§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Walsh, of the Cashel Sentinel, on the expiration of his four months' sentence, was re-arrested outside Tullamore Gaol on a warrant which the police withheld executing for four months; that Mr. Walsh was conveyed to Clonmel Gaol, and, after six days there, re-conveyed to Tullamore to undergo his first sentence of three months; that he was then treated as if he were beginning a new term of imprisonment not consecutive on the previous term, and put on the plank bed; and whether this inter- 1483 pretation of Rules 19 and 36 of Prison Rules was sanctioned by the Government?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.
I am informed that it was the case that the prisoner was re-arrested on the expiration of the first sentence. The second warrant could not be executed before, because the prisoner was at the time undergoing imprisonment for another offence. The General Prisons Board report that the prisoner has been treated in the manner described in the last part of the first paragraph of the question, that treatment being strictly in accordance with prison rules
§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)
If it had been one sentence of seven months' imprisonment instead of two, one of four months', and the other of three, would not Mr. Walsh have been entitled to some relaxation? Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the hardship of treating this gentleman as if there were two offences?
§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
Was not the second sentence pronounced against Mr. Walsh during the time he was in prison upon the first sentence?
§ MR. SEXTON
My point is, that after a certain term of imprisonment, a man is entitled to relaxation. This man having suffered one term of imprisonment is entitled to relaxation now upon the second sentence.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I understand that he was convicted of two separate offences, each of which was independent of the other.