—as to looking into the present system and so on, with a view to arriving at a more humane stage, that is something which I have certainly, and without any apology, put on the long finger. It is not a serious matter; it is not an urgent matter by any manner of means, and in the order of taking things in perspective, it would be quite a long time before we would expect to reach the stage when anything could be done in that direction. I am not just satisfied without examination that very much could be done, keeping in mind the fact that prisons are not meant to be either particularly comfortable or particularly pleasant places. If they were, one possible result would be an increase in the prison population. Certainly, the conditions in Maryborough Prison, where men sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, three years and upwards, are detained, must be extremely pleasant indeed. Extracts I have seen from the letters of prisoners there have led me to regret that my short period of detention lay in Belfast prison, rather than in Maryborough. People seem to wax enthusiastic there after a short stay, and to write out letters in very high terms of the conditions, the food and the fresh air. They speak of a rapid improvement in their health, and a rapid increase in their weight shortly after arrival.
In reference to Deputy O'Connell's question as to rumours of recent trouble in Maryborough Prison it is, perhaps, just as well that I should give to the Dáil a concise statement of what actually occurred in view of the fact that rather blood-curdling stories are being set on foot. A letter appeared lately in the papers stating, I think, that nine or ten prisoners were to be flogged on Wednesday last, or some few days ago anyway, and a telegram was sent to one of the bishops to that effect. There was no truth whatever in that statement—none whatever. There have been certain troubles in Maryborough prison, but there was never any question at any time of corporal punishment in connection with those troubles. Since the establishment of the Free State, since, in fact, the setting up of the Provisional Government, corporal punishment was only inflicted on one prisoner, and that was in the year 1923, for an assault of a very serious nature on a warder. Now, the exact occurrences in Portlaoighise prison are as follows:—
On Sunday, the 29th March, thirty-seven convicts, out of 220 attending evening devotions in the prison chapel, stood up and left the building as a protest against the Pastoral Letter of Dr. Foley, which was being read by the chaplain from the altar. A sworn inquiry was held on the 1st April, when charges of gross insubordination were preferred against the thirty-seven convicts. The facts proved at the inquiry were shortly as follows:—
During the afternoon service, which consisted of devotional exercises and sermon, the chaplain proceeded to read the Bishop's Pastoral Letter, when twenty-one convicts stood up and walked out. These were removed to their cells. The priest had to discontinue his reading until they had left. Searcely had they departed when another batch, to the number of sixteen, stood up and walked out, but, refusing to return to their cells, remained in the vicinity of the church. This batch returned to their seats upon the chaplain concluding the reading of the Pastoral. The remainder of the convicts, to the number of over 180, kept their seats and maintained a reverential demeanour throughout. To the officer in charge the convicts guilty of leaving the chapel stated that they would not stand for the preaching of politics from the altar, whether inside or outside the prison, and from their protestations in the matter the natural inference must be drawn that their action was preconceived and predetermined. At the sworn inquiry the charges were proved. With the exception of four, the convicts did not hesitate to admit or seek to qualify what they had done. In fact, their demeanour was defiant and they all adopted the attitude that in similar circumstances they would repeat their misconduct. One convict from East Galway, possibly not unknown to Deputy O'Connell, stated that he "would tear the priest off the altar the next time"; another convict stated that he "would not go to Mass any more as it was no church where politics were introduced"; another stated that "the priest insulted him by alluding to robbers and murderers"; another, who had been convicted of the robbery of a bank, stated that "he wished to make restitution, but that his conscience would not let him when a priest had called him a murderer."
Now, four convicts who expressed regret for what they had done, and a determination not to misconduct themselves in the future, received punishment as follows:—Three days' confinement in their cells and bread and water diet. The remaining 33, who adopted a defiant attitude and expressed a determination to repeat the offence on any available opportunity, were punished as follows—Six months' close confinement, six months' separate confinement; dietary scale as prescribed for prisoners pending decision.
Of the convicts concerned, 25 are serving various terms of imprisonment for armed robbery, four for burglary, four for larceny or receiving stolen goods, two for forgery, one for attempted murder, one for unlawful possession of firearms, one for demanding money with menaces.
The morning after the inquiry fortythree other convicts refused to work out of sympathy with the thirty-seven convicts already mentioned. These were dealt with by the governor under the prison rules as follows:—In nineteen cases he awarded (a) three days' No. 1 punishment diet and close confinement, (b) forfeiture of fourteen days' remission of sentence, (c) forfeiture of the privilege of newspapers and library books for three months.
In twenty-three cases, where the governor considered that the convicts concerned were led away by the others, he admonished them and, in one case where the governor considered the convict to be weakminded, he advised him.
The twenty-three convicts admonished by the governor and the one advised by him immediately returned to work as did seventeen of the nineteen cases immediately upon their doing their punishment. Two convicts of the nineteen joined with some twenty-eight of the thirty-seven convicts for the offence of leaving the chapel, in going on hunger strike. This hunger strike was of rather short duration—some abstained from food only for one day; others for two, and others for three, and a few remained on strike for nine days when the whole thirty had resumed taking food. In addition to going on hunger strike some of the thirty-seven convicts, convicted in connection with the breach of discipline in leaving the chapel, engaged in breaking the cell windows. Since the abandonment of the hunger strike, however, every single convict who had been guilty of misconduct had individually apologised to the chaplain, and the governor for his misconduct in leaving the chapel, and those who were guilty of wilful damage such as breaking the windows had made good the cost. In view of these apologies and the restitution made, the dietary punishment has been remitted and the question of the restoration of the marks for remission will depend on how far the future conduct of the convicts concerned shows the sincerity of their repentance.
