§ MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that the suspects in Limerick Gaol, numbering some fifty, are divided into two batches, and that the gentlemen in one batch are not allowed intercourse or correspondence with those in the other; whether it has his approval; whether Coercion prisoners in Limerick are mixed with ordinary prisoners; whether, if it be alleged that the exercise ground is not large enough for all the Coercion prisoners in Limerick, he will give orders to better regulate the number of suspects sent thither; whether it is true that the governor of Limerick Gaol stopped a letter sent by Mr. O'Mahony, P.L.G., one of the gentlemen confined there, addressed to Mr. Hodnett, another prisoner, because the latter was styled "Chairman of the Ballydehob Board of Guardians, and President of the Land League;" whether he approves of this stoppage; whether a Report was made by the governor thereupon, as provided by Rule 14 of the Lord Lieutenant's Regulations; whether Coercion prisoners are disentitled the use of all titles of courtesy; and, if so, whether the letters "M.P." are objected to by the prison authorities in the case of an imprisoned Member of Parliament; and, whether he will give instructions to the prison authorities to avoid needless irritation to prisoners by the suppression of letters on trivial grounds?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that there were two different wings in Limerick prison, each of them containing 30 cells, and with suitable exercise yard and association room. In one wing 29 Coercion prisoners were detained, and in the other 21. The Governor of the gaol should be allowed his discretion as to the intercourse or communication allowed between the prisoners; and he exercised what appeared to him (Mr. W. E. Forster) a wise discretion when he declined to allow all the Coercion prisoners to associate in one yard, as it would lead to overcrowding and bad sanitary results. The prisoners in Limerick gaol, confined under the Protection Act, were not mixed with the ordinary prisoners, and the yards in which they were exercised were believed to be large enough for a larger number of prisoners than were at present confined in the gaol. As to the question regarding letters, it was true that the Governor had stopped a letter addressed to Mr. O'Mahony, one of the prisoners, by Mr. Hodnett, another prisoner; but the reason why this letter was stopped was not because it was addressed to Mr. O'Mahony as Chairman of the Ballydehob Board of Guardians and President of the Land League. In the event of a letter being stopped under circumstances that were thought to constitute a grievance, the practice was, under Rule 14, that the prisoner concerned should make a representation to the Government; but, in this instance, no representation of this kind had been made, and, therefore, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) had not seen the letter. Prisoners confined under the Coercion Act ought not to be, and were not, disentitled to be addressed by the ordinary titles of courtesy, The title of "M.P.," "T.C.," "P.L.G.," or any other which might apply to them, as in the case of Mr. Dillon, was not objected to.
§ MR. HEALYasked, whether the Governor of the gaol was entitled to refuse prisoners in one division of the prison to see prisoners in the other division; and, whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not himself stated, when the Protection Bill was under discussion, that all the prisoners in one gaol should have intercourse with one another?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not recollect having made any such promise as that indicated; but he thought 849 the hon. Member must see that if there were two recreation grounds and two association halls, and if one wing was too small for all prisoners, it could not be a good arrangement to have the prisoners altogether.
§ MR. HEALYSuppose there is a father and a son, or two brothers, in the same gaol, have they option, if they choose, to be confined in the same prison, or part of the prison?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is putting a hypothetical Question, and I am bound to say that if the House is to allow hypothetical Questions to be put, there would be no end to them.
§ MR. HEALYthen gave Notice that on to-morrow he would ask, whether there was any objection to allowing any prisoner so desiring it to be transferred from one wing of Limerick Gaol to another?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had no objection to state at once that they could not give prisoners any such choice. He believed there was no case of a father and son imprisoned. There was one case of brothers; but he did not believe they were separated.
§ MR. HEALYsubsequently asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he adhered to the statement made earlier in the evening, that he knew of no case in which a father and son had both been arrested under the Coercion Act; and, whether it was not the fact that such a case had occurred at Mitchelstown—Messrs. Mannix, father and son, being both arrested?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI am glad the hon. Member has asked the Question. Since I answered his previous Question I have recollected that there was such a case.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERThe hon. Member had better give Notice of the Question. I am not sure whether they are both in the same prison or not.