HC Deb 16 February 1883 vol 276 cc174-6
MR. LEAMY

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the Orders made by the Justices of the Queen's Bench in Ireland in the cases of Messrs. Healy, Davitt, and Quinn, and Copies of the Warrants of committal to prison in those cases?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

The Papers will be laid on the Table, if the hon. Member chooses to move for them, as an unopposed Return.

MR. SEXTON

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman include copies of the notices served on Messrs. Davitt, Healy, and Quinn, and a copy of the official shorthand writer's notes of the proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

I am not aware of the existence of any official shorthand writer's notes.

MR. SEXTON

If they do exist, will there be any objection to produce them?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

I cannot undertake that.

MR. SEXTON

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the warrants or orders under which the hon. Member for the borough of Wexford, Mr. Michael Davitt, and Mr. J. P. Quinn were, on Thursday, the 8th inst. arrested and placed in Kilmainham Prison, specified any offence; what offence, if any, is alleged against Messrs. Healy, Davitt, and Quinn; and whether a failure to give bail on the part of a person not committed or ordered to stand his trial for any offence falls within the category of crime; whether the warrants or orders in question directed that Messrs. Healy, Davitt, and Quinn should be confined in Kilmainham Prison; whether they were actually confined in that prison for several hours on Thursday, the 8th inst. but, on the evening of that day, without notice or cause or authority assigned, were removed to Richmond Prison, and why this change was made; whether Messrs. Healy, Davitt, and Quinn, in Kilmainham, were placed in good sized and healthy rooms, communicating with each other and with an open yard; whether they objected to their removal; and whether, in Richmond Prison, they occupy ordinary cells, were locked up for several days twenty-two hours out of the twenty-four, are now locked up twenty-one hours out of the twenty-four; are locked up continuously from about four in the afternoon till ten or eleven in the forenoon, and are kept locked in at all times while in cells; whether the exercise allowed has to be taken not when the prisoners wish it, but when the gaolers choose; and, whether the Government will agree to remove Messrs. Healy, Davitt, and Quinn, back to their original quarters at Kilmainham?

MR. TREVELYAN

I will give the hon. Member as much information as I have got by telegraph. I did not receive all the information I should wish on this subject. The warrants did not specify any offence other than not giving bail when required to do so; nor am I advised it is requisite that they should. The affidavits on which the application to the Court was grounded did, however, disclose a charge legally amounting to misdemeanour. I do not quite understand the next part of the Question; but I am advised that, as far as regards the Privilege of the House, the offence falls within the category of crime. The warrants directed that the prisoners should be confined in Kilmainham, and they were at first lodged there; but they were removed the same evening to Richmond Prison, on the ground of public convenience, by order of the Lord Lieutenant. In Kilmainham they were placed in such rooms as are described in the Question. In Richmond they objected at first to the apartments in which they were placed, but they were put into rooms as soon as possible. At first they were allowed three hours each day for exercise, and one for receiving visitors. They are now allowed to associate throughout the entire day, except during the officers' meals. The prisoners are allowed to select their own time for exercise. It is not intended to send them back to Kilmainham. If the hon. Member will kindly wait until Monday I will give him a fuller answer. I sent a second telegram, in answer to which I am informed from Dublin that the arrangements leave no room for complaint, and that the three gentlemen concerned have expressed themselves satisfied.

MR. SEXTON

I shall ask on Monday whether the right hon. Gentleman will extend the right of visiting, as these gentlemen only receive one visit each day at present?