PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881.
RETURN to an Order of the Honourable The House of Commons,
dated 25 April 1882 ',—for, COPY " of Letter from Captain Barlow, Vice Chairman of the General Prisons in Ireland, to the Right Honourable IV.
JS.
Forster, in Reply to the Statements made in the House of Commons by Mr.
Sexton, m.p.,
relative to his Treatment and that of other Persons detained in Custody under i The Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, 1881.'
"
Captain Barlow to the Right Honourable W.
E.
Forster.
Office of General Prisons Board; Sir, 19 April 1882.
With reference to your memo, of the 3rd inst.,
attached, I have the honour to report, as to the statements made by Mr.
Sexton, m.p.,
relative to his treat¬ ment and that of the P.
P.
P.
prisoners in Kilmainham Prison.
I have in each instant taken his statement as "reported in " The Freeman's Journal" of the 15th and 17th February and the 14th and 18th March.
Extract from " Freeman's Journal" of 15th February :-— " He should not pass this subject of the philanthropy of the Right turn, gentleman with¬ out saying that, although his condition of health when thrown into Kilmainham was such as might have well earned the consideration of even a sterner gaoler than the Right hon.
gentleman, he took advantage of it to deny him the ordinary privileges accorded to prisoners under the Coercion Act, and was not allowed to see the visitors who called at the prison.
He went one step further, and his being one of the names, he was proud to say, affixed to the " No-rent" manifesto, he was condemned to_ solitary confinement.
So, under the regime of this philanthropist, who spent his youth in the hovel and the cabin, and who was spending his age in reversing the record of his youth—under this regime, he suffered seven days' solitary confinement (cheers and laughter).
In addition, he suffered pains and indignities which he would hesitate to describe to the House.
^
He might mention, however, that on one occasion when the hon.
Member for Cork quitted his cell, the hon.
Member for Roscommon, who was also there, was removed in conse¬ quence of some prison regulation which was enacted for enforcement against the lowest criminals in the land to prevent the committal of an offence which he could scarcely suggest to the House (shame).
These were the rules which under the regime of this philanthropist were applied to Members of that House who were arrested on false and fraudulent pretences (cheers)."
With reference to Mr.
Sexton's statement that he was denied the ordinary privileges accorded to prisoners under the Coercion Act, the facts are these :—-I was informed that Mr.
Sexton was threatened with typhoid fever, and by my order visits from prisoners to him were stopped ; this order I afterwards rescinded.
.
Mr.
Sexton was, on the second day of Ins imprisonment, contmed to his bed, and remained there until his release.
Under such circumstances no visits could be allowed, excepting in the infirmary, by Dr.
Kenny's order; the medical officer of the prison requested Dr.
Kenny to remove Mr.
Sexton to the infirmary, this Dr.
Kenny did not do.
Had Mr.
Sexton been removed to the infirmary, visits to him from prisoners, in the infirmary, as well as visitors from outside the prison, would have been under Dr.
Kenny's control, subject to ordinary rule as to number of visits.
Mr.
Sexton states.
" He,"' i.e.,
the Chief Secretary, " took advantage ol it to " deny him the ordinary privileges accorded to prisoner under the -Coercion " Act.'
'* Mr.
Sexton's statement in this instance is quite untrue, as his case was never referred to you, with reference to his prison treatment, either directly or indirectly, nor were any directions received from the Government as to Mr.
Sexton's treatment whilst in prison.
i*8.
A Mr.
