§ Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the amount of compensation which has been offered to Alderman James J. Kelly, J.P., ex-High Sheriff of Dublin; if he is aware that Alderman Kelly's losses have been estimated at £6,185 12s. 7d., whereas the Government have offered him the sum of £1,450 in full discharge of his claim; if he will say on what authority the Government have awarded this sum, which means the ruin of Alderman Kelly; and if he will cause Alderman Kelly's claim to be reconsidered?
§ Mr. DUKEAlderman Kelly's claim included items amounting to £3,843 17s. for consequential losses which the Property Losses Committee, under their terms of reference, were unable to consider. It included also items amounting to £27 16s. 8d. in respect of the personal property of others, in regard to which the Committee have asked that separate claims be made by the owners. I am informed by the Committee that, as regards the remainder of the claim, amounting to £2,713 18s. lid., in respect of building, stock, and household goods, their recommendation for the payment of £1,450 was the result of full and careful investigation, which included the examination of all available books and documents.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a few weeks ago on the doctor's advice, owing to grave heart trouble, Mrs. Sheehy Skeffington left Dublin to recuperate but gave no address for correspondence; whether, ten days afterwards, detectives called on her landlady and have called almost daily since; whether Sergeant M'Gahey, of the Aliens Department, and Constable Devine, among others, threatened the landlady with penalties for not knowing her address and not notifying her departure; whether a series of questions were put as to the amount of her luggage and the amount taken with her, as to whether she travelled under a false name and how she went, and as to the addresses of her sisters; whether the premises of one of her sisters, Mrs. O'Brien, was then watched and her 1553W father's house put under observation; whether, on Thursday last, on her mother being taken seriously ill and removed from her home to a private hospital, the police were in attendance and peered into the ambulance as it left and accompanied it to the hospital; whether Sir John Maxwell approves of such proceedings; if not, who is responsible; and whether, as they indicate that the widow will not be left at peace in Ireland, the Government will grant a passport to a neutral country to Mrs. Skeffington and her child for the duration of the War?
§ Mr. DUKEI dealt fully with this matter in answer to a question of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Scotland Division) on the 26th instant. The statements made in the question in regard to the action of the police are not in accordance with the facts.
§ Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether he will give a reference to the law, if any, under which some letters containing complaints of the treatment of Irish untried prisoners at Frongoch are returned to the writers, others stopped but not returned, oral complaints are followed by severe punishments, an officer of the camp accompanying every visitor as a deterrent and reporter, this enforced absence of complaint used as a vindication of the Government, and no independent sanitary or other inspector or visitor allowed to enter the camp except subject to these restrictions; and, if any one of these allegations be denied, when will an independent visitor be allowed to enter and examine alone and report freely?
Mr. SAMUELThe authority for the supervision of correspondance and visits at Frongoch is the Royal Warrant for the maintenance of discipline, which is applied in the case of Irish prisoners by Defence of the Realm Regulation 14B. The insinuations contained in the question are groundless, and have been dealt with frequently in reply to previous questions. I have only to add that men are not punished for making oral complaints, but, on the contrary, they are instructed to make any complaints daily to the commandant through the head leader.
§ Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether the fact was brought under the notice of the Advisory Committee in the case of Miss Kearney, one of the untried Irish prisoners at Aylesbury, that her work during the week of the insurrec- 1554W tion was precisely a continuation of the civil and legitimate work in which she had been previously engaged, and that under contract and trades union rules she had no option but to continue it; whether she is the only woman trades unionist among the Irish prisoners; if she is kept in prison on any charge but that of being a trades unionist will he have her tried by a judge and jury; and, if there be no other charge, will he have her released?
Mr. SAMUELWinifred Carney was interned upon the recommendation of a competent military authority on the ground that she is of hostile associations and reasonably suspected of having favoured, promoted or assisted an armed insurrection against His Majesty. She had a full opportunity of stating her case before the Advisory Committee, who recommended her continued detention in the interests of the public safey. I am informed that both she and Miss Helena Moloney are trade union officials, but I need hardly say that the fact that she was a trade unionist had nothing to do with her internment. I regret that she cannot be released at present.
§ Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary why the monthly rebate to the untried Irish prisoners at Frongoch on the amount of their purchases in the camp canteen has so varied that in July, with 1,800 prisoners there, only £4 10s. was allowed, in August, with 900 prisoners there, £10 was allowed, and in September, with 545 prisoners there, £10 was allowed; the money being the property of those untried prisoners, why are their leaders not allowed to examine the accounts; why are the leaders not allowed to purchase such goods as they know to be most suitable for the prisoners; whether Lieutenant Burns, adjutant of the camp, is the officer of that name degraded some years ago for connection with a catering scandal; whether he has ever held higher military rank than he now holds; and, if so, for what cause was he reduced in rank?
Mr. SAMUELThe correct amounts were:—For July, £4 15s.; for August, £8 13s.; for September, £15 9s. Such allotments can only be made after a reserve fund has been formed to meet barrack and other damages, which are a first charge on the canteen rebate. The accounts are posted on the notice board. The statement that the leaders are not allowed to purchase suitable goods is unfounded. If they require anything 1555W which is not on the canteen list, it is furnished by the contractor on a request being made through the commandant. Lieutenant Burns was concerned with a case connected with canteens which came before the Courts some years ago, but he was not degraded, nor has he ever held higher military rank than he now holds. He is reported to be a most efficient officer.
§ Sir W. BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the interned men in the camp at Frongoch, none of them either tried or even charged, are receiving food sent in by their friends; whether he is aware that tinned food so supplied has to be immediately opened by order of the commandant, which order involves its immediate consumption, inasmuch as there is no place to conceal the tins from the rats which infest the place and would quickly devour the contents; and will he say what steps he proposes to take?
Mr. SAMUELThe facts are not as stated in the question. Tinned food supplied by friends to the prisoners interned at Frongoch is issued to them after examination by the Censor, but no tin is opened until the owner wishes to use the contents.
§ Sir W. BYLESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the ladies interned at Aylesbury, untried and uncharged, have to mix with prostitutes also imprisoned there, one or more of whom is suffering from venereal disease?
Mr. SAMUELNo, Sir. I am not aware that this is the case and I shall be glad if the lion. Member will communicate to me the information which he has in the matter.
§ Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the military restrictions on newspapers in Ireland after the insurrection there, the consequent incompleteness of the lists of those sentenced to penal servitude in connection with that event, the anxiety of those unable to ascertain whether their missing male relatives are dead or in penal servitude, and the impossibility of taking any legal action that might otherwise be available in any of the cases, whether he will furnish a full list of Irish prisoners now in penal servitude in connection with the recent insurrection, with, in each case, the home address, duration of sentence, and whether the Court imposing it was civil or military, open or secret?
1556W
Mr. SAMUELIt is the practice whenever a convict is transferred to a convict prison to allow him to write what is called a "reception letter" informing his friends of his arrival there. This applies to the Irish prisoners now in penal servitude, and the great majority, if not the whole, of them did in fact avail themselves of this opportunity of communicating their whereabouts to their friends. In the circumstances as at present advised it does not appear to me that the Return suggested is necessary. They were all tried by court-martial.