stood on the Paper, the statements in the first part of it having been frequently repeated in the same spirit in the course of the debate on the Protection Bill. The charge against these men was a very serious one of riot and unlawful assembly, and nothing could be further from the fact than to describe the charge against them as merely that of "walking in procession round a piece of grazing ground;" and bail was refused, first by the magistrates, and subsequently by the Queen's Bench. The prisoners had been handcuffed in pairs on their way to the gaol at Nenagh. The outrage committed had been considered a very serious one; and as there was a change of trains at the station, causing some delay, and as no police were there, it was thought necessary for the security of the prisoners to have them handcuffed. They had been subjected to no other hardships; on the contrary, they had received every possible kindness from the constabulary. [Laughter.] If it was necessary to arrest men, it was necessary to take them in safety to the place of confinement. There was no foundation for the allegation that the prisoners were kept without food from early on Monday morning till the following morning, and were then informed that they would not breakfast till they worked for it. They were committed to the custody of the Governor of Nenagh Gaol at a quarter to 1 o'clock on the Monday afternoon. They then had provisions with them, and their friends immediately made arrangements to supply them, and that had been done regularly ever since. None of the prisoners had come upon the dietary of the gaol, and they were abundantly supplied with provisions, including wine and porter, by their friends. It was untrue that the men had been kept fasting in consequence of refusing to work, for they had not been asked to work; and it was also untrue that they could only see their friends through an iron gate. They were allowed to see their friends in accordance with the Prison Rules as regarded visitors; and it was quite untrue that they were held by warders during their interview with them. They were not permitted to speak to each other; but they had never been threatened with the "black hole," and they had two hours' exercise daily. Therefore, under the circumstances, it was not a case for the Government to mark their disapproval of the proceedings.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman on whose authority he has made this statement to the House; and, secondly, whether prisoners who are allowed only two hours' exercise every day, and who are not permitted to speak to each other, are not undergoing practically all the horrors of solitary confinement?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I do not think that is the general definition of solitary confinement. The 2nd of the existing Prison Rules with respect to prisoners awaiting trial states that— In order to prevent such prisoners from being contaminated by each other, or endeavouring to defeat the ends of justice, they shall be kept separate, and shall not be permitted to communicate with each other. Under the 2nd sub-section of the 5th Rule, reference is made to the exercise of prisoners, and provides for their exercise apart and with a selected number of untried prisoners. These arrangements rest with the Visiting Committee. It was very much on account of these two Rules not bringing prisoners of this kind within the description of treatment proposed that I thought we ought to take powers to make fresh Rules in reference to the Bill which now stands for third reading to-night. It does not appear to me that the Nenagh Committee are transgressing the Rules in force for their guidance. With regard to my sources of information, I may say it came from the Governor of the gaol and the resident magistrate.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Are not the prisoners—[Cries of "Order!"]—are not the prisoners kept for 22 hours out of the 24 hours in the cells alone, and is not that solitary confinement?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

If the hon. Member wishes to ask further Questions upon the subject he must give Notice.