HC Deb 18 December 1888 vol 332 cc645-7
SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN(for Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE) (Bradford, Central) (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Father Kennedy, who is imprisoned in Cork Gaol, has only had exercise in the open air during one hour out of 96 hours from the commencement of his imprisonment on account of his refusal to take exercise with ordinary criminals; and, whether other priests, imprisoned for offences under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, have been forced to associate with ordinary criminals in their exercise, or have been deprived of exercise on their refusing to do so; and whether they have been otherwise punished by imprisonment in punishment cells on a diet of bread and water for such refusal?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

The General Prisons Board report that Father Kennedy, who is confined in Cork Prison, had, owing to his refusal to take the usual exercise at the same time as other prisoners of his class, taken only one hour's exercise during the first 96 hours of his imprisonment. As far as the Board are aware, there are only four recent cases in which priests have been confined to prison. In two of these they were under medical treatment, and were, therefore, not exercised outside with the other prisoners, and the two others were, by order of the Court, subject to exceptional treatment as first-class misdemeanants.

THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.)

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman by what right the General Prisons Boards can deprive a prisoner of the two hours' exercise secured to him by statute? I wish also to ask whether the exemption which the right hon. Gentleman gave to priests from wearing the prison garb does not extend to the performance of menial labour, and to associating during exercise with criminals?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The priest referred to was deprived of an hour's exercise by his own action, and not by the action of the Prisons Board. It is perfectly true that it is contemplated that prisoners should receive two hours' exercise daily; but it is also contemplated that they should receive it under the ordinary Rules governing prisons. As regards the second Question, the hon. Gentleman will gather from various answers I have given in the House on the subject of the treatment of priests that the exceptional treatment extended merely to the habit they are canonically required to wear, and I had no idea of extending the privilege further.

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that priests were obliged by Canonical Law to wear a particular garb?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I admit that is a fair Question. I am not familiar with Canon Law; but I do understand that the wearing of a particular garb by a priest is a matter which is regarded in a very different light from the wear- ing of a particular garb by a layman, and it is on that account that I based the distinction.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when this clergyman was in prison before his health broke down by being deprived of this very exercise?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am not aware of that.

MR. SEXTON

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had inquired of any canonist whether the wearing of a certain garb was a canonical obligation?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have said, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Morley), that I have not.