IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. // V ^S y m^ s Q- & 1.0 I.I 1.25 IIM ill 2.5 - IM IIIII2.2 IIM m 2.0 1.8 iA III 1.6 ^% V] VI VI VI >^ ^ ^/im w 7 Photographic Sciences Corporation ^ iV «' 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14S80 (716) 872-4503 Q- Q>. X CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 a Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pellicul6e I — I Coloured pages/ n n D Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli* avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6td filmdes. D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es □ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color*es, tachetdes ou piqu^es I — I Pages detached/ □ Pages ddtach^es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de I'impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire □ Only edition av Mlable/ Seule Edition disponible D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fagon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. □ Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: [--/{ This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 1^1 Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X ux 18X 22X 26X 30X ^^^^^ / ^^■■^ ^™^^ 17X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: La biblioth^que des Archives publiques du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet^ de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film^s en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suiva.wS apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symboie — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film^s d des taux de reduction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul ciich6, il est film6 d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 n 1 ,. ..-(i»». •f.w "1W*-* ;^'v.4i**rB^ ■• THIRD EDITION.— Price Six Pence ; by Post, Eight Pence. | THE IN IRELAND, WITH INTRODUCTION BY SIR CHARLES GAVAN DUFFY. E, DWYER GRAY. DUBLIN: THE FREEMAN'S JOURNAL, LIMITED. M. H. GILL AND SON, ANH ALL BOOKSJBLLSRS AND NEWS AGENTS. immtmmmmttmtmmmiiimmmtlimlmmmm I- • : [- •^Vl. ,k', . / ,1 ■ .:&n:i3?k^iisiife8fe TR SI (C •i''t;fiit ;'.ui PREFACE The letters which lately appeared in the Freeman's Jon ma/ from various countries, upon the subject of the Treatment of Political Prisoners in Ireland, attracted considerable attention. It seemed to me a pity that a protest, so representative in its character, should remain buried in the files of a newspaper. I, therefore, resolved to reprint the whole correspondence in pamphlet form. But it was suggested to me — and the suggestion seemed to me to be a wise one — that the full importance of the extraordinary communications, with which I was honoured, would not be appreciated unless there was placed side by side with those communications, a plain state- ment of the facts, connected with tlie system, that had met with such universal condemnation. Mr. Balfour's defence of that sys- tem in Parliament and elsewhere has been extremely weak. But the absolute futility of his defence of the position he has assumed in regard to political prisoners in Ireland since the Coercion Bill became law, becomes fully apparent only when that position is considered in the light afforded to us by English law and pre- cedent, no less than by the custom of foreign nations. The pamphlet, therefore, is divided into four parts. I have myself dealt with the historical and constitutional aspect of the matter. The chapter headed "The Question Constitutionally Considered " is practically nothing more than a mere compilation of materials first published in a remarkable series of articles from the facile pen of Dr. Sigerson, which ran through the columns of the Freeman'n Journal during the earlier months of this year. Nearly all my quotations and references, and certainly a very large proportion of the arguments used in Part I., are borrowed, if I may so speak, from Dr. Sigerson, who, as is well known, was a member of the late Royal Commission on Prisons. Dr. Sigerson, I believe, proposes to issue his articles in gloho. They will be published by Messrs. ^•REFACK. VU » Keegan Paul, Trench, & Co., London. I wculd earnestly recora- mond his book, no less on account of its literary merit than because it will contain much valuable information which space neccessarily prevents me from transfering to these pages. I am indebted to Mr. M. M'Donnell Bodkin, B.L., of United Ireland, for the lucid and able contribution on •' The Incidents of the Last Three Years," which forms Part II. of this pamphlet. Mr. Bodkin's clear narrative of the events, which have given rise to the agitation against the present prison system, will be read with interest by all those who are acquainted with the manner, in which he discharges his im^jortunt literary labours in con- nection with the Press. Mr. T. 31. Healy, M.P., whose kindness in these mutters is pro- verbial, kindly consented, at tbe cost of much time and trouble, to collect and arrange together Mr. Balfour's various spceclies during the course of the different debates in Parliament on the subject of the treatment of political prisoners in Ireland. Part IV., perhaps the most important portion of the pamphlet, consists principally of a reprint of all the letters published in the Freeman's Jon riia I under the title of " The International Protest." Some of these letters wore addressed to me personally ; others to friends, who kindly aided me in their collection ; others, again, were directed to the Editor of the Freeman's Journal. A large portion of the latter, which were principally from the United States, were addressed simultaneously to the Freeman's Journal sluA. to the Boston Pilot. I leave the letters, as a whole, to speak for themselves. One word more. There is no man in all history, who better exemplifies the success, which innate ability will always command, tha;^ the eminent Irish- Australian statesman, who has favoured me with a short iniroduction to this pamphlet. He passed from a con- vict's cell to the premiership of, what some would call, the greatest of Great Britain's colonies. Sir Charles Gavan Duffy is one of Ireland's noblest and most illustrious sons. The hero of heroic times, he has traditions entwined around his name, which no patriot of modern times can claim. In far Australia, as in Ireland,his name is honoured as that of a man pre-eminent in ability, energy, and patriotism. It is encouraging to have in the present crisis, the vin PEKFACT', warm support of the last survivor of O'Connell's companions in Bichmond Bridewell. "While Sir Charles Gavan Duffy may be said to link the old days in Ireland with the new, we must not forget that he typifies also the sympathy of Australia for ** a people rightly struggling to be free." Ireland is a grateful country. She will not forget the in- calculable services done in her cause by the criminal of '44 and '48. E. D. G. Pembroke House, TJprER Moi ; Street, Dublix. Augmt Srd, 1889. 'c... h: ■■Vi:.| INTRODUCTION. IS ■*1 r The correspondence collected iu this volume, under the title of an International Protest, forms, it seems to me, one of the most curious and significant State papers of recent times. Eminent men in a responsible position, are slow to pronounce judgment on the policy of a foreign State, or the conduct of a foreign statesman. It is only an exceptional and exasperating case, indeed, which elicits or justifies such interference. But the treatment of political opponents in Ireland, by the Government of Lord | Salisbury, has moved the frank indignation of such an array of conspicuous men, as])robably never before pronounced on a contemporary transaction in another country. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is in a better position than anyone to estimate what has befallen him, when ministers and ex-ministers, leaders of Government and Opposition, senators and members of the Civil Service, in foreign and indepen- dent legislatures, and executives, break through all restraint of etiquette and diplomacy, and tell him that he has acted shame- fully, and has neither the example of civilized nations, nor the supreme necessity which overrides all law, to justify what he has done. He has outraged the feelings of Europe and America, and called forth the protest, not only of foreigners, but of men of his own race and blood, who. teU him that he has made them, for the first time, blush for their country. " If Englishmen," says a Senator of the United^States, " do not feel degraded by such outrages, the people of America will be ashamed of their ancestors." ' , > . ■ v ' ■ " I feel the disgrace," says another Senator, " as though I were an Englishman, and resent it as though I were an Irishman.** ** It belongs," says an ex- Attorney-General, speaking of this j .ov, " to another and much darker age than this, and no fair means X INTRODUCTION. should be spared to frown it out of existence." " It is inhuman, it is uncivilized, it is unchristian," says the Governor of Nebraska; "It is as much arelic of barbarism, as the lash and the stake," says the Governor of Washington. A dozen leaders of opinion in the States echo these sentiments. They are well entitled 1;o be heard on the subject, these leading men of a nation, who did npt doom one political prisoner to death for an insurrection of unexampled vigour and endurance. Lord Salisbury, indeed, has caused the death of more political opponents, by justifying the order of one of his subordinates, " not to hesitate to shoot," than fell in the United States since the Republic was created, except in actual war. The Dominion of Canada, under the British flag, is not less ready to lift up its voice, than the confederated Commonwealths of the great Republic. An ex-Minister tells him that his method of treating men who serve with him in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, *' pains and affronts the sensibilities of civilized men throughout the world ;" and nearly a score of witnesses of Consular rank, or high individual position in the same great State, bear like testimony. He has roused not only the orator and administrator, accustomed to the public arena, but the novelist and the poet in their silent retirement. The gentle Quaker poet, whose writings are familiar to the whole English- speaking race throughout the world, tells him that his policy has been "inexcusably harsh and brutal." Howells, the least sensa- tional of all eminent writers of fiction, joins the cloud of witnesses. " To abhor such atrocities," he declares, "seems to me'as simple, as natural, and as normal as to breathe." Their confrere, Dana, thanks God that nothing in our day can be compared with such policy ; and thanks God again, that in the operation of His providence, it cannot long be continued. Ecclesiastics of vari- ous nations, and all ranks and all Churches, among whom Wes- leyan ministers and the pastors of Highland congregations are notable, are heard on the same side. The Wesleyan minister of Ontario, Canada, tells us that a widely-extended acquaintance with the opinions and feelings of the people, convinces him that this inhuman system " is doing every day more to multiply the friends of Home Rule than any other one thing since the agitation began." \\ INTBODUCTION. XI If le [s r Mr. Balfour, a Scoto- Canadian member, warns his namesake in Westminster that — "No Government could exist in Canada for a day that would attempt to treat political prisoners — especially representatives of the people — as common felons. Were a tithe of the oppression attempted here that is carried out in Ireland, nothing could pre- vent our people rising en masse, and by open rebellion resenting the indignities, and meting out proper punishment to their op- pressors, in whatever ofl&ce or situation in life they were found." When men of character and position, who have no personal interest at stake, speak with such emphasis, it is not rash to assume, that there is a grave scandal to be repressed. We do not speak of Irishmen, though in every place in the world where they have won success, they arise to denounce this system ; but we are Hottentots, and do not count. It is not without a certain satisfaction that we find the author of that graciojis epi- thet, slapped in the face by the rude hand of Paul de Cassagnac, who finds the treatment applied to Irish political prisoners ahsolu- ment ignoble. This consensus of European and American opinion will, perhaps, teach the Prime Minister that he cannot make a Siberia in Ireland with impunity. The foreign policy of Lord Salisbury has been represented as a substantial strengthening of the Empire, but a domestic policy which provokes this out-spoken contempt from foreign statesmen and publicists, will scarcely contribute to that end. Whatever it strengthens, it will not be the administrators who are responsible for it. A Conservative government was trodden down, because of its secret or avowed approval of the Bulgarian atrocities, and when the English people €ome to understand the Irish atrocities, they will, it may be hoped, punish the aggressors in the same decisive fashion. These foreign witnesses are not deluded by the impudent pre- tence, that the prisoners in Ireland arc not political prisoners. They recognize them as reformers labouring to abate public grievances; as patriots aiming to lift up their country from depres- sion and ruin ; as opponents of great wrongs needing to be faced by determined men ; and this is the type of the political prisoner from Sir John Eliot down to Beranger and O'Connell. The practice of modem nations has been so exhaustively treated ■ fi ^ i :. ir IKTBODXrCTION. by Dr. Sigerson, that I refrain from alluding to it. He has demonstrated that there is nothing to be found among civilized mankind, resembling the system which Lord Salisbury authorizes and vindicates in Ireland. Foreigners have caught sufficiently, it would seem, the general scope of political prison discipline in Ireland ; but it would contri- bute to a more exact and complete knowledge of the case, if a table were prepared specifying the precise offences charged against prisoners, and the corresponding punishments inflicted. They scarcely know, I fancy, that supplying food to a starving family engaged in resisting ejectment from land held by their predeces- sors, before Cecil, the first Lord Salisbury, lied and fawned for the favour of Queen Elizabeth, is a crime punishable like larceny ; or that hurrahing for a popular man or a popular policy, at times not approved of by the police, carries as grave a penalty as rioting or pickpocketing. I have spoken only of one chapter in this book, because I happen to have had no ^portunity of examining: the others ; but the energy and cipadty, which collected a multitude of skilled witnesses with such commendable promptitude, give assurance that no part of the case will be inadequately handled. C. GAVAN DUFFY. Shelbouene Hotel, Dublin, Augtcst 2nd,l 889. '-^-x x K 1 1 mti 5. THE QUESTION CONSTITUTIONALLY CONSIDERED. The whole controversy regarding the treatment to which Irish politi- Two questions cul prisoners have been subjected by the Government during the last three a*'**"®* years, may be said to consist of a difference of opinion as to what answer should be given to two very simple questions ; Are the Irish Crimes Act prisoners political prisoners, or are they not? If so, should they be subjected to a distinct method of treatment, or should they not ? An adequate consideration of either question cannot be made without some trouble. We must scan shortly the pages of history. I shall endeavour to demonstrate that English law and precedent, and the practice of foreign nations, and the indications afforded us by international custom, recognize political offences, by directly sanctioning a distinction between. them and criminal violations of the ordinary law. The matter to be first discussed is whether political offenders should be treated as common • i criminals or not? The answer to this question is, most emphatically, no ! • . -^ The constitution of the country is based upon the good will, and framed opinions of mi- for the benefit of the community as a whole. All reforms have been the "o^e?op\nioiM result of the expression of opinion of what, must, at one time, have been a of majority minority of the community. This is a self-evident fact. "When this minority, or portion of the community, declares that a grievance exists, which it cannot otherwise than by forcible effort get rid of, " it must, ostensibly, at least, be aiming for the benefit of the community." (Geo. Sigerson, M.D., IVeeman^s Journal, 25th Feb., 1889). It thus often huppens that the efforts of the minority are successful, and the reform suggested, in being adopted by the majority, becomes a comer-stone of the constitution. To treat, then, as criminal, efforts, directed against the established constitution, or organized with the intention of bringing about a reform in any question affecting the community at large, is to stamp as criminal, views, which in a short time may come to be entertained by the whole community, and consequently becomes merged in the law of the land. 2 I.K'< 1 1 Offences asainst How admirably these arguments adapt themselves to the case of Irish public ordei. Members of Parliament and Crimes Act prisoners, can be seen at a glance. " Offences against public order (except certain offences) being liable to the fluctuations of the public judgment— which is the final court of appeal — stand in a different category from those ordinary crimes against persons and property which all the civilized world regards with the same eyes, because their predominance would mean the disintegration of the community and the destruction of all social life. I", is on this ground, and not on the personal motive, that the distinction must be made, for the motive of a thief or a burglar might be merely to procure food for his hungry friend or family, whereas a politician might even profit by his conduct without altering the ethical aspect of tlie main question." — Dr. Sigerson, Freeman'* Journal, 25th Feb., 1889. Unjust to treat misguided pa- triots as cvniii- nalH. Lord .Justice Braniwell. Political offen- ders of low social grade. It is perhaps unnecessary to point out how morally unjust it is to condemn to a common degradation the misguided patriot, if you will, and the common criminal. In the case of members of Parliament, and men accustomed to literary or intellectual pursuits, the injustice done can hardly be measured. In this connection I can scarcely do better than again quote Dr. Sigerson : " At exercise and at chapel he (the common criminal) is in the midst of his equals — sometimes even of his superiors in crime — for whom he may have a per- verse respect ; in association he is in his element, and enjoys their companionship, so far as ne may, and profits by their sympathy. Plunge into the same category an educated, high-principled man, guilty of a political offence, and everything changes for the worse. It is no longer a question of simple detention, but of im- prisonment, with moral, intellectual, and physical suffering superadded. He is compelled to recognise inferiors as task-masters, to perform hard labour, to which he is neither accustomed nor adapted, instead of the work familiar to him, ■on fare which seems coarse and disagreeable. Worst of all, whilst he suffers from the loss of intellectual communion and mental exercise, by the insufficiency of books, the absence of friends, the impossibility of writing, he is forced into association with men whose presence is an offence, and whose language is too often .• ■ out- rage. Nor is this view exceptional. Lord Justice Bramwell, in his e.idence before the Commission appointed to inquire into the working of the Penal Servi- tude Acts, 1879, stated certain misgivings as to the unequal working of these Acts. 'There would be a terrible punishment,' he said, 'to any gentleman or Eerson of what I may call the better orders, in the very association with the people e would associate Avith, when his nine months of separate confinement were over and he went to the works ; but that does not affect the criminal class ; they asso- ciate with their own equals, and men whose good opinion they are desirous of gaining by a repetition of the offences which have sent them there ; they are fed, 1)erhaps, not quite so well as they were out of prison ; they are comfortably odged ; they are taken care of ; they have some work to do, I believe not very hard ; if they got their living honestly out of the prison they would have to work harder probably. What is the objection to it ? ' " In the case of political offenders of a lower social grade, the objections to equality of treatment have not, of course, the same force. Nevertheless, it would be manifestly imjust to set up a class distinction in this matter. An offence against an enactment such as the Coercion Act is only an offence against a special public regulation. It implies no moral degrada- tion, and involves no loss of self-respect on the part of the offender. His offence is of quite a different character to those committed by the criminal classes. It may be safely said that any honest man, no matter how poor, K 3 or ctions leless, latter. ly an rada- His minal poor, convicted of an offence which is not morally lowering, must resent asso- ciation with prisoners whom he regards as morally coiTuptcd. It is a dangerous thing for the State to subject such a man to Newgate influence. The ordinary criminal, on the other hand, will feel highly honoured by contact with a man who, even if mistaken in liis principles, is clear in his own con'='''ience. By enforcing common association, therefore, an in- justice is done on the one hand, and an unmerited privilege granted upon the other. In other words, tlie man who has committed a crime against the moral as well as tlie municipal law is benefited by the transaction, whereas the political offender, who has only sinned against the municipal law, is directly injured by the practice. The Commission presided over by the Earl of Devon, wliich sat in xhe Devon lft70, to consider the treatment of the Treason Felons of 1865, concluded ""jaJ Commis- its report in a remarkable manner. It actually went outside the tenn tion with ciiml- of its letter of instruction, to protest against the association of political "'^'''• prisoners with ordinary criminals, which had, contrary to the intention of Parliament, been enforced upon some of the aforementioned prisoners : *' A further question was forced on our attention in the course of our inquiries," says the Commissioners, " tho.' i^h it does not fall strictly within the letter of our instructions. It is the ciuestion, whether prisoners, con- victed of a crime so exceptional in its nature, that it has been thought right to modify prison discipline in their case, to a certain extent, might not, with advantage, be more con^letely separated from the general body of convicts We are led to the conclusion that the difficulties atten- dant upon the location and treatment of political ofl'enders may, perhaps, be most readily and effectually overcome by setting apart, from time to time, a detached portion of some convict prison for prisoners of this class, and we recommend this subject to the consideration of her Majesty's Government." The Report of the Devon Commission was confirmed by the Report of Kimbeiiey the Kimberley Royal Commission of 1878-79, which was appointed to in- K^^f* evScI quii'e into the working of the Penal Servitude Act. Sir Richard Asheton of Captain Du- Cross (now Lord Cross) was, at the time, Home Secretary. Evidence was ^^^'^ taken, amongst other matters, as to the advisability of separating entirely political offenders from common criminals. A few extracts from the tjvidence given before the Commission by Captain Ducane, Chairman of the then Board of Directors of Convict Prisons, bears so closely upon the present controversy as to be worth reproduction : — Chairman — '•287 — Would not the feeling of sympathy, which would naturally Captain exist on the part of certain persons and classes, with prisoners convicted of treason- Ducane's felony, seriously interfere ^ith the carrying into effect of their punishment in the *^'*®"co. same manner as in the case of ordinary penal servitude prisoners ? I thin^ so." And again : — " 292. — Does not the difference of the feeling, which exists generally tow»rd« men convicted of conspiracy against the Government, from the feeling wnioh exists with regard to men who have committed an ordinary crime, almost necessarily '>'ecuii-e some difference to be made between them ? 1 should think so." li \r Report reoom- mends repara- tion. Again :— "293. — What would be clearly conducive to the end of all punishment, namely — the prevention of crime, and, collaterally with it, the reformation of the offender in the case of an ordinary criminal, might not have at all the same effect with regard to the particular class of offenders to which we are alluding ? It might not. Putting men like those whose crime is not considered so very disgrace- ful under the same punishment as men whose crimes are considered disgraoeful, is liable rather to raise the character of the other crimes, and to render less dis- graceful the puni:)bment." «< 294 — A penal servitude " (or an imprisonment) " sentence in the ordinary sense ought to be considered both a very severe sentence, and also a great dis- grace? I think so." " 295. And it is not desirable that there should be any persons, in them- selves not men of bad character, who should have a sympathy with persons so sentenced 7 I quite agree with that." " 296. But there is a liability of that occurring in the case of prisoners who may be called political offenders ? I think so." The Royal Commission having thus, as Dr. Sigerson remarks, elicited — " That the confounding of political oflPenders with common criminals is injurious to discipline within the jail, whilst without it tends to destroy the deterrent effect of criminal sentences, reported in favour of complete separation of the two classes." " Looking to the inconveniences," says the Report, " which have arisen in practice from the association of such prisoners with other convicts, we concur in this recommendation " (i.e., the Devon Commission). Lieutonant-Colonel Sir G. F. Ducane, Chairman of the Board of Direc- tors, of Convict Prisons, went even further, and declared — '* I should prefer having them" (political offenders) "in an entirely separate prison ; if there were any men of that class, I should not pat them into an ordinary convict prison at all." In 1868, Lord Mayo, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, referring to the " Press Prisoners" of that date (Richard Pigott and A. M. Sullivan), thus expressed himself in the House of Commons in regard to association : " With regard to association,'' said Lord Mayo, " I cannot conceive anything^ which would be more repugnant to the feelings of these prisoners than that they should be obliged to associate with the other prisoners in the jail." Numerous other opinions of equal weight and authority might be quoted in denunciation of enforced association. The terrific indictment of the sys- tem, as carried out by the present Government, published in the pages of this pamphlet, show the drift of modern thought all over the civilized world on the subject. Preoedentii at The classification of prisoners according to the nature of their offences foreiKn*pmctice, would, therefore, seem to be justified on merely general grounds. Nothing useful in inves- ' tends tothrowmore light upon the matters at issue, than an examination tigation, ^^^ constitutional precedent at home, and the practice of foreign nations, in regard to the question of the treatment of political prisoners. la doing Lord Mayo on association. The Interna- tional Protect. K this we learn what kind of treatment we have a right to expect on behalf of that class of prisoners known to-day as the Irish Crimea Act pri- soners. In 1809 a gentleman named William Cobbet was imprisoned for caae of wuuan an article written in a newspaper known as the Register. The article ^'^^ji^;,^ was manifestly treasonable. He was charged, however, on a minor indict- ment, convicted, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, and to pay a fine of £1,000. What was his treatment in Newgate jail ? Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer, condemning the sentence as excessive, notes that 7io in- dulgences were granted, and then proceeds as follows : "In no portion of his life, indeed, did he show greater courage," writes Sir Henry, *' in none did the better side of his character come out in brighter rehef, than when, within the gloomy and stifling walls of Newgate, he carried on his farming:, con- ducted his paper, educated his children, and waged war (his most natural and favour- ite pursuit) against his enemies with as gay a courage as could have been expected from him in sight of the yellow corn-fields and breathing the pure air he loved bo well." — Froir Eistorical Characters, vol. II., 1868. Now, let William Cobbet speak himself. His description of his prison Gobbet de- treatment reads like a romance in these days of cast-iron uniformity of scribes his trciiu discipline. mentmjaa "Book-learning," says Cobbet, " was forced upon us. I had a farm in hand ; it was necessary that I should be constantly informed of whac was doing. I gave all the orders, whether as to purchases, sales, ploughing, sowing, breeding — in short, with regard to everything, and the things were in endless number and variety, and always full of interest. My eldest son and daut^bter could now write well and fast, and I had with me — having hired the best part of .e keeper's(i.c., the ""fl governor's) house — one or two besides, either their brother or sister. We had a hamper with a lock and two keys, which came up once a week, or oftener, bringing me fruit and all sorts of country fare. The hamper was looked for with the most lively interest. It brought me herbs and the like. Almost everyone sent me his or her most beautiful flowers, the earliest violets and primroses, and cowslips, and bluebells, the earliest twigs of trees, and everything they thought calculated to delight me. I had all the children with me. I had all the children with me," he adds, " turn and turn about. The paying of the workpeople, the keeping of the accounts, the referring to books — this everlasting mixture of amusement with book-learning — made me, almost to my own surprise, find at the end of two years that I had a parcel of scliolars growing up about me, and long before the end of the time I had dictated my Register to my two eldest children." I Leigh Hunt was condemned shortly afterwards for an article of a i*>k1» Hunt. similar nature. pr«« offender. We read — " I turned one of the cells along the empty corridor into a noble room. I papered the walls with a trellis of roses ; I had the ceiling coloured with clouds and sky; the barred windows I screened with Venetitn-blinds; and when my bookcases were set up, with their busts and flowers, and a pianoforte made its appearance, perhaps there was not a handsomer room on that side of the water. I took a pleasure, when a stranger knocked at the door, to see him come in and stare about him. The surprise, on issuing from the Borough and passing through the avenues of a jail, was dramatic. Charles Lamb declar. x there was no other such room except in a fairy tale." 6 Tithe Wiir of Ib'M Hiiniliir to ]lls, where they are sub- jected to all the worst forms of prison degradation, was treated as a poli- tical offender. Precedent is said t> form the backbone of the British Constitution. tIip trfiitment If we take precedent, thon^fore, as a guide, the incidents of the e'^'anreoeaout tithe war supply us with an answer to the two qiiestions at issue. Are the Iri.'^h Crimes Act prisoners political prisoners? If so, should they bo treated to a distinctive method of treatment, or should they not ? Read in the light afforded to us by the system practised in 1828-40, the answer to both these questions must bo found in an affirmative. •■I liti- It must not be supposed that the law, even at that date, directly T,iiw never recognised the existence of political crime. That the law has never JiUfJlJfiuJ.i'' done, except indirectly. The imjwrtance of these extracts lies in the fact that they show that it was the constitutional custom to supply in practice what was dcjfective in the law. Mr. Balfour's attitude on the question seems to show that in the silence of the law, there latent lay an element of danger, and that it would have been well had the principle of classification been expressl\ adopted by Parliament. Until IMr. Balfour came upon the scene it was scarcely necessary to do so in the case of political prisoners. O'Connell was considered a criminal in the eye of the law as law. o'Conneii a cri. The Pepeal prisoners were accused of being guilty of a foul and wicked iuiii:>i. conspiracy, of tmlawful asseuibhj, and intimidation, and various other heinous and immoral offences. *' The gravity of their crimes was declared by the sentence, which directed that O'Connell should be imprisoned for twelve months, pay the enormous fine of two thousand pounds, and find security in ten thousand pounds to be of good behaviour for seven years, and to be impiisoned until the recognizances were com- pleted. It matters not to the issue what the great majority of the Irish nation thought of O'Connell then, or the public at large now. In legal judgment he was a criminal of deep dye, caught and convicted after a long defiance of the law. Criminals also were his fellow-conspirators and accomplices, Messrs. John O'Connell, Gray, Dufiy, Steele, Barrett, andRay." — (Sigerson, Fi-ee?7ian, February 25.) Nevertheless, in spite of their legal degradation, the treatment of the Treatment of Repeal prisoners was extraordinarily lenient. Gavan Duffy continued to Kepeaiprison- edit the Nation, while Messrs. John O'Connell and Ray contributed to rkYrouianco' it. Duffy and Gray took lessons in elocution, practised the art of fencing, and had horses in the yard to ride. " The governor and the deputy governor," says Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, " were authorised to sub-let their houses and gardens to the State prisoners. Members of \ if"' i i I . ilii iL ChanRc of an- thority in pri.son admiiiiHtriitiuii no excuHe (or change of treat- ment. What we do> mand. Mr. O'CoimoU's family, and of the faiuilics of tlic other prisoncrB, cuine to roHide with them ; they cuiployotl tlicir own servanta ; from thu lirMt ihiy pruaonts of vcniMon, ganiA, fish, fruit, ami tliu liko, began toiirrivo, and after alittlu thuy found tlinniHulveH established in u pleasant country houao. situated in the ntid^t of exten- sive grouiidf), bright with fair women and tiiu gambols of ciiildreu, and fuiuiuhed with abundant niuana either for study or amuHumcnt." •' Our immediate political associates came every day," iio continues, "imd the dinner-tal)le was never set for less than thirty persons. O'Connell was a genial and attentive host, full of anecdote and badinage, wliile tlie ladies remained; and ready, wlien they witlulrcw, for serious political conference, or the pleasant carte and tierce of friendly controversy. A weekly bulletin was read in rcognitiun of tho political character of tlieir olfcnce. It Ih futile to arfjiu?, that because the Dublin Corporation bad at that time the control of llicbraond ronitentiary, the treatment was in any way exceptional. It only corri'sponded with the traditional custom of (xreat Britain in regard to p )liticul offenders. Tlie adraini^stration of the prison rules has since l)een transferred to bodies other than those which controlled tliem at tlie tiuif, and uptu a niuc' lat(!r date. Ueoause, liowever, the control is vested in new hands is no reason why the treatment of political prisoners should have becone what it is to-day. Not the sliffhtest chatuje in treatment wan ordered or even sur/geded hy any Act on the Statute-iook of Parliament. We do not now, although we might in justice do so, demand that the political prisoners should be allowed to make prison life as pleasant as that led by O'Connell and his companions. But we do insist that they should be classed as first-class misdemeanants. As Sir Charles Gavan Duffy remarks in the letter which the Freeman*s Journal published on the 25th July, 1889— " It is not asked that they should hold virtual levees, or give daily entertain- ments to their friends, but that they shall not have a sentence of d( tention turned into physical and moral torture." Treatment of Meagher, O'Bnen, O'Doherty and M'Manua, It woidd be superfluous, perhaps, to go into the matter of the treatment of Meagher, O'Brien, O'Doherty, and M'Manus. Duffy thus describes a visit he paid to them while in jail : — " I found O'Brien labouring at the eternal task of his correspondence, and Meagher in a cell bright with scarlet cloth, which his books and manuscripts and a few portraits transformed into a pleasant study. M'Manus had got a box of tools and was manufacturing nick-nacks, and O'Doherty was busy with professional studies. The younger prisoners were in excellent, sometimes exuberant spirits," — (Four Years of Irish History, c. VI. ). ; ' ' Mitcheiandthe The imprisonment of John Mitchel irnder the Treason-Felony Act of ^^mson-Feiony 1348 g^ovys that the intention of Parliament in passing that Act was not to in any way alter the treatment to which political prisoners were sub- jected. At the time when the Crown and Government Security Act, or Treason Felony Act, was passed, the condition of the Irish prisonorfl was governed by the 7th Goorpo IV., chapter 71 (3lRt May, 1826). Tho Treason Foil ony Act reduced certain offences wh ch had previously been classified us treason to felony. On tho other hand, certain offences which hofl been only seditious were made felonies. In various discussions pre- vious to the passing of the new Act — •' The MiiiUtora of the day sot tho rjuestion before tho Legislature in such a light as to make it seem that offences, which in England would bo amenable to tlm severest pomilties of high treason, wore in Ireland to bo dealt with in a milder manner, nK)re in consonance with tho gentler lights of the ago. There was nothing wliatever Haidof any modification asregarda the kindof imprisonment, nor is there any reason to suppose that any was intended. Members wore doubtlcsa familiar with tho details of the imprisonment of Cobbutt, Hunt. Costello, and O'CouncIl, and it must bo assumed that they fully understood that this mode of imprisonment would bo continued as regards men wlio practically came into tho same category." — (Sigerson, Freeman, February 2G.) The condition of tho ordinary criminal at that period does not much Attpinpt^ t^ de. concern us. Tho Georgian Act made the wearing of prison clothes «■'''*"■' *l"■^^"^'• optional, that is to say, a prisoner could wear his owii clothes if ho had the means to niaintain himself, a principle of class distinction long ago abandoned, but which Mr. Balfour would seem desirous to revive. The authorities seemed not to quite understand the bearing of the new Act upon prison discipline. At Newgate, says Mitchel — *' A jailer came in with a suit of coarse grey clothes in his hand, ' You are to f)ut on these,' he said, ' directly.' I put thorn on directly. A voice then shouted rom the foot of the stairs, ' Lot him be removed in his own clothes.' So I was ordered to change again, which I did." He was sent to Spike Island on board a Government vessel. John Mitchel ti eatment of being a prisoner who could maintain himself, the attempt to degrade '** '^^ him by forcing him to wear the prison clothes was utterly illegal. Never- theless, in Spike Island the same blunder was committed as in Newgate. " Mr, Grace " (the governor), " came into my cell with a turnkey. He had a . . suit of brown convict clothes in his Iiand, and said it was an unpleasant duty he |, had to perform, but that I must put on those clothes. I obeyed without remark." The blunder was set right a couple of days later by a letter from the ^ij^^^^^fo"™ Castle, which directed the governor to allow John Mitchel to wear his own clothes, and to treat him dijferently from an ordinary felon. " Presently Mr . Grace returned, and said he was glad to tell me matters did not promise to go so hard with me as he had expected, that he had a letter from the Castle, directing him to treat me quite differently from a common convict, to let me wear my own clothes, not to put me in irons," etc. — {Jail Journal, p. 31). The Government, it must be acknowledged, is always the best inter- Mitchel, the preter of its own intentions. It evidently considered that there* was con\'ct.»nTaB- nothing in the new Act which forbade them to subject John Mitchel to ilngLmpwi-'' the same lenient treatment, which had always characterized the imprison- """ ment of political prisoners ; and this fact is evident throughout the whole , narrative of Mitchel's subsequent treatment as a convict. It is highly 10 interesting and reraarkaWy instructive to compare the treatment of John Mitc'hel in Van Dieraan's Land, with the condition of the ordinary convict there. As far as act;ial law was concerned, it must be remembered, there Avas no special obligation to treat Mitchel otherwise than as an ordinary convict. An absolute systcin of lotting out convicts seems to have existed under the protection of the Transportation Act of 1824 (5th George IV., c. 84) The property of the transpoi't(!d felons was vested in the Govern- ment. The governor was empowered to assign the convict to anybody else, who could also assign him according to liis inclination. The trans- ported felons in Van Dieman's Land, wore, to put it plainly, hired out to the colonists as slaves. John !Mitcliol was informed, upon landing, that positive instructions wore received to treat him with consideration. " A prison official handed me a comtnunication from an individual styled ' Comptroller-General,' informing me that instructions had been received from the Secretary of State to allow me to reside at large in any one of the police districts I might select (except those already used as the dungeons of my friends), subject to no restriction save the necessity of reporting myself to tiie district police magistrate," — (Jail Journal). Mitchel was allowed to roam over the Island of Tasmania practically whither he would. lie found it hard to believe that he was not a free man. " In vain I reflect," he writes, "that it is incumbent on me diligently to re- member (as Air. Gibbon says), now that I am. after all, in a real cell, hulk, or vT'ingeon, yet— that these ancient mountains, with the cloud-shadows flying over their far-stretching woodlands, are but Carthagenian prison walls — that the bright birds, waving their rainbow wings hert. before me are but ' ticket-of-leave ' birds, and enjoy only ' comparative liberty.' " Will it be believed that Mitchel, the convict, had actually fellow- convicts assigne(' to him ? That such was the case, however, may be seen by a perusal '^ his *' Jail Journal." BoycottiriK, a Before leaving John Mitchel an interesting incident may be saUy'knowi"*'' quoted, which proves that boycotting is a weapon universally known, and that its practice has not always been visited with the punishment meted out to it in Ireland. Dr. Sigerson thas tells the tale : •' From time to time objections had been taken by the free colonists of countries, to which convicts were drafted against the continuance of penal settle- ments in their vicinity. They did not desire annual relays of ticket-of-leave men from Britain, but considered she should provide for her own convicts at home. In 1849 John Mitchel found the Cape in revolt against the reception of convicts who were carried by his vessel, the Neptune, but kept quite apart from him. The colonists, English and Dutch, established an Anti-Convict League, with a ' com- mittee of vigilance,' to make it effective. They directed the most stringent blockade, or boycott, as it would now be termed, forbade the sale of anything whatever, not merely to the convict ship, but to all the men-of-war, and still further, to all and every person in the service of the Government, including the governor himself, and to anyone who might aid and assist them. Contractors stopped supplies. Banks and insurance omcea refused to deal with anyone not pledged to non- intercourse. The captain of the Neptune ' walked into several shops, tried to buy a tobacco pipe, a glass for his watch, a fresh roll of bread, but in vain — they wo pas Caj Coi asm 11 ■would hold no uitei-course.' No man could get lodgings, provisiona, payment, or pasture, unless he could produce his League certificate. The Protestant Bishop of Capetown, Dr. Gray, who visited Mitchel, * heartily approved of the Anti- Convict League.' to his delight. This non-intercourse league surpassed in rigour any that prevailed in Ireland during the Tithe War or since. It offended violently agrainst tlie law, but there is no record of any of the criminals having been punished, not even the Bishop. The Government moved on the ship." The Irish Political Prisoners of 1848 were the last enforced visitors to Van Dieman's Land; just as Jolm Boyle O'Reilly was among the last batch of enforced visitors to Australia ia 1867. In 1853 transportation was abolished, and an Act to substitute other '^hJJiiXvniv''" punishments in lieu of transportation was passed (13 and 17 Victoria, "penal Sfivitude chap. 99). It was not, however, as we have said, until 1867 that '^^''^■ tiansportation to Australia ceased. The Act established penal servi- tude as a substitute for transportation, and, upon the whole, the new Act considerably improved the condition of the ordinary criminal, as it did away with the old hulk system, and all its misery and wretchedness. The intermediate system was adopted in Ireland about this time. Tho Irish inter. It is so well known as not to need explanation. To put the matter "y^'/^.^^,[_" *^'"""" shortly, the intermediate system kept iu view the Reformatory object of j)risou detention. Tliis was as it should be — "For according to the testimony of Mr. Cliarles Burke, the chairman of the Mr. Charles Irish Prisona Bourd, ' it is the duty and object, of the prison officers to make un- Btuke deHnes skilled labourers skilled labourers during their term of imprisonment, and to instruct sHty"^""* "'' prisoners so that they would be better informed going out of jail than coming in.' ' . . . . ' Great numbers of men M'ho before going into prison would bo able to earn only a shilling a day are capable of earning five shillings a day after leaving the prison. And that is obviously an advantage to themselves and the State.' ' England never adopted the intcriucdiatc system, which eventually died out in Irehind, the number of prisoners not buing sutRcieatly largo to keep the system working. Jfevertheless, the condition of the English felon was at this time extremely good. In 18o() an Act was passed relating, among other things, to a uniform prison dress. For reasons, however, which will be statoil later on, it is extremely doubtful whether the provisions of this Act can bt; legally enforced iu Irclaud at the present time. In the course of a single generation the severe and sanguinary punish- Wiat onihmiy ments attaching to certain criminal acts htul almost disappeared. since'isoof " " "In 1820 a boy of fifteen was hung at Newgate, and in 1821 eight boys under twenty got the same fate ; whilst even so late as 18.33 a child of nine was sen- tenced to death for breaking a window-pane and stealing twopence halfpenny worth of paint. He was reprieved. In the period of seven years, ending in 1821, there had been 7,688 persons sentenced to death in England and Wales, of whom seven hundred, less seven, were huntj. The hangings of common criminals were > carried on at the rate of nearly one hundred a year for seven years ! In 1828 there were 1,526 persons sentenced to be hanged, of whom seventy were hanced. In 1831 there were 1,601 persons sentenced to death, of whom fifty-two were nanged, I i! 12 or one each week. The (Jovenimcnt was growing more tender-hearted. The last execution of a sheep-stealer happened in 1831, and in the next year the last execution for stealing letters. Then also was abolished capital punishment for cattle-stealing and for larceny from houses, and in 1833 for housebreaking. The last execution for forgery took place three or four years previously. In 1834 an end was put to hanging for sacrilege and letter-stealing. All these enactments worked manifestly a vast improvement in the fate of common criminals. But the Heverities of the hulk and transportation remained. An idea of these may be got from the information obtained, in 1838, that 151,000 lashes inflicted in one year in Australia and Van Dieman's Land. All that was improved away, almost com- pletely. Besides, whilst a dozen years or so before the Fenian trials it had been common to read of sentences of seven years' transportation awarded to hungry men, who stole a few turnips, at the time of those trials no judge would have thought of giving seven years' penal servitude, nor perhaps seven months' im- prisonment, for such an offence. Thus the common criminal had been granted immense improvements as regards capital punishment, as regards corporal torture, and as regards length of imprisonment. Finally, it was shown that it is ci^nsidered to be the object and duty of the prison officials to raise him in the social as well as in the moral scale, to make the unskilled labourer a skilled artizan, who, owing to the advantage of technical training, can earn thirty shillings a week on leaving prison instead of the six he earned on entering. Then he has been able to save a certain sum during his prison life, small, but probably more than any surplus he would have saved outside, and philantrophic societies wisely add to it, and assist him to find work." — (Sigerson, Freeman, March 8). ** During the same period, that is from the commencement of the nineteenth century down to its seventh decade, the punishment of political offences and the treatment of political criminals in jail had remained absolutely unaltered. In remaining unaltered it had relatively, of course, hecome more severe. As -vrc have seen, political prisoners had hitherto been recognised as such. first departure The first great de])arture from the constitutional custom took place tionaf custom ^"^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ Fenian prisoners of '65. These prisoners were unauthorized by treated " as men judged guilty of similar offences wore never treated "^ l)cfore." Hitherto, political prisoners were criminal in the eyes of the law, but tlicy were never classed as criminals when in jail. The leaders of the Fenian movement of 1 865 were forced to undergo the same fate as common felons. In other words, they were subjected to the same system of treatment, the justice of which we question in regard to the Irish Crimes Act prisoners. TJiis change is the more remarkahle, since it wm in . . "V authorized hy Parliament ; no statute had authorized any change u fatever » the system of the treatment of such prisoners. Political cfTen- ders gained notlimg in same period. law. Prison Act, 181)6, did not apply. The Prison Act of 1 856 was drawn up unfortunately in such a way that it was easy to juggle the meaning of the Act into a direct order by Parlia- ment that political misdemeanants should not be privileged. The Fenians, however, were not convicted as misdemeanants, so that the Act could not apply to them (see page 21). Change against "The change was made in direct contradiction of all precedent ; and all precedent, ^^m^ contradiction was enforced against them in obedience to no enactment. It would be hard to parallel a divergence so great from long-established and CO 13 TlieOoTerii- ment were continuous custom. Indeed, if such a fluctuation had been common, the ' unwritten law ' could never have possessed validity, nor that constitution which * slowly broadened down from precedent to precedent ' have ob- tained stability and state. To compel political prisoners to endure the fate of common criminals was not to equalize their lot, but the contrary. All the changes made in the criminal law and in the prison system had redounded to the amelioration of the condition of the common convict ; this alteration, on the other hand, effected an immense detriment in that of the political prisoner." — (Sigerson, Freeman, March 8th.) A certain amount of excuse may be made for the Government. Their gj^^"™""* position in Ireland was far more serious than in 1848. In 1848 the arrest ^ of Mitchel, O'Brien, and others put an end to a purely physical forco movement, whereas at the latter date there was a vast organization thri^ang not only in Ireland, but in the United States, whose strength could hardly be diminished by the confinement of some few of its leaders in Irish jails. That the Government was wrong, however, in its action may apart from the accumulated evidence afforded us by the precedents wn'mV we have previously quoted, be proved very conclusively, by con- sidering for a moment the treatment meted out to the political prisoners of 1798, under similar conditions. "The case of the high treason prisoners of 1798, whose death sentences had Political prison- been commuted, presented an almost exact analogy. The organization of the t'eatid'we'n Military Society of United Irishmen was more formidable, absolutely and relatively, than that of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Its numbers were greater, its members were better armed and accustomed to their use. A French invasion was incomparably more dangerous than any private incursions by American Fenians, whilst ill Great Britain there were sympathetic societies — ' United Englishmen ' and * United Scotsmen.' There was danger at home and abroad, and Pitt was every- where denounced as the arch-enemy of freedom. He had, however, some well- marked constitutional habits, and these were carried into practice as regards his political prisoners. They were not sent to the hulks. The Aston Smith, transport, in March, 179S>, conveyed the Dublin State prisoners to Belfast, where the Ulster State prisoners went on board, making nineteen in all, and then sailed for Scotland, where they were confined in Fort George." — (Sigerson, March 8th.) Dr. McNevin, one of the imprisoned men, gives the following account of his fellow-prisoners : — " The several prisoners of Fort George had embraced some particular course of How thoy were reading or study, to which they applied with far more assiduity than if tliey only treated, read for amusement. Emmet applied himself to mathematics, or more properly, to algebra, in which he made signal proficiency, and to which he was so devoted th.it he employed the greater part of his nights in the study of the science .... until the arrival of Mrs. Emmet and three of his children divided his attention. After this period Shakespeare was his favourite reading." Nevertheless, the fact remains that in 1865 the Government boldly Hie Fenians took the plunge, and, ignoring the custom of that " constitution which has ^^«»^eduscrinii broadened down from precedent to precedent," deliberately subjected political prisoners to the rules, drawn up to meet the case of ordi- nary criminals. t ,11 : 9 I ll I 14 Effect of tieiit- The subjcction of these men to strictly prison discipline, told upon ™®"^" them with awful effect. In two years, death claimed eight victims, whilst numerous others of the prisoners became afflicted with paralysis or insanity. The names of the dead were Lynch, MacGeogh, Fottrell, Stowell, Meagher, Kennedy, Kelly, and Harbisson. Of the others, Joyce, Burke, Sweeney, "White, McFeely, and Barry, became afflicted with various forms of nervous disease, ** These records of death, paralysis, and insanity, supply a striking indictment against the attempted treatment of political prisoners as common felons, on whom prison treatment wrought no such effect." Fenians resenu The enforced association with common criminals was the wrong which ed association, perhaps tho Fenian prisoners resented most. " As I infer from the conditions on which the Commissioners will permit me to address them," said Brian Dillon before the Devon Com- mission, in 1870, "that they will not recognise moral grievances of this kind, I shall not dN^'cll on this hardship, though I shall not, I trust in God, ever become so depraved and immoral as to forget it." — Q. 8, 129. Dillon thus concludes his statements Dillon's atate- inent before Devon Commis- sion. The jailers tried to make Dillon a bricklayer's assistant. " In pointing out the treatment received at the hands of prison officials, it would be wrong to overlook the fundamental truth which underlies the whole, and which goes far to account for our exceptional treatment in convict prisons. It is found in the diffei'ence, morally and politically, existing between thieves and political prisoners. When the thief is tried, and his sentence passed, he comes into the prisons built for thieves, and is lost amongst the number of other prisoners whom he find, there before him. Inside the prison walls he is not persecuted because he was a thief outside ; he is not punish«d if he keeps within the prison rules. The Irish political prisoner, on the contrary, enters the prison built for thieves, accompanied by rancorous and bitter feelings of hostility. Under the influence of political, nati.^nal, and re- ligious antipathies, the worst feelings of the human heart are perpetually quick- ening into acts of oppression and persecution acjainst him. While the moral feelings of his jailers are too blunt, too sluggish, or too depraved to persecute a thief as such, their politicalhatreds and antipathies are being continually aroused by the actions of his party outside the prison walls. He is punished for his own otifenco in the past and theirs in the present. Manchester and Clerkenwell spoke from the frowning brows of our jailers. If the facts do not reveal exceptional treat- ment," he concludes, *' it cannot be denied that they were eminently calculated to undermine the health of body and mind. I have no doubt of the gradual destruc- tion of the former. The latter calamity I pray Alniighty God to avert." Dillon died shortly afterwards, another victim to the system of common degradation. Penal servitude was framed for the common felon. Its conditions were so administered as to improve him, physically, mentally, and morally, to turn him into habits of industry, to offer him prizes for the development of his faculties, to teach him how to earn money, so that, when he left jail, he might occupy a higher social position than when he entered it. " The edge of the sword only was turned towards >^. ,.„>^ 15 the political prisoners." The incongniity was positively absurd. Take ths case of Brian Dillon, who sweetly sang : " Wben twilight, darkening into aigbt, Tbrowa round my cell its sombre ebade. And thronging memories, sad or bright, Slowly come and slowly fade ; Then, sweetly through my prison bars, Au old friend sings a song to me — An old song from the far-off times Of youth, and home, and liberty. " Sing, Robin Redbreast, sing : While listening to thy minstrelsy. Through prison bars my soul will wing To Ireland o'er the sea." The prison system, one of whose chief objects it is to raise the un- skilled criminal to the dignity of an artisan, endeavoured to make Mr. Dillon, the patriot and poet, a hricklai/er's assistant. Result — death of Mr. Dillon. "The incongruity," says Dr. Sigerson, "was very marked, when a man like Mr. Davitt was yoked to a cart and compelled to draw stones." " The political prisoners were thus put at a physical and industrial disadvantage, as well as subiected to moral suffering and intellectual privation — driven hopelessly downwards, wnilst the common criminals were being drawn hopefully pward. Pro- crustean procedure is not a success. The attempt made t(» compel political prisoners to undergo the same treatment as ordinary felons resulted in making them suffer a different and worse treatment — the effort to produce equality produced inequality." Mr. Disraeli having held the reins of office for nearly eight months, Mr. Gladstone assumed the government in ttie December of 1868, with pointed Devoii Earl Spencer as Viceroy of Ireland, and Mi-. Bruce, now Lord Aberdare, Commissou. as Home Secretary. Dr. Sigerson states that Dr. Mulcahy assured him that from this moment a vast improvement took place in the tieatment of the Fenian suspects. However that may be, a Commission was appointed in 1870, to investigate the whole matter. The Earl of Devon acted as chairman, the other members being Mr. George Broderick, Mr. E. De Vere, Dr. Greenhow, and the late Dr. Robert Lyons. The letter of instruction received by the Commission was sent to them by Mr. Bruce, now Lord ^erdare. We print it side by side with Mr. Balfour's letter of instruction to his Committee of Inquiry in 1889 (see end of chapter). Mr. Bruce' s letter of instruction is the more honest production of the two. The Devon Commission was appointed to inquire into the condition of the Fenian suspects, and it was ordered to do so. The treatment to which the Irish Crimes Act prisoners had been sub- jected gave rise to Lord Aberdare*s Committee, yet throughout the whole letter of instruction, the phrase, Irish Crimes Act prisoners, does not occur ! The position taken up by the prison authorities in 1865 was this — The defence " These " (the Fenians) '• are political prisoners. • It is alleged that they have son officials in ' been treated with uudut severity. We, on the other hand, declare that we have 1870. t :) . 1 k'~ 16 made distinctions in their favour because they Sigerson, Freeman, March 18th), were political prismert."—(DT. The truth of this assertion may be found by a reference to the evidence p^ivcn before the Committee. And here I may quote a few words moro from Dr. Sigerson " From the language we hear from time to time, aa to the identity of penal treat- ment which should govern political prisoners and common criminals alike, foreign- ers might imagine that to be the rule and practice of the realm. Many natives ap- parently are affected by this illusion. Now, if the case stood really thus, all that the prison authorities need plead as regards their treatment of the Fenian prisoners This is lialfdur'd was simply this — ' These men have been pronounced criminals by the law, and defooM. committed to our charge. No statute nor prison rule distinguishes tliem from other criminals, hence we make no distinction ; all are criminals, and all are treated in the same manner.' But this was not at all the position taken up." It will be observed that the latter position is the one taken up by Mr. Balfour. Looking at precedent, it is a very absurd position, indeed. Small priTilfgeu had to be pranted t-o Fenian prisou- eris. The DeTOM Commission condemn* th« system. The attempt failed -<■'( As a matter of fact, althougli the general treatment of the Fenian suspects was similar to that of the ordinary felon, certain small distinctions were made because they were political prisoners. For instance, common criminals, as is well known, must have their hair and beard closely cropped. Now, in spite of the rigorous treatment to which Fenians were subjected, this rule was absolutely relaxed in their regard. I commend this fact to Mr. Arthur James Balfour. He has not considered it necessary to relax this particular portion of the rule, with regard to all his prisoners, though with curious inconsistency he has done so in some few cases. In support of my assertion that small priveleges were granted in the case of the Fenian prisoners, I quote the evidence of Captain Ducane before the Com- mission — " Has that concession been made in the case of other prisoners ? Not through the whole of their sentence ; certainly not. A short time before men (criminals) are to go out from prison they are allowed to grow their hair ; but these men (treason felons) have been allowed to wear their hair all the time !" The Devon Commission, as we have seen, recommended that the diffi- culties attending upon the location and treatment of political prisoners, or " men guilty of a crime so exceptional in its nature that it has been thought right to modify prison discipline in their case to a certain extent, may be most readily met by setting apart a detached portion of a convict prison for prisoners of this class." The attempt to treat the Fenian suspects as ordinary criminals failed. The treatment was barbarous in the extreme, such as no civilized country in the world, perhaps, except Russia, would have sanctioned for a mo- ment. Nevertheless, certain relaxations had to be granted, and will in- evitably have to be granted, wherever the attempt is made to treat politi- cal prisoners as common criminals. Both Royal Commissions condemned the system of cast-iron uniformity which, for the first time in Irish history, was introduced into our jails, and recommended the confinement of political offenders in a separate prison (see page 3). It is needless ■m 17 u'n- to add that most of the Fenian suspects were released shortly after the report of the Devon Commission, according to the terms of the Amnesty frantcd by Mr. Gladstone. The Chartist movement in England, in 1839 was, characterized by Th« t''»n''"t'.'''> TnriV6iTifliiL III proceedings very similar to those -which took place in the Irish Tithe England. war a few years previously. According to Lord John Russell, then iette?fr^°illfr4 Home Secretary, who, in August, 1839, addressed an oflS.cial letter to the John Uusseii magistrates at Manchester, the offences then committed may be classified under four heads, of which thveo wore as follows : — " 1st. Attempts have been made to obtain money from shopkeepers, house- B„y^ottini; in holders, &c., by means of intimidation (as by threatening them with personal luay. danger, or with loss of business, or threatening to mark them down and report them as enemies, and by various other illegal moans). 2nd. Persons have been combining and endeavouring to injure shopkeepers, householders, and others in their lawful business, representing them as enemies of the people, and persuading others to leave off trading with them, thereby to prejudice them in their business. 3rd. Persons, in pursuance of an illegal combination, have gone about among the working class of the people, inciting and endeavouring to persuade them to desist m working, and desert their employers. These practices Lord John Russell considered "mischievous practices, which are contrary to law, injurious to trade, subversive of good order, and dangerous to the peace of the country." Is not this like a leaf from a pamphlet of the I.L.P.TJ., describing the horrible state of affairs existing in Ireland at present ? Fergus O'Connor and Henry Vincent were two of the chief leaders Case of Pcrgwa of the great Chartist movement. Fergus O'Connor was committed to chart^t,"^' York jail. A petition was sent in from Yorkshire in which it was alleged aiieuoci di-gra- that Mr. O'Connor was treated in prison as a common felon, and an * '^ '°" " " opinion was expressed that such treatment would seriously injure his health, and that this was the first time that a political offence had been so dealt with in England. " When Sir F. Burdett was imprisoned for a like offence, he was allowed to supply his own food and bed, and to receive the visits of his friends ; Mr. Leigh Hunt, Mr. Cobbett, and Mr. Montgomery, the poet, had the same indulgence." The Under-Secretary, Mr. Fox Maule, declared that the Government Discussion in were blameless. O'Connell asserted that if the statements made were J^^nlm'®"*" . nus con- ** Imprison- demnation of considered it degr».iati..u true, a direct violation of the law had been committed, ment" he said, " did not imply torture." Mr. Ward highly unconsticutional that " a gentleman condemned for a political offence — a gentleman of acute feeling — one who had lately been a mem- ber of that House — should have been condemned to perform the most menial offices." The Attorney -General declared that, although he had prosecuted Mr. 0^ Connor, no one would more deeply regret his persecu- tion in jail. In the House of Lords, two weeks later. Lord Portman was House of Lords " sure that inciting to a breach of the peace was not such a case as their lordships would wish to see punished with such severity ;" while the Marquis of Normanby boldly asserted that political offenders should not ' (11 18 li.";: 111!' The II owe L«ii'il Norinatiby's opinion. Bradford peti- tioii. ii be treated as felons, adding that " the previous habits of the individual made the enforcement of the strict prison discipline, a great increase of the severity of punishment, and, under the name of uniformity, they were making the most unequal punishment." secrHtar inter- ^^ ^^® Commons, upon the same day, Mr. O'Connor's case was again /•res! under discussion. The Under-Secretary concurred in the opinion ex- pressed that the treatment was cruel and unwarranted, and stated that the Home Secretary had written to the visiting justices, directing them that it was proper to relax the rules.. ** Regulations of a personal description, such as those relating to dress, &c. (which, though convenient in the common run of cases, might in some cases be looked upon as personal indignities), might, in the opinion of Lord Normanby, be properly dispensed with in the present case." (May 24, 1840;. RefeiTing to the allegation that Mr. O'Connor had boon associated with felons, Lord Normanby must suppose that that part of the statement is erroneous. " There ought," he said, '* to be nothing of degradation or personal indignity in the treatment of Mr. O'Connor, nor anything which may operate with unusixal and disproportionate severity with reference to his state of health and his former habits of life." (May 27, 1840.) Lord Brougham presented a petition from Bradford to the Lords, June 4th, which declared that "if there were any truth whatever in these statements, and others of the same kind which had lately come before the public, there was cause for the deepest regret, and great danger of excit- ing that feeling so fatal to the design of all i)uni8hment ; of indignation at the treatment of the offender instead of at his offence." Lord I^ormanby explained that he had sent out directions on the sub- ;ect. Lord Denham presented a petition, on June 5th, from Leeds, praying for a free pardon 'for Mr. O'Connor, in consideration of the torture to which it was stated he had been subjected. Lord Normandy then read out a statement from the chairman of the visiting justices, dated June 1st, which shows what effect the directions had upon the prison authorities — "Mr. Fergus O'Connor ia not subjected to any indignities of the person. He does not scour out his room. He does not perform any menial ofQce. He has had sheets offered him to sleep in, and he refused them. He occupies, to-night, and will continue to occupy, the best room on the felons side (z. e., not on the debtors' side). He has tea aud sugar, without restriction of quantity, twice a day. He has animal food at dinner and two glasses of wine. He is shaved daily, and has clean linen and towels when he wisheu. There are no beds but those of iron stock and flock beds, of which flock beds he has four. He has a pillow, chair, and table. He eats and has eaten bis meals in his ward by himself, the first day excepted. He has a large yard to exercise in. He has a bedroom and large hospital to himself. He wears his own clothes. He has not had any newspapers. He has nut written or received any letters without the inspection of the governor." Finally, on the 22nd, Lord Normanby stated that he was allowed newspapers and other publications. Effect of Home Secretary's in- terference. ^"i,— 10 At the Monmouth A-ssizes, 18.39, Serjeant Talfourd prosecuted Mr. Henry Vincent. Ilcnry Vincent. He was convicted upon the charge of having attended S^a'i'of'uXw- xrditious and unlawful assemblies. While he was in prison a magistrate ftu aam-mbiy. declared that^ " He was not subjected to the degradation of wearing tlie prison dress, or having his hair cut ; in fact, he was subjentcd to as little painful treatment as possible con- sistent with the restrictive and safe custody of his person. Some question was after- wards raised with respect to the books he was allowed to read ; and certainly he heard with some surprise that Henry Vincent was to be restiicted to books merely of a reli- gious character — he heard it with surprise, because he feit that such a restraint was not good for the mind of a young man, active and inquiring." Serieant Talfourd, the ^'orv man who had prosecuted Mr. Vincent The Attorney, more than once, applied to Lord John Russell, then Home bocretary, hmi proseiMiteii ill connection with the hooks supplied to Mr. Vincent, and received the J'^^"^^""'' *"*"'"' answer: "that Mr. Vincent would only he restricted from reading improper books, but not books of a miscellaneous character." At the next assizes, Mr. Vincent was convicted of the same class Secon.i im- of offence. He was removed from Monmouth jail to Milbank, where we Sir'viiKHmt'.*^ read " He was attired in prison dress, fed on prison diet, forbidden Treated as a writing materials, and only allowed to correspond once in four months. Taifmuci I'm- In other words, he was subjected ^o the sumo treatment as the Irish *•*'''■'*• treason-felony prisoners of a later date. Serjeant Talfourd, who had prosecuted him, protested. (There is a tip for Mr. Peter O'Brien.) "Such discipline as this,' ho said, ' was clearly inappropriate to the cases of per- sons committed for political qlfcncet, and it afforded a striking contrast to the kind of punishment formerly awarded, of wliich instances innumerable could be given. If political writers, they had been allowed to continue their political writings, they were allowed the use of books, and free communication with their friends — in short, the punishment which they received was confined solely to restriction on their per- opinion of Bonal liberty. There, he said, was the case of Sir Charles Wolseley, tried and Attorney convicted of conspiring to be elected the legislatorial attorney of Birmingham, who ^^.^f/""'',''" was confined in Abington jail, but was allowed, in his memory, to come out and ^^eny^!!!! listen to the trials. There was also the case of Mr. Lovett, proprietor of the States- man, sentenced to be imprisoned in Newgate as the very harshest sentence which the judge could inflict, yet he was allowed to have a large room of his own — to have his proof sheets sent to him — to communicate with his friends, and to enjov all the con- veniences of life consistent with his deprivation of personal liberty. Then he added that he could not think it right that a change should be made in the condition and treatment of prisoners silently and without the intervention of the Legislature. This was a state of things, proceeded Serjeant Talfourd, which could not last. The advanced state of the human mitid required that punishmeiU should be proportioned to the nature, as well as to the degree of the offence." Mr. "Williams, of Monmouth, magistrate, declared that he was a warm Discussion in advocate for the separation of political offenders from common criminals. Parliament. Mr. Hume considered the treatment of Mr. Vincent had been *' aggravated beyond all precedent in such cases, and was infinitely more calculated than any other course could have been, to create sympathy for him in the public mind." ■A- it ■ r If 20 The Home Secretory'* itetion. Mr. Walkley thought that fiuch treatment of political offenders was " extremely likely to produce great alarm in the public mind." Mr. Aglionby said that Buch treatment would "create a popular sympathy much more dangerous than any the writing of Mr. Vincent could possibly produce." Both "Whig and Tory joined in the protest. Lord John Bussell, Home Secretary, hastened to allay the feeling. The imprisonment, he said, was more severe than the Secretary of State had ever contemplated. " There was certainly reason for making a change ! !" Lord Normanby proposed to alter the law so as to prevent the occurrence of such scandal, and proposed the advisability of remitting some of the term to which Mr. Vincent had been sentenced. liCMMi to be Th* cases of Mr. Vincent and Mr. O'Connor arc instructive. In both «ifl«i o/rnt alteration of tlio law punishing ])olitical oll'enccs — Mr. IMgott and Mr. Sullivan an; subject to an imprisonment, of a cliaracter ho eHsenliully (lilTurent, that it h an abuse of language to call it by the same name." On tho '27th Minrh tho subject whs broufiht n\) before the Common^ by Mr. Maj^tiire, supported by Sir .lohii (Jnty. Tliey compUiined that tho rrison Act of 1 H.Hthiul been passed under a iiiisuTKhTstandinj;, that tho Hous(» had been made to believe tliat it had merely to transfer atithointy, and tliat no change in the method of treatment of cei-tain prisoners was propos(fd or suspected. Lord JVIayo made a most remarkable statement. Allovunfj that the low did not iiuike nnt/ fij)rcijiv proiinimi fur political miKdemeaun)itfi, he proceeded to nhi>w that the Ooicniiiiciit had dove what the law had left midone. • •'The Board of Superintendence could only relax snnie rules; others were ' rr/ared hi/ flip avthon'tt/ and cm thr ncoviimiiihilion of l/ic (iorirnvuiit.^ The statute placed Messrs. Sullivan and I'igott on the footing of common criminals ii» Ireland; ti>e Chief Secretary took up rule after rule for the treiitmcnt of first-claws misdemeanants in Oxford .lail. and declared the Irish prisoners had been treated in accordance with these rules, nothwithstandiiig the statute. They were not placetl with any other class of prisoners, were permitted to wear their oMn clothes, to pro- vide wine (mulled claret) or ale (no medical certificate being recpiired), and food ; they were not re(juired to perform any menial oHice, and had their exercise in the open air apart from other prisoners. They could have more time if they liked. They were allowed, he believed, to have any periodical or books they wished for. The rule as regards visits had been relaxed, and would further be relaxed, so that they might see their friends without the presence of a jail olHcer."— (Sigcrsou, freeman, March 2H.) Lord Mayo thus acted in Ireland as the ITouu' Secretary had done in the case of l'\'rgiis O'Connor and Henry Vincent, in England. Jle inter- fered in spite of his inabiliti/ to do so. " I have taken upon myself," he said, "as an oflticer of tho Govern- ment, on my own authority, to authorize a very large departure from the rules which the Board of Superintendence have laid down. In that respect I have, perhaps, assunuul an authority which did not altogether belong to me. I felt so strongly that the regulations, made by the Board of Superintendence for the Richmond Bridewell, were not intended for tho treatment of prisoners convicted of this class of oli'enco, that I felt it my duty to authorize a departure from the rules. In doing so I believe I have only fulfilled my duty." Why cannot ^Er. Balfour follow in the foot- steps of Lord Mayo V Before leaving the question of home precedent, it may be well to point out that Lord Aberdare evidently appreciates the justice of the principle of the classification of prisoners according to the nature of their offences. The Committee of which he has lately been the chairman clearly acquiesce in it also. However that may be, the following incident shows that Lord Aberdare, at all events, is sound upon the question. One of the most im- portant official documents, bearing ui)on the distinctive treatment of dif- ferent classes of prisoners, ever issued, came Irom his pen. In 1869, 23 two Fciiian inisoncrs, at Woking, oompliiinod that the diet thoy received was not of a Hufflcicntly nouriHhing nature to properly maintain their health. In answer to the complaint wc read : — ** Mr. ]{ruco " (Lord Aberdare, then Homo Secretary) "gathers from the representations in the memorial that it ia not so much a more generous as tt different diet which they (the Woking prisoners) ask for, and he is of opinion that, in the vane of these political prisonerx, some relaxa- tion of the strict rules of diet might, in accortlunce with the practice of uivnt countries, be allowed." Here, of course. Lord Aberdare concedes two very important points : 1st. Tluit political prisoners shoxdd be subjected to an absolutely distinct, npart from u merely generous, method of treatment. 2nd. That this dis- tinction is sanctioned by the practice of most foreign nations. It is a pity Lord Aberdare did not impress his views strongly upon the lati! Commission. It would not have been an unpardonable sin if they had gone outside their letter of instruction, as the Devon Commission did in 1870 (see ])age 3). I will now proceed to concedes shortly the treatment of political what precetient piisoners according to the practice of foreign nations. The precedents ''|| '"'"»« t«a*^^boii I have been enabled to quote, show — Istly, that although the law had never recofrnized political offences, traditional custom demands that poli- tical offenders should be subjected to a distinctive method of treatment; 2ndly, that the attempts previously made, both iuEnglandand Ireland, to degrade political prisoners to the level of the common convict have in- variably failed ; iirdly, that men previously convicted of precisely the same crimes committed by the prisoners of to-day were treated as political offenders, and that, consequently, the men convicted under the Crimes Act of 1887 are political prisoners; 4thly, that inasmuch as Mr. Balfour seems inclined to carry to the bitter end the system which failed in 1839, 18G5, and in 1868, it is expedient that the law should be amended, and a rigid system of classification of prisoners adopted, in order that the treatment of prisoners may no longer be regulated by mere custom, which, thoug^h generally considered so important a portion of tlie British Constitution, can be so easily and lightly put aside by those in authority. In France a system of classification of prisoners according to their Koreipi offences has long been adopted. The Devon Commission before con- ^":^';,';!J;|^'' pr. eluding' their investigations, despatched one of their number, the late Lyons' report) Dr. Lyons, to inquire into the system of prison discipline in that country. Much useful information on the subject may be gleaned from Dr. Lyons' I'eport, which is attached as an appendix to the Blue Book, con- taining the evidence given before the Commission. It would appear from this document that it is the expressed rule of the law that persohs condemned for mere infringements of police regulations, politi- < a ] prisoners, debtors, and some others, are not I'equired to undergo • physical labour. The dietary of the political prisoners included meat, cooked vegetables, and claret (See Dr. Lyons' report). ill: 'n I'olitlcal prisoners in i'Yance. No enforced association with criminals. Official docu- iiient creating •special quarters for political prisoners. Two French political prisoners in 1867. 24 " Independent of the foregoing dietary," we are told, political pri- soners are granted about a pound and a-third of white bread daily, and nearly a pint of wine. Besides all this, they could purchase extra Bup- plies of food at the canteen or from without, but as regards visits, politi- cal offenders had the right to receive their friends in the governor's parlour. PnBoners convicted of political offences connected with the press, "were allowed to rtceive their families in their own apartment, and these might, and, as a matter of fact, did very often, spend the whole day with the prisoners, taking even thtiir meals with them. But the most important point is the absolute non-existence in France of association with convicts. This principle is not there regulated merely by traditional custom. It is part of the law, and has been enforced by, and strengthened by numberless special State documents. A political prisoner in France is always separated from the convicts in whatever jail he is confined. "Whenever, however, political prisoners become numerous, a special quarter is created for them, in one or other of the Maison Cen- trales, by decree of the Prefect. Such a (quarter, "for the detention of political offenders . . . affords many facilities to the prisoners for gaining little luxuries and enjoyments." " Thus," says the official document, " the Government, in accord on this subject with public opinion, traced from the commencement a line of demarcation between the 2^olitical transport and the ordinary criminal.'' The following are extracts from an official decree, ci'eating such a quarter as I have described. It was issued under the Empire, by M. Piotri, Prefect of the Seine, in February, 1867. '* Article I. — There is created at the House of Correction of St. Pelagic a a Special Quarter, destintJ for political prisoners condemned to leas than a year and a day of imprisunment. " Article II. — The prisoner placed in the quarter in question, shall be admitted to the exceptional alimentary regimen accorded to political prisoners, and comprising per day (500 grammes (one pound and a third) of wheat bread, and a deuii-litre (nearly a pint) of wine, and (per week) five full rations and two meagre. The prisoner may procure aliments from without under control of the governor, who must oppose dishes of luxury. No prisoner shall cause to be brought in more than one litre (nearly a quart) of wine per day. The introduction of alcoholic liquors continues to be strictly interdicted. •'Article III. — The prisoners may communicate amongst themselves in the in- terior of the quarter reserved for them. They will coinmnnicate in a parlour attached to the quarter, by permission granted in the Bureaux of the Prefecture of Police, as well with members of their families as Avith strangers who have shown legitimate motives for visiting them. Those different communications will take place on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays, from noon to four o'clock, and on other days from eight o'clock a.m. to noon." M. Nacquet, and M. Accolas were political prisoners in 1867, The former, a prisoner in St. Pelagic, was allowed to absent himself from prison on condition that he was present at roll-call. M. Accolas, being in delicate health, was allowed to pass his time in a room at St. Louis hospital, where he daily received his friends in dozens. Wo • I' i' 26 pn- and ■vrill have occasion further on to consider who are political prisoners according to the French definition of political crime (page 29) , As regards the treatment of political prisoners in France to-daj-, I refer Political the reader to the interview with Professor Leveille, published elsewhere, Knim'e to-Xy. and to the letters of Count Albert de Mun, M. Godre, Paul de Cussagnac, i-ettorsof c.m and the other eminent opinions from France, pinnted towards the end of this ' *' * ""' * * pamphlet. " Political prisoners," says M. Loveille, " wear their own dress, receive visits from their friends " (this latter privilege enables prisoners in France to hold vn-tual levees, some of the prisoners having fifty or sixty persons on their visiting list), and need never mix with the other prisoners." ** Iti a normal condition,'^ says Count Albert de Mun, *' political offences are not stricken by any punishment exceeding fine or detention. Most certainly," he adds, "it is unexampled that writers or political persons should be subjected to the treatment of common criminals." lib So much for France. If Wm. O'Brien were a French politician he would have been subjected to cmtodia honcsta — that much is certain. The letters which I am enabled to publish from Canada .and the Canada ami United States bhow what those countries would do had they any I'l'tcd state political prisoners to take charge of. The treatment to which the war prisoners in the States were subjected was, as is well known, very liberal. The United States has always recognized the difference between criminal acts and political violations of public regulations. I hold in my hand a letter from the Hon. Thomas N. Hart, the present Mayor of Boston. Mr. Hart is anti -Irish. I do not publish his letter, because, to say the least of it, it is offensive ; nevertheless, Mr. Hart is con- strained to say : " It is quite certain, in my mind, that political prisoners should not be treated like common felons. Jefferson Davis was, under our law, a political criminal, and we treated him accordingly. So we did with others." The proceedings of the International Congress on prison discipline, i„teniatit>nai which raet in 1872, in the Hall of the Middle Temple, London, affords Pii«<;n Con-jrtss us an opj.iortun' cy for learning the custom of all Europe and America, luaikabie pr..- witn "o^a'fl ■ ) political prisoners. The extracts are taken from a very t-«.'e(iinKs. ablv? ■ tt .'? ; y TJr. Sigerson, which appeared in the Freeman of July 12th. 7. The n prison being at St. Wo The President of theCongress was the Earl of Carnarvon. The Right Son. Mr. Bruce Lord (Ahersdare)^ the Home Secretary, addressed tJis Congress and welcomed the foreign delegates, who included representa- tives Jrom all the European nationalities as well as from the United States. Captain Ducane and the Hon. Charles Bourke, Chairman of the Irish Prisons* Board of to-day, assisted at the meeting, and inasmuch as no dissent is recorded on their part, their concurrence in the recommendation, which 26 i Cu»to(tin Vonenta. Si'ii The Inter- natioiiiU ilcli'- gates (listrtiss asHoc'iatioii. infrai'tiim of law does not inij)ly viimiiwilitv. The Conjti'css in favour of minple deten- tion for certtiiii crimes. 'foJIov'ed the dehhcraiion.^ of the Congresx, vnist be aft-vaiied. At the Congress, Count Adolpho do Foresta, who was present as the representative of the Italian Government, proposed for consideration, and afterward* embodied in a resolution which was passed, the question : "Ought, a kind of imprisonment, consisting in a mere deprivation of liberty, without obligation to work, and without contact with other prisoners, to be ad- mitted for special crimes not implying any great perversity ?" Mr, Pols, delegate from the Netherlands, remarked that political crimes should come under this head, and that, in most countries where penal codes had been drawn up, such honourable custody had been adopted. Count de Foresta would include all persons guilty of duels and press offences of any kind whatsoever. "In this category he would place persons imprisoned for duels, press offences, &c. Simi)le privation of liberty was enough for such an offender. To shut him in a cell, to set him to compulsory labotir, to associate him with thieves and forgers, is evidently excessive. Let us consider that the persons guilty of these offences arc frc(iucntly well educated, young, and uncorruptcd. Simple detention in a fortress, where they could read, work on their own account, and see their friends, would be a suffi- cient punishment. By not mixing them with other criminals, by not even placing them in the same localities, nor tinder the same denomina- tions, the sentiment of their personal dignity will be prcsen-ed. ... It is not a privilege which I propose, but an act of justice, for ordinary punishment is too severe, and, moreover, unjust, when applied to this class of crimes." Professor TVeldimiroff (for Russia) concurred, that simple hifracfioim of the Imo did not imply criminaliti/. The Hon. T. E. Chandelier, speaking for the United States, said that the principle was recognized there. Dr. Marquardson, representative of the Bavarian Government, said the code adopted in Bavaria three years previously established the system of cm- todia honesfa. The result of the debate was entirely in favour of Count de Foresta' s proposal. A resolution was passed. The wording is some- what peculiar, but the meaning, taken in conjunction with the foregoing statements, is perfectly clear. The Congress " expresses its desire that in the various penal codes, framed or amended, crimes of passion, not imj)hjing great perversity, should not be punished only by {i.e,, by mere) ordinary imprisonment, but hy simple detention in a fortress or other sectire place, without the cellular system, obligation of working, or confusion with those sentenced to ordinary imprisonment. — " Tratisactions of International Penitentiary Congi'ess." London, Longmans, 1872. Political offences are, of course, "crimes of passion, implying no great perversity." Indeed, as a rule, political prisoners, are men of lofty patriotism, whose crimes, though " of passion," really imply no perversity, whatsoever. «7 The knowlcdf^e of the resolution passed by the International Congress The Freetmn'g might have kept Lord Salisbury and his Government out of all their trouble congresil!" * ■with respect to Irish prisoners. Well might the Freeman^ s Journal, oi' July r2th, 1889, ask— " Was there ever a more extraordinary pronouncement in favour of the class fication of prisoners ? Was there ever a more representative opinion expressed iigainst the enforced association of different classes of prisoners or of offenders Avhose moral guilt differs in degree or in substance ? The whole system of common f, I think, a Nihilist at Kara, who had daily to go to work in the gold mines, but on his retuiTiing he had a room to himself, some of his own furniture, fittuigs, and books." Mr. Balfour's policy is, therefore, not only in contradiction to consti- tutional custom at home, but is also opposed to the practice of every civilized, and even semi-civilized nation in the world. The indications afforded to us by international law are extremely international valuable. The distinction between political offenders and criminals is tiSn refused for f^anctioned by the law of extradition. Mr. D . A. O'Sullivan, of Canada, whose political letter may be found under the Canadian Protest, quotes a few lines frooi '^ *'"'*^ Yeaman' s * ' Study of Government. ' ' Political writers, Mr. Yeaman observes, have not failed to notice " the jealousy and firmness with which all modem nations refuse the extradition lortrial and punishment of fugitives, charged '■ n fi i]i:i III Lord Palmer- Htoii's Govern- ment (lefeati'tl on a question coiiceruins political tsfusees^ HtiRland's foreign action. 28 with political offences ; and that circimi stance ought to impress upon them, the care with which they should proceed to the punishment of their own citizens for the like offence^ — (Teaman, " Sttidy of Govoniment.") And again : — " From the right and duty of surrendering such criminals, extradition for political offences is always excepted, and there is a sufficient foundation for this in the common sentiment of mankind. That sentiment points to what may ultimately hecome the municipal as well as the inter- national law." No country has more clearly defined its position with regard to the extra- dition of political offenders than Great Britain. It has heen the hoast of Englishmen that any political refugee of any country, no matter how deeply he may have sinned against the common instincts of humanity, may find within its shores ©f Great Britain a ready asylum. From Orsini to Bou- langer — all are welcome. In 1858 Lord Palmerston introduced a measure to the House, which, if passed, would have considerably diminished England's popularity as the covert of fleeing politicians. How was the proposal received ? Lord Derby said : *' Not for the security of the sovereign of France, or of all the sovereigns of Europe twenty times over, would I violate in the slightest degree that sacred right of asylum to foreigners, by wliich our history has- been always characterized.'* Mr. Gladstone said: "These times are grave for liberty," and de- nounced a measure " which attempts to establish a moral complicity between us and those who seek safety in repi'cssive measures, and which will be a blow and discouragement to that sacred cause in eveiy coimtry in the world." Mr. W. J. Fox declared that if assassins came into England, they had come from countries whose Governments made assassins. Lord John Bussoll was appalled at tlie idea of purchasing the good- will of foreign powers by destroying the old established system. He refused to support the measure or share in the *' shame or humiliation of it." Mr. Roebuck : "It has been our boast for ages that we have given an asylum, a safe asylum, to every political offender." Mark the words,. political offender. The measure was defeated by a majority of 19 in a House of 449' members, and Lord Palmerston' s government was forced to resign. England has always resented in any other land the confusion of political offences with criminal acts. Witness her action in regard to the Neapo- litan prisoners — perhaps the only true parallel to be found in all history to Mr. Balfour's policy in Ireland. Great Britain boasts, in fact, that she is the custodian of the liberty of the world, and she will never, we may be sure, lend herself to the extradition from her shores of a foreigner who has sought her hospitality, provided that his offence %s a political one. m 29 we Is it not, however, logically and politically absurd to refuse to extradite a poutioaJ a refugee because his offence is a political one, and at the same time p^™''"*- treat our own-political prisoners, as if such a thing as a political offence did not exist, thus encouraging foreign nations to treat as criminal, when in their hands, the men whom England refuses to extradite, on account of the non-criminal nature of their offence ? Constitutional custom in England and Ireland, foreign practice, and what has Ik^oii international law having now beon examined each in turn, 1 may fairly p«"veti. claim, I think, to have proved that political prisoners should bo classified apart from the ordinary criminal. The question now arises, are the Irish Crimes Act prisoners political Are the Criman prisoners ? Some people would consider it superfluous to argue this matter, p,5i't?,S,r"^™ and, indeed, it does seem childishly absurd to say that the Crimes Act "ffendors. prisoners are not political prisoners ; nor do I intend to enter into any prl^e"'' ^'^ elaborate argument to knock down a supposition so patently ridiculous. It is often easier in mathematics to prove a complex problem than to logically demonstrate the accuracy of an axiom, because you have no previous demonstrated truth to aid you in the latter work. In the same manner, there being in England no definition of a political offence, it is somewhat difficult to prove in the abstract that members of parliament and others, convicted under the Irish Crimes Act are political prisoners. We have seen that men convicted of offences precedent .snya precisely similar to those committed under the present Act were they are. treated as political prisoners. Precedent, therefore, at all events, is upon our side. The French people have not been so reticent on the subject, and A. FVeneh numerous French statesmen have, in various official documents, defined poiiuJa" the term " political offender." M. Thiers, for instance, in a ministerial "Vendor circular, issued on the 17th August, 1834, proceeds as follows : — "The government," he writes, "has judged it to be suitable and in conformity with public opinion not to confound in any case, political convicts, purely such, with other convicts destined for houses of force and correction ; and I have even decided that they should receive a better alimentary regimen, and that they should not be forced to work. But one condition is indispensable in order that men condemned to seclusion or imprisonment for acts, or on the occasion of acts, of a political nature, may, without any sort of scandal, be admitted to enjoy these favours ; it is necessary that it should be demonstrated and incontestable that they have acted under the in Auence oj tlieir opinions. Thus individuals who, on the occasion of political troubles, ■ give themselves up, whether to the pillage of money or other movable objects, or to any other ordinary crime against social order, could not be considered but as simple malefactors ; while the pillage of arms (unless particular circumstances establish a contrary presumption) cannot be considered except as a simple political crime. The presumption should be equally against them who may take part in a political move ment, if they had previously been condemned for theft, or for any other dishonourabL action. In these cases the administration is authorized to think such men have taken part in political troubles only with a view to pillage and devastation. Their place is then marked in the quarters of those condemned for ordinary crimes, without there being moral ground for according them any favour. The purely political convicts would, themselves, with reason, repel such an association. Those condemned fur political crimes of the Press must naturally he classed in the categor if of political comncta." T m Development of M. Thiers' iletlnitiuii. 30 The last paragraph is peculiarly significant.. M. Thiers wonUl hardly have classified Mr. Harrington as a criminal because he pub- lished in his paper outspoken comments on the administration of the Coercion Act. In the phrase, "men acting under the influence of their opinons," we have a very fair definition of what constitutes an offence which is non-criminal. I say advisedly, non-criminal, because, naturally, anti -vaccinators and such- like offenders would come under the same definition. A political offender, then, is a man who acts under the influence of his opinions. The term "opinions" must, of course, be strictly Imitedto opin- ions upon puhlic waff as, upon which fhere is room for legitimote difference o opinion. The murderer has an *' opinion " that it would be advantage- ous to him to slay his victim, and in so far, he acts under the influence of his opinions. The forger thinks it would l>e profitable, too, to sign a name other than his own, on a cheque for £1,000, and he acts accord- ing to his opinions. The Whitechapel assassin may have the very best intention in pursuing his erratic course in Whitechapel, and he may be said " to act under the influence of his opinions." But the prevalence of murder and forgery would endanger the very existence of society, whereas the prevalence of offences against public regulations only tend to change the law or constitution, or the existing relation of certain classes to the rest of the community. A man who claims that his offence is political must prove two tilings — 1st. That he acted under the influence of opinions, which he held not in regard to an individual or individuals, or questions affecting t' -.m or himself ; but in regard to the established stateof the community tvs a whole, or classes of the community as classes 2nd. He must prove that the acts which he committed under the influence of such opinious, do not threaten the existence or safety of society, or of indi- viduals. If a man can prove these points, his offence must necessarily be a political one, or, at all events, a nrn-criminal one. A lunatic or a criminal (and Jack the Ripper is both), might prove that his action was consonant with the first condition, but under no circumstances could he prove that it is consonant with the second. The Irish members never claimed that crime ceases to be criminal because it may be instigated by political motives; but they have claimed, and claim still, that mere offences " against public order," "affecting men, notasindividuals, but asmembersof the commonwealth," as Blackstone says, should be distinguished from criminal actions, when such offences are the result of political opinions, held by the offender. The Nationalist party is striving to repeal the Act of Union, and possibly to abolish landlordism — that is to say, they are endeavour- ing to effect a change in the Constitution and of the relations held by one class to another. Offences malt There are two classes of offences against the law of the land — offences pr«hiba«. ^"^'^ ^"^^^ *^ ^^i A^^ offences mala prohihita. As long as the Irish members Two tilings to be iiroved. >Vliat the Iii8h I'jirty claimed. al Boycotting ami trades imionisiu. and Crimes Act prisoners can honestly say that their offences are only mala prohihita (that is to say, that the offences imply no moral perver- sity) ; they are justified in asserting that they are political prisoners. That their offences are mala prohihita, or merely offences against public regulations, is proved by the fact that numbers of ministers of religion have thought it their duty to commit these offences. Many of the priests convicted under the Crimes Act considered that their offences were not mala prohihita, but ho7ia prohihita. What is wrong in itself in law must be so also in religion. To the English and Protestant mind, the fact that priests liavc by word and deed shown their warm approval of various "heinous offences" carries no significance. To the Irishman and Catholic it is proof positive that there is nothing to be ashamed of in these offences ; that, in fact, they are merely mala prohihita. Shortly, therefore, I would define a political offender as a man who, acting Definition of nnder the influence of opinions which he holds upon public matters, upon which ^^^\ there is legitimate room for difference of opinion, commits an offence which is only malum prohihitum. As regards boycotting, and certain forms of combination and con- spiracy, precedent shows that they have hitherto been considered political offences, whenever they were the result of political feelings or opinions, provided that such offences did not develop into criminal action. After all, what is boycotting but one of the best principles of trade-unionism ? Previously the principle, as exemplified hy combinations among tradesmen, was illegal; it is now legal. We have learnt sense. I do not intend, as I said, to enter into an elaborate argument as to whether the Irish Crimes Act prisoners are political offenders or not. I have touched upon the matter of motive, simply because the Tory press and party have been harping upon it, and misrepresenting the Nationalist position, on the relation of motive to act, in the most shameful manner for the last three years. Selfishness is the true mark of crime, and no one can accuse Mr. seifishnesni: William O'Brien of selfishness, whatever his faults may be. The Coercion Act was an Act passed to stamp out the National Jho Coercion League, a political organisation. It makes that a crime in Ireland which is not a crime in England. It is disapproved of by five-sixths of the par- liamentary representation of Ireland and a very large minority of the representation of England and Scotland ; by, in fact, the whole of that political party which for the time being is out of power. — (See Earl of Cavan's letter, end of pamphlet.) I: ■!4 ■ (if to into to-morrow Tlie Lilieiu If the Liberal Party were to come into power lu-uiuhv" party wo»iii morning, the Coercion Act would be repealed within twenty-four hours, to-morrow and every prisoner convicted under it liberated at once. This is un- i^crhrdnais ' deniable. The assertion is not unlikely to be proved to be true, within the they cowhu next couple of years. There could be no better proof that the Irish Crimes Act prisoners are political prisoners. The assertion, however, |: 8S i i li 1 1 1': 1 i" TJie Daily Telegraph and Mr. Balfour. Our caHu proved. ti T« enforce prison dresa iii|;i M iUegai. that the Irish members of parliament and the Crimes Ac mors are not political prisoners, is so absurd, as I have said, t) ■) not think it worthy of further notice. The words of the Daily Telegraph, althoup^h printed * ere in this pamphlet, may here be produced with advantage : — "Nobody in private life," say.s the Daily Telegraphy "considers, or affeots to consider, that Mr. Dillon, Mr. O'Brien, or others, are on a level with burglars or thieves. We know that their motives are quite different, and that the leader of an insurrection may be an honourable and pure-minded man. We must also be ever ready to make special allowances for Irislimen. They read in youth tlie record of a generous and impulsive people, who might easily have been won by statecraft and kindness, but who were treated with stupid brutality by tlie sti'onfrer nation at their side, their trade injured, their creed insulted, their liberties denied. In latter years they found themselves in a Parliament that granted nothing to reason, but everything to outrage and obstruction, thus tempt- ing a whole people to the use of force. The sympathy of educated men for poor peasants, however, even when it goes too far, is not reprehensible. The ability and earnestness of many Parnellite members are enough to have won them fame and wealth in many non-political careers. We think, therefore, that to measure out to humane, hot-headed men the same kind of degrading punishment that is awarded to rioters or moonlighters, is, to use the mildest language, a deplorable mistake." If Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien are not on a level with the burglar or thief, if they are not criminals, they must be political offenders. On the 13th September, 1887, speaking on the Appropriation Bill, Mr. Balfour said, " he entirely conceded that political offences ought to be distinguished from offences that were non-political." Daily Telegraph — Mr. Balfour — '* The Crimes Act prisoners are poli- " Political prisoners should be distin- tical prisoners." guished from ordinary criminals." A clear case proved from the mouth of two enemies. The Irish Crimes Act prisoners are political, and they should be treated as political prisoners. As I have said before, there is some reason to doubt whether the attempt to force William O'Brien, and such-like prisoners, to wear prison clothes, was legal. The prison uniform was originally intended as a sanitary reform, and was introduced with a benevolent intention by the State. It has long, however, been considered a garb of degra- dation. *' This dress has too long been associated with all that is vile and con- temptible to be assumed by lesser offenders without a sense of degradation, a shock to the self respect, which should never beunnecessarily inflicted " (see Aberdare Report). The regulations contained in the 109th section of the Prison Act, 7th George IV., cap 74, directly implies that non- paupers, that is, prisoners who have sufficient means to support themselves, shall be at liberty to supply their own garments, nay, further, have not the right to expect to 33 Some Actst con« be clothed at the cxpcnrc of the State. The 19 & 20 Vic., cap. f)8, orders that prison dress shall be worn by all prisoners, whether they art^ able to support themselves or not. The Act here mentioned, was passed in 185G, when the prisons were under the administration of the old Board of Superintendence. The Prison Act, 1877, 40 and 41, Victoria, cap. 49, abolished the Board of Superintendence, and established the General Prisons Board of the present time. In the rules for the regulation of local prisons, we read — "In pursuance of the General Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1887, we, Francis Thomas Do Grey ; Earl Cowper, Lord Lieutenant-General and General Governor of Ireland, with the approval, advice, and consent of the Privy Council of Ireland, have settled, and hereby approve of the foregoing rules made by the Prisons Board of Ireland." Ride 28, relating to prison dress, is as follows— "A convicted criminal prisoner shall be provided with a complete pHsondreM prison dress, and shall be compelled to wear it." ''"'®- This rule, it will be seen, implies that every prisoner must wear a prison dress, whether competent to support himself or not. In principle, therefore, this rule is directly contrary to the principle embodied in the 109M section of the Georgian Act, already alluded to. Now, the last paragraph of section 12 of the Act, 1877, establishing the General Prison Board, reads — ** No rule shall he made hj the General Prisons Board inconsistent with any of the regulations contained in the IQ^th section of the Act of the 1th year of the reign of King George IV., cap. 84." The rule regarding prison dress, therefore, adopted by the General Prisons Board, cannot be valid, and its enforcement is illegal. It seems to me that if the provisions of the Act of 1856, with regard to prison dress, were intended to be continued in the new Act, a provision would, or ought to, have been added to the section of the ' of 1877, somewhat to the following effect : — " Subject to any alterations or amendments effected in the said 109th eection of said Act by the provisions of the Act of 1856." This point was first raised in an able letter in the Freemanh Journa of January 5th, 1 888. A member of Parliament may never again be asked to wear prison dress in Ireland, owing to the recent modifications in the rules; but it may be advisable for lesser politicians to test the legality of rule 28 of the Prisons Board, if it is again attempted to enforce it. Early in March Dr. Barr, the notorious surgeon of a local prison p^ Ban's in England, despatched a lengthy disquisition on the prison systems Miv««h iott«r to of England and Ireland, to Mr. Balfour, and, having been revised by " """* Iiim, it was sent on to the London Times for publication, on March 9th (see Hansard on the subject). Dr. Barr proves to his own satisfaction 3 ii!ll The dietary question. A euriouH ano- maly. The treatment (if the (Trimes Act of the feh)ii. 31 what very few people dispute, that the treatment of a common convict is somewhat better in England than in Ireland. That, however, has nothing to do with the main question, which is, whether the Irish Crimes Act prisoners should bo placed in the criminal class at all. Dr, Barr dealt at some length with the dietary. He forgot to mention, however, that the Irish Crimes Act prisoners, who are, as a rule, short- terra misdemeanants, are placed upon a dietary, a great deal inferior to that which the ordinary felon receives. It is one of the anomalies of Kd with'thiit ^^^ ^^^ of 1877, that the shorter the term of imprisonment, the more severe is the punishment within the jail. The Bench sentences a man to a short term of imprisonment because his offence is slight. The prison makes the nature of his confinement more rigorous, because it is short. Two men are convicted, and sent to prison. One is a Crimes Act prisoner, who has committed an offence against public order, and whose sentence is under one month. The other is a dark and dano-er- ous character, who has, perhaps, been tried and convicted of a homicide, committed under the most revolting circumstances, and has escaped the gallows only by a legal technicality. The political offender is a short-term misdemeanant. The other is a man whose crime has brought down upon him a sentence amounting to many years of confinement. The felon is refactory — he is put twice upon " probation." During the first three days the relative treatment of these two men is as follows {Freeman, April 19th): — i POLITIOAL OKFUMDHR. ( Well- conducted ). Breakfast -Soz bread (and w^ater). Dinner— Goz. meal, half Indian, oaten, as stirabout (and water). Supper— Soz. bread (and water). Plank bed. CRIMiyAT, HOMfCIDK. (Ill-conducted). 12oz. bread. 1 pint coffee. half 8oz. bread, lib. potatoes, U pint oxhead soup (two days). 12oz. bread, l\ pint coffee (two days). I2oz. bread, 1^ pint oxhead soup (two days). 12oz. bread, | pint new milk (one day). 8oz. bread, 1 pint cocoa. Mattress. Their diet for the fir.st four weeks is — I'OLrXICAL OFFKNDEB. CONVUrTKD UOMIOIUE (Well-conducted). (Ill-conducted). liread — 4:74oz. 864oz. Cocoa— {>0 pints 28 pints Coffee — none 36 pints Stiet Pudding— 31b.s none Milk— 50 pints 3 pints Soup— 44 pints (weak) 24 pints (fjootl) Potatoes — 3lbs 8lbs. Meal (half oaten, half Iiulian) — l^lb none The political offender during this period has received l|lb. more meal, 3 lbs. more suet pudding, and 47 pints more milk. The convict, on the other hand, has receiyed more food by 390 oz. of bread, 20 pints of soup, on convict however, r the Irish ass at all. o mention, nie, short- inferior to lomalies of the more ices a man ?ht. The because it 8 a Crimea jrder, and d danger- homicide, ■s escaped ender is a IS brought ifinement. During as follows lint oxhead o (lays), soup (two one day). fib. more )nvict, on ;s of Soup, 35 /) lbs. potatoes and 14 pints of coooa or rofft'o. In addition to all this tho convict pnsycs his night on a mattress. Tlio political prisoner, us a short- term misdemeanant, is liable to hav(( Iho plank bed disring the whole of the term of his imprisonment. It is dear, then^fore, that the political prisoner, in being treated as a short-term misdemeanant, is subjected to a harder system of ])ris<)n discipline than the insubordinate felon in a cuiivict prison. It may be said that this shoil-term scnitenee is rendered more >viiy the felon f .> eri! in order to make it deterrent, but this is surely the duty of the "* **'^'" *'''''^^** iudgc rather than of the jailer. The reason why the long-term convi(;t 18 not placed under the harsher /r^mc, is simply because the prison authorities know that subjection to such treatment, would mean that in six months tho unfortunate man would either be in hospital or in the grave. Im- prisonment is healthy, according to Dr. IJan*, and perhaps it is — for the convict. liut if the treatment is considered too severe for the felon, who has years of healthy imprisonm<>nt to undergo, why should it not be con- sidered too severe for the political offender V If a political offender can withstand it for a month, why cannot the ordinary criminal, whose health, we are told, is so Avell looked after in the jail? The truth of it is, that the jailer has taken upon himst-lf the office of the judge. The diet is u starvation one. It is only when a man comes out of the jail after a month's such treatment that his constitution begins to fail, and to show the effect of the treatment. 8uch treatment turns prison life into a torture, and threatens the health of men, whose offences the jxulge has condoned as slight, in inflicting a short term of irapnsonment. It would serve no good or useful ])urpose to go into all the phases of The locfint prison discipline in their relation to the Crimes Act prisoners. Owing to pr"!l,on'dfs-°" ** the terrific force of public o])inion ]>rought to bear upon the subject, and the en(>rgetic action of "Mr. Sexton in Parliament, Mr. EaKour was forced to make some changes in the Irish prison discii)line, which will be foimd at the end of this chapter. It will be observed that the niles speak everj'where of " criminal prisoners," and if the Irish Crimes Act prisoners are included in the rules, it is only because the law now makes them crimiiuds. The amendment of Kule 18, in favour of prisoners awaiting trial, docs not concern us. The only alteration made is that visitors may now stay more than a quarter of an hour with the prisoner, if such be ap- ])roved of by the General I'lisons Board. liule 36 is of no significance. Eule 44, as may be seen, is practically unaltered, llegoi'ding Rule 35 and Rule 28, on July 4th I addressed a letter to the Freeman^a Journal, over the signature " Nemo," fi-om which the following are extracts : — 3 cipline no con- cession . Wl " Every sensible man agrees with you that if any distinction is to be made between political prisoners and common criminals, it should be based upon the principle of classification. Viewed in this light, the proceedings of Lord Aberdare's Committee and the recent modification of the rules regulating the discipline of local prisons, are, not merely 'unsatisfactory,' but they are positively harmful. You have more than once referred to these modifications as ' concessions ' wrung from the Government. Let us see shortly what the * concessions ' amount to. A Utter. 86 The liair clip ping rulf. Wliat becdiiuv of the confes- sion. •' Kule 3i>, framed l)y the Prisons Board of Ireland, previou»l\read as follows — ' Kach male prisoner shall have his beard clipped or be shaved at nasi once a week, unless specially exempted by the governor or surgeon.' 1j '• Now it will surjjrise many, no doubt, to learn that the governors of the various jails, where Irish parliamentary prisoners have been confined, had this optional j)ower all aloiij;. You will observe, sir, that this optional power is not fettered by any hmitation as to the grounds upon which it could be exercised. If the governor believed that the Crimes Act prisoners were political prisoners, and that, therefore, they should be ' subjected,' as you say, to a ' distinctive method of treatment,' it was in his pow«»r, if he liked, to exercise that power to ' specially exempt ' a Crimes Act prisoner or member of Parliament from the degradation which attaches to the clipping of the hair. " The rule, as amended on April .3rd, says— " ' That each male prisoner shall have his beard clipped, orjbe shaved once a- week unless specially exetupted by the governor or surgeon, on the ground that same is not necessary for the purposes of health or personal cleanlineu.' This modification confers no new power upon the governor or surgeon, since, there previou^tly being no expressed limitation of their powers in this matter, they could ' specially exempt ' upon any ground they choose. Now, however, ther can only exempt on the ground of health or personal cleanliness. The governor previously possessed an optioniw power, the application of which was practically limitless. He now possesses an optional power, the application of which is speciflcally forbidden except upon one stated consideration, nefore April .3rd he could exercise his discre- tion upon any ground he pleased ; since that date he can only act upon one ground — viz., personal health ana cleanliness. What becomes of the 'concession?' far from being a concession, this change in the prison rules is positively a strengthen- ing of the objectionable system. This matter is of importance, since Lord Aberdare's Committee has expressed an opinion in favour of the continuance of Rule 3'i, as amended. But people should not be del u led into the idea that any concession has been made. The change was clearly intended to convey that impres- sion. It is therefore desirable that we should fully understand the nature of the transaction. " Rule 28, that which deals with the question of prison dress, has been modified on the same narrow principle of health and personal cleanliness. If you, sii-, regard the adoption of the theory of the classification of prisoners as the only way out of the present difficulty, I do not see how you can reasonably dub the change, even in this rule, as a ' concession.' I would specially draw your attention to the opinion expressed by the Committee of Inquiry — ' That the question of wearing prison dress cannot be decided upon merely sanitary grounds.' It is clear that the only other ground upon which it can be decided is upon the principle of classi- fication. If Mr. Balfour, therefore, follows the recommendations of his Committee, he will have to amend the recent modification in accordance with the principle of classification." On April 18fch, Mr. Balfour issued his long-promised letter of in- structions to a Committee appointed to investigate certain phases of prison discipline. The Freeman's 0^ the same day I wrote as follows, in the Freeman's Journal. Journal Ae&iwH \ may be pardoned for re-producing the article here. It epitomises position towards the attitude taken up by the Irish Nationalists in regard to the *' con- c^'^'itt'elrr cessions" made by Mr. Balfour in the provisional rules and in the appointment of Lord Aberdare's Committee : — " We publish elsewhere Mr. Balfour's letter of instruction to Lord Aberdare, as Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry appointed to Is this a eon cession. 37 IS follows — nee a week, the various al |)ower all y limitation /ed that the sliuuld be his puwar, prisoner or of the hair. once a Journal. pitomises lie " con- d in tho I to Lord )inted to Till! Irish plat- fi>rm. investigate certain aspects of the prison system of Great Britain and Ireland. We may say at once that tho instructions issued to tho Committee afo profoundly disappointing. We had entertained tho hope that a full and fair investigation would bu made into those parts of the prison discipline which havo lately given such offence, and given rise to the tierce struggle and heated controversy of tho last two years. What was the object of this groat struggle ? What motives actuated those political prisoners convicted under tho Crimes Act, who havo time after time strenuously protested against that policy which condemns to common degradation, those who wished to reform the constitution of tho countiy, and those who offended against the common law of tho land. The course of tho agitation has certainly not lain in any desire to alleviate the lot of the ordinary criminal, or render less stringent the rules which regulate the conduct of the felon. Tho platform upon which the Irish Nationalists and tho Liberal Party have taken their stand has been the principle of distinction, the prin- ciple of the classifiuation of prisoners according to the nature of their crimes and the motives which moved them to action. We were pro- mised by Mr. Balfour that the subject should be investigated, and such changes made in the system as would be recommended by the Committee of Inquiry. The alleged character of tho offences com- mitted by certain persons forms, says M. . Balfour, * one of the grounds ' I" upon which compulsion as to tho wearing of prison clothes and tho cutting of the hair has been objected to. It is not one of the grounds ; it is the only ground, the whole ground — it has formed the basis of the present agitation as regards the political prisoners. Th-s has been the argument which day after day wo have been insisting upon and dinning into the ears of the Executive in Ireland. When Mr. Balfour goes on to instruct Lord Aberdare that, inasmuch as the argument involves the whole question of the classification of prisoners, according to the real or supposed motive of their offence, it is not pi'oposed to submit the point to the consideration of the Committee, he simply takes from the inquiry all its substance and its reality, leaving but the empty semblance of a name. We say that the Committee of Inquiry is a farce. It is, as we first dubbed it, a collusive inquiry — an , inquiry established to enable the Irish Government to escape from the a farce. difficulties of an awkward position, while still standing by the tenets of their immoral belief. The Committee are merely asked to offer au opinion, upon the merits of the different arguments, that have been brought forward, in favour of a modification of the rules, in respect to the clipping of the hair, and the wearing of prison clothes. But the modification, if adopted, is to be based, not upon principle, not upon precedent, but upon the narrow ground of sanitary conditions of cleanliness and health. The question of dietary, the question as to whether political and such-like offenders should be brought into direct associa^^^ion with criminals — whether they should be deprived of all the it ellectual occupations and resources natural to their class ; whethe such offenders should be treated, in fact, as first-class mis- n he (committee 33 (lemeauants or not ; in other Avords, the whole subject of the classi6ca- tion of prisoners, the raison d'etre of the present agitation, is to be left uninvestigated, without the pale, so to speak, of this miserable inquiry. The peraonnrl of the (.'oiniuitti'e. Why political prisoners in JCngland have never protested .ij^ainst prison tlisi-ipliiie. m Mr, I/efevre's letter tc the Daily A'ews. "The pemoHiiel of the Committee, does not really matter. Lord Abcrdare, Mr. Wyatt, and the three departmental prison oflieials, will do their work well for the government which they represent. We veniui'e to say, now that the bogus nature of the inquiry is exposed, no liberal-minded man would consent to serve upon it. There is a sting at the end of Mr. Balfour's letter. The Committee are request*^d io advise the government as to what altei-ations, if any, shouh' be ii»ade in the I'ules by which obedience to prison regulations is en- forced, in view of the fact that deliberate refusals to obey the rules have recently become common. Mr. Halfour is informed that these occuri'cnces have taken place in Ireland, but never yet in England or Scotland. AVhy is this ? Is it not because political jirisoners in I'Jngland and Scotland have always been treated as such, and have never been condemned to the petty malignity, which has characterized the policy of the government towards the Irish Nationalists ? Let the (•ommittee search the pages of history. Let them examine into the cases of Cobbet and other distinguished English political prisoners. Let them then ask themselves whether these notable offenders would have tamely submitted to the same treatment as has been meted out to the Irish members ? We commend the point to Lord Aberdare. Meanwhile, we condemn, in the name of those Irish members who first organized the movement against the prison system of Ireland, the bogus inquiry which has been instituted, and which, to our mind, is evidence at once of the weakni ss of the position taken up by the government, and of their failure to face in a manly way the difficulties they themselves have created." On April 22nd, a letter appeared in the Daily News from Mr. Shaw Lefevre. Commenting on this, the Freeman'' s Journal again explains the position of the Irish Nationalists. " Mr. Shaw Lefevre has explained the question of principle, involved in the agitation against the present treatment of political prisoners in Ire- land, with remarkable lucidity and force, in the course of an interesting letter addressed to the Daily Netcs^ and which we reproduce elsewhere. That agitation has been directed against a system. If the hrunt of at- tack has fallen upon one or two particular points of that system, it was merely because these particular points lent themselves most conveniently io the exposure of the whole system. We Lave not contended during the last two years, merely that Irish political prisoners should be allowed to wear their own clothes, and grow their beards in 39 luxuriance if so inclined. If these two aspects, so to speak, of the main question have been brought more prominently before the public tlian the other and really more important phases of the matter, it was simply because the enforcement of the two rules in question is the outward and visible mark of that degradation, which has been imposed impartially upon the political offender and the wife-beater and garroter during the last two years in Ireland. When public opinion was aroused, and the honest indignation of sturdy lovers of constitutional right, was excited by the bitterly unjust action of the Irish Executive, Mr. Balfour, who had previously been inebriated with delight at what he called his in- ability to interfere with prison discipline, drew up a code of provisional rules which removed to some extent these outward marks of dejrrada- tion, and thus, to quote Mr. Shaw Lefevre, ' deprived the Irish mciu- bers of their most effective means of protesting against their treatment as common criminals, by relieving them from wearing prison dress.' This, of course, is no solution of the question, because underlying the objection to these two symbols of criminal treatment there is a broail principle — the principle for which we have been fighting, in other what we havo words, the theory of the classification of prisoners according to their •"^'^'" flgi»ti"i? crimes and the motives which actuated them in their offences. The real subject in dispute is whether a prisoner convicted for a political offence, under a law expressly passed to stamp out a political organiza- tion, should be treated as a first-class misdemeanant or not? The first- class misdemeanant has nothing in common with the felon ; ho does not sleep upon the plank bed ; he has a separate dietary ; ho is not asked to associate with the ordinary criminal society of the jail ; he can see his 'i.x' flrstoLis-t friends, and has ample opportunity for exercise, and is allowed to while '""^'''■""'•*"*i"t-* away the time with the intellectual pursuits congenial to his taste; and is, of course, not called upon to perform the menial ollices of his cell. The provisional rules do not even touch upon these important matters. We were led to believe, however, from the tone Mr. Balfour adopted, that the Committee of Inquiry which was about to be appointed, would go to the root of the question, and would institute an investigation into the constitutional and historical justice of the demands m.ade by the Irish members. The Committee of Inquiry is now, we find, virtually to confine itself to a report upon the expediency of continuing the new regulations. The main question is not to be examined, because, forsooth, the arguments in its regard would necessitate an investigation into the ' whole theory of the classification of prisoners.' Why, this has been what we have been fighting for. this very theory of the classification of prisoners ; and we are coolly told that the subject is not to bo entered upon, because to do so would cause trouble and inconvenience. A commission, or even a committee, not specially instructed by Mr. Bal- four, would have investigated and reported upon the whole theory or principle within a few weeks. The questions that Mr. Balfour should have put to the Committee are these — What constitutes what is popu- What : larlyknown as a political offence? Are Crimes Act prisoners in Ireland [",',',^8 Mr. Iliil inatntc- , . _ lahoiilil poUtical offenders? and, if so, what treatment should be meted out to ''i^** ''ep". i A niUe issue. The Aberdare Report. The Committee and the recent changes in the prison rulew. The Aberdara Report and the Report of the Devon Com- mission. 40 them, according to justice and the light aJTorded by histoi*y and prece- dent, and sanctioned by constitutional usage and express act of law ? As it is, the Irish Executive, otherwise known as Mr. Balfour, haa ridden o£E on a side and materially minor issue. His Committee of In- quiry is a farce. His commissioners are political partisans, and sym- pathize ^-'th the Government in their recent Irish policy. If Mr. Bal- four imagines that a collusive inquiry of this sort, based upon false in- structions, and expected to enter a verdict in accordance with those in- structions, will set the question at rest, we assure him he is very much mistaker, and the sooner he swallows and digests that fact the better for him i.id his Administration." The verdict of the Aberdare Committee was not so favourable to the Government as was anticipated. They denounced the extraordinary treat- ment to which Mr. Edward Harrington had been subjected. They chafed under the letter of instructions sent to them by Mr. Balfour. " To these directions we have ende ivoured to conform," they say, " but we have been unable to suggest any alterations in the existing practice alto- gether unconnected with the general character of the offence for which they liave been convicted." Commenting upon the recent modifications in the prison rules, the Committee deprecate the extension of these rules to England, upon the following grounds : ' ' No necessity has been demonstrated for so sweep- ing a change, involving serious danger to the internal administration of the prisons and the safe custody of prisoners. To permit one man to wear his own clothes, while a poorer and not more criminal prisoner was com- pelled to wear the prison dress, would introduce an invidious and irritat- ing class distinction which would greatly add to administrative difficulties, and constitute an innovation which ought not to be sanctioned without strong reasons, and even then should bo fenced about with all possible safeguards. It would entail a necessity for additional precautions in ordering an increase in the number of warders, and consequent expense. Prisoners so favoured would have facilities for escape, which would com- pel the authorities to deprive them of many occupations in the precincts of the jail which diminish the monotony of prison life, and which are there- fore much valued by them. It would greatly assist the introduction forbidden articles, and increase the efforts now often made to corrup warders, and, not the least of its objectionable aspects, it would tend to confuse the sense of moral guilt by the knowledge of exceptional favour extended to the very worst criminals." The Committee does not explain why all these disastrous results icill not take place in thelrishprisons. The Devon Committee reported against the extension of certain privileges to prisoners within the jail as detri- mental to prison discipline. The Aberdare Committee do the same, but they have not the courage to go as far as the Devon Commission, and say that prisoners, in whose regard these concessions have to be made, should be completely separated from the ordinary convicts. n^HiMMI^^WHPI n fi'vl id prece- of law? our, has 36 of In- nd syra- |Mr. Bal- false in- those in- vy much e better le to the ry treat- They lir. "To * but we ice alto- r which 1 rules, id, upon sweep - ation of to wear ras com- 1 irritat- Seulties, without possible ions in xpense. id com- jincts of ) there - tion corrup tend to favour •m'U not nst the detri- same, 3D, and made, 41 Mr. O'Brien's letter on the Aberdare Committee will be found at the Mr. O'Briens end of Chapter II. Mr. O'Brien points out that if the Government seem *'^"*'' inclined to make any concession in regard to the Irish Crimes Act prisoners, they will make it, not in consideration of the nature of their offences, but because the Coercion prisoners, as a rule, are able to maintain themselves ; fji-i-s-siflcation in other words, because the wearing of their own clothes, by such men will sohi'tion. not be detrimental to the sanitary condition of the prison. This concession could not be accepted as final, and the resolutions lately passed by the Cor- prJ'test""*^''"^' porations of Dublin, Cork, Kilkenny, Sligo, Clonmel, Limerick, Drogheda, and Waterford, indicate that the Irish people will not accept any con- cession which is not based upon the principle of classification. The various resolutions adopted by the several municipalities will be found elsewhere. According to the regulations sanctioned by the recent modifications in Kffect <>f the prison discipline, the rich wife-beater, the forger, and the light- ^'^'^"S'''*' fingered gentry who relieve persons of superfluous articles of adornment on racecourses, &c., will be raised to the level of the political offender, provided that they are able to maintain themselves We arc fighting iui a principle — the principle of the classification of Conclusion, prisoners according to the nature of their offences ; that prison punishment should be in proportion to the degree of moral guilt actually attaching to the offence committed. The forger is a sinner against the moral code, and Forgers. no matter how well educated, how refined, or how rich, he is a criminal, and should be treated as such. Quakers who arc unwilling to comply with certain regulations, anti-vaccinators, and the like, should be classified and treated leniently whilst in prison. They are not criminals ; no moral guilt attaches to their offences. To refuse justice, however, to the Irish Crimes Act prisoners, because to do so would produce inequality of treat- ment whore offences against mere public regulations are concerned, is to refuse justice to a very large class, because you are not prepared to carry justice to its logical conclusion. Because Mr. BaKour refuses to adopt the right course in regard to anti-vaccinators, is no reason why he should refuse to do justice to the Irish Crimes Act prisoners. Mr. Balfour has BaifourVoppoi- himself denounced "the cast-iron uniformity" of prison discipline ; *""'*y* why cannot he take steps to remove this "cast iron uniformity?" And instead of degrading one class of prisoners because there are four or five classes of offences which, in common with the political offence, should not be lowered to the level of crime, why does he not boldly adopt the principle of classification, do justice to all, and leave his name written on the page of history, as the first man, who attempted to bring the English prison law into agreement with English constitutional custom and tradition';* E. DWYER GRAYJ r i.ii 42 APPENDIX TO PART I. Ijtiter of Instruction to the Devon Commission. bow. Whitehall, May 10th, 1870. To thfi uight My Lord, Hon. Dorl of Deron, chair- With reference to allegations, 'iTiellon.Chas. which have from time to time been made Brodcrick, on the subject of the treatment of prison* Stephen Ed. Dc gjs under sentences of penal servitude, R?' 1). Lvons, ^^ convict prisons in England, for the and ' ' crime of treason-felony, I am directed by S. H. Green- Mr. Secretary liruce to request that you^ will, in conjunction with the gentlemen named in the margin, inquire and report to him : — (1) Whether there is anything in the treatment, diet, or discipline of the con- vict prisons to justify any charges of un- necessary severity or harshness, towards the prisoners confined therein ; or of neg- lect of the conditions necessary for ti>* due preservation of the health of the pri- soners. (2) Whether the treason -felony prison- ers have been subjected to any excep- tional treatment in any way, or have suffered any hardship beyond those inci- dent to the conditions of a prisoner sen- tenced to penal servitude. You are authorised to call before you and examine any person whose evidence may be necessary to enable you to carry out this inquiry, and to call for and ex- amine any prison books, which you may desire to inspect. I am further to request you to commu- nicate with the Chairman of the Directors of Convict Prisons, who has been in- structed to afford j'ou all necessary facili- ties for making this inquiry. Mr. Bruce has requested your Lordship to preside at the inquiry as chairman, and to communicate with the other gentlemen named in regard to the arrangements for carrjing it into effect — I am, my Lord, your Lor Iship's obedient servant, A. F. O. LlDUKIL. The Right lion, the Earl of Devon. Letter of Instruction to Aherdare't Committee. The following is the letter which Mr. Balfour addressed to Lord Aberdare, chairman of the committee of inquiry, as to the rules concerning the wearing of prison dress : — •• Mv Lor n,— The question as to how far prisoners should be compelled to wear prison clothes, and to submit to hair clip- ping, has recently been raised both in England and Ireland. One of the grounds on which the compulsion has in certain cases been objected to, depends upon the alleged character of the offences committed by the prisoners. This argu- ment involves the whole question of the classification of prisoners according to the real or supposed motive of their offence, and it is not proposed to refer the c(m- sideration of it to your committee. Other arguments, however, have been uficd in favour of a modification of the present practice, and suggestions have been founded upon these arguments, on which it is desired to have your comments and opinions. It has been pointed out, that, as a matter of history, prison dress was originally intended as a benefit to the jirisoner, not as a punishment. It has further been held by some, that as the wearing of prison dress was not originally intended as a punishment, so it is not a kind of punishment which is capable of defence. Prison clothes are a positive benefit to the poor. They inflict no pain upon the hardened criminal, and the only person to whom they can under any cir- cumstances be a punishment are those few exceptional individuals who happen to take the view, that wearing the prison dress carries with it some disgrace over and above that, which is involved in the imprisonment itself. It has been objected to these views, that to permit certain per- sons to wear their own clothes, while others are compelled to wear the prisoa clothes, would be to draw a distinction between the punishments inflicted upon the rich and upon the poor. But if it be true that the wearing of the prison clothes is not and ought not to be considered a part of the punishment of impriscnment, this contention would flill to the ground, 43 and the only distinction, that would remain, between prisoners convicted for similar offences, would be a the treatment of different ,.^._^.,, „_ „ distinction founded upon condidons of'cieanliness and health. It is possible, however, even if the soundness of these ceneral arguments against the compulsory imposition of prison dress be ad- mitted, that, nevertheless, there may be serious objections to any alteration in the presen system from a practical point of view. It may, for example, prove ditt.cu t Lr impossible to maintain prison discipline, if the present rigid uniformity of treat- mentbe in any way departed from. It may also be that any departure from this uniformity wofild produce in the mind, both of the prisoners and the public the im- pression that certain classes of offendersare exceptionally favoured, and that, hoAvever irrational such a supposition might be, it would be so inveterate, that from the point of view of pr.ictical administration it could not be ignored It is these and kindred arirumenJs for and against the proposed modification of the existing rides, on which the Government desire to obtain the opinions of your committee. On one other matter also an expression of your opinion is invited. Dehberate refusals to obey the rules prescribing prison dress have,I am informed, never occurred m England or Scotland They have, however, occurred in Ireland, and these or similar breaches of discipline, might at any moment occur elsewhere. Your committee are requested to advise a^ to whether any, and if any, what alterations it is desirable to make in the existing rules, by which obedience to prison regulations is enforced.— I have the honour to be, my Lord, your obedient servant, ^_ ^ _^ Balfour. "Irish Office, April, 1889." ^ 'i 44 REPORT OF THE ARERDAEE COMMISSION. ■ l! The Committee appointed ' ' to advise whether any, and, if any, what altera- tion it is desirable to make in the existing rules, concerning the wearing of prison clothes and the clipping of prisoners' hair," have n:et, and taken evidence, official and non-official, the latter including that of persons who had been subjected to these rules, wliich evidence they append to their report. In the letter of the 12th April, 1889, defining the character of the inquirj , you stated that it was not proposed to refer to the consideration of the committee the classification of prisoners " according to the real or supposed motive of their oil'ence," and we were restricted to the considerution of such changes as can be effected without injury to the discipline and health of the prison. To this direc- tion we have endeavoured to conform, and though we have oeen unable to suggest any alterations in the existing practice altogether unconnected with the general character of the offence for which the imprisonment was inflicted, we make no suggestions or recommendations founded upon the "real or supposed motives " of prisoners. That the treatment of prisoners, both with respect to clothes and hair, was originally founded on sanitary considerations only may be accepted as certain. The interesting memorandum of our secretary, Major Arthur Griffiths — '• A Prison Dress Historically Considered" — which we print in the appendix, puts this matter beyond doubt. That this treatment, as time went on and the management of prisons improved, became an important element in prison discipline, is clear from the concurrent evidence of many experienced witnesses. The whole question, including considerations of health, discipline, and safe custody, is fidly discussed by Sir E. Dulane in the memorandum which he put in as part of his evidence, and to which we beg to refer. The advantage of a uniform prison dress may be sufficiently stated under three heads, viz. : — sanitary, disciplinary, and general. I. (a) The removal of private clothes from prisoners on first admission is a strong and, in many cases, an indispensable safeguard against the introduction of infectious disease, and the constant use of a cleanly and sufficientprison garb tends f o maintain the health and cleanliness of the prisoners. {h) Prisoners' clothes have the advantage over private clothes that they can be more readily washed, supplemented, and repaired without external aid. II. (a) Prison dress is a valuable safeguard against escape. (h) The prison dress aflbrds the easiest method of classification, as by its marks and badges prisoners are readily distinguished. (c) Prison dress checks the trafficking in and secretion of prohibited articles, to which prisoners are much addicted, and would be inevitably encouraged if private clothes wei'e exchanged or added to from outside. III. — Even if the prison dress was originally intended as a boon to poor prisoners, it has long since been adopted everywhere on more general grounds as an essential element of prison administration. It is now accepted without hesita- tion or repugnance by the great body of prisoners in England, Scotland and Ireland, and recognized as a component part of the system — not as a punishment, or as in- tended to inflict a stigma, or convey a sense of degradation. By a large proportion of the ordinary convict prisoners prison dress is looked upon as a right, carrying with it distinct advantages. Tims, the prison dress saves private clothes from wear Mid tear during confinement ; it is more suitable and convenient for prison labour, 45 vrhich, in many cases, is injurious to clothing ; it permits its wearer occasionally to bo emiiloyed beyond his cell in different offices which are highly prized by prisoners— an indulgence which could not safely be extended to prisoners wearing their own clothes. Such, biictty summarized, are the arguments offered in favour of the prison dross by odiciai witnesses. With one exception they were unanimous in stating that in England and Scotland no objection to wearing the prison dress, much less any resistance to it, ha d tlu'mselvcs, who had been imprisoned for refusal to have their children vaccinated. Its occasional prevalence among Ulster peasants imprisoned for having been drunk or other comparatively light offences, was also shown to exist by a former governor of Belfast .(ail. The number of minor offences punish- able by imprisonment in default of payment of a tine is so great, and has been so much incrta-ed by modern K•gi^lation in connection with health, education, high- ways, &c., that it cannot be doubted that many prisoners of this character are exposed to a i)iinfnl trial in being forced to put on prison dress. "I am told by my otiicers," said the governor of Wandsworth Jail, "that occasionally men seemed surprised that they should be required to wear prison dress, but they don't make any furtlit-r protest when they find it is the rule." The present practice in England as to dress rests on the Prisons Act of ISfi;'), which prescribes that "a convicted prisoner shall be provided with a complete prison dress, and shall be required to wear it " We are advised that this rule can only be altered by Act of Parliament, no dispensing power and no power to alter the rule being vested in the Secretary of State or in any other authority. In Scotland the practice rests upon the rule made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and laid before Parliament under the terms o"f the Scotland (l^bl) and the Secretary of State for Scotland {1S85 and 1887) Acts. That rule is as follows : — "A convicted criminal prisoner should be provided with prison dress, and ahnuld be ret|uired to wear it. This rue may be repealed or altered by the Secre- tary for Scotland under the terms of these Acts." In Ireland, also, the case is different from that of England, and under the poweis conferred on them by the Act of 40 and 41 Vic, cap. 49, the General Pri- sons hoard htive, on the 22nd of Marcli, 1889, passed the following resolution. (Here follow the new rules with regard to dress and hair clipping recently issued). A suflScifnt time has not yet elapsed to allow the committee to form a decided i*ndgment as to the effect of these new regulations as to dress upon prison discip- ine iu Ireland. What information could be given on the subject was supplied by 46 Mr. Joyce, of one her Majesty's Inspectors of Prisons in Ireland. The committee are unanimous in deprecating the extension of such regulations to England aud Scotland. No necessity has been demonstrated for so sweeping a change, involving serious danger to the internal administration of the prisons, and the safe custody of prisoners. To permit one man to wear his own clothes, while a poorer and not more criminal prisoner was "ompelled to wear the prison dress, would introduce an invidious and irritating class distinction which would greatly add to adminis- trative difliculties, and constitute an innovution which ouglit not to be sanctioned without strong reasons, and even then should be fenced about with all possible safeguards. It would entail a necessity for additional precautions in ordering an increase in the number of warders and consequent expense. J'risoners so favoured Would have facilities for escape, which would compel the authorities to deprive them of man.f occu{)ations in the precincts of the jail, which diminish the mono- tony of prison life, and which are, therefore, much valued by them. It would greatly iissist the introduction of forbidden articles, and increase the elTorts now often made to corrupt warders, and, not the least of its objectionable aspects, it Would tend to confuse the sense of moriil guilt by the knowledge of exceptional favour extended to the very worst criminals. ]f, however, it be considered expe- dient to make an extension of the prison rules, we recommend that the following conditions should be observed : — 1. That the existing rule should be maintained with respect to prisoners sen- tenced to penal servitude and imprisonment with hard labour, as well as to priso- ners convicted of felony and all misdemeanouis involving fraud. To these should be added prisoners convicted of the graver and gross-er forms of violence, which should be enumerated, and should not be left to the discretion of the judges and magistrates. In Scotland, where the didtinclion between felony and mis lemean- our is unknown, and where sentences of hard labour are coiuparative:y rare, a classification, as nearly analogous as circumstances would permit, would have to be adopted. 2. The remaining prisoners sentenced to simple terms of imprisonment might be allowed to make application to the chief oilicer of the prison for permission to wear their own clothes, under »uch rules as the Secretary of State mny be prepared t ''.ke. I'risoners should only be peiniitted to wear their own clothing if it be CKi^didered fit and sufficient by the medical offifer, and prison diess should be worn by those who are unable to get a proper supply of clothing, including a weekly supply of underclothing. It should also be ni»hiill be per- mitted to be Tisited by one person, or (if circumstances permit) by two persons at the same time, for a quarter of an hour, or for such further time as the Prisons Board or the gorernor may deem neees- ■ary, on any week-day, during such hours M may from time to time be appointed. RuLK 28. 28. A conTicted criminal prisoner Rliall be provided with n complete prison dre^s, and shall be required to wear it, unle.-s the General Prisons Board shall, by order, in writing, otherwise direct, on the grounds that the wearing of suuh dress is not necessary for the purposes of health or personal cleanliness. OLD RULE. Each such prisoner shall be pennittecl to be visited by one person, or (if cir- cumstances permit) by two personi at the same time, for a quarter of an hour on any week -day, during such hours as may from time to time be appointed. OLD RULE. A conyicted criminal prisoner shall be provided with a complete prison dreas, and shall be required to wear it. Bulk 35. 36. Each male prison •••• shall have lii» beard clipped, or be sjaved at least once a week, unless specially exempted by tho governor or surgeon, on the grounds that the same is not necessary for the purposes of health or personal cleanliucsF. Rule 36. 36. The hair of a female prisoner shall not be cut without her consent, except on account of vermin or dirt, or when tho surgeon deems it requisite on the ground of health ; and if the hair of male crimi- nal prisoners be cut, it shall not bo cut closer than may be necessary for the pur- poses of health and cleanliness. Rule 44. 44. Criminal prisoners, if employed at work in their own cells, shall be per- mitted to take such exercise in the open air as the surgeon may deem necessary for their health — such exercise to be taken at such times and places^ and sub- ject to such conditions, as the governor or Burgeon may direct. OLD RULE. Each male prisoner shall have his beard clipped, or be shaved once a week, except specially exempted by the gover- nor or surgeon. OLD RULE. The hair of a female prisoner shall not be cut without her consent, except on account of vermin or dirt, or when the surgeon deems it requisite on the grounds of health ; and the hair of male crimi- nal prisoners shall not be cut closer than may be necessary for purposes of health and cleanliness. OLD RULE. Criminal prisoners, if employed at work in their own cells, shall be per- mitted to take such exercise in the open air as the surgeon may deem necessary for their health. 1 3Part e. THE INCIDENTS OF THE PAST THREE YEARS. Mk. BALForR and Mr. Balfour's Coercion Act, between them, are respon- 'rinee thousand pible for bringing the question of the treatment of political prisoners to '"^■^'"'*^ that acute stage at which it presses for immediate settlement. Prior to the passing, and the three years of gentle but resolute administration, of the Coercion Act, political prisoners, even Irisli political prisoners, counted only by the dozen. Since then they have counted by the thousand. It is hard to get at the precise figures of the victims of Mr. Balfour's three years of coercion, but we are under the mark at fixing it at three thou- sand. This number includes twenty-six members \)i Parliament — more than a fourth of the entire Parliamentary representation of the country, many of whom had to undergo more than one teim of imprisonment. It further includes about a dozen of the most respected priests im Ireland ; the mayors of the principal towns— Dublin, Cork, Sligo, Clon- mel, and other places. Some scores of newspaper men fi'om the higlicst to the lowest, proprietors, editors, reporters, printers, and news vendors ; town commissioners, poor-law guardians without number ; a sprinkling of the professional classes, barristers, doctors, and solicitors, and the elite of the country ; shop-keepers and farmers go to make up the gross total. To these must be added an English working-man's delegate, an English gen- tleman of large property and high position, and an English member of Parliament. The victims included all ages and sexes — old women tottering on the graves' brink, ^(,d young children not yet entered on their teens. They were convicted as ordinary criminals by salaried and dependent officials of the Executive, confessedly selected for the bench on the sole ground of their political opinions and services. The " crimes " of which these prisoners were convicted were, for .VJlljWiii**''® the most part, attending meetings, making speeches, or listening to speeches, publishing reports in the newspapers, refusing to work for or to sell goods to unpopular persons, or resisting eviction. This catalogue, stript of technical phraseology, practically exhausts the ^k I!' K' i^ ciiines ' .50 Mr. italfiiiir's policy. 'I'htf object. Mr. Haifoiii '^• " offoTiccs'* witli wliicli thf Coorcion Art Ik conversant. It will bo readily '*'"''•• fj'lt tliat the difficulty about prison treatment has reiiched an acute stage, when the best reputed and most popular inliabitunts of u country are crammed into jail under a new Act, by new courts, and for newly-created offences. The difficulty was terrii)ly intensified by the doliberute policy which Mr. lialfour thought proper to pursue. The technical rule (see Part I) which in England identilics political offenders with ordinary criminals has always, as will be fully sliown liere- aftir, been " more honoured in th(r breach than in tlu- observance." Mr. Halfour determiuj'd that in regard to his Coercion prisoners it should be rigidly adhered to. From this course h(^ hoped for two good results tr> the Coercion (Jovernment — First, to break down and destroy the energ}-, the spirit, and the h(>alth ef his ptditical opponents in Ireland ; second, by fixing on tluiu tin; badgt; and garb of crime, to degrade them in th« eyes of the peoi)le, and so rob them of tlu'ir " dangerous" inllucMice. This intention was fully ap])arent in the debates in the House at the passing of the Bill, in tlu' course of Avhicli the Oiief Secretary strenuously resisted every proposal advanced to render light the lot of the prisoners convicted of the lu-w offences wliich tlic Coercion Act created, by the now tribunals it appointed. But the intention was put beyond all (luestion by the letter of ilr. Wilfrid Sea wen ]Uunt, published in the Times, March 24th, 1888. Mr. Blunt, in this letter, enters into elaborate details. Ho tells how, in September, 1887, he was staying with a near relative at St. Clouds, in Wiltshire. The gaUiering was altogether n on -political, and politics were practically tabooed. " I do not think," writes Mr. Blunt : Mr. liluiitM " That the Irish (luestion hud been alhided to until, at the end of the week, letter. Mr. Balfoiu' unexpectedly arrived to apend the Saturday and Sunday with us. It was on the Sunday aftcruoon that he begun the conversation specially referred to by an allusion to the Knnis meeting, which, it will be remembered, was the first, or nearly the first, he proclaimed in Ireland, and which was at tliat very moment taking place. His words on this point were too vague for me to affirm more than that it convinced me that he expected bloodshed in suppressing it. From this he passed to the more general question of coercion, and I asked Mr. Balfour how he intended to deal witli the Home Rule movement. * You cannot,' I said, 'expect to convert the Irish by force. ' To this he replied that I exaggerated greatly the extent and sincerity of the movement. It was not a genuine national one, but depended for its vitality on half-a-dozen men, who alone had influence, and if they were got rid of the whole movement would collapse. I asked him who these were, and he named the chief Parliamentary lenders, especially Messrs. Dillon and O'Brien, and Mr. Michael Davitt. These could be dealt with through the opera- tion of the Crimes Act if they dared to hold their ground. ' But,' he said, ' they are afraid of prison, and will leave the country.' I said, ' You will find they are not afraid : they will gladly go to prison, because they know it will strengthen the movement, just as imprisonment has always done. The arrest of the suspects was the making of the Home Rule party before.' ' Oh, no,' he said, ' it will be a very different thing now. We are not going to have any such nonsense as Forster had. They will be quite differently dealt with. They will get severe punishment with hard labour — so severe that those who have not strong health will not be able to stand it.' ' I shall be sorry for Dillon,' he added, ' as he has got some good about him. He will get six months hard labour, and as he has bad health f 51 it will kill him.' I am quite luro of tho accuracy of these worda, as they seemed to me not a little brutal, and Mr. Uulfour had uued a siinilar, thoueh not quite no strong, a phrase about Mr. Dillon in a conversation the day before. ' Mr. Blunt, who it is adnjittcd on uU hands is incapable of wilful misrepresentation, is positive in liis Htatemcnt. Ho gives a number of corroborative details. He challenges contradiction. Mr. Halfour has evaded the challenge by pitiful quibbling and insulting jibes. Wo may take it then that Mr. Blunt's account was substantially correct, that tho degradation of his political prisoners was the back-bone of Mr. Balfour's coercion policy. Mr. Blunt, while the conversation was Ktill fresh in his mind, communicated its substance to Mr. Wm. O'Brien, M.l*., and Mr. John Dillon, M.P., by way of warning. Hence sprang up that wonderful duel between Mr, Wm. O'Brien and ^J; Sijfour*"'' Mr. Balfour : — between the prisoner and his jailer : — which was begun in Tullamore prison and concluded in Clonmel. Mr. Wra. O'Brien met Mr. lialfour's prison degradation policy, as detailed to Mr. Blunt, with open do- fiance. It hardly seemed a fair fight at first — tho prisoner alono in his cell, the jailer with the Avhole force of the empire behind him. But Mr. O'Brien fought Mr. Balfour out on every point and beat him on every point. Asso- ciation with criminals ; menial offices ; and convict garb — these three forms of degradation, from first to last, he jjcrsistently and successfully resisted. Tho secret of his success was short and simple : the prisoner was not afraid to die, and the jailer was afraid to kill him. We do not pur- pose entering ut any lengtli into ^Ir. O'Brien's fierce stniggle in Tulla- more. The details are familiar to the public. He was ordered to " strip," and refused, then he was j)ut on bread and water until his health broke down. Finally, his clothes were stolen at night, and for three days ho was confined to his bed. Then the famous Blarney tweed made its miraculous entry into his cell. Thereupon Mr. Balfour, at last finding the conflict hopeless, gave up in despair, covering his retreat by his first letter to his dear Mr. Armitage, whose falsehoods Mr. O'Brien sub- sequently exposed in the House of Commons. Mr. O'Brien's fellow- prisoner, Mr. John Mandeville, did not escape so easily. Mr. O'Brien vainly endeavoured to prevent Mr. Mandeville from entering into the struggle. He conjectured, rightly, as the event proved, that Mr, Man- deville, being in a less prominent position, would be more ruthlessly treatej Htice of liarr. 52 Poor John MamleTille. Mr«. Manilo- ville'.s evideiii'e at the imiucst. John Mandevillc, a man of herculean strength and health, when he entered TuUamore jail, emerged a mere wreck of his former self, and died within a few months after his release of the fatal delicacy and disease, contracted through the brutality (no milder word can express it) to which he was subjected in prison. Every obstacle was thrown by tho police (doubtless, acting on instructions from head-quarters) in the way of iin inquest. It was hinted to Mrs. Mandeville, that the charge of drunkenness — a charge which the e^ddence subsequently showed was with- out the shadow of foimdation — would be made against tho dead man, if the inquiry was permitted to proceed. But the inquiry proceeded not- withstanding. We remember nothing more touching ever detailed in court than the poor widow's evidence of her dead husband's " confidences as between man and wife," after he was released from the prison which was made a hell upon earth to him in the vain hope of breaking his de- termined spirit. THE WIDOW^S EVIDENCE. Mrs. Mandevillc, widow of deceased, examined by The MacDormott, at the im^uest atMitchelstown, on Tuesday, July 18, 1888, said — •' She was married to deceased in February, 1880. He was about 38 years of age. As to bis beiilth, she bad known bini from bis boyhood, and bad always looked on bim as the strongest man she erer knew. Ue v^as sent to prison on the 2l8t Octo- ber, 1887. From tlie time of his marriage up to that period he continued in good health. He came home on Christmas eve. His appearance was then greatly altered; his lips were blue ; be became pale and thin ; his eyes were sore, and be could no6 read by lamplight. Before be went to prison he could write a fair, firm band, but after that time his handwriting was very shaky. For the first month after be came out be could hardly write. He complained of the trouble of walking. Between the time he left prison and ins death he was always complaining of TuUamore ; be said be never recovered bis strength. He complained of his throat, and of a cough. A* to his teeth, be bad a difficulty of eating, and be required more delicate food. The doctor in Cork ordered bim flannel ; the morning be was going to TuUamore be was not allowed to take that flannel with bim ; consequently his teeth were chattering with cold that morning going to TuUamore. He reached TuUamore about ten o'clock, and got no food till one o'clock, when the ordinary prisoners were served. He left Cork that morning about half-past four o'clock. He complained that bis throat was sore nearly the whole time he was in TuUamore. He 8B,.ien 5tli February, were taken down from Mr. O'Brien's lips by !Mr. Ht^aly, aescriijen the and published by him in pamphlet form. The importance of the narrative "^'"'''Kie- to the subject matter in hand forbids the omission of a line : — . " My statement to Mr. Condon, M.P., of the occurrence in Clonmel prison was very rapidly made ; I think it desirable, therefore, to re-state the facts. " About eleven o'clock, a.m., on the morning after my arrival in the prison, the chief warder, Gough, entered my cell and said, ' Come to the doctor.' I fol- lowed him to the wide open court, stone paved. A gentleman was standing at a high desk in this open corridor. He did not salute me, nor in any manner inform I I I ■■ I * 6-2 IMdccurtofiy of the dictor. Vas this lejtal; Mr. O'lJriiii faintM. The attempt tu weifh Mr. O'Brien. li inc who he was. His first words were, ' Open your vfist.' I waa obliged to ask him ' Arc you the prison doctor '!' He aaid, ' Yes,' and drew out lii.s atethoscope. I opened my vest, and he placed the stetho.scope to my chest, on the right and left side, as well as I can reniend>er, without auking to have my shirt opened. He next said, ' Have you a cough ':' I said, ♦ I should be very sorry to be personally discourteous, but owing to the past perversion on u former occasion of my com municntions with the prison doctor in Tullnmore, I have no means of protecting myself against misrepresentation, unless to decline to make any communication an to my health, but you are at perfect liberty to examine me in every way you choose.' He said, 'That does not matter; open your shirt; your sliirt is to<» stit!'.' I then opened my shirt, and he examined me with another instrument I believe a binaural stethoscope -after wliich he aaid, 'Put out youi- tongue. ' I did so. He then struck me lightly on the stomach, and witliout another word put up his instrument. I had to ask him, ' Js tliat all?' He said, ' Yes,' and I turned back to the cell with the chief warder, wlio had been a witness of the ex- amination, and who, like the doctor and myself, was standing in the corridor during the e.xamination. " About five minutes afterwards the chief warder returned to my cell and said, ' We must force you to put on the prison clotiies.' I asked to see the governor, who appeared to have been waiting out8ipinion of the doctors who had examired Mr. O'Brien the condition of hi.s health was, thedodor thouldmost care- fully watch Mr. O'Brien, and take care that no eccentricity of his should in any Way risk injury to his cotistitution (applaufse). .And in order that the fullest medical opinion posbible should be takeb tin tMs important point the medical member ot the Prisons Board has very kindly consented to go down and assist the doctor of Clonmel prison — a doctor in whom, 1 may say, I ha\ e every reason to believe that the State has a faithful and efficient servant (hear, hear)." "Within two days after Mr. ]inlfour was constrained to confess, in a letter to the papers over his own name, tliat the central statement on which his epeech turned, " that Mr. O'Brien refused to allow — that lie, threw any oLstacle in the way of medical examination,'' was ahsolutely without foundation, and in railiament lie excused himself for the mis- statement on the still wilder pretence that, ".t the time he made it, he had no information on the subject at all, hut the a cry reports of the Freeman which he contradicted with such flippant audacity. In \m speech in the Antient Concert Hooms, Mr. Balfour sees the end is approach- ing, and endeavours to evade the responsibility for the jirison treatment, 67 on which he prided himself to much in the opening of his official career; But English public opinion was now wide-awake. The sudden springing into life and the astounding growth and progress of the English National Protest was an omen not to be despised, and a few days later every right Mr. O'Brien claimed was accorded to him. a last effort But * * the brave Mr. Balfour," as he has been described by the Chancellor M •f the Exchequer — whether ironically or not, it is impossible to say— was resolved to make one final effort before he completely surrendered. Mr. James Carew, M.P., had been sent to prison. Mr. Carew is, in manner and appearance, one of the mildest and the most gentlemanly of living men. He was the very last, it was stupidly believed, who would bo likely to enter into a desperate physical struggle and prolonged physical nuffering for a mere sentiment. It was hoped that llr. Carew's ready sub- mission would be an effective counterpoise to Mr. O'Brien's desperate re- sistance. But they caught the wi'ong man that time. A.fter four days' struggle, Mr. Carew carried the day on every point. The following account, from the Freeman of the 2l8t day of March, 1889, gives a fair notion of the protracted sufferings to which he was subjected : " It is not generally known how bitter a fight Mr, Carew waged with the warders •f Kilkenny jail immediately after his conviction. On the day of his incarceration, the 2lst February, he was lodged in a flagged cell, and, on refusing to change his own clothes for tlie prison garb, was at once pounced upon by a body of warders, who, after a fierce struggle, stripped him. An effort was then made to force the prison dress upon him, but Mr. Carew's determined resisiance compelled them to abandon the ^}T- '-'"•'^c^ '" attempt — not, however, until he had sustained some bad fails and bruises, the effect of '^'' which will in all probability remain with him for years. lie was then left naket' in his |: iii; flagged cell, with its plank bed, and remained in that state from Thursday, the 2is[, till the afternoon of Monday, the 25lh. His coniiition becoming too serious to be pleasant for his jailers— Mr. Carew's resolution remaining no less fixed — they com- promised the difficulty at the end of four days by throwing into tlio cell Mr. Carew's j;; inside clothing, consisting of a pair of drawers and a vest. In this attire — light, it must be conceded, for the season of the year — the hon. gentleman remained for a I week. Mr. Carew makes no complaint, says he is ncjnc the worse for what has passed, and declares himself amply compensated for all that happened by the failure of the prison people to " compel and induce " him to wear the jail dress. But it is apparent from his appearance that the desperate struggles he had with the warders in Kilkenny, and the cowardly indignity to which he was subjected for so many days — left in what Lord Salisbury, with statesmanlike eflect, calls a state of ' tragic nudity ' for ten days — have told upon him, and will leave their mark upon his system as long as he lives. Mr. Carew now wears hij own clothes, having obtained thein wtien he was transferred from Kilkenny to Kilmainham." The enforced surrender to Mr. Carew was the last straw that broke .Mr. carew'.s the back of Mr. Balfour's obstinacy. The rules for compulsory wearing tHmupk of prison clothes, and compulsory discharge of menial duties, to which John Mandeville's life was sacrificed, were finally, if reluctantly, amended (see pages 35 and 44). It cannot oe seriously questioned that for the vile system so long jj,. B.iif„ur ,, and 80 obstinately pursued Mr. Balfour was personally responsible, personal Apart from his confidence to Mr. Blunt, luere was not merely a con- '•'"P""*" ' ^' fession but a boast of his personal responsibility in his earlier speeches on B 68 the subject. lie used the first personal pronoun invariably. — (See part III.) He claimed in the House of Commons that of his own special grace, and in deference to (non-existent) Canon law on the subject, he exempted the imprisoned priests from the degradation of the prison costume. This state- ment was not strictly accurate, as the priests were only exempted after Father Matt. Ryan had repeatedly refused, in answer to command and menace, to don the convict garb. But it sufficiently illustrates the responsi- bility which Mr. Balfour then assumed. Kxtriiordinavy • ■•onsistency. The present xtate (if the i|iiMtii>n. father .Stephens, Mr. Kelly and the Belfast Insur- i»nc8 Fraud prisoners. As the prison policy gradually broke down under the storm of public indignation, Mr. Balfour took to sheltering himself behind the prison rules. The prison rules were, as a matter of fact, never obsen-ed. They fluctuated according to pressure. In the one detail of hair and beard cropping, the most wonderful diversity of procedure prevailed. Mr. Blunt, Mr. Dillon, M.P., and Mr. O'Brien, in their first imprisonment, were permitted, without a suggestion to the contrary, to wear their hair and beards, Messrs. Harrington, M.P., and J. Carew, M.P., were forcibly cropped and shaved, and Mr. O'Brien, in his second imprisonment, had his beard shorn as he lay insensible on the cell floor. Mr. Balfour's insane attempt to confound political prisoners with sordid criminals, introduced not order, but chaos, unto the prison proce- dure. At present there is chaos worse confounded. Mr. Balfour had not the grace to confess himself beaten, and decently give in. He just skipped clear of the lash of public opinion, and stood still snarling. When Mr. O'Brien took up the struggle he announced his position in plain words : he would submit, he said, cheerfully, to any privation, but would resist tn the death any attempt at degradation. There were three details of prison discipline on which he took a firm stand. He refused to wear the convict garb. He refused to do menial offices, and he refused to exercise with ordinary criminals. On each one of these questions he absolutely succeeded. Two of these rights have been con- ceded, with certain hampering conditions, to political prisoners (see pages 35-41). The political prisoner is now allowed to wear his own clothes, and exempted from degrading menial employment. But the third, and perhaps the deepest humiliation of the three — the association with degraded criminals — still remains in the ** discretion " of the jail governor — that is to say, at the option of the Castle. Only the other day, it will bo remembered, Father Stephens and Mr. Kelly, in Derry jail, were sud- denly ordered to take exercise with the depraved " loyal and patriotic" insurance swindlers of Belfast, and their refusal to submit to the wanton degradation was followed by four days' vindictive punishment. But it is the principle on which Mr. Balfour purported to ground the modifications of the prison discipline, that public opinion forced on him, that is specially objectionable. The false and cowardly cry was raised against Mr. O'Brien that he wanted to classify prisoners by their wealth or poverty. This vile distinction, which was farthest from Mr. (il) O'Brien's thoughts or wishes, Mr. JJulfour has introduccil, in tho vain Ami •^j.uide liope to escape thi; dilemma in wliicli he found himself. tioii. ' The prisoners, under Mr. Balfour's altered regime, arc classed, not according to the natui-e of their offences, but the amount of their money. The more "vvoalthy criminals and the more guilty can purchase immunity from degradations to which the poorer and more inno- cent must submit (see page). There was cutting, though unconscious, sarcasm in the compliment paid in a letter in the newspapers by one of the wealthy Belfast swindlers to "'the sagacious Mr. Balfour," by whose inter- vention ho was permitted to parade the prison in the silk hat and broad- cloth of respectability — by whom, to borrow the language of the letter, he Avas " enabled to preserve his self -respect, was distinguished from the or- dinary jail-birds, and made to feel that, though amongst them, he was not of them!!" The "sagacious Mr. Balfour" must have felt that "praise from such a source was praise indeed." Tlie Al)erilare ('ijiiiinitVoe. The Aberdare Prison In([uiry Committee was a mere hollow pretmce to cloak Mr. Balfour's enforced retreat from an untenable position. The Committee were absolutely precluded from entering at all on the (juestiou of the treatment of political prisoners as a class, which Avas the one •(ubject on which the intense interest of the public was aroused (see pages 42, 48. It was a Committee specially selected by Mr. Balfour as one to be thoroughly depended on; yet in the opening statement of their report, tlu^ Committee wriggled uneasily in the bonds in which tlio ' brave " Balfour had securely tied them. They repoited to their nmster ;is follows : — " In the letter of the 11th April, 188l>, defining the charaober of the inquiiy» you stated that it was not proposeii to refer lo the consideration of the committee the classification of prisoners ' according to the real or supposed motive of their ollcnce.' To this direction ^\^! liave t«. this dress lias too long been associated with all that is vile anil contuiuptible ti* be assumed by lesser otiunders without u sense of degradation, and a shock to tlie self-respect which should never be necessarily inflicted. " "^i Balfour's own Committee thus openly a iid boldly justifies the senti- ment for which the Irish political prisoners were tortured so savagely, amidst the ribald jeers and jibes of cowardly Coercionists, headed by the Prime Minister and his nephew, who ridiculed the notion of men lying naked in their cells. It was for courageous protest against thii* " degrada- tion and shock to self-respect that should never be unnecessarily inttictcid," that Mr. AVm. O'Brien, Mr. Carew, Mr. Sheehy, M.I*., and a host of others putfered, and tlie indomitable John Mandeville died. " That the degra- dation and shock to self-respect " was " nnnecessarily inflicted" tlic re- jiort itself, which condemns and recommends the discontinuance of the practice, is the clearest proof, letter to the'* ^^' O'Brien's trenchant letter to the Lord Aberdarc Committee, which Secretaiyof the invited his evidence, vigorously summarizes the present position of the ^uee*'*^""' question, and fitly concludes my observations : — •'Sir — I received yesterday, at the House of Commons, your letter of 22nd May, inviting me to give evidence before Lord Aberdare's Committee on Prison Rules. If Lord Aberdare's Committee were empowered to consider frankly the question whether political prisoners ought to be treated in the same way as burglars and garrotters, I should willingly give them any assistance my evidence mi^ht afford ' • them. I understand, however, that their letter of instructions restricts the I'otn- mittee to the two minor points of hair-clipping and wearing criminals' uniform, and that these are to be reported on only in reference to personal sanitary con- siderations, and not in reference to the distinction between pobtical offences and disgraceful crimes. I nmst respectfully decline to have anything to do with an inquiry so circumscribed. The two points in question (and others) have been settled already by the pressure of public opinion. The formal provision for them in the prison rules is a departmental question wit-: which the public are not con- cerned. If those who control the Irisli prison authorities desire to re-open those i>articular controversies, public opinion must decide again between them and us. [ nmst take leave to remind you how this matter stands. Compelling prisoners to waar an ignominious uniform may be (and in my upinion is) a quite proper mark 1 of degrailation in tlie eas« of olfcncea which deservu degraJation. Tlie whole The qin'stion <)Ut!stion at issue is, whether the (le}^r>tiieil for tiie purposes of a temporary Parliamentary majority ? Mr. Balfour undertook that there shoiUd be no distinction. The corner-stone of his jjolicy was that his adversaries in Ireland should be treated as, ard nuide to feel themselves, ciiniinals. He found that this process of levelling us «lown was, in his own phrase, 'injuring the (Jovernment.' In the attempt to avoid the appearance of yielding, he then fell hack upon the still more indefensible course of levelling up, by giving to j^'overnors of prisons an arbitrary power of discriminating between prisoner and prisoner upon objectionable personal giounds. The consecpience is, that men V'uilty of heinous frauds have l)een exempted from convict dress and head-shaving because they had powerful frientls, while the humbler class of political oHenders continue to be subjected to these indignities, Viecause their sufferings do not attract suHicient notice to ' injure the (iovernment.' The result of all this, and of the incessant vacillation of the Government with respect to the matters of prison labour, separate exercise, S:^ , according to the amount «if resistnnce offered, has been a state of chaos in the Insh prison service. Into the real cause of that chaos (Miaos. your Comn)ittee are now forbidden to intpiire. You are asked to seek the causes ill trivial personal and sanitary considerations, to which nobody attaches the hlightest importance, while you are required to ignore the distinction which »;verybody, except Mr. JJalfour, has been brought to recognize as one ingrained in the human hcait and conscience. Under these circumstanceis, I regret to be uefuseH to Kit e obliged to decline to be a i)arty to an inquiry so futile ; and I have respectfully evidence. , to request ihnt if any use should be made of my name in the course of the eviV)iyii(it'; condcmnHtion. Jlft-Hfiri/// conn-di't/. //mf, /x/litiail ojfciirrs oiiij/it to br iiisliiifiuiiihed J'loin offinivtx thill invf not politiral, hut I In- Gon rnmciit did nut pio/iosc to dtid, and, iroidil iiot ileal, with I'Jf'iiii'cn ir/u'ih in ri' pnlilicnl iiii-Ji-r tin' CriiiiM Art any rnorc than iindir the ordiiiari/ hnt'. I'lirt of the siteeoliea iigaiiist ])ri8on diHcipline were aimed at tlie wliole existing system, as it applied to every kind of prisoners. Tiiat niigiit be a very proper .subject for Furliamentary in((uiry. He did not profess to have any knowledge of the subject. He luid never been brought in contact witli it, nor had lie ever made it a special study ; but if the ({ueKtionof prison discipline was to be dealt with at all, it ougiit to be dealt with with regard to England and Irelimdat the same time, and notsimply with reference to • any particular Act of Parliament or any class of prisoners. It nught be that prisoners were treated too harshly. By all means, let Parliament make inciiiiry. No one would rejoice more than he if such aninijuiry produced areform,if that reform were needed. What lie had always said was I hat he should always, to the Ijest of bis ability, see that precisely the same system was adopted in Ireland as in England, with regard to all jirisoners who eame under the law. The hon. and gallant member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) tried to draw a distinetion between educated and imeducated prisoner*, und between tliote who had been arr-nstuient'B un- contention irOTernment id the bon. >oint in the they wean ) asked the meant that 73 those persons who conceired it to be tlieir duty — most unhappily and wrongly con- ..^^ . ^ ^ ceiTed it to be their duty — to urtje the Irish peasants to commit ordinary otl'onees, for ttule'if iiimiva which they would be treated by punishment under the ordinary law, were to receive a of lii^li mom- far less share of punishtnent than th(jso wlioin they [iractifally drove to the com- ''i'''^- mission of crime. He could hardly believe that lion, gt-ntleinoii wlio urged tliat con- tention wore serious. He could understand tliut u perverted sense of public duty might induce hon. gentlemen to urge the Irish peasants to the commission of crime, but he could not conceive that they should comn down to tiie House and a»lc tiie House and the British public to treat those wlio provoked to crime in a difftM-ent manniM- from their victims. Ho could hardly believe tiiat they seriously contemplated the prjposition which they asked the House to accept. For thnii.selfei— those, ir/io «'er« •'i;ivtnvrinciple he had gone so far as he had gone; and if he had gone so far as he had, why had he nit gone farther? He attempted in the very hvwf answer he gave that day in reply to the right hon. gentleman the member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) to explain his position in the matter. ]Joth the right hon. gentleman, the member for Newcastle, and t\w right hon. gentleman, the Lord Mayor of Ihiblin (Mr. Sexton), had informed him that he was not correct in saying that i)riests were not canoiiically obliged to wear the dress of priests. He ipiitc .idmitted that he was not an authority on canonical laws, and he bowed to those who had sujierior knowledge ; but though he was wrong, he doubted not, upon the canonical obligation of a priest to wear ecclcsi.is- tieal dress, there could be no «loubt from the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr Sexton) himself, that he (Mr. A.J. IJalfour) was right upon the view li« took in regard to the attitude which would be taken by Catholics on th(i question of compelling priests to wear prison dress ; because the right hon. gentleman iiad stated that he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was too prudent — in other words, too much afraiil — to make jtriests wear prison dress in i i-elaiid. The charge of cowardice was not oiiv usually levelled at the iJovernment of Ireland. But, at all events, the right hon. gentleniJin's phrase proved that the j>riest.s themselves, and those who shared th« same religion, would be deeply inoveil by the fact that the priests had to put away the garbs or robes which differentiated them from ordinary laymen, and to put on prison clothes. That was all he desired to say to justify, in so far as he might justify, the action ho had taken in this matter. He had never pretended that the course Ae had pursued was free from doubt and difficulty; but, (m the wiiole. balancing the pros and cons as carefully as he could, he came to the conclusion that the I'claxation was a justifiable relaxation, and though hon. gentlemen had not hesitated to challenge the course he pursued, and had not shrunk from trying to make his position in the matter difli- cult because he departed from the ordinary rules, they had not yet said anything in the debate which cither convinced him that /ic was wrong in going so far as /if had gone, or convinced him that he ought to have gone farther. He absolutely declined to make any further rolpxation in the rules in favour of priests. The right hon. gentleman asserted that he uad made relaxations in the case of priests becaust of their elevated social position, and he fonndcd upon that an argument ichi'-U innuld c'trrtf with it the necessity of d>taling hnlently with eiiert/one v)ho held a>i f.levated social iiosltlon. [Mr. Sexton dissented.] He had not the least desire to press that, if the right hon. gentleman did not think that his phrase, 'elevated social position,' could be used to bring within the circle of '•elaxations any other class of the community. The right hon. gentleman, through the whole of thi.s part of his speech, seemed to assume that because these gentlemen were alleged to hav« broken the law through their sense of duty they -should be treated differently from ordinary prisoners. But the ricfht hon. gentleman tcould see that if that principli were to be carried out it would profouiuUy modifij prison discipline, not only in he- land, but in England. Tlie governors of prisons would have to consiUcr not merdji wfiat a 7nan had done, hut what were his motives in doing it — not merely what the sen- tence inflicted by the court was, hut how it should be modified by the ExeoiUioe in view of the intentions vrith which the prisoner had rommiited the offence" Mr. Sexton — " And seditious libel. ! m I I Mr, A. J. liiil/oui-" ]\y HtntiiU; uiiu«)iil)li;iily, M-dition iiiul pctlitioua Iil>pl Mr. iuif<)iii\ were treated pocnliarly ; but there weienauy ofl'enceH LeHides Hedition and scdi- tnxixlile timis libel which were eoinmilted by tlieofleiidei r » what the oftender yiiimosed to Nyminithicx he coiisuiciitiouH grounds. The illiiMtriition he liad u.^ed bef«)ro was uh ^'Odd as niiy v.',,,.'jJJ"tj„„. other. It was the illustration of tho.se wlm deeliiied totdiey the Vaceiiiation Acts. I'ould there be a clearer case of violatin<.; an Act of I'arliaiiieiit on ( onseicntiouB LMOUiids ? Tile persona to whom the ri>,'ht hon. gentleiiuin alluded, who eoinuiitted crimes in Ireland, were persons who miiiiit, no doubt, have connnitteil otVences on conscientious grounds, or they iniLdit not : but a person who refused to have his child vaccinated could, by no possibility, be actuated by any motive of self-interest. He njuat enter his rarinf, tliat the prf)cedure 1>7 which crime was brought home tn the guilty was undoiibtedly ditlerent under tiie Crimes Act to what it was under tlu? law which prevailed in England, and used to i)revail in Ireland. The law itself, for the breach of which the people were l>unished, was not in any essential particular different from that under which the inhabitants of Engl.nnd and Scotland lived. He regretted the right I'lin. gentle- man shouM ha\e condescended to suggest tliat imprisonment under the Crimes Act was an easy method of getting rid of a political opponent. Tiie right hon. gentleman must have been perfectly aware tliat in uttering that phrase he de- scended to a mode of argument less reputable than that to which, to do him justice, he usually confined himself in the House. He must be perfectly aware that to assert that any Government, Tory or Kadioal, could coutcmjilate imprison- ment as a convenient method of breaking down the health or distroying the life of a political opponent, was agiotes(|ue <;ontention to resort to in the English House of (!ommons. Apart from generalities, they must be aware that the prisoners, whom the right hon. gentleman described as political, who had been put into jirison under the Crimes Act, /laif hmi trcatod vith f.Ttmordnmrjf voiisideratioi), Wliy wort' they? and that if there had been any departure whatever from ordinary prison treat- Kefaiisi> tlieii inent in their case, the departure had always been on the side oi leniency. 1 lie p„|iti,..ii hon. member for North-East Cork himself — who had, so to speak, led the attack on the present question — was a standing example of the uiamicr in v hich the prison rules had been applied in Ireland. The hon. gentleman had been treated in hospital ; his health had been nu)st carefully looked after, and he had been treated with every consideration. Moreover, he believed that a colleague of the right hon. gentleman, the hon. member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), was never imt of hospital for a single day while in prison, and considerable trouble was taken to see that the particular maladies from which he sutl'ered should be treated not merely according to the advice of thj; prison doctors, but ac- cording to the best advice which could bo got. Therefore, those criticisms came from the right hon. gentleman with a very ill grace. iSome of the right hon. gentleman's colleagues must be perfectly well aware that, if the prison rules had been modified at all in connection with them, they had cer- " lainly not been modified in the direction of making them harsher. He had IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 7 /. / V i< i/i fA 1.0 '' ilIM |||||M » 1111112 I.I 1.25 2.2 IZO III™ U |||||!.6 V] <^ /i ^: // cf: c^J

rlpy t'onnnissinii ,AsKO(i;itiintain that the two cases are ab- ■solutely different. Jii one cusp Ideal with a pcrjcctli/ flrfined c/ass. 1 deal with that The (liines Act class not by way of making their punishment less, but by way of makingtheir punish- prisoiicrs tun ;» ment equal, because I hold — and I am sure the House will agi'ee with me— that it «''^.1Y" !i!j!!,^''*' is an additional punishment to compel a priest to do that which the rules of the Roman Catholic Church, either forbid or discourage him from doing. You will observe that there are two wide distinctions between the action I luiv'e taken and the action I am asked to take. On those two distinctions I have partly based, though I have got others — the justiHcation of what I have clone, and tiie justiHca- tion of the refusal of that which I will not do. liut there is even a further reason. The right hon. gentleman twits me with the fact, that I have consideied Irish sentiment in mating the relaxation with regard to priests. Properly speaking, I have no objection to the indictment. The House is aware that, speaking broadly, we may say that every member of the disestablished Church in Ireland, every member of the Wesleyan bodj', and every Quaker, is a man not only attached to the Union between Ireland and this country (cries of 'oh, oh,' from the Opposition), but fervently approves the administration of the Crimes Act as carried on in that country (renewed cries of ' oh, oh "). I also admit it is true that almost every leadmg Roman Catholic of position, whether at the Bar or on the Bench —well, I do not know about the Bench — whether in commerce, or whatever line of life he may be — almost every leading Roman Catholic shares the same view ('oh, oh,' from ihe Home Rule members); but, nevertheless, the fact remains, that un- doubtedly the great mass of support which the (Jovernment receive in point of numbers in Ireland, in the administration, are Protestants. Was there not, under these circumstances, great danger that the issue we were fighting, in Ire- land—the issue between law and disorder (cheers and Home Rule laughter) — whether this issue should not be confounded with thote ancient and perennial religious quarrels, which added so much to the unhappiness of a country whose )>olitical history has been far from fortunate? Was not that a reason, in addition to all other reasons, why I should take every pains in my power to make it clear to every Roman Catholic in Ireland and out of it, that, while I was determined, * irrespective of creed or station, to enforce the law, I was most anxious in every respect to consider the legitimate prejudices of the Roman Catholic priesthood ? I ill! f'^ I ii 1'^ ; ift > M SO (Home Rule laughter). Then tlie right lion, gentleman proceeded to make some obsei'vatiouH upon tlie subject of hair-cutting in jail, and he appears to assume that the practice of clipping hair began for the first time last October. That I believe to be an absolutely unfounded statement. If my recollection serves m« aright, I do not think any prisoner in Ireland has been e.rdniari/ priso}ier.i, I shall come to thatby-and-by ; but, assuming that to be the the only ques- case, what justification is there for the charges made against me on every platform " ''"'"*■ in England? (cheers). lam charged with having jested over the sutt'erings of those people (hear, hear). Sir, 1 have never jested. (An Irish niem))er — ' Shame.') I have never done so (hisses), but in my opinion a great deal of what lias gone on is essentially absurd (cheers), and unworthy of grave treatment, although, I have always tried to treat it gravely; and above all, in the morbid Jind diseased state of tlie public mind (laughter), when an audience like that addressed by the member for Newcastle could find tears to wipe nway over the disrobhig of Mr. O'Brien, but only laughed when the right hon. gentlemim men- tioned the deivth of Mr, Inspector Alartin." Mr. J. Morletj. — " I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. gentleman. I was present at the meeting, and all I can say is 1 did not hear laughter nor did the reporters of any newspapers except two." Mr. A. J. Balfour. — " The truth is undoubtly that, as I admit, you have produced some temporary effect amongst your own followers. I fear they believe seriously that a grand tragedy is being enacted in Ireland (cheers). We see the mechanism, we see the trap doors, the ticene-shifting. We understand it, and, no doubt, in contemporary Irish history, which is full of [tragedy, tRe tragedy of Mr. O'Brien deserves an important place. But I pass from these exercises to the larger and more important question, whether we ought or ought not to make fi, distinction between Crimes Act prisoners and other pri- .soners ? Now, it seemu to me there is a confusion of thought here, almost exceed- ing the inaccuracy of statement. As I gather, there are three arguments for this distinction of treatment. There is the popular-man argument — the argument which says that because a man is a good speaker, or happens to be popular, he is not to be treated as an ordinary prisoner. Next there is the genteel argument — that because a man has been brought up in circumstances of comfort and luxury, therefore he has to be treated more tenderly than the man who has had a rough life, and who has had harder fare. (' No.') That argument has constantly been \ised ; and there is the third argument — that these are political offenders, and be- cause they are political they ought to be treated with greater relaxation than would be the case if they were ordinary offenders. I think the first argument is wholly absurd. The member for Bridgeton made a speech about the elocjuence of Mr. O'Brien, and founded on that an argument that he should be treated differ- ently. I will not dispute with the right hou. gentleman about Mr. O'Brien's style. No man has had more experience of it (laughter). But to me it seems absolutely absusd, because any individual happens to be gifted with eloquence, or any other qualities which endear hinx to large masses of men, for that reason he is to Ixj specially treated. As to the genteel argument, I will only say that there is ^ ,.,.iininal is this nnich for it. It is said that the punishment is increased to the man who has criininal no been brought up well. I think, ])erliap3, that is a strong argument ; at all events matter how it has some meaning. Very good, then ; carry it out in your prisons generally. 8s"t*'«l he is. There are 20,000 prisoners on any given day in England, Scotland, and Ireland under the ordinary law. There are about 100 Crimes Act prisoners. If you want to reform, begin with the '20,(X)0, and not with the 100 (hear, hear). I come now to the more important argument, which says that a distinction ought to be drawn because the Crimes Act prisoners are guilty of a political offence. I am bound to say that Bentham would have fainted if he had iieard that avgument. Does the right hon. gentleman seriously lay it down in this House that the Exe- outire Government should choose out for special favour, for special treatment, those prisoners who possess certain qualities ? Bentham would have been shocked beyond m<"isure (cheers). / do not dem/ that in one. fcnse these ojffenccs arc ^^f" ■•*peech, ISth 'M i i ;il! HeePartl, page.s 'Jy & ;i2. n li 1 The briber com- mits vtnliivi in M. The Irisli members merely tnalwn proliibi- turn. Tliafs the (Ustinction. .i 82 po/itica/, hut in another sense tliuy are not. You youisilvt-s liave been in the habit of saying that they are not. It is said their oliject is to prevent people from being turned out of their houses and liomes. That may be a good object, but it is not a political object. llierefore, if your own account be taken, they are not political offenders, lint I will give you this. These men, I do not doubf, hni'i' apolitical object in. view. They have stated over and over a^ain that they are carry- ing on a war — the rebellion of 'f*8, the rebellion of '48, and the rebellion of '68, (a laugb). They have acknowledged that. Some of them have announced that they :tdhere to the physic il force party. I quite admit that thry have a political ohjcct — that tliese men are cai'ryin good objects. I will take a stronger case — that of your own Corrupt l*ra(!t ices Act, JSS.'J. Under tliat Act, if a man corruptly gives £u to assist in bringing him to I'arlianieiit, you send him to prison and inflict on him all the ignominy of ordinary imprisonment. Perhaps he may be a member of this House — he may be passionately beloved by the constituency he is wooing ; but on that account are you going to give that man exceptional treatment ? Until you can draw a distinction hctnwcii /lini and the gentlemen h clou' the ganyiray, I shall not admit nor accept that aryumriit. You take the case of the man who deliberately breaks the law in Ireland. I say that he is indirectly responsible for the crime which he knows has often followed, and pro- bably — nay, will follow — from the action ho has taken. I think on that account it would be a monstrous thing to distinguish between those who come down to preach against the bmdgrabber and the mm who g )es, in consequence of that excitement, and fires bullets through the landgrabber's windows, liut, if there is to be different treatment, do you think the Government ougiit to decide that question? I say that a court of h\\ and a court of law only, is entitled to say what sentence the man shall undergo. Tii-i riglifc hon gentleman thinks I ought to excuse the member for North-East Cork, Mr. Sheehau, Mr. Fiuucane, and so on. Am I to excuse their assojiates ? (' Yes.') I am to do that? I am to excuse the inci- ter to crime and the conunitter of the crime. Does he found that doctrine upon any principle of jurisprudence ? If &o. does he limit it to Irish prisoners ? Wiiy, sir, if this principle were carried out, we should have to remodel, not only the whole prison discipline from the top to the bottom, but the whole principle of juri8i)rudenco. I may say that I siiall not object myself to have the »lue3tion adef^iiately discussed ; but what I shall object to is the carrying out of this principle for a first time on a political class. I shall require that you make it general, and that the measure you mete out to the Crimes Act prisoners in Ireland, shall be measured out to prisoners in Engia:'d and Scotland. The right hon. gentleman missed out, as I told the House, all reference to the accusations levelled against me, with regard to the maltreatment oJ prisoners. These stories are false. (Times' Parliamentary Debates, week ondiiig March 2nd, 1880, pages f) to 59 inclusive). It -was in this debate that ^fr. Cha:nbcrlain, on the 28th February, dechu'cd : — 83 " I would admit that it is a fair subject for discussion whether the gentlemen Poor Joe I •onvicted under tlie Crimes Act, or the majority of these gentlemen, should or nhould not be treated as first-class misdemeanants, and if a Bill or resolution were brought before the House, I confess I should be inclined to support it.'' 2Ywcs' (IWliainentary Debates, February i'8th, week ending •2nd Marcli, page 135.) Accordingly, on tlie 13tli Marrli, 1889, Mr. Jobn O'Connor's nioasuro was introtlucod, providing that a certain class of prisoners should bo treated as tirst-ilass niisdi'nieanants, hut Mr. Chamhorlain voted against the measure, and jSiIr. Balfour delivered the following speech : — " Xow, observe we ])iide ourselves on the fact tliat the progress of demo- Speech on Mr. cracy means the progress of e(|ual laws. But if you carry out tlie principles O't'oniioi-'s Bill recently developed on that beach you will have anything but ecjual laws (hear, hear). I cannot imagine anytliing more detrimental to progress of equal laws or to the e(piality of sentences ; I cannot conceive anything against which a man iiUerested in ecjuality, should more sternly set his face than the doctrine now enunciated from the front Opposition bench (cheers). I hope the House has fol- lowed the oonlroversy closely enough to understand that it is not in the interest of humanity, but of politics, that this agitation has been in the first instance started (hear, hear). I could admit that the people of this country are influcni-ed by motives of immanity and of humanity alone. But those who started the agita- tion, by their own confession, have been nioved by political considerations, and political considerations almost entirely (cheers). Mr. O'Brien stated, I think in the rail Mali Gazette, that the primary object of his action with regard to prison treatment was to make the government of Ireland impossible (hear, hear). A similar declaration was made by the hon. member for Mayo, confirming the original statement of Mr. O'Brien, and stating that all this agitation about prison clothes, treatment, and diet had been started for a piu'ely political oljject, and in the iiUerests of a purely political party. Therefore, though that should not modify any consideration we may come to on the merits of the question, let us imderstand that it is not humanity, but politics, that is at the root of the whole matter (cheers). Why is it that in this Bill, Crimes Act prisoners alone are con- templated ? Why, because it is only in relation to Crimes Act prisoners that you can get up political agitation and derive political capital (cheers). You would never get a ' national protest ' in favour of the victims of the Vaccination Acts or the Bribery Acts, or the way in which members of the Salvation Army are treated. J hey have no political value, and therefore it is that year after year you allow their fate to go on uncommented upon in this House, and at this moment when you bring in a Bill applicable to them than it is to any gentlemmi even within the four corners of that Bill there is remote, to the lot of any one of these classes of prisoners, tiie gentlemen themselves who have brought it in ? Here teresting contradiction. The right hon. gentleman, the member for Derby, in explaining his views, told us that, roughly speaking, the persons he wanted to relieve were the persons who made speeches and wrote articles. That, however, is not the view of the hon. member for Cork and his partj* sitting below the gangway, for the hon. member for Cork, at a dinner at the Eighty Club the other day, said • Larkin was convicted of a political offence, just as much a political ofTence aa those committed by Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Carew.' Now, what wa» Larkin com- mitted for, and who committed him ? Larkin was a man tried bel'ore Chief Baron Palles for resisting the process of the law. (An hon. member — ' Defending hia home '), and Chief Baron Palles sentenced him to 18 months' hard labour, and at the end of that time to find security for his good behaviour, which would give an opportunity to those who induced Larkin to commit this crime to come forward and show themselves and find the sureties (a laugh). Now, the House will ob- serve the two doctrines ; the one propounded above the gangway, that the man which is far more below the gangway, no reference, however But will this Bill satisfy I see a curious and in- WW ( 84 V/hn.t about vf fuHals to state cases for appeal '.' !i An admission. wlio makt's a speech or writes an iirtiolc, and lie iiloiie, is u political offender, and uhould be treated exceptionally ; and tlic far more logical doctrine expounded by the hon. member for Cork, tiiat the man who defends ids home — that is to say, ^'CHJsts the process of the law, is a political prisoner, and is to be treated as a first- elass misdemeanant. This Hill will not satisfy eitiier tlie right hon. metnlier for Derby or the gentlemen below tlio gangway, because it is founded on no principle, will stand no examination, and will not bear a moment'M aigument. I am told that if you pass this Bill you will make first-class misdemeanants men guilty of boycotting, of intimidation, of riot, of unhvwful assembly, of taking forcible possession, and of promoting the objects of illegal associations. Now, are you really pre|)ared, in the face of experience and Irish history, to carry out a policy like that ? You had the exi)erience in ilr. Forster's time of making these people first-class misdemeanants, and the result was that it ceased to be a punishment, and became almost a luxury, to be sent to prison. I, therefore, claim to have shown, in the first place, that administrative iuterf.^rcnce is not the proper method of dealing with this question, and not the method that any previous •iovernmetit has adopted, and not the method that this Government could adopt without grave danger to law in this country and in Ireland. I have shown, in the second pliico, that if the courts of law have not carried out the intention which the right hon. gentleman thinks they ought to have carried out, it ix hfcrtuse prrsnus have not appealad to them. In the third place, I have shown that this Bill, if carried, wouM satisfy neither the member for ])erby nor the member for Cork, and I have sugeested what I believe to be the ease, that if you are really to carry this Bill into etYect, and to make the grave crimes I have enumerated only punishable by inprisomnent as flrst-class misdemeanants, you would rob punishment of that which alone makes it valuable or justifiable — namely, its deterrent eft'ects. A few words in regard to my own view of this question. I have been told oror and over again that there is a great tide of public opinion rising upon this subject. I am not at all prepared to say that the judicious efforts of the gentle- men who get up the ' national protest ' may not have produced an effect upon the ])ublic mind in some parts of the country. I do not doubt it at all ; but it is poor statesmanship to make irrational and wholly unjustifiable alterations in the funda- mental law and procedure in this country (ironical cheers), in obedience to any mere passing phase of public opinion. While I say that, I also fully grant that it is equally poor statemanship not to try and find out what there is defensible, rational, and logical at the bottom of the feeling whinh may hare been excited in the country. I wholly decline, I am utterly unable to accept the particular solution which has been given either by this Bill or any of the speeches which I have heard from gentlemen who support tile Bill. It seems to me irrational, indefensible, and destructive of equality in the law; but I quite admit that there may be, and very likely is, something entirely justifiable in the feeling which has been aroused. With regard to prison rules, I do not profess to speak as one who has either time or inclination to study the question, but I also have to recognize that while the tendency of modern legislation has bee, in the direction of the rides embodied in the English Act of ISfio, and the Irish Ace of 1877. by which a rigid uniformity of practice lias been imposed on every prisoner, be he whom he may, and be he condemned for what offence he may, our prison discipline in Ireland has been subject to so many and such recent revision at the bands of Royal Commissioners, that I iuive the utmost doubt of my own views on the subject, and I should reluctantly venture to differ fronj any conclusions at which the Koyal Commissioners arrived, or which have been embodied in the legislation that has been from time to time passed by Parliament. Yet I confess, at the same time, that for my own part, I never have been able to understand on what principle such things as prison clothes, and matters of that kind, have been enforced on every kind of prisoner, whofly irrespective of his condition. They are dnssed under the prison rules, I believe, as matters appertaining to health ; and I apprehend there is no doubt whatever that the origin of all those rules wns a sanitary origin. Under those prin- ciples of discipline which have been sanctioned by Royal Commissioners and by Parliament, and which arose simply upon considerations of health and cleanliness,, they were enforced by a rigid iron rule of unilormity on every prisoner, erea H.J nltliough he did not require tlio (ipplication of tliein either on tlie ground of lioaltli or of clennliiiess. Consider a. case which I henrd of only n few hours nf»». 1 heard of a respectable woman, tho wife of a tradesman, who got into some trouble by refusing to have her child vaccinated. She was brought before the magistrates, was convicted, and went to prison. She was forcibly stripped and put into the bath ; she was, in fact, treated in tlie same manner as if she had been tiie veriest tramp taken up in tho streets ('shame'). You may say ' shame ; ' I say I cannot see the reason of that ; it is very irrational. But these are the rules you Iiave sanctioned and accjuiesLcd in for years (hear, hear). It certainly appears jy^^ ^„ to me, in so far as I understand tho philosophy of punishment at all, that those kinds of punishment, which do not ir^ict discomfort, but which i thought by sf.Mie jiorsons to inflict degradation, nv,ed not form part of the prison sy-s em(Home Rule laughter), because the evil of that kind of punishment is this : that the liardcncd criminal is not punished by it all (hear, hear.) The hardened and liabituol criminal suffers no discomfort, no degradation, by being compelled to put on tiu! prison clothes, and all the rest of it ; and to the tramp who has not a good suit of clothes I believe it may often be positive luxury to get the prison clothes. Therefore, it is irrational to carry out with iron, rigid uniformity tho prison rules which now prevail in England and Ireland. Take the instance of the Jews. If you rigidly enforce your prison rules, the .Jew necessarily suffers in his religicus feelings, and the result is — 1 believe illegally — that some moditii-ation has been made in the English prisons in respect to .lews. A corresponding (juestion arises in the case of the other religions and nationalities. As I have just stated, these rules as to prison clothes, dietary, and the like, as in those questions of religious feelings, have a cast-iron uniformity which recent legislation has imposed, and appears to me to be highly absurd. Many suggestions have been made on both sides in favour of classifying prisoners according to their offences. I have myself Approves of no objection to the experiment being tried : )>ut I am told by those possessing ex- classiticiition' perience that it is almost certain to fail, and imless there be very strong authority J^,"^„^"j fordoing it I should not embark on so futile an enterprise. But I think itis'"""^' eminently worthy of consideration by the prison authorities, both in England and Ireland, to see whether we cannot remove from what is sound and true and non- political, and based on humanity, whatever may be repulsive in the adminis- tration of the prison rule in England and Ireland (Home Rule laughter and .Ministerial cheers). Of course, 1 need not say to those hon. gentlemen who have done me the honour of listening to my innumerable speeches in the House on this subject, that I see no distinction that can or ought to he made, in any place, which is suggested in favour of prisoners, who were commited under a particular statute parsed the year before last. I do not think that tliey ought to have or deserve any 8i)ecial treatment; but they ought to receive, like all other prisoners, the benefit of nny modifications that may be made in the prison rules of Enjjland or of Ireland. But the prison rules are embodied in an Act of Par- liament. In Ireland, I believe the case is different. I believe that tlie Lord Lieuten- ant in Council, with the sanction of Parliament, may make sucli modifications in the rules as I have suggested. My present idea of dealing with this matter is to ask one or two gentlemen in whose judgment and knowledge of prison rules we have confidence, to investipnte this question from the point of view I have, however imperfectly, attempted to sketch to the House, and possibly by their aid we may be able to remuve any shadow or semblance of grievance connected with any class of prison treatment, either in this country or in Ireland (hear, hear). I cannot sit down without express- ing in the strongest language my conviction that it is not the gentlemen who have urged boycotting, who have m-ged resistance to tlie law, nr.d who have carried on the agitation which unhappily has been so persistent in Ireland, who are entitled to special consideration in this matter, but those other persons to whom reference has been made by my hon. friend the member for South Tyrone (Home Rule laughter). Those who have been condemned tmder the Vaccination Act and in connection with the Salva- Whst about tint tion Army, are the class of prisoners who chiefly command our sympiithies, and who Belfast forgorj . ought to receive the benefit of any modification which nuiy be made in the law" cowardly to try it. rroniisc'S in- quiry. ^i '' : i i-1 (ebeero). — TinifK to tV}2, inclusive. 86 raiiinmciitary Debates, week, ending March 16tb, 1889, pagei 350 No account is hero attempted to bo given, of the more controvcrsiul manner in which, as in his speech at Glasgow, in October, 1888, and at the Unionist banquet in Dublin in 1889, Mr. Balfour told the stoiy of the death of John Mandcville and the stripping of William O'Brien (See Part II). But public opinion had reached such a phase that the Chief Secretary, having restored Mr. O'Brien's clothes and laid John ^randovillt! in his grave, felt obliged to appoint a Jioyal Commission, Avhich, however, ho restricted by the narrowest terms of reference in his letters of in- struction, to inquire into the prison rules. The report of this Commission will be found elsewhere, and is well worthy of attentive perusal. (Sec con- clusion of Part I, also Part II, and Appendix to Part I. T. M. Hkaly. ; - r ;:» pagei 35U 4 trovcrsiiil 888, and ) stoiy of rien (Sco the Chief [iindovillo however, ers of in- )mraission (Sec con- U.Y. Ithtt IV. THE TREATMENT OF POLITICAL PRISONERS THE IXTEllNATIOXAL PROTEST. WHAT THE TJXITED STATES THl^^KS OF BALFOURISM. Opinions. — Goveknmkntal, Ecci-EsrAsTicAi,, and LTTicitAUY. ANALYSIS OF THE LETTEI{S FROM THE UNITED STATES. Cabinet Ministers, ... ... ... ... 3 E.^-Cabinet Ministers, ... ... ... ... - Cardinal Archbishop, ... ... ... ... I U. S. Governors, ... ... ... ... 8 IT. S. Senatoi's, ... ... ... ... 5 U. S. Editors and Statesmen, ... ... ... - Poets and Novelists, ... ... ... 4' Collegiate President, ... ... ... 1 [Analyses of the opinions receiveil from other countries will bo found iin mediately preceding the letters representing each nationality.] The following are the names of the distinguished personages included in a GoVERNlfKXrAI.. The President of the United States (General Harrison). The Vice-President of the United States. Hon. J. M. Rush, Cabinet Minister, United States. Hon. A. H. Garland. Ex-Attorney General (under Cleveland). Hon. William P. Villas, ex-Postmaster-General (under Clevjland) Governors — Davis ("Rhode Island) ; Semple (Washington Territory) ; Thayer (Nebraska) ; Biggs (Delaware) ; Taylor (Tenessee) ; Pennoyor (Oregon); Stevenson (Idaho); and M'Gill (Minnesota). Senators — Rlair, Morrell, Kenna, Stewart, and Gray. Educational and Litkkary. Henry Watterson, the leading Editor of South West, United States. Chas. A. Dana, New York Sun, Editor and Statesman. Cable and Howells, two famous novelists ; Whittier, the sweetest of the Amcrscan poets; Mrs. Admiral Dahlgren. Ecclesiastical. His Eminence Cardinal Gibbon, Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore, and Primate of the United States : Rev. Elmer A. Capen, President Tuft's College, Mass. >, I" 88 I TllK IMtKSIDKNT ANJ) VICK-riiESIDENT OF TTTE UNITKD STATES. The Freciiian^s Journal of 22iul .Tunc, smv.s: The I'residi'iit and Vice-rresuk'iit of the United Stfttc^s, America, writft to puy that tlie matter has been broiij^lit to their attention, and will re- ceive proper consideration. Jfis Eminvnce Cardinal GIBHOX, Cardinal- Arvhhishop of BaPimurr, and Pri matt of the United States. Cardinal's Rijsidencc, 108 Xoith Charles Street, IJaltimoro. Hkspkctkd and DKAii Siu — In reply to yonr favour of the 9th nit.. I beg to say that, as far as ray opportunities enable me to judge, it is the general sentiment of our thoughtful American people, that the treatment of political prisoners in Ireland has been exceedingly harsh and wantonlT severe, and in that view I am compelled to concur. liut I hope that thi» subject is but a passing episo'le, to bo soon forgotten, or at least condoned, in view of the blessings of Home llulc, and the privilege of autonomy in domestic atfairs which is Avithin your grasp. I trust that the friendly re- lations b(!tween England and Ireland will increase every day, and that the long, ixnnatural, and disastrous conflict will give place to an honour- able emulation in the field of corameroe and industry, such as liappilj exists among the States of our Federal Union. — I am, with much esteem, vour obedient servant in Jesus Christ, ►J* J. Card. Gibbon, Archb., Baltimore. Mr. E. Dwycr Gray. The. Voet, WIHTTIER '■'Thi- sweetest singer of American sorg," — Tuam Herald, Danvers, Mans. Deak Sni — I am not fully acquainted with the cause of Hon. "VV. O'lirien's imprisonment ; but if his olfence is simply a political one, it seems to me that his treatment has bei-n inexcusably harsh and brutal. It could only be prompted by a feeling of revenge and hatred akin to that which led to outrage and assassination on the other side. God grant that a more Christian spirit may prevail in England as well as in Ireland. The humane and magnanimous example of our own country after the dreadful war of the Rebellion is worthy of imitation. As regards prison- ers, restraint is necessary, but personal abuse and indignity — anything which degrades manhood — is a crime. — I am, &c., John G. "WmrriBii. k •ptt'eni, ton. ^y. one, it brutal, to that mt tliut nd. 'ter the prison- lything TIES. 89 ("»•) The Hon. J. M. RUfHi, Mnnber of present Unifrd Sfnfes Cahnrt, ond Kv-Govenior. Dopiirtmcnt of Ap;ri('ulturo, Office of the Secretary, Wasliington, B.C. Dv.Mi Sir — I have rocoivod your letter roquestinp an expression from mo relative to the treatnunit of political prisoners in Ireland. In answer let nio 8ay that my views have been several times published on this sub- ject. Allow mo to say that these views have not changed. They are still in favour of the oppressed of Ireland. — Tnily yours, J. M. livfu. (5.) The Hon. A. Jf. CARLIXD, E-c-Attoriu'if-GeneraJ, Cleveland Government. Washington, T.C Dkak Sir — The matter upon which you desire ii word from me, the \arsh treatment of political prisoners in Ireland, justly excites in ev(ny fair-minded man deep indignation, and merits a judgment of severe con- demnation from all civilized people. In this time of advancement and reform, degrading treatment of any kind to such prisoners is at war with all just and proper sentiment. It belongs to another and much darker ago than this, and no fair means should be spared to frown it out of ex- istence. — Yours, &c., A. H. GAULAiND. (G.) The Hon. Wm. F. VJLLA^, Kc-PoHtmaHter- General under Cleveland. Washington, D.C. Deak Sill — ^fy absence has delayed reply to your letter of the 20th ult. One would suppose but a single opinion possible in respect to the treatment of the Ii'ish political prisoners. It is difficult even to (jredit the reports we receive of the brutal barbarities inflicted on Mr. O'Brien. They belong to a past age and a lower order of humanitj*. That gentle- men, members of Parliament, patriotically struggling to ameliorate the deplorable and pathetic condition of their own countrymen, should, for mere speech, be deprived of liberty, and thereupon be subjected to da- grading treatment, only pennissible in handling felons of a depraved type, pains and affronts the sensibilities and judgment of civilized men through- cut the world. It intensifies the desire for the speedy relief of Ireland. It can but be the madness which presages the downfall ui the oppression so long her sad lot. May it prove Hi^aven's message of prophecy ! — Youru very truly, AYm. r. YiiAS. f; III! 1 90 ('•) JfOlVELI.S, fhe Ahirncan yore/inf. ;J30 East Sovcnteeti Street, New York. Dkaii Sra — Perhaps beoause I aiu of an iTuaginution notoriously in- adefiuato, I cannot imagine any American whom the official outrages on Irish political prisoners, do not till Avith indignation -whenever he thinks of thora. To abhor such atrocities seems to me as simple, as natural, and an normal as to breathe. — Yours sincerely, W. D. HoWKLLS. CABLE, f/w Xureli-sf. Kortliarapton, Mass., United States. Dkak Sh! — I write in response to your letter, licmoved in so many ways and at such a distance from the scene of political contest in Oieat Britain, I can venture only to express those principles of common human- ity which, though accepted at large by the enlightened world, and trite enough in theory, are apt anywhere to be lost sight of by contestants in any heated conflict of interest or policies. 1 shall mention but two or three : — 1. All hardships not absolutely unavoidable, imposed upon persons charged with public offences, before such offences have been proved, are themselves outrages against the peace, dignity, and honour of the State, 2. All harsh treatment of any prisomn* Avhomsoever, not a legal part of his sentence nor a necessary i»art of prison discipline, incurred by his own breach of rules, is an outrage. 3. Partisans of one govenimental policy, offending against an opposing policy, may or may not in their oft'ences be guilty of criminal acts ; but while, on the other hand, no one can rightly claim the immunities of a purely political offender, merely because there is a political bearing in a criminal act of which he has been lawfully convicted by criminal process, yet, on the other hand, any treatment which the laws prescribe only for convicted criminals, but imposed upon political prisoners who Iuia'c not been tried and convicted of criminal acts, and by criminal process, is an outrage. Whether these general principles touch any specific case in the present conflict for and against Home llule, I may not say that I certainly know. I am bound to leave that to the conscience of a free people, who know the solemn duty ol respecting an cqiud freedom in everyone else, who has not individually forfeited it by his own personal criminal acts or attitude, legally proved against him on criminal trial. But let those who must, remember that whoever trifles with one man's rights will trifle with a million'fc ; and that just in proportion as we trifle with the rights of others, we put risks upon, and deserve to lose our own. George "W. Cable. 91 (9.) The Hon. EUGENE SEMPLE, Governor, Washington Territory, I'nited States. Executive Department, Goveiuor's Office, Olympia. ])f,ai: Sir — Acknowledging receipt of yours of the 30th vM., in Avhicli you solicit an expression of opinion in regard to the treatment of political prisonex's in Ireland, I am glad to be able to comply •\vith yo\ir request in hopes that it will, as you say, " be beneficial to the cause of humanity and fair government." One of the deepest inii)ressions ever made upon my mind was pro- duced when I read, in the city of !New l^ork, thirty years ago, upon a monument which I had never heard of before, these words — " Sacred to the memory of those brave and good men who died, whilst imprisoned in this» olitical prisoner to such treatment as most reprelicnsible, and one which no free country will sub- mit to see applied to its sons, and whoso only oifence is that they have essayed to secure or to retain that freedom for their country. I feel assured that the people of the British Islands will repudiate ami overturn the present administration of affairs in Ireland in the very near future. Such I believe to be the general desire of tin? peoph) of this country, although for the British Empire as a wliolo tliere is a constantly increas- ing friendly feeling. The masses of tlie people are a unit everywhere. God has made us all of one blood — Truly yours, Hexiiv W. Blair. free (10.) The Urn. GEOllGE GRA r, UaiUd SMes Smahr for Bjhio.ire. Senate Chamber, Washington. De.vr Sir— The treatment of Irisli prisoners, c(mftued by the English Oovernment for political offences, as reported in tho Press, shocks all humane persons. But it is a sign of weakness and not of strength in tho party practising it ; and, while our sympathies for the victims of this re- actionary policy on the part of the English Government is quickened, our hope ami faith in the future of Ireland as a houre of a free, self-governing, and prosperous people should be strengthened and confirmed.— I am, respectfully yours, George Grat. rces at tard Uy rdinary Iffencc, (20.) The Hon. IF. 31. STEWART, U.S. Senator for Nevada, United States Senate, "Washington, D.C. Dear Sir — Yours of the 30th ult., with enclosures, is received. Cruelty to prisoners is the most debased, disgusting, and revolting xceeds in brutality anything which has oe- curred in modern times. Englishmen are no longer under the necessity to go to far-off Russia to find examples of inhumanity and cruelty to pri- soners. If the people of England c.u view with complacency the cruel- ties practised by the Salisbury Government upon prisoners in Ireland, they must have lost all sense of justice and fair play. I cannot believe that the indignities indicted upon worthy citizens, guilty of no crime, such as stripping them of their clothing and marking tlicm with every badge of degradation that the genius of cruelty car in- vent, or depriving them of food, or air to brcatlie, for the pur[)ose of de- stroying their manhood, or depriving them of life, can long be viewed with indifference by the people of England. If Englishmen do not feel degraded by such outrages the people of America will be ashamed of their ancestors. — Yours very truly, W. M. Stiiwaki. (21.) The Eon. JOUiV E. KENNA, U S. Senator for Fuytaia. United States Senate, Washington, D.C. Dkar Sir — In answer to your request for an expression of opinion touching the " harsh and degrading treatment of political prisoners in Ireland," I can only express a sentiment of condemnation such as every descendant of Iiish stock naturally feels, and such as I believe is universally shared ^y humane and liberty-lo^dng people eveiywhere. — Yours truly, John E. Kenxa. (22.) The Eon JUSTIN D. MORRILI , U. S. Senator for Vermont. Senate Chambers, Washington. Dear Sir — In reply to j cur favour of the 30th ult., I regard the treatment of Irish Members of Parliament, political prisoners, by the British Government as simply barbarous. — Yours very truly, JUSIIN D. MOURILL. • (23). Rev. ELMER H. CAPEN, President, Tuft's College, Mass. .,, • , Tuft's CoUege, College HiU, Mass. My dear Sir — In response to your request of the 30th ult., I have to say that I had the good fortune, with many others, to meet Mr. William O'Brien when he was in this country. I was greatly impressed by his dignified and gentlemanly bearing. He gave evidence to all who saw {»7 him of bein«r a cultivated Christian gcutleman, ready to lay down his life, if need be, to right those historic wrongs whose existence, oven Englishmen of every creed and party, have admitted. The indignities to which he has been subjected by Englisli officlids, acting under the sanction of the courts, have not only awakened for him profoundest sympathy in the breasts of his American friends, but aroused a sense of loathing that is widespread on this side of the ocean, towards the men who could perpe- trate them. Such outrageous treatment of a prisoner, whose offence, if he has com- mitted one, is only political, is but too mildly characterised when we say it is a blot on the English nation. Kcally it would be a disgrace to Russia. That such wickedness can be done in the name of the British Empire, and find its justification in Parliament, is a reproach to civilization. All Christendom should cry (Jilt against it. Especially should the American, whose whole history is a protest against English tyranny, make common cause with the Irish in their demand for justice at the hands of their oppressors. — Yours very truly, I' Er.MKu II. Capex. (24). 2'fte IftM. C. A. DAXA, Statesman, and Editor of New York '* Sun.:* The Sun, New York. J)KAii Sir — I received the other day your letter asking me to write for publication some expression, respecting the mode in which Irish prisoners are treated under the Coercion Act. The treatment is brutal and barbarous beyond comparison in modern times. It disgraces the Government by which it is practised, and it casts shame upon the civilization by which it is surrounded. Thank God, nothing else has been seen in our day that can be com- ])ared with it ; and thank God, too, that in the operation of His provi- •lence it cannot long be continued. — Yours sincerely, C. A Dana. ..; <''■■ f Lass. I havo ''illiam by his jha saw (25.) n,f ILou. HENRY JVATTERSONy leading Editor of the South-Wesf, U.S. .^ Courier-Journal Oftice, Editorial Department, Louisville. Deaii Sir — I am so filled by the thought that the day of Ireland's re- 'lemptionjis at hand, that the personal siiffeiings of men like O'Brien inspires me with less of indignation, than I should feel if I thought there were no hope. By contact with brutality we become in some sort bru- t!ili}ied ourselves; and it cannot be denied that the story of England's. Ttr' 9« liiiitulity in Ircliiud force. Ncverthciloss, IS so fiiiniliav to us, os to lose ti part of its appaHnj; the flaini of outrajiod humanity, upon our sympathy and speech, is as eternal as it should he universal, and my whole heart is •with the movement, havinf?: for its ohject, an expression of tlie detestation of all hone>t and hrave men, for the course puisued hy the Government, under Mr. lial four's direction and lesponsibility, tonchinpr political prisoners confined ii: Irish jails. J do not helieve that it can he or -will he Ptnctioned hy the good people of England, who, outside the ruling classes, are a good people, and must, when the qtiestion is brought home to their heart and understanding, see that their own manhood and th« honour of , their country, are compromised by the policy of rcjjression and hate, and that no less for the fame of England than for the need of Ireland, it must be abandoned. I thank you, sir, for giving me this opportunity to say a word, how- ever inadequate, on the side of justice and humanity. It is spoken in that language which all of us use in common, and which ought to constitute a bond at least of reciprocal forbearance. — Sincerely, Il);\uY AV.vrrKusox. < ■■ , ' 1 . i .'- : ; - ' 1 ■ * > ■ . i ■ \ '\. . ,■ ■'" ;, 1 T/ii appall ng yrapathy J heart is stestatiou eniiueiit, political le or "will le rulinj? ght home I and lh« ission and e need of ord, how- spoken in constitute THE VERDICT FROM CANADA. A REMARKABLE INDICTMENT. Opinions :— Govkunmi^ntal, EccLKsiASTic.vr-, and Litkiiary ncusox. AXALYSrS OF THE LETTERS FKOK CANADA. Cabinet Ministers Ex-Cubinet Ministers Cardinal- Archbishop, Archbishops, and IJishops Canadian M. P. and Senators Ex -Commission of Prison Reform ... Inspector of Canadian Penitentiaries Majors, Law Professors and Barristers, Collegian Presidents, Catholic Clergymen, Wesleyau and Methodist Ministers, Editors of Important Newspapers, Rankers, and other Pro- minent Business Men Influential Societies 3 1 7 H 1 I 13 4 The foUoioinj are the nam^s of tht diatinjiiisheil penonajea included in Analysis. GOVEHITMENTAL. Hon. "Wilfred Laurier, ex-Queen's Privy Councillor, and Loader of Opposition, and ex-Ministcr of Inland Revenue of Canada. The Hon. John Costigan, M.P., Present Conservative Member of Inland Revenue to the Dominion Parliament. Colonel Eugene Panet, Minister Militia Defence to the Dominion. Owen Murphy, M.P., Quebec, ex- Mayor of Quebec, and ex-President of the Board of Trade of the City of Quebec. Hon. James G. Moylan, Chief Inspector of Dominion Penitentiaries. The Hon. J. V. Ellis, M.P., Editor of St. John's, New Brunswick, Globe. liii ^i 100 The Hon. rranc;()in Liinc;tli(>r, M.l*., Mayor of Quebec, ex-Tiensuit r, and ex-Coniniissioner of CroAVii Lands in the Government of Queber, iiml Professor of Civil Luw in Luvel University. Hon. .1. J. Curran, M.l*. Hon. Wm. D. IJalfour, M.P. Hon. N. Flood-])avin, MP. Hon. T. Coughlin, M.P. Hon. Edward Murphy, M.P. (" Canadian I'ather of Home Pvule.") ECCLK.SIASTICAL, Eltl'CATlONAL, LlTERAUY, PUOFKSSIONAL, &C., &C., &.C. His Grace the Most llev. Cornelius (J']irien, Archbisliop of Halifax, Head of Catholic Hierarchy, Canada. Uij^ht Kev. Elphege Gravel (French-Canadian), Bishop of Xiculct. His Eminence Cardinal Tascliercau, Cardinal- Archbishop of Quebec. Jiight Itev. Dr. Cameron, Eishop of Nova Scotia (Antigonish). ]{ight Eev. ^Monsignor Begin (French-Canadian), Bishop of Chicontimi. The Most Eev. Dr. Clcary, Bishop of Kingston. The liishop of St. Hyacinth (French- Canadian). The Hon. D. A. O'Sullivan, D.LL. of Lav(d University, a distinguislii d Canadian Barrister, and cx-Comraissioner of Prison lleform. H. J. Cloran, Barrister, aiid President of St. Patrick's Society, ^lont- real, and senior member of the important firm of Cloran and ]k'd(hird, Advocates. Barristers, &c., Montreal. Hon. F. 11. Latchford, Barrister. The Rev. A. Bums, D.D., LL.D., Principal of the Wesleyan Metli.)- dist liadies' College, Hamilton, Ontario. Tlie Eev. YJ. S. Griffin, Methodist Minister, Stratford, Ontario, Canada. Eev. E. H. Dewart, Editor of the CJin'.sfian Guardian, !^[cthodi-t. llev. E. A. Murray, P.P., CoLurg, Ontario, brother of the late Cheva- lier Murray, of the Papal Zcmaves liev. John F. Colfey, Editor of Uuiied Canada, Ottiiwa. George Stewart, Jun., LL.D., Editor of Quebec Morning Chroniilr, Fellow of the lloyal Canadian Society, »S:c., &c. Hon. H. Beaugrand, ex-Mayor of Montreal, and Editor of La Palric, Montreal. Hon. J. W. Fitzgerald, an extensive Business Man in Peterboroiii:!:, Canada. Hon. Eugene O'lveefe, Brewer and Banker, of the City of Toronto. Hon. W. A. Lee Senior Paiiner of the extensive firm of William .A. Lee and Son, General Agents, Real Estate, Insurance, and Loan Brokers, Valuators, and Arbitrators, Toronto. Very Rev. Dean O'Connor, Chesterville. Rev. "W". Flannery, P.P., St. Thomas, Ontario, Canada, Associate Editor of the London Catholic Record. Very Eev. Canon O'Donnell, St. Denis, Diocese of St. Hyacinth, Province of Quebec. Rev. J. F. M'Bride, St. Michael's College, Toronto. The Irish National League of Peterborough, Ontario. St. Anne's Total Abstinence and Benefit Society, Montreal. rr(>!isui«r, icber. itiiil llulc") Ilulil'iix. licolct. Quebec. r llioOTltlllli. :inguis]it d ty, ^lojil- n :Mft]i.)- Onttirio, to CllOVil- Chronicir, La l\i/rii', rborougli, orouto. "^illiain .A. I Brokers, Associate lyacinth, 101 (26). The ITon. WILFRED LAURFER, MP., Leader of the Grit Opposition, Ex-Privy Councillor of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada, and Ex-Minister of Inland Revenue of Canada. House of Commons, Ottawa, CanacL. Dka.r Sra — I have your letter of the 22nd ult. 1 had occasion to express my views upon the subject referred to in a 811011; address which I delivered on St. Patrick's Day last before the Literary Institute of Ottawa. Should occasion again offer during the present session, or any other time, for me to speak on the same subject, I would deem it my duty to repeat my views. — Very truly yours, WiLFKED LaUMEK. In the course of the speech upon the occasion to which he refers, Mr. Laurier said — " He did not know how far fitting it was for him, of French origin, to come forward that night to address an Irish audicnc j and to speak npon * Ireland.' Claiming to be a friend of liberty, he loved Ireland. Her history is a history of martyrdom, and therefore he loved her and bade her God-speed in her present struggle. If vie looked towards Ireland at the present time, there was much to depress, but there was also much to cheer. It was sad to see in that countiy crimes invented in order to coerce the poor people because they loved iheir native land. It was sad beyond expression to see pure, noble men like Dillon, and O'Brien, shaved and stripped of their clotliing for no crime other than having said something that was not to the taste of the English Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was monstrous to witness such things in this age. (27.) The Hon. JOHN COSTIGAN', Minister of Inland Revenue, Dominion Parliament. It may be interesting to observe that the Hon. John Costigan, M.P., present Conservative Minister of Inland Revenue, addressed the meeting immediately after Mr. Laurier. Thus, in Canada, party considerations are thrown aside when the Irish question is under consideration, and we find Conservative and Liberal emulating each other in their desire to express their sympathy with Ireland. (28.) ■ ' ' - CoUnel E. EUGENE PANET, Deputy -Minister of Militia Defence in the present Conservative Government, and Ex-Senator, Canadian Parliament. Ottawa. Sni — In answer to your letter of the 22nd ult., I have no hesitation in forwarding my condemnation of the sort of treatment inflicted on political prisoners in Ireland. It is difficult to leconcile the high-toned 6 IT- 102 jind noblo (jiiulitios of tho Aii^lo-Suxon ruco with such tyranni]4 E. A, Cabd. Taschereatt, . ( Arch* de Quebec. ]05 The following is a translation of the above : — " I feel great sympathy for Ireland, and every day I pray to God to bless her, and to give her liberty aud happiness in return for her fidelity to the faith, -which she received from St. Patrick. " Your very devoted servant, ** •{< E. A. Card. TAscHEREAr, , '* Arch, of Quebec." >» (33.) The Right Rev. JOHN CAMERON, \Bishop of Antigonish, Canada. Antigonish. Dear Sir — In reply to yours of the 22nd ult., I beg leave to say that while the people of Eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton are, and have every reason to be, most loyal to the British throne, the treatment of political prisoners now practised in Ireland, is regarded as infamous and preposterous, not only by every member of my flock, comprising 43,000 Scottish Highlanders, 18,000 French Canadians, and 12,000 Irishmen, but also generally by all the other still more numerous Chris- tian denominations amongst whom we live. As sincere well-wishers of Great Britain and Ireland, we wish to see both nations united in the true sense of the tenn, the same obedience regulating every subject, the same heart animating every breast, and the same spirit dictating every action of every member, with a common interest in the.preservation of the whole empire. We feel that a salutary union can never be achieved under the present infatuated reign of terror, and we therefore earnestly hope and pray that the Great Giver of every excellent and perfect gift, will soon put an end to the present policy, more worthy of Anarchists than enlightened statesmen. It being worse than wicked to ignore any longer the impregnable strength of the self-evident justice of the Irish cause, advocated as it is at home by such mighty leaders, in Church end State — in England, by the electrifying genius of a Gladstone, and everywhere throughout the British Empire by every unbiassed lover of her perpetual glory — I ardently trust that Englishmen, like Scotchmen, will now realise the supreme folly of pursuing an imrighteous policy, simply cal- culated to paralyse Irish loyalty and thus to weaken and disgrace British power. — I have the honour to remain, dear Sir, faithfully yours in Christ, >J^ John Cameron, Bishop of Antigonish, (34.) Tht Right Rev. Monsgr. BEQIN^ French-Canadian Bishop of Chicontimi. Evechc Chicontimi. BrEN CHER Monsieur — La malheureuse Irlande a certainement toute mes sympathies : son attachement inebraulable a la foi Catholique ; la lill,. ■< 106 I ^t persecution terrible, dont elle a eu A souffrir depuis troia aiecles, sont bien de nature a conquerir I'uuanime admiration des peuples et Tenthousiasme de touB les nobles coeurs. Jo n'ai jamais lu I'histoire de cetto nation martyre, sans etre emu jiisqu' au fond do rame les souff ranees de pauvres victimes, sur le sol do leur bien aimoe patrie comme sur laterreetrang^re, ont bien souvcnt excite ma compassion. Ja ne rae suis pas contente d'une 8t6rile pitie ; tous les jours je demande, et je demanderai encore, au bon Dieu, de faire cesser 1' oppression sans exemple, sous laquelle gemit I'excel- lent peuple Irlandais, et de lui rendre la liberte, a laquelle il aspire depuis si longtemps. Avec les vcoux ardcnts, que je forme pour I'indepcndence de la chore Irlande, agrecz, bien chcr monsieur I'hommage de mon entier devoument en N.S. *^ L. N. Ev. CnicoxTiMi. The following is a translation of the above : — Bishop's House, Chicontimi. My deab Sik — Unhappy Ireland has without doubt myjjentiro sympa- thy. Her unalterable attachment to the Catholic faith, and the terrible perse- cution she has had to go through during the last three centuries, are well calculated to command tlie unanimous admiration of the world, and the enthusiasm of every generous mind. I have never read the history of this martyred country without experiencing the most profound emotion of the soul. The sufEcrings of the unfortunate victims, both at home in their well-beloved country and in the land of the stranger, liave often moved me to the greatest compassion. I am not content with an idle sympathy ; but every day I pray, and shall continue to pray, to the great God to terminate the unparalleled oppression under which the Irish people suffer, and to give back to Ireland the liberty which she has sought for so long. "With the expression of my ardent desire for the independence of dear Ireland, accept, my dear sir, the homage, &c,, L. 1^. Bishop CnicoNTiMi. (35.) Th6 Eight Rev. JAMES VINCENT CLEARY, Bishop of Kingston, Canada. Bishop's Palace, Kingston, Canada. In a general assembly of the clergy of the Diocese of Kingston, in Canada, held in the Bishop's Palace, the Most Rev. James Cleary, Lord Bishop of Kingston, in the chair, the following resolu- tions, proposed by the Very Rev. Dean Gauthier, pastor of Brockville, and seconded by the Rev. Charles B. Murray, pastor of Cornwall, were passed with acclamation : — " That we, the bishops and priests of the Diocese of Kingston, Ontario, Canada, as free citizens of this Dominion, enjoying the social and political I ont bien )usiasme B nation ! pauvres ;rang^re, ite d'une 3, au bon t I'cxcel- re depuis ! la chere jvoiiment ONTIMI. ontimi. ro sympa- ible perse - !, are well ., and the history o£ d emotion t home in uive often li an idle )the great the Irish lias sought Lce of dear CONTIMI. Kingstony Canada. Kingston, James ig resolu- Jrockville, ji^all, were Ontario, d political 107 advantages of Home llule, under the Constitution guaranteed to us by her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria, with the consent of both Houses of the Imperial Parliament, deplore the prolonged servitude of the Irish people, bereft of their native Legislature, and oppressed by laws enacted against them in an alien I'arliament, the majority of whoso members are unacquainted with Irish grievances, and the just methods of remedying them. *' That the seizure and imprisonment of Ireland's Parliamentary re- presentatives, because of their having exercised their legitimate right under the Constitution, to meet their constituents and consult with them upon their political requirements, is a crime against a fundamental law of national existence, superior to London-made law, and is a direct incentive to the people of Ireland to regard Parliamentary methods of redress of grievances as a mockery, and consequently to have recourse to m.ethod8 of violence, through the agency of secret associations or otherwise, for their self -protection." " That ive have read with disgust and abhorrence, the journalistic accounts of the bi'utal ill-usage of Ireland's elected representatives in the prison- cells of Tullamore, and Clonmel, under cover of the Coercion Act — how they have been stripped naked, shorn of their hair and beards, compelled to lie upon the plank bed, forcibly clothed in the felon's garb, and in divers other ways shamefully outraged, and we have no hesitation in fondemning such abuse of power by the present Prime Minister of England and his nephew in Ireland, as a tyranny, inconsistent with the first principles of civilized government, and a stain upon the escutcheon of England, tend- ing to reduce her from her foremost place of honour amongst the nations, as the persistent guardian and champion of parliamentary legislation, and of the popular liberties identified with its historical development ; and we hereby, on behalf of ourselves and our flocks, of whose sentiments we are thoroughly informed, respectfully tender to the struggling Irish people and to the Irish Parliamentary Party, wisely guided by Mr. Parnell, and especially to the imprisoned and insulted representatives of Ireland, our heartfelt sympathy with them and their most righteous cause, our hopes for their speedy success, and our admiration of the noble spirit of self-sacrifice, and dauntless fortitude, with which the terrors of despotism and the horrors of the dungeon are foiled, and foiled by Irish patriots of purest honour and unbl shed virtue." ►J* Jamks Vincent Cleaby, S.T.D. Bishop of Kingston, Chairman. /■ .- ■' . .. (36.) . . _ . ^ ., M ' BISHOP OF 8T. HYACINTH, ' His Lordship writes to say that he has great sympathy for Ireland, and takes interest in her affaii >ut is not sufficiently acquainted with them to offer an opinion upon the subject in question. ii ii i » i V : i; 108 (37.) The Hon. JAMES G. MOYLAN, Chief Inspector of Dominion Penitentiaries. Daly-street, Ottowa. Dear Sik — In reply to your request that I should give you my opinion upon the treatment to which political prisoners are subjected in Ireland, I beg leave to say, in my unofficial capacity, that I consider it unjust, brutal, and unworthy of a civilized nation such as England. It is unjust, because these men are not criminals ; they resort to no means to promote their patriotic object that could possibly be considered immoral. When forced to resist unlawful measures they scrupulously remained on the defensive, and advised their hearers to adopt the same course. Now, it is not a principle of national equity, that punishment should be in excess of fault. It is brutal and tyrannical to place men of respectability, and un- blemished reputation, upon the same low level with hardened and habit- tual criminals, and to force upon them the same punishments, which society resorts to only in extreme cases, and against its most disreputable members. Moreover, where politics are concerned, the policy of the Go- vernment in thus treating those who uphold, in their practical conse- quences and bearings, the views of the opposition, opens the door to the most revolting abuses. Finally, it is unworthy a civilized nation. Everywhere, save in cases of treason, murder, and other attempts against the life and property of citizens, political prisoners are dealt with rather leniently. It ill becomes England, who has given an asylum and refuge to re- volutionary cut-throats and assassins, including Orsini, to adopt such measures against Irish patriots, who are guiltless of crime, for even an Act of Parliament cannot render criminal what is morally right and just. Beyond all doubt, the English people at large, if consulted, would be veiy unanimous in condemning Balfourism as unjust, brutal, and disgrace- ful to the country. — Very truly yours, James G. Moylan. (38.) Mr. B. A. O'SULLIVAy^i B.LL., of Lavel University, a distinguished Canadian Barrister, and ex- Commissioner on Prison Reform. Toronto. Dear Sra — To subject persons, charged with political oflPences, to pun- ishment by imprisonment with the common criminal, is contrary to modem principles of good government. As far back as the reign of George III. the Imperial Parliament recognized the right of a person committed by civil process not to be incarcerated with the Newgate criminal — (Exparte Masters, 33, LJ.O.B., 1461); and it would seem monstrous, in our own day, that any person whose offence is the propagation of views purely poli- tical, neither treasonable nor revolutionary, shoidd be classed with the common felon. Those views may, in the course of a twelvemonth, 109 mmon towa. ay opinion Ireland, I st, brutal, ort to no jonsidered upulously the same inishment , and un- and habit- its, which sreputable if the Go- 3al conse- or to the re in cases roperty of ige to re- dopt such ir even an and just. would be 1 disgrace - >YLAN. itinguished m. ronto. es, to pun- to modem eorge III. imitted by -(Expartc n our own lurely poli- L with the jlvemonth, become the law of the land, and entitled to the same obedience as any law now on the statute book. The entire treatment of political oflFences has been distinguished from the treatment of other offences, not only in municipal but also in inter- national law. Political writers have not failed to notice the ^^jealomy and firmness with which all modern nations refuse the extradition, for trial and punishment, of fugitives charged with political offences ; and that circum- stance ought to impress upon them, the care with which theg should proceed to the punishment of their own citizens for the like offence.^' — (Yeaman, " Study of Government.")— (See Part I.) The learned writer just quoted, after discussing the discretion allowed by treaty for the extradition of criminals, adds — " But from this right and duty of surrendering such criminals, extradition for political offences is always excepted, and there is a sufficient foundation for this in the common sentiment of mankind. That sentiment points to what may ultimately become the municipal as well as the international law." Apart from the wanton cruelty of compelling men, enjoying the high esteem of their fellow-men, to associate with persons who are really or prima facie criminals, there is the attempted degradation of political offenders by endeavouring to make them appear criminal in the public eye. It is a sort of legalized discrediting of a nation's public men. Speaking as an ex-commissioner on prison refonn, I sympathise sin- cerely with any man who is wrongfully lodged in the same prison with the ( inary criminal. It is a dangerous thing for the State to knowingly subject one of its own unconvicted citizens to a Newgate influence. It is ungenerous, to say the least, that those at the head of the State to-day should treat their opponents as felons, knowing at the same time that it may be their own case, with these felons at the head of the State to- morrow. — Yours truly, D. A. O'SULLIVAIT (39.) The Hon. JOHN V. ELLIS, M.P., Editor of the St. John, JVeto Brunswick, " Globe." Globe Office, St. John, N. B. Dear Sir — The treatment of the political prisoners in the jails of the United Kingdom, as though they were common felons, is so contrary to the feelings and to the sense of justice of the Canadian people, that it is diffi- cult to find any person in Canada, who can even speak of the matter in moderate terms. In a land where there is the broadest sense of freedom, where political questions, ' jth theoretical and actual, are discussed with the greatest breadth of thought, and with the fullest licence of language, and where men do this on the assumption, that they have derived the right through English connection and descent, the mind is almost dazed when itis compelled to believe, that in the mother country, the public man, discussing public questions, from the point of view which he believes to be the best for the public'interest, is imprisoned, and while in prison, compelled to the same degradation as the wretched violator of the moral law, whose m. 110 offences are against organized humanity as well as against the national code. In my humble judgment, the harsh and cruel treatment of Irish political prisoners, including editors of public journals and men elected by the suffrages of the piioplc to seats in the National Legislature, has done much to shake Colonial faith in Imperial justice. To many in Canada the condition of things of Avhich I am writing has been a sad surprise. Jt has awakened fear lest the national liherty may he seriously and permanently impaired; for what has been done to-day against the public men in Ireland, may be done fo-morroio against English politicians, who adopt lines of discussion and agitation, contrary to the ideas of those temporarily con- trolling Farlia ment. The fair-minded man revolts at the treatment of Irish public men in the jails of that country. Throughout Canada there is a positive, absolute, and acute principle of dislike in the people generally; against the cruel proceedings, under which so many men in Ireland have been imprisoned, and this dislike is heightened and intensified by the statements, which have come across the waters, of the treatment of the prisoners, while in custody of their jailers, treatment clearly intended not only to inflict physical pain, but severe suffering. One result is that there is scarcely a Canadian journal of any character — I know of none — which defends or palliates these acts. On the contrary, they are severely condemned. There is no evil without some attendant good. The sufferings and in- dignities imposed upon patriotic Irishmen, have increased and intensified Canadian feeling in favour of Home Rule for Ireland, Throughout this country to-day, there is a large and ever-gi'owing majoi'ity, desirous of seeing an end to a struggle, which brings no honourto England. But, un- fortunately, the tie of kinship is loosened, and love for the mother country is weakened in one of her great colonies, by imposing upon political prisoners dishonouring and inhuman punishments — punishments which are not even inflicted upon the ordinary occupants o* colonial jails, but are reserved for the occasional punishment of the worst type of uncontrollable convicts in Canadian penitentiaries. The national honour and the national interest demand a speedy change of a system so generally condemned in America. Tours truly, (to.) John V. Eli.is. The Hon. FRANCOIS LANGELTER, 3I.P., Mayor of Quebec, Ontario, £x-Treasurer and Ex- Commissioner of Grown Lands in the Government of Quebec, and Professor of Civil Law in Lavel University, Quebec. House of Commons, Ottowa. Mt deab Sie — Yours of the 22nd ult., on account probably of a trip to Quebec, has only come into my hands. I have no hesitation in saying that the treatment of political prisoner* by Mr. Balfour is a disgrace to the Government to which he belongs, and Ill an outrage to civilization. If, at the time the cruelties of King Comba were being exposed so mercilessly by Mr. Gladstone and the British Press, eomebody had asserted that the same thing would be done in the United Kingdom, the assertion would have been taken up as a deliberate insult to the British nation. What Ave see now is just as bad, if not worse, than what King Ferdi- nand was then doing at jS^aples, with this aggravation, that King Ferdi- nand was ruling under a despotic system of government, whereas the outrages perpetrated on the order of Mr. Balfour are being carried out under a free government. Even under the reign of Napoleon III. in France, no Minister would have dared to inflict, on one of the newspaper men sent to jail for Press offences, the treatment meted out to Mr. Wm. O'Brien and others. They were simply deprived of their liberty, but, for the rest, were allowed to live as they would have done at home. If they had been treated like thieves or murderers there would have been a revolt within a fortnight. — Yours very truly, F. Lanoeliek. !ij| (41.) The Jlon. J J. C URBAN, Q.C., 21. P. House of Commons, Canada. Dfar Sir — I have your note asking my opinion on the " Treatment •of Political Prisoners " as now being practised in Ireland. I have already expressed my views on this subject so often in public audiences, that I cannot add anything to my well-known opinions. Possibly the subject may be again before the Canadian public in a shoit time, and the friends of Ireland may be enabled to once more enter their protest against the present system of unjustifiable coercion, and the attempt to ■degrade honourable men engaged in a constitutional agitation. — Yours sincerely, J. J. CUURAN, M.P. 0-2.) T/ie Hon. WM. B. BALFOUR, MP., Provincial Lenishhire of Ontario. Legislative Assembly, Ontario, Amherstburg, Ontario. My dear Sir — I have your communication of the 22nd ult., in re- gard to an expression of opinion upon the " Treatment of Political Prisoners " as now practised in Ireland. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the outrageous treat- ment, metsd out to the political prisoners in Ireland by the British Govern- ment, has made English law and English justice, as applied to Ireland, a mockery and by-word among many hitherto loyal British subjects in this section of Canada. Living in a country such as we do, where the utmost freedom of speech and action in matters political is demanded by, and accorded to, every citizen, one is almost at a loss to understand how ! M i'l ti- 112 such a state of affairs as is found in Ireland to-day can exist in any country under British rule. Ko Government could exist in Canada for a day that would attempt to treat political prisoners — especially representatives of the pe<^le — as common felons. Were a tithe of the oppression attempted here that is carried out in Ireland^ nothing could prevent our people rising en masse, and by open rebel- lion resenting tJie indignities, and meting out proper punishment to their oppressors^ in whatever office or situation in life they were found. I am not an Irishman myself, hut the opinions I express are not held by Irishmen alone. In writing as I do I but give expression to an almost universal sentiment, among men of all classes and nationalities and creeds in these south-western counties of the province of Ontario. The English- men, the Scotchmen, the Frenchmen, and the Africans, as well as the Irishmen, who compose our population, will all rejoice together when the rapidly-approaching day arrives, when Irishmen in Ireland will have as complete control over their local affairs, as their kinsmen in Canada have of theirs. — I have the honour to be, faithfully yours, Wm. D. Balfour, Member of the Province Legislature of Ontario. (43.) The Hon. NICHOLAS FLOOB-BAVIN, M.P., Asiniboina. House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario. Deab Sir — I regret I have not a copy of my speech on Home Bule, made in 1887, in the House of Commons. You will find it in the Cana- dian "Hansard." I may tell you briefly that my view is this, that it would be better for the Imperial Government, if some system like our Canadian system were applied to Ireland. — I am, dear sir, yours truly, Nicholas Flood-Davin. (44.) The IIoH. T. COUGHLIN, M.P., Canadian Parliament. House of Commons, Ottawa. Dear Sir — In reply to yours of the 22nd ult., I can only say that the manner in which political prisoners, be they clergymen, or members of Parliament, or simple peasants, are being treated in Ireland, is simply an outrage on our common feelings of hiimanity. To refer to one instance of a comparatively recent occurrence, the episode of the arrest and imprison- ment of the pure-minded, self-sacrificing, "Wm. O'Brien. One day we saw him addressing thousands of Englishmen in the Town Hall of one of England's chief cities ; he was the honoured guest of the Mayor of the 1 113 city, occupying tac very room and bed which had been last occupied by the eldest son of the heir apparent to the throne ; within forty -eight hours we saw him struggling upon the floor of his prison cell in Ireland, with seven jailors (M'r. Balfour says there were only six of them), who sought to remove his own clothes and substitute those worn by the murderer and the thief. All these indignities, and more, have wo witnessed ; and we ask ourselves, is it possible that these things can be done under British law and in the last quarter of the boasted civilization of the nineteenth century ? What more can I, need I, say ? Of one thing I am quite sure — they would not be tolerated for one short period of twenty -four hours in " this Canada of ours." — I remain, yours truly, T. CouGnuK. (45.) S. BEAUGRAND, Ex-Mayor of Montreal, and Editor of that universally known paper, La Patric. Montreal. Dear See,— It docs not seem as if there could be two opinions about the treatment inflicted on the Irish political prisoners, by the pr sent Government of England. Viewed from afar, and judged from an impar- tial and purely humanitarian standpoint, it is both cruel and immoral in the extreme, and it is a wonder to me that you can at the present age find men in the British Parliament to apply, or to defend, such a system of bar- barous coercion. — Yours, &c. H. Beaugkanb. /J (46.) H. J. C LOR AN, Barrister, and President of St. Patrick's Society, Montreal, and senior member of the important firm of Cloran and Beddard, advocates, barristers, Sfc, Montreal. 118 St. James's Street, Montreal. Deab Sia — Your favour, dated the 22nd ult., and asking for an ex- pression of opinion on " the treatment of Irish political prisoners," is just to hand. The siz-stem of placing political prisoners, many of them public representative men, on the same footing with common 'thieves, wife- beaters, and murderers, may command the sanction of Ireland's political adversaries in the present House of Commons, but from all the indications on the electoral horizon in Great Britain, it is quite safe to say that the great heart of the nation is sick at, and wishes to be relieved of, the in- decent spectacle. No good or lawful purpose can be served by confounding political offenders with low and revolting crime, and it is contrary to all sense of decency and justice, as well as to the universal practice among free aiid civilized peoples, to punish a political o£Pender with the same severity and degradation as that meted out to fiends. ')l 114 Pul)lic opini. n tibioiid, whether expressed in the columns of the Press, from the phitform, or on the floors of National or State Legisla- tures, hrands Jialfour's treatment of Irish political prisoners as a blot upon England's name, and a disgrace to civilization, for that treatment is characterized by most unjustifiable rigoui*— not to say brutality — and by unqualified indignities shown to the victims of the Government's Your obedient servant, H. J. ClOEAX. anger or fear (47.) w4,' a mass-nfetinfj of the Peterhorouflh {Canada) Branch of the Irish National League, Mr. THOMAS CAIIILL, President, in the chair, the following resolutions xcere passed unanimously : " That this meeting records its sympathy with William O'Brien, M.P., and the other political prisoners in Ireland, in their sufferings for the cause of Ireland and humanity, and that wo view with abrm the manner in which the liberty of the person and freedom of speech is wrongly restricted, by the tyrannous acts of the executive of the present GoveiTiment in Irelnnd." Proposed by Mr. Charles J. Leonard, and seconded by Mr. John Cor- kerry : — " That, as British subjects, we desire to place on record our hearty detestation of the base means taken lo degrade the leaders of the Irish people, who have been imprisoned for political offences, by subjecting them to the treatment reserved for common felons only. That in our opinion such treatment, savours of vindictive feeling, created by personal animosities, and will, if persisted in, incite the passions of the Irish people to such a pitch as will place them beyond the control or persuasion of their leaders." (48). St. Anne's Total Abstinence and Benefit Society. Montreal. Deab Sir — At a large and representative meeting of the St. Anne's T. A. and B. Society, held in St. Anne's Hall, the following resolutions were carried unanimously by a standing vote : — "Whereas, this society has learned with feelings of disgust of the brutal and inhuman treatment to which patriots have been subjected by the prison authorities in Ireland, by being placed on a level with felons and criminals ; and " Whereas, we regard this treatment as cruel ar "■ iyrannical, their offence being what is called ' Political ; ' " We hereby enter our solemn protest against such a system of prison treatment, and call upon all lovers of justice and freedom to raise their Toice against such a state of things in the hope that a speedy remedy may te obtained." " Resolved — That we tender our sincere thanks to the Dublin ! I 115 Freeman'a Journal for its action in tho matter, and wish the paper every success in its patriotic work." "Wo have the honour to bo, yours most respectfully, 1*. Kennkdy, President. Jamks Maouirk, Secretary. (40.) Mr. F. R. LATCHFORT, President of the Celtic Jienoft Association, anS a distinguished Barrister. Ottawa. Dear Sir — I beg to acknovv xlge the receipt of your letter of tho 22nd ult., addressed to mo as President of the Celtic Benefit Association, in which you request an expression of opinion, regarding the treatment to which political prisoners are subjected in Ireland. I am led to consider that it is an expression of the opinion of tho Society, over which I have the honour to preside, that you are desirous of obtaining. The Celtic Association, I am glad to be able to say, having no hope of reward for treachery dangled before the eyes of its members, and fearing not tho worst its enemies — and they are not few — can do or Bay against it, has never hesitated to express its opinion upon this or any other subject of special interest to Irish Canadians. It has never hesi- tated as to what line of action it should adopt, when there was a question of anything that could arouse or fortify in the breasts of its members, that spirit of unselfish patriotism, whoso best exponents and highest exemplars are, to-day, John Dillon and William O'Brien. In fact, one of tho chief objects of the Association, and that to which it owes, in an especial man- ner, its strengtli and success, is the promotion among the younger Irish Catholics of this city of a healthier form of Irish Nationality, than had previously existed. Such being the spirit and aim of the Association, you will not, I am sure, be surprised to learn that we anticipated to some extent the object of your letter, and long ago passed a resolution, a copy of which I beg to enclose,— Yours sincerely, Frank R. Latchford. The following is a copy of tho resolutions referred to in ^Fr. Latchford'a letter : — " That we denounce as infamous, the baseness of the Salisbury Govern- ment in revenging the defeat of themselves and their confederates on their political opponents by illegal, wanton, indecent, and inhuman violence- and cruelty inflicted upon them, to tho iminent danger of their lives, whilst they are prisoners in their hands." " That, as Canadians, we desire to record our emphatic protest against the continuance of a policy, that is a menance to the public peace of Ireland, and has stirred up in the United States a feeling that is in th& highest degree inimical to the friendly relations which should subsist between the Dominion of Canada and the American Republic." Dublin \ f' j h i 116 (50). The Eeo. A. BURNS, B.J)., LL.I)., Principal of the Wetleyan Methodist Ladies* College, Hamilton, Ontario, Ladies' College Hamilton, Ontario. Dear Sih— You ask for my " opinion upon the treatment of political prisoners as now practised in Ireland," and 1 comply at once. It is painful to one, who would love to think of his country as the most enlightened and liberal nation on earth, to sec her throw into a com- mon category the idolized patriot and the common criminal. England's tieatment of Irish Members of Parliament and other political offenders is a sad blot on her good name, one of the grossest governmental anachron- isms of our day. It might suit the political enlightenment of Constanti- nople or St. Petersburg, but certainly the children of Britain, the wide world over, blush to see her stoop to such unseemly severity. Were the object to irritate and exasperate even to desperation, Bal- fourism could not have been better devised or executed. As an Irishman I consider the system an insult — a studied insult — to my countrymen everywhere. Were these patriots criminals we would be silent. But it is notorious that their crime consists, not in violating ordinary British law, but in'running foul of special enactments, that seem to have been made to provoke to violence and crime. From all that I know of the conduct, for which they have been treated with such cruelty and indignity, it would not be considered criminal in any other part of the British Empire. Were the land system in Ireland transferred to Canada it would not be tolerated for a week. Loyal Canadians would find a Plan of Campaign. Wishing for the real union of Ireland and England, I trust that the present irritat- ing and offensive system may soon cease, and that those charged with mere political offences in Ireland may receive that consideration that would be granted to political prisoners by the nations of Western Europe and the Governments of North America. — I am, yours truly. A. Burns, D.D., LL.D. (51). Rev. E. H. DEJF ART, Minister, and Editor of the " Chrutian Gtiardian," Methodist. The Christian Guardian Office, (One of the oldest and most widely circulated religious weeklies in Canada.) Toronto, Canada. Deab Sir — In answer to your inquiry respecting my views on the re- cent treatment of political prisoners in Ireland, I may say briefly — 1. I believe it is adapted to prolong and increase the irritation, and dissatisfac- tion, for which it is assumed to be a remedy. 2. It is contrary to the 117 freedom of speech, by which all great reforms have been achieved ; and 3. In its burbarism and cruelty it is utterly out of hannony with the humane spirit of modem civilization. — Yours very truly, E. H. Dewart. (52.) The Rev. IF. S. GRIFFIN, Methodist Minider, Stratford Ontario, Canada. Stratford, Ontario. Dear Sir — We arc constantly discovering, what are to us, new features in the social and temporal circumstances of the Irish people, and forming clearer views of the relations of Catholic and Protestant communities to each other and to the Government, and, as the result, there is a rapidly growing sympathy with every legitimate effort in the direction of Home Kule. I do not employ my feeble pen to discuss the merits of the question at issue ; that is a business which belongs to journalists and orators of th( country, and a business which they are managing well ; but against the policy of the Government in its cruel treatment of imprisoned Irish patriots, even we have something to say. They are our fellow-citizens, and have for us a relationship more intimate and sacred than that which is admitted to arise from the common brotherhood of man. They are children of the same household (for a nation is a family on a large scale), and any outrage committed on them, will naturally and certainly be re- sented, as an insult and an injury done to all. We are loyal subjects of the realm. In Great Britain itself there arc never seen more enthusiastic exhibitions of loyalty. Nevertheless, I con- fidently say, there has arisen a mixed feeling of condemnation and humili- ation, in view of the fact that the mighty Government of an enlightened and liberal nation, has resorted to a petty and pitiful persecution of mere political offenders. There may be some who would maintain the wisdom and necessity of the special legislation imder which they have been con- victed, but I have never heard one whose opinion is worthy of notice offer any defence of the vindictiveness, exhibited in the degrading conditions of piison life, which have been imposed. What other reason can be assigned for this departure from the ordinary treatment of such offenders by civil- ized nations ? If they had been prisoners of war, arrested in red-handed rebellion, or desperate villains, caught in the very act of assassination and robbery, what worse conditions of incarceration would they be called on to bear ? One could only pity the ignorance that prompted such methods, if it were supposed that thereby the spirit of revolution would be broken ; but the man who has adopted them is too well informed, not to know that heroic men bending beneath the weight of oppression (real or imaginary) have never been broken by any degradation the oppressor may employ. He could not but know, that the indignites which were added to imprisonment, were utterly useless as an expedient to stamp out the political organisation of the country, and consequently they can be considered simply and only as the expressions of unbounded personal hate. I ? i\ 118 When Buch honoured representative men us Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Carew, and Mr. Redmond are hunted down and consigned to the felon's cell, where they are subjected to the most mortifying and humiliating experience?, for acts which millions of honest men deem virtuous instead of criminul, wo are reminded of the cruel tortures which savage Indian chiefs inflicted upon their imfortunate prisoners of war. Not for governmental ends cer- tainly, but to gratify their savage natures, they tormented their helpless \ictim8 ; and we can conceive of no other feeling (difficult as it is to con- ceive it) which will account for the insulting, disgusting, and degrading penalties, inflicted upon these patriotic men. While such treatment is to be deplored for the sake of the sufferers, it is dohig every day more to multiply the friends of Home Utile than any other one thing nince the agitation began. A widely extended acquaintance with the opinions and feelings of a great variety of people in this country convinces me of the certainty of this. They may have no votes on this question ; but voting in the British Parliament, before now, has been largely affected by the moral sentiment of British subjects abroad ; and as it is supplementary to the strong na- tional sentiment ever increasing at home, itsimjiortance cannot be despised in settling the question of liberty for a downtrodden people. Unbending purpose and unfaltering courage will triumph in the end. The prison will have no terrors for those whose life of oppression is more abhorrent than imprisonment. The more martyrs there are in prison the more heroes there will be in the field, and their friends will multiply with their deeds of heroism, and their unhappy land shall soon be prosperous and free. — Yours truly, AV. S. Guurix, Methodist Minister, Stratford, Ontario, Canada. (53.) Rev. E. A. MURRA Y, P.P., Cobirrg, Ontario, brother of the late Chevalier Murray, of the Papal Zouaves. Coburg. Dear Sik — It is sad to contemplate the action of the Government in Ireland towards political prisoners. Those especially, who form part of the great English-speaking world, see this sad state of things going on in our day with feelings of regret. The largest limit of freedom of opinion in all matters, of even those of a political nature, is extended to eveiy part of the British Empire, 'vitliout nientioning the great English-speak- ing community of ttie IJni' \ St ^ ' .. Take even the United States at the time of the Civil "War, e'»''':\ r.i tbos.; :roubled times, when the great army "Was moving forward for the preservation of the Union. At that time, even, the great General Grant considered it beneath a great nation to take cognizance of any works, written or spoken in favour of the Confederate States, and when his attention was called to the meetings and speeches of some, who were considered as endangering the Unionist cause, with that contemptuous smile the great soldier could give, he said that "he would take no cognizance of speech or writing from anyone, but he would 119 summajily deal with anyone guilty of any action against the United States Government." Contrast this with the action of the Government of Ireland, a small country of five million inhabitants, the poorest and most suffering in the world, and the men, who, by their voice and pen, are endeavouring, without violence, to gain some measure of legislative favour for their country, placed in the same dungeons that civilization must create, to preserve itself from what is worst and weakest in humanity. To us, living in Canada, such government is among the things incompre- hensible. Here, from time to time, the British Government has con- stantly gone on giving us whatever measure of self-government we desired, and when such demands were made, there were then, as now, men who even thought differently, and so expressed themselves, and who even thought for a moment of punishing the free expressions of opinion with imprisonment in a common jail. And the fruit of such a mode of governing a country is easily seen in the prosperity of Canada, and the happiness of her people. — Yours truly, E. A. MUREAT, P.P. (54,) Mev John F. COFFFY, Editor of United Canada;' Ottawa. Office of United Canada, 55 Rideau-street, Ottawa. My DEAR Sru — Yours anent Irish prison treatment did not reach me till this forenoon. I have so often expressed myself on this subject in the Press, that I can only say again that I look upon the Balfourian treatment of the Irish political prisoners, as a blot on our civilization and a disgrace to our Christianity. — Very faithfully, John F. Coffey, Ottawa. (00.) GEORGE STEWART, Jan., LL.L., Editor of Quebec ''Morning Chronicle;' Fellow of the Royal Canadian Society, Sfc, ^-c. The Morning Chronicle Office, Quebec. Dear Sib,— 'To my mind it seems monstrous, in tliis age of progress and advanced statecraft, that political prisoners should be treated as common felons. That course, if persisted in, will have the effect of bringing about a stupendous reform. Patriotism and crime are not synonymous. — I am, yours very truly, George Stewart, JuN. (56.) J. IV. FITZGERALD, an extensive Business Man in Peterborough, Canada • Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. Dear Mr. 1 beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter em- bracing extracts from a letter received by you from Mr, E.*Dwyer Gray, ( . i 120 of the Dublin FreemavUs Journal, with the view of eliciting expression of opinion upon the treatment of political prisoners at the present time in Ireland. Although a true British subject, educated in, and speaking the English language for more than half a century, in Ireland and in Canada, I cannot find words to express adequately my utter horror of the infamously brutal, cowardly, and cruel persecution now practised upon Ireland's cherished, most valued, and noblest sons. It is bad enough — it is barbarous and inhuman enough— for strongly armed and organized bodies of Irish policemen and British soldiers — ^the latter in degradation of their noble calling — to root out, under Balfour's orders, often penniless and foodless, from the healths and homes created largely by themselves and their ancestors, weak men, women, and children ; but it is infinitely more galling and fiendish to seek to drag down to degradation and contamination, men of sensitive fibre and keen susceptibilities, whose only crime is to say in Ireland what Englishmen could with perject freedom say in England, by coercing them to consort ■^7ith vile criminals of every kind. Such cold-blooded levelling is a disgrace to England, and to England's humanity. It is precisely of a piece with the attempt of the infamous Tory Go- vernment and the London Times newspaper, to brand Mr. Pamell, and through him the Irish nation, with foulest crime — but as it ended with this conspiracy, so will it end with Balfour — in discomfiture and disgrace. The dawn of Ireland's liberty is already above the horizon — the masses, aye, and many of the classes, of the English liberty -loving people, led by their own greatest statesman, W. E. Gladstone, are becoming alive to the wrongs of Ireland — the blackest blot upon great England's name and fame — and what they take in hand is certain of speedy accomplish- ment. Praying God this may be so, I am, dear sir, yours very truly, J. W. FrrzoEBALD. (57.) EUGENE O'KEEFE, Brewer and Banker of the City of Toronto. Toronto. Deae Sik— I am in receipt of your favour of the 26th ult., and hasten to give you my views on the treatment to which the Irish political pri- soners have been subjected. I can find no words adequate to express my contempt for the Castle authorities, headed by the notorious Balfour. How such treatment can be submitted to by the Irith race is something beyond my comprehension, and is proof positive of the power exercised over the people by constitutional leaders. The conduct of the authorities, acting under the present Government, is simply infamous, and would not be tolerated in any other country on earth. How the Tory Government of England can have become so infatuated in its blind attempt to keep Ireland in thraldom is also a matter of wonder to me. I would wish to say much more upon the subject, but from what I 12i •ession. of t time in ) English I cannot [y brutal, iherished, strongly iers — ^the Balfour's >s created nen, and I to drag and keen aglishmen to consort England's , Tory Go- imell, and ndcd with i disgrace, izon — the ug people, ming alive lid's name jcompUsh- ruly, ;OEPA.LD. '^orotifo. aronto. md hasten itical pri- xpress my 3 Balfour, something exercised uthorities, would not infatuated of wonder )m what I have said you can readily imagine how strongly I feel the barbarous treatment meted out to that noble patriot, William O'Brien, and the others who have suffered unheard-of treatment at the hands of Balfour & Co. In refertnce to Pamell, I believe Providence has raised up an Eman- cipator at this particular time, to relieve the Irish T>eople from their more than Egyptian bondage. — I am, yours truly, EufiKNK O'Kekfe. (58.) Mr, LEE, senior partner of the extensive firm of William A. Lee &' Son, General Agents, Real Estate, Inswance, and Loan Brokers, Valuators, and Arbitrators, Toronto. Toronto Real Estate, Insurance, and Financial Agency, "Western Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 10 Adelaide Street, East, Toronto. Bgab Sra — Your esteemed communication to hand. In reply I would beg to state briefly my humble opinion of ** The Treatment of Political Prisoners" as practised in Ireland to-day. The treatment meted out to these people is iniquitous, cruel, and unjust. It is iniquitous, because it is beyond the bounds of all common decency in this civilized age ; cruel, because I may say, that never among civilized countries in modem times, has such treatment been imposed on political prisoners ; and unjust, because the rules which are called laws, and which are said to have been broken, are made by a sister nation whose represen- tatives care nothing for Ireland, are indifferent to her wants, and foreign to her interests, except in so far as the revenue derived therefrom is cou- eemed. Any law which treats a man, who, in a constitutional manner, dares stand up for his country's welfare, the same as one guilty of a felony or any other great crime, although under the title of law, does not deserve that name, though regarded as such by its framers, and should not be regarded as such by any class, creed or community, or even respected by them, and so should be swept from the Statute Book. Why, sir, the treatment of political prisoners in the Neapolitan dungeons, under the tyrannical rule of King Fei-dinand, can hardly be compared to the treatment of like prisoners in Ireland under the regime of Mr. Balfour. If, as each and every one of us know, the treatment accorded to prisoners in the Emerald Isle were attempted on any portion of the people in Canada by any political party differing from them in politics, the people would v'se up en masse and demand such government's resignation. What a cry was raised about the treatment of the Southern slave, who, at least, was sure of two things — (1) A good bed to sleep on, and (2) plenty of good food — ^by many people in Great Britain of the same shade of politics as those now holding the reins of government there ! J. 1 Ill 122 Thank heaven, we in Canada make and administer our own laws. Alas ! poor Ireland, happy would you be could you make your own laws, and not be doomed to keep, as you have been for the last two hundred years, I may say, those made for you by strangers. But, Sir, with that Grand Old Man, Mr. Gladstone, at the helm, and ably second(!d by Mr. Parnell, and a very large body of the people of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, the day is not fur distant when the sun will rise on a Parliament in Ireland in whicl those self-same political prisoners, now undergoing such harsh and cruel treatment, led on by that whole-souled and generous-licarted patriot, Mr. William O'Brien, will be endowed with the choicest gifts at their country's hands. — I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, Wm. a. Leb. (59.) JWi/ liev. Lean O^COSSOIi, an influential Catholic Priest. Chestervillc, Ontario. My DEAii Sir — Knowing my sentiments on the Home Rule question as you do, it is not necessary that I should use many words to convince you of my entire sympathy with Mr. Parnell and his faithful followers, all through their recent trial, and my heartfelt thankfulness to God for the very complete vindication before the world at large of their motives and aspirations, all through their course from start to finish ; and now I firmly believe that the hour of their and Ireland's victory is nigh, and n^ay God grant it. Amen. With respectful souvenirs to your deservedly honoured chief, I am always — Yours in Jesus Christ, Vkry lti:v. Dkax O'Connor. (60.) Rev. IF. FLANNERYy Associate Editor of the London, Ontario, Catholic Jtecord. Deak Sir — In reply to your esteemed communication, I shall en- deavour to state as briefly as I can my opinion on the quf stion proposed, viz., the propriety, or iniquity rather, of classing political prisoners with ordinary criminals. Many years ago Mr. W. E. Gladstone paid a visit to Naples, and while in that city obtained p crmission to interview the prisoners, who, for political offences, were held in durance vile by King Ferdinand, or, as he was then styled, King Bomba. Mr. Gladstone's realistic and vivid description of the horrors of Neapolitan dungeons, in which patriots were equally classed and punished with the most abandoned criminals, pro- duced a sensation in all the courts and legislative assemblies of Europe. Strange to tell, every countiy in Europe, except England, and perhaps Bussia, profited by the lessons of humanity and discrimination conveyed in Mr. Gladstone's exposS. In all these countries political prisoners, not guilty of participation in felonious acts, have, since that time, been 123 difPerently classed and differently treated from ordinary prisoners. In France especially, to my own knowledge, political prisoners have well- fumished rooms, where in their ordinary apparel, they may enjoy their books, writing materials, and, if they desire and can afford it, their wine at dinner and their cigars afterwards. England may boast of her advanced civilization and her progressive ideas, but while she treats as vile and degraded criminals, the bravest hearts and the men who, though imprudent in speech and act, are true knights of honour sans reproche et sans peur, she must be held to account as yet tainted with barbarism, and not far removed from the medioDval ages of the rack and the gibbet. In Canada, thank God, we have no political prisoners. Enjoying the power to make laws suitable to the country wo live in, and in accord- ance with the genius, the mode of life, and aspirations of our people, we are saved from even the possibility of internecine warfare. It sounds very much like the echo of feudal times, and of the port- cullis and drawbridge, and of London Tower and the stocks, Avhen we hear and read of true, honest, and otherwise irreproachable patriots being stripped of their clothes, clipped of their beard, and forced into the felon's garb by the rough hands of brutal gaolers. When Ireland enjoys what Canada has been prospering on, for the last fifty years — the luxury of enacting her own laws, or Home Rule — there shall be no longer in that unhappy, because ill-governed, country any use or reason for the felon's garb or the plank bed. — I am, yours sincerelv, W. Fl,AXNEKY, P.P., St. Thomas, Ont., Canada. ;. I am es, and s, who, and, or, d vivid ats were Is, pro- Europe, perhaps onveyed lerB, not e, been (61.) The Very Rev. Canon O'DONNELL, P.P., St. Denis's, Diocese of St. Jli/actnth, Province of Quebec. St. Louis. Deak Sir, — Yoiir letter came here while I was from home. Lord Salisbury's atrocious conduct towards men whoso constitutions he may break, but whose spirit he can never bend, has aroused the anger of lovers of peacfl and justice all over the world. When the majority of the civilized world is of one opinion, that majority must certainly be in the right. A judge unfaithful to his offise is a great criminal in the sight of God and man : he siips the very foundation of society, crushes or darkens the natural instinct of what is just and honest : he provokes blasphemy against a sacred mission prosti .ted to injustice and dishonour. When that judge is sent like a scoi-pion scourge to destroy, root and branch, a nation's life, then the crime is deeper and darker, for the foul destroyer acts under a power, ordained to protect the lives and liberties of its subjects. For if it is true that nations, as such, having only a temporal existence, receive here below their reward or punishment, the time must come when a just retribution will be awarded to the guilty Government, so maliciously in- tent on stifling not only Ireland's but the world's cry for justice. The th^li' 124 lii ■ h\ 1 hand of God will be heavy on this double-faced hypocrisy, acting under the cover of mis-named law, to goad into despair the most law-abiding people on the face of^he eai*th. * 'A deceitful balance is an abomination before the LordJ"* be it that of an individual or of the responsible ministers of God's power thus degraded. The strong arm of the law should wipe out crime, and not manirfacture it by special enactments. Authority is from God, and the civil power is His minister. But when the " scales of justice '' respond to the unequal pressure of an iniquitous ministry ; when an act is punished as criminal in one part of the kingdom, and condoned as innocent in another; when honest men, learned and peaceful, using the rights guaranteed by the constitution of their country, and prosecuted as felons, burglars, or incendiaries, are put on a level in the prison cell with the worst malefactors, because they try constitutionally to protect from the most cruel expatriation and ruin, their families, their homes, their lives ; the voice of the world is raised, and a cry of horror is heard from pole to pole, against such a tyrannical abuse of power. But, with God's help, might will not for ever overrule right. If the State betrays its mission by enacting unjust laws, contrary to the welfare of the community, in order to uphold a social disorder, causing the domestic and public ruin of the people, these enactments can- not bind the conscience, and it is a duty to trample on them. They must be met with resistance, passive or active, according to their object. They are not binding, and deserve no obedience. If the law partakes more of the nature of a police regulation, and at the same time is opposed to justice and constitutional rights, how can the Executive put on the same footing the public criminal and the man whose conscience is without a stain ? In such a case the political prisoner, though condemned to a convict's cell, is as free of guilt— as stainless — as the sun's rays passing through a foul medium. His conduct is not reproved, nay, it is sup- ported by the best, the safest, most interested, and most responsible guides of order and virtue in the countiy. 'ihe bishops and priests of Ireland would rather sec the homes of their flocks laid desolate, the lands waste, than witness the blot of a single sin on the soul of the poorest of their unhappy children. Even supposing the Coercion Act had all the conditions of just laiv embodied in it, enacted for the benefit of the community at large, should not a distinction be made between th« treatment of ihe common felon and, if you please, the misguided patriot ? But patriotism, especially for England's sentimental poUcy, is a virtue everywhere, except in Ireland. " Unprized are her sons till they learn to betray." The patriot, shielded under the rights of a citizen, has in view the wel- fare of his country ; and if by accident he is obliged to be in seeming op- position to the law, it is because a superior one tells him that — " Vox poptiU suprema lex.** The civilized world has given its verdict against such indiscriminate treatment. A cry of shame has gone forth from one end of the earth to the other, wherever there is an Englishman to be found, stigmatising the atrocious barbarity of the Salisbury Government. They have lost the good-will of every lover of liberty and justice. Through their own in- 125 policy they are, God be praised, hastening their own do mi- sano fall. " Quo8 vult perdere, Dem prim dementat. It was said formerly that tho blood of the martyrs was the seed of Christians. Let us hope that the Irish political convict's cell will be the road to freedom, peace, and pros- perity for unhappy Ireland. With my most fervent prayers for the same, believe me, sincerely, your obedient servant, A. Canon O'Donnell, P.P. (62.) The Eon. EDWARD MURPHY, recently elected Senator to the Dominion Parliament, commonly known as " The Canadian Father of Home Rule, ^^ an extensive business man in Montreal. Montreal. Dear Sir — I understand from'your letter that you desire an expression of opinion from Irishmen generally upon the treatment of political prisoners in Ireland. In reply, I beg to say that the treatment meted out liy the present Coercion Government in Ireland to the political prisoners in that afflicted country is, in my humble opinion, atrocious, and woxild bo a disgrace even in a semi-civilized countiy, and is more so in one that boasts of that much vaunted expression, '^British Liberty." England has sympathized with and given shelter to Kossuth, and to refugees from every revolutionary centre in Europe since 1848, and has morally and materially assisted Garibaldi in revolutionizing Italy, and dethroning the Holy Father. Under the present Coercion Act, the imprisonment of venerated priests, members of Parliament, and other prominent Irishmen, and their exceptionally hard and degrading treatment as felons for offences unknown to the ctnunon law, is infamous, and calls for condemnation from all lovers of justice and humanity. — I am, dear sir, yours truly, Edward Murphy. (03). Rev. J. F. M'BRIDE, St, MichaeVs College, Toronto. ■ ■■ St. John's Grove, Toronto. My Dear Sir — I join with heart and soul in the protest against the present administration of government in Ireland. Self-government is no crime, and they who seek a lawful end by legitimate means are no criminals. The treatment the Irish patriotjj have met with, argues of prejudice against Irish rights, on the part of the present English Government, so intense as to blind them to the inevitable defeat which must attend such a lawless use of law. " Their feet are swift to shed blood, sorrow and wretchedness are in their path." — Faithfully yours, J. F. M'Bride. Ill )/ V : : A FEW OPINIONS FROM FRANCE. THE TREATMENT OF POLITICAL PRISONERS IN FRANCE. LETTERS FROM REPRESENTATIVE MEN. i Count Albert De Mun, tlie leader of the Catholic Party in France. Monsieur Leveille, Professor of Ihe Eeole de Droit, Member of the present Commission de la Revision de la Code Penalo. M. Paul De Cassiignac. M. L. Nemours Godre, Redacteur Paris Universe. M. A. Horteau, Redacteur-en-Chef Journal des DehaU. M. Dabbudie de ]»arrau, the famous writer, scientest, etc., etc. ((51) The Count ALBERT BE MUN, the Bayard of the Catholic Church in France, and one of the first orators in the French Chamber of Deputies. Chambre des Deputes, 38 Euc Francois ler. Monsieur — Un voyage de quelques jours m'a empecho de renondre plus tot a la lettre, que vous avcz bicn vouiu m'eci 're. Je .j prie d'cxcuser ce retard involontaire. Je ne saurais d'ailleurs sur la question queyous me posez vous indiquer, avectoute la precision que vous desires, les principos de la legislation Fran9aise. Les crimes et los delits d'ordre politique ont donne lieu en effet, dans notre pays trouble par de si fre- quentes revolutions, aux penalites les plus diverses, suivant le plus ou moins grand degre d'ardeur des passions, qui dominent les osprits. Et se n'est pas au moment, oii le Gouvernement de la France vicnt d'instituer une J'uridiction d'ordre exceptionnel pour juger des adversaires politiques et eur infligcr, le cas echeant, le traitement le plus severe, que je pourrais invoquer I'exemple de mon pays en faveur de la justice et de la modera- tion. Tout 66 que je puis dire c'est qii'en temps normal, les delits politi- ques ne pouvaient guere s'accomplir, que par la voie des journaux, des Merits ou des reunions illegales, la penalite qui les frappe ne depasse pas 1 amende ou la prison, et il est assur^ment sans exemple que des ecrivains ou des hommes politiques, condamnes en pareil cas, aient ete soumis au regime des criminels ordinaires. Vous comprendrez certainment que je borne ma response a ces indica- I V 127 tions genoralcs, no connaissuiit pas assez lo detail des faits auxquels votro Icttre sc rapporto, pour expriraer a lour propos, un jugoraent formcl. En thcorie, je crois que Ics mosurcs violentcs, quelqucfois neccssaires quand la societe est en peril, sent, pour un gouvemement unc malhcur- euse extremite, et qu'en tout caa, elles demeurent steriles, si dies ne sont accompagnoos de reforraes salutaires, do nature a calmer I'csprit par do ligi- times satisfactions, Veuillez a^rreer, monsieur, I'assurance de mes sentimens Ics plus dis- tingues. A. Dk Mux. Monsieur E Dwycr Gray. The following is a translation of the above letter ; — Chambre dcs Deputes, Paris, 1889. Sir — 'i. journoy, -which occupied some days, has prevented me from sooner replying to the letter, you were kind enough to write to me. I beg you will excuse tliis involuntary delay. I cannot well, however, state ■with all the detiiiiteness you desire, the principles of French legislation with reference to the question yuu mention. Crimes and offences of a political nature have, in fact, in our country, disturbed by so many revo- lutions, given occasion for the most varying penalties, according to the greater or less warmth of passion controlling the public mind. And it is not at this moment, when the Government of France has instituted an ex- ceptional tribunal to judge political adversaries, and to inflict on them, if condemned, the severest treatment, that I could invoke the example of my country, in favour of justice and moderation. All that I can say is that, in a normal condition, political offences — which cannot well otherwise be committed than by means of newspapers, writings, or illegal assemblies — are not stricken by any punishment ex- ceeding fine or detention. Most (lertainly it is unexampled, that writers or political persons, condemned for sucli a cause, should be subjected to the prison treatment of common criminals. You will undoubtedly understand that I limit my reply to those gene- ral statements, as 1 am not sufficiently acquainted with the details of the acts to wliioh your letter relates to express a formal judgment on them. Theoretically, I believe that violent measures, sometimes necessary when society is in danger, are an unhappy and extreme resource for a Go- vernment, and that in all cases they are doomed to sterility, if they be not accompanied by salutary reforms, of such a nature, as to conciliate public opinion by legitimate and satisfactory (ioncessions. Pray accept, sir, the assurance of my most distinguished sentiments. Mr. E. Dwyer Gray. A. DE Mux. ■ M 128 (65) Momieur L» Professeur LEVEILLE, Pro/ensor of the Faculty of Law, l^cole (le Droit, thep'eat State School of France; Member of Commission^ appointed at close of 2nd Siege, corresponding to our Roy at Commissions^ to inquire into condition of Communard convicts transported to New Cale- donia ; now member of the Commission de la Revision de la Code Penale. (From a representative of The Freeman^ s Journal). Paris, Monday. Yesterday I had an interview, on the subject of the treatment of poli- tical prisoners in France, with a gentleman whose name will be at once recognized as that of an eminent authority on the subject. This is Monsieur L6vcill6, Professor of the Ecole de Droit, or Faculty of Law, of Paris, whose distinguished reputation has caused him to be selected as a member of the important National Commission for the Revision of the Penal Code of France. No more authoritative opinion than his on the subject of the treatment hero of political prisoners could be desired. "Wo met at the fJcole de Droit by appointment. After alluding to the way Irish political prisoners are treated by England, I asked what was the law with reference to political prisoners in France. M. Leveille — "In cases of transportation and long imprisonments, which vary from five to twenty years [and corresponds with the penal sei*vitude of Great Britain], the French law makes a distinction between political and ordinary offenders. Political prisoners are not obliged to work or to wear the prison dress, and they are entirely separated from the ordinary criminals. In cases of short imprisonment, varying from six days to five years, the text of the law is not explicit, but the tradi- tion and custom of the administration has always been, to treat political prisoners with much leniency. They wear their own (bess, receive visits from their friends, and need never mix with the other prisoners. The only exception to this rule was the treatment of the Communards by Monsieur GouUard ' (of the Thier's Cabinet, in 1871) but public opinion in 'Trance is always on the side of a great distinction in favour of political prisoners. Under Louis Philippe, political prisoners, such as Cavaignac, Raspail, Trellat, &c., were allowed to leave the prison during the day, and go about the town on parole ; so that it often happened when their friends went to see them that the reply of the prison concierge, or door-keeper, was * Ces messieurs sont sortis.^ (These gentlemen are not at home.) " What is the custom of the administration at the present time as to the treatment of political prioners ?" M. Leveille — " They are treated with much consideration. Monsieur Constans, a short time ago in the Legislatnre,"replying to a question from a member in reference to this subject, said that the liberality of the prison administration in this matt<^r had gone so far, that the number of visitors on the list of one of the prisons amounted to over 80, which rendered the task of prison concierge (or door-keeper) no light one. One of these lists included the name of a dansettse of the opera, and also, it must be added for propriety's sake, that of her aunt." 129 '* I have heard that the Opportunists wish to make the prison laws more severe ?" M. L6veill6 — " It having been decided by the Commiaaion Superieure dea Priaona that the rules for the treatment of political prisoners should be considered, about a fortnight ago this question came up on the agenda paper. The head of the Penitentiary Administration, M. Herbetto (who is a man of rules), delighted at the chance of making a new rule, proposed to take up this work, but the Commiaaion Superieure dea Priaona decided against any new regulation, leaving, as formerly, in the hands of the administration the power of continuing their liberal traditions, and also of checking any abuses of the same which might arise." " What is your personal opinion on the subject ?" M. L6veille — " I am in fav^our of one form of imprisonment, i.e., to make the rules for long and short terms of imprisonment the same, only differing in length according to the crime. I would separate entirely, and make a distinction, between what I call crimes which dishonour, and those which "onot. In the class of ^Honesta Custodia,'' 1 would include, besides political prisoners, duellists, and in some cases, those accused of Press offences, even when unconnected with politics, &c. I am on the Commission de la Revision de la Code Penale. It is proposed that all prisoners should have to work, but that those undergoing what I call honorable imprisonment shoidd continue to do their own work, whatever that might he. For instance, a poet would write verses, and as he could always say the inspiration had not come, it would be merely a form ; and in most cases the power of continuing their own work would be appreciated by the prisoners." was as to (6G) Monsieur L. NEMOURS GODRE, Ireland's best friend in France, Redacteur of the Paris " Universe,'' the leading Catholic organ in France. Paris, Juillet, 1889. Sib, — I rather fear that my opinion would not add much weight to the imposing array of civilized opinions you have put in line against the " Treatment of Political Prisoners " in your Anglo-Irish prisons. It is not easy, moreover, to write upon such a subject without going into particulars, and that would be decidedly too long. But since you ask my views, I may be pardoned for writing down a few observations. To begin with, it is easy to prove that the English themselves show us that there is some difference between a political " criminal " and a common one. They have welcomed and honoured Garibaldi, Mazzini, and the genua omne of revolutionary Italians who stood condemned by laws and constitutions otherwise sacred and just (to say the least of it), than the British constitution and laws as applied to Ireland. Are they not for the time being toasting and otherwise entertaining General Boulanger, who, were he in France, would ^be indeed very severely dealt with by our Opportunist legislators ? But we hear of an objection — we are told that General Boulanger has violated no moral law ; that he was, in a country of universal suffrage, «triving to obtain as many votes as possible, so as to throw from power a party which pretomls to monopolize French ** aspirations," and that to fight him to a(lvantap;e the Opportunists have boon compelled to resort to exceptional legislation, and exceptional tribiinals. Quito so. But such is precisely the case of Irishmen whom British ministers are tracking through a now Coercion law added to the old stock of Coercion moasuros, and a body of special magistrates. There is, however, a difference. It is, that the brave general, who has been so earnestly taken to by the popular favour, leads us possibly to a leap in the dark, while the Irish Party, with the nation at their back, are going all for a well-known policy, and claiming rights, liberties, and traditions they have been robbed of. But now — and it will be the end of my arj;iinient — were General Boulangcr caught and arraigned before the High Court of the Senate, he would be perhaps condemned and banished, but they should not dare treat him to the indignities which Anglo-Irish jailors daily inflict upon your most honourable deputies. A Parliamentary Government leads necessarily to the formation of opposing parties in the State, and the political urenu would soon become a scene of savage war were the dominating party entitled to condemn their oponents to the felon's cell or the convict's dishonouring labours. You have pretty well told how these things are maiuiged hero. There is now in prison at La Pelagic a perfectly liououraLle man, my publisher and friend, M. Savine, who was lately condemned to bo imprisoned for three months by the Bordeaux Assizes for having printed ^ .c now famous book of the Deputy Gilly — "Mes Dossiers ;" he was (jtiite ungenerously loaded before the court by M. Gilly with the onus probandi for the facts given in the book on the word of the writer. But though aware of public accusations against some members of the Opportunist party, he was quite unable to supply the proofs by himself. He was, of course, condemned according to our law of libel, hut he is not treated as a common criminal. He receives his meals from outside. I have onhj to ivrite a ward to the manager of the prison to be granted an interview tvith the 2^risoner. He is punished, but not in a way which could be considered as a vengeance by his pursuers. And this is, unfortunately, the very aspect of the law in Ireland. It looks too often as if designed, not to protect public rights and order, but to avenge the rancorous feelings of political adversaries. To the foreign observer your case against England, as briefly stated as possible, stands thus: — The Irish nation, backed by her clergy, her leaders, her most representative elements, claims rights and liberties which, to use the veiy words of John Bright himself, she has been " fraudulently " deprived of. The English Parliamentary majority say they cannot assent to that, and to maintain their point make coercive laws and appoint special tribunals, which, under the false pretence of protecting Ireland against crime, are labouring only on behalf of a ^^ fraudulent^* paper Union. How could honourable Irishmen, true to their country, to their fellow- citizens, feel themselves bound to obej^iuch laws and such tribunals ? They may be misguided, hey may go too far, but they are acting under a legitimate and strong st ise of the wrongs done to their dear and noble country. They remain w mt they are, honourable men ; and a shook is I that to resort to But such tracking Doasuros, 0. It is, popular rty, with ilicy, tmd >f. 1 General enato, he not dare lict upon nation of become a [jmn their 0. There publisher soned for iw famous ;cnerously the facts ; of public was quite ondemned criminaL )rd to the r. Ho is jcanco by land. It )rder, but r stated as ergy, her liberties has been ority say reive laws protecting atidulent " sir f ellow- ribunals ? ing under and noble shock i» 131 given to the civilized opinion of mankind when wo hoar of Buch men being treated as common criminals, and subjected to u thousand indignities. For, I dare say so, in this entirely too long struggle gone through by noble Ireland, the sympathies of the civilized world go all, or almost all, with Ireland, It is easy for the correspondents of the London Press abroad to misrepresent foreign sympathy for Ii'eland as the issue of unmixed liatred against England. 1 hear too much of this tune. For ray own part, I feel tolerably sui'c that 1 boar no ill-will on this earth to any nation as such. It woultl be auti-Catholic, and quite absurd, too. But even a I'oreign observer might be excused for giving expression to feelings which were never more eloquently expressed than by Cardinal Planning and Mr. Gladstone. Of these eminent and representative English- men, to be sure, the llrst was saying lately to some Irish members — " It is happy for mo that I was not born an Irishman. I would have been hanged many years ago ; " and tlie second has solemnly acknowledged that the bulk of the civilized opinion abroad was, and has always been, on the side of Ireland against England. It would be impossible, I believe, to find better witnesses to prove that the indignities inflicted upon your " political prisoners " are an in- tolerable chapter addod to the long record of English misrule in Ireland. — I remain, sir, yours truly, L. NlOMOUnS GODRK. (07.) Muimeur PAUL BE CA88AGNAQ, Memler of the French Chamber of Deputies, one of the most eminent of the latter day politicians of France, and the most brilliant loriter on " L' Autorite," the leading lionapartist and Conservative organ of France. Chambre des Deputes. Monsieur — Je trouve qne le traitement applique aux condamnes politiques en Irlande est absolument ignoble. Chez nous, dans a moment, ou veut aussi soumettre les condamcees politiques ii des vexations, sans precedent. Oii qu'elles se produisent ces fagons d'agir meritent d'etre fletries. Veuillez agreer, monsieur, I'expression de ma consideration la plus distinguee. Cassagnac. Monsieur E. Dwyer Gray. The following is a translation of the above : — * Chamber of Deputies, Paris. Sir — I consider the treatment to which political prisoners are subjected in Ireland positively infamous. Here at this moment, an attempt is being made to subject political prisoners to vexations which are without precedent. 132 Whenever sujh a course is adopted it deserves to be stigmatized. — Accept, sir, Lbe expression of my most distingaished consideration. Mr. E. Dwyer Gray. Cassaonac. I'M M (68) Monsieur A. RORTEAU, editor of the " Journal des Bebats.^* The following is a translation of a letter received from Monsieur Jlorteau, Redacteur m Chef of the " Journal des Dehats " : — Journal des Dehats, 1 7 Rue des Pretres, St. Germain-rAuxerrois. Sir — I ha\e the honour to reply to the letter, with which you honoured me, requesting information as to the treatment to which political prisoners are subjected in French prisons. The French Penal Code orders for political crimes penalties, which differ from those under the ordinary law. These political penalties are transference to a fortified place, simple transportation, detention, and civil degradation (».«., loss of civil rights). But in the minor matter of simple correctional regulations, the penalty of imprisonment is common to political and ordinary offences. The written law establishes no difference between the manner of the imprisonment, whether ordered for one or other of these kinds of offences. As a matter of fact, however, persons condemned to imprisonment for press offences, and for political offences, are placed under a milder treat- ment than that to which other prisoners are subjected. They are, generally speaking, treated simply as untried prisoners are. But this difference of treatment between political and ordinary prisoners is deter- mined only by custom, by rules of the administration, by ministerial orders, and not by the written law. Recently protests were made by persons condemned for press offences, who complained that certain favours were withdrawn, which had usually been granted to those of this category detained in prison. These protests wero brought before the Chamber of Deputies, which took no action.* The Conseil Superieur des Prisons, in its turn, took the matter into consideration. It has decided to change nothing in the actual condition of things. You will find herewith two extracts from journals containing sum- marised reports of the deliberations of the Conseil Superieur des I'risons on the subject Pray accept, sir,^ expression of my most distinguished consideration, A. HORTEAI;. * Ref^i'once was made to this subject in the ioterview with Professor Leveille. It was shown that one gentleman had eighty visitors on his list, including an opera dancer and her aunt. Of course some rearrangement was required, even for tho sake of the over-worked janitor. At Richmond, O'Connell and his friends issued a card declining to receive visitors except at certain days and hours. itized. — leration . lAQNAC. IlorteaUy 'retres, honoured prisoners jrders for nary law. s, simple H rights). )enalty of LC written isonmeut, iment for der treat- hey are, But this s is deter- unisterial 5 offences, id usually e protests iction.* latter into condition ning sum- lei Prisons binguished ^OETEAir. lor Leveille. ng an opera 5ven for tha ends issued 133 The following is a translation of the snmmarized reports of the deliberations of the Conseil Superieur which bear npou the question at issue : The Conseil was requested to consider the questions previously submitted to it, which concern the prison treatment applicable to persons condemned for Press offences, for political acts, or for acts connected with politics. The general regulation, promulgated by the Conseil at the end of 1885, has, in fact, laid down the principle i- les which guided the (prison) administration in fixing, according to minis- terial direction, the special treatment applicable in all the departments, except that of the Seine (Paris). Generally speaking, the treatment is the same as that accorded to those detained in prison, who are re- puted innocent until the day they are found guilty. In Paris the only existing rule is that of 1867, instituted for political prisoners condemned to less than a year and a day of imprisonment, and confined in St. Pelagic. By the terms of this rule, which is in conformity with all the existing general regulations, visits should be received in a special parlour, and all correspondence, books, pamphlets, journals, or writings are subject to a preliminary visa (or endorsement), either on entry or exit, with power of detention. As a matter of fact, however, by extension of exceptional permis- sions, granted, for instance, on account of health, visits have been received in private rooms and cells, which eliminated any real power of visa over correspondence with the exterior. The Conseil Superieur was requested to examine in what way, under what conditions, and to what persons, a new regulation — the same for the whole of France — should or should not allow the grant of this exceptional favour — namely, of visits and communications in the private room of prisoners and beyond the control of supervision. In the meantime, pending this, a state of toleration had been maintained without distinction, when recent incidents (and particularly the publication of insulting drawings, which might of itself constitute an offence on the part of a prisoner in St. Pelagic) caused the Chan- cellor to ask for measures to revive the rules and legal directions. The administration then no longer felt itself authorized to temporarily sanc- tion the state of simple toleration, before the advice of the Conseil Superieur, and the decision of the government, should give permission for these divergences from all the regulations previously formulated. But consultation and investigation will now permit the taking of such temporary measures as may be proper, until the question shall be definitely decided by government. After a general discussion, on the necessity of determining, first of all, the categories of those who should be allowed to profit by right of special treatment, the subject was referred to the Commission of Rules to prepare a draft which might be submitted to the Government, ia order to constitute a special regulation, applicable throughout France, to prisoners condemned for press offences, for political acts, or for matters connected with politics. ^/ 134 COMMISSION OP JWLES — DECISION. The Commission of Eules of tlie Conseil Superior des Prisons assembled yesterday moi'ning to examine into the question of the treatment of political prisoners in St. Pelagie prison. Present — M. Schoeicher, President ; Messrs. de Verninac, Senator ; Clemenceaii and Alfred Laroze, Deputies ; Laferriere, Vice-President of the Council of State ; F. Dreyfus, ex-Deputy ; Jacquin, Councillor of State ; Voisin, Member of the Hii^h Court of Cassation ; Dumas, Director of Criminal Affairs ; Herbette, Director of Penitentiary Establishments. After a long discussion, the Commission came to the conclusion that there was no necessity for issuinsr a new Eule ; that the regulation of I8f)7 was poi'foc^My compatible with the most ample liberality of treatment, atHl that it would suffice to publish an opinion advising the application of this Rule of 1867 in such a manner as to ensure the practice of lil)oralit^ {tolerance), and at the same time to niaintain good order in the ])risoii. M. Laferriere has been charged with drafting this authoritative opinion. (G9) JIf, D'A BBUDI VE JiAEHA U, a man whose name is known all over the cirilized world : Membre de I'lnstifuf, Paris ; Menthre des liurcau des Xom/ifudcs. the world-famed bodi/ of ^^ saranfs ; also JLmorary Member of the Palian Academy dei Lucie, and of the Royal Academy of Madrid, and " Jfembre Correspondent'' of many learned bodies abroad. (I am indebted for the following: important interview, to a famous French author, who kindly called upon M. Dahbudi dk Bauuau for the purpose of obtaining an expression of opinion from him). The renowned savant is living in the midst of the Faubourg St. Germaine, in the old Pue du Pac, which was so dear to Madame de Stael; but he spends some part of the year in the Pyrenees, where he has a very fine estate. I found ]\[. D'Abbudie de Earrau very busily engaged in finishing his correspondence of the day, in the midst of an imposhig array pf learned reviews. I was readily welcomed all the same, especially when I told him that I was a somewhat extraordinary ambassador from Ireland, and that I was desirous of having some statement of his views, about the treatment inflicted by British statesmen upon their political adversaries in Ireland. ** AVell," said the eminent academician, " I am pretty well au courant about events in Ireland. I know a bit of British ride there. My earliest recollections " "What!" I interrupted, "you have early recollections of Ireland ? And how is that?" "Certainly, my dear sir. I was born there, and I remember a pecu- liarity of the time, which was proclaiming aloud one of the greatest sins of English rule. You know that they had practically killed National J Prisons m of the Senator ; esident of ncillor of ; Daraas, nitentiary onclusion •egulation )erality of v^ising the iisare the tain good drafting all over the liureau des •1/ 3 f ember !)/ Madrid, a famous u for the )ourg St. de Stael; las a very isliing his )f learned n I told Ireland, ibout the Iversaries 185 industries in Ireland. Trades were striving to revive after the ruinous shock of the Union, and good citizens were doing their best to encourage this revival. So it was d la moie, when going to a funeral, to wear scarfs of fine linen, manufactured at home, by one of the too rare National industries left in the country." " Indeed," I said. " I was quite ignorant of the peculiarity. Now, of course, things area good deal improving, but not so well as they should, were Ireland after a last victory able to cease that mere struggle for life, and use in her own way her genius and working powers. But the British statesmen now at the helm do not like the prospect, and so they treat their political adversaries in the * sister island,' to the iron hand of removable police magistrates, and the shame of a convict's cell. "Yes, I know," said the distinguished traveller, (^est une indigniti, c'est une indigniU. It is an infamy — it is an infamy." " Of course, it is," I said; " but England in politics does not often sin on the side of generosity" "Never," said M. D'Abbudi. " Englishmen have great qualities. I give them credit for that ; but in politics— —" (and he remained silent and thoughtful, as if recollecting some well-know^ instances of England's selfishness). ""Well," I then resumed, " their politir.s are, to say the least, bad politics in Ireland. The cocrcionist man:a is not only a disgrace to civilization, but a dangerous practice, which can and must leave living resentment behind it. But let us drop this side of the matter. Let us consider it as a question of general politics, or a question of general humanity. Is it becoming a civilized nation like England to treat her political prisoners as a lot of robbers and infamous persons ? A few words from a distinterested savant like you would, no doubt, have an excellent effect. Would you authorize me to transmit them to Ireland ?" " Most certainly," he said. " You can say, that I do not know of any nation in civilized Europe treating her political prisoners with the harsh- ness and ignominy to which honourable Irishmen are subjected in Irish prisons. In France such things, except in days of Revolution, would be impossible. I am ready to sign a i^nblic. protest if you like it." "It is done so, sir, or almost so. I will transmit to Ireland your generous words of sympathy for the political prisoners, and of protest against the indignities inflicted upon them." And, with warm thanks, I left the famous writer to his books and his works. lu courant y earliest Ireland ? ■ a pecu- itest sins National JJ ENGLISH OPINION. English Opinion upon the subject of the treatment of political prisoners was so thoroughly ventilated by the " National Protest " that little more remains to be said. The following Letters, however, will be read with interest : — His Grace the most Rev. Dr, Bagshawc. The Earl of Cavan. Jacob Bright, M.P. Professor Bryce, M.P. Samuel Storey. M.P. (70) Sis Grace the Most Rev. Dr. BBAD8EAWE, Bishop of Nottingham. St. Barnabas' s Cathedral, Nottingham. Sir — ^You asked my opinion on the subject of the treatment of politi- cal prisoners. I think it is in principle unjust and cruel to treat political prisoners like common criminals, and that it also leads to the subversion of liberty. It is true that political offences may sometimes be very gre at crimes, deserving of heavy punishment; but it is also true that they may often be no crimes at all, but rather acts of heroic fidelity and patriotism. It is still more often the case that such acts, even if unjustifiable in themselves, are yet justifiable in the consciences of those who do them on some mistaken principles. It would be cruel and unjust, then, to ex- pose what are so often results, in truth, of self-devotion and patriotism, to the degrading punishments due to acts of despicable, selfish crime. we add the consideration that those who have to judge of, and to punish political offences, are always of the opposite political party, it is unfair and improper that they should in any event be allowed to inflict heavy and degrading punishments, when they are thus judging in their own cause. 'J'heir sentences will certainly be regarded rather as acts of panic, fear, or of cruel revenge, than as the dictates of justice. Thus the horri- ble butcheries perpetrated by both parties in the Wars of the Roses, when they respectively got the upper hand, were acts of savage injustice, dis- graceful for ever to the name of England. Their results also in bringingabout the Tudor despotism, show Low dangerous it ia to public liberty when political offences are punished like common crimes. All who attempt to resist oppression are at once called criminals, and immediately destroyed or imprisoned, and the people are silenced by a reign of terror. 137 I condemn, therefore, the treatment of their political prisoners by the Government in Ireland on general principles. Judging of it in the actual facts and circumstances, I think it atrociously wicked. It is obviously intended to crush by savage, despotic sentences, executed with bar- barous cruelty, the brave and noble defenders of the just rights and liberties, and of the hearths and homes of their fellow-countrymen. I have no doubt about the gross injustice and barbarity of the existing laws, which enable landlords to extort unjust rackrents, and to con- fiscate the property of their tenants in so many cases, t have there- fore no hesitation in branding the execution of those laws as a monstrous crime. In order to enforce these jotra^Kfl/ laws the govern ment has burdened Ireland with an army of occupation and enormous taxes. They have robbed her (in their wish and intention, for ever) of every single safeguard of liberty enjoyed in England ; they have terrorised her children by severe legal punishments for almost any word or act in defence of freedom ; and they have trampled on, insulted, and outraged her, by letting loose brutal hordes of constables with bayonets and batons, to shoot and bludgeon her people, which they do without fear of punishment — nay, with all the better hope of promo- tion. They try, but try in rain, to hide their misdeeds by every species of meanness, trickery, and falsehood. If I did not see, as it were, on the wall the hand-writing of their speedy doom, I should tremble for the liberties of England. There is here the same despotic use of the magistracy and of the police to oppress the poor; and, if only the Tory party dared, the feudal despot- ism which here, as well as in Ireland, weighs heavily upon our tenants and workers, would be greatly aggravated and immovably established. —I am, sir, your obedient servant, t^ Edward, Bishop of Nottingham. E. DwYER Gray, Esq. (71) THE EARL OF CA VAN, M.P. House of Commons, London. My dear Sir — I understand from your letter +.hat you desire an expression of opinion frcm myself on the subject of the treatment of political prisoners in Ireland. There is, I think, some difficulty existing in the minds of many persons as to what constitutes a political prisoner in Ireland. A simple answer, I think, may be given to this question. A political prisoner is one who is detained in prison under an Act of Parlia- ment which;is distinctly disapproved of and constantly protested against by the whole of that political party which for the time being is out of office. Such a person would, I presume (no further offence being charged against him), be immediately discharged were an appeal made to the country which resulted in the return to power of the Liberal party. How should such a person be treated ? Surely, by every law of justice and common sense, he should only be subjected to as much punishment as the com- 138 munity at large would award him could it speak its mind. This law, in a general way, is practically recognized in the treatment of nil criminals. The murderer who is condemned to death has his life spared whenever it is realized by the Home Secretary that the public generally are to a con- siderable extent, satisfied that the murderer had in his favour certain justifications or excuses, which the jury at the time of his trial could not or did not take cognizance of ; and public opinion in England, in every case when it can bo definitely obtained, is allowed to affect the sentences passed on other criminals, who have committed minor offences. WLat consideration, then, should be shown to prisoners whose acts and woida are held to bo unworthy of any punishment whatever^ by tho whole com- munity, if performf.d or spoken in any part of England, Scotland, "Wales, or the Colonies, and at least by half the population of these countries if performed or spoken in Ireland ?— Yours obediently, Cavait. (72) MR. JACOB BRIGHT, M.P. Broome Hall, Holmwood, Surrey. Dear Sir — No ono can feel more strongly than I do with respect to the prison treatment practised on the Irish people and their representatives by the present Tory Government. I hold that the degradation and tor- ture of men accusod only of political offences, being no longer found in civilized countries, cannot be defended in England without arousing feel- ings of shame. Tlie free expression of opinion on all public questions is the great safeguard of the people — the means by which in the past we have secured, and shall in tho future confirm, the gradual and safe en- largement of our liberties. But in almost every case where Irish repre- sentatives have been imprisoned under tho present Coercion Act, the ground of imprisonment, sometimes with hard labour, and always with shameful indignities, has been — 1st, for making public speeches; 2nd, for listening to them ; 3rd, for reporting them. A speech which I can make to my own constituents would subject an Irish M!.P. to imprisonment with criminal treatment. This is an example of the legal equality of the people of the three kingdoms promised at the last elections by those who now hold power. There could be no clearer evidence, tluit the Tory party is engaged in a senseless and foolish course of conduct, than is to be found in the fact that Irishmen, treated as criminals in Irish jails, are imme- diately before and immediately after their incarceration received as hon- oured guests in the most honourable Scotch and English homes. Mr. Balfour appears to believe in the old policy of governing Ireland. He is the last Chief Secretary who will be permitted to direct the old policy. — Sincerely yours, Jacob Bright. 139 (73) The following important letter from Professor J. BR YCE, addressed to Dr. SIGERSON, is published here hy special permission. London, July 29th, 188' . My dear Sir — I have read tho details you give regarding the rocend treatment of political prisoners in Ireland, as compared with that followed in other countries, not only with interest, but with regret and shame, for I had not k" wn how much the recent practice of the Government in Ireland falls below that of other countries, and even below that of Eng- lish authorities sixty years ago. It is not easy to find a satisfactory definition of a political offence ; yet we all feel the difference between an ordinary criminal and those whose treatment you describe. Perhaps we may say that wheniiver the moral judgment of the community at large does not regard an offence as sordid and degrading, and does not feel the offence to be one, which destroys its respect for the personal character of the prisoner, it may then be held that prison treatment ought to be different from that awarded to ordinary criminals. One reason for this view is, that ordinary prisoa discipline is incomparably more severe and painful to the persons sen- tenced for offences of this nature than it is to the ordinary thief or forger. A sentence nominally the same is really much harsher. There is, however, another ground, and a stronger one, for condemn- ing the methods followed of late years in Ireland. They are not only cruel — they are foolish and impolitic. They attempt to fly in the face of the general sentiment of mankind, which recognizes the wide difference between crimes which are always crimes, and acts which, even if it is necessary to punish them, may be the result of mistaken views of right, and may hereafter be regarded very differently from the view in which we judge them now. The time never comes when the people venerate the memory of a thief or a forger as we venerate the memories of Sir Thomas Moore or Algernon Sydney — political offenders on whom the last penalty of the law was inflicted with a more general concurrence of opinion, than exists now as regards the Irish rebels of 1798, or tho im- prisoned Irish leaders of to-day. Experience has amply shown that to treat the political prisoner like the common criminal, does not deprive him of the sympathies of those who agree with him politically, but may rather endear him further to them, and, at any rate, embitter their feelings, and stimulate them to un- lawful reprisals. There is, I think, something mean in this attempt to humiliate men by treating them as already brutal, something unworthy of a groat nation, something that lends colour to the belief which, till lately, was 80 general in Ireland, that hereditary arrogance and hatred have had much to do with the administration of English rule in Ireland, and are still more powerful factors than that vaunted regard for the interests of the whole United Kingdom, which is so often on the lips of her present rulers. It is some little comfort to learn that this relapse into barbarism, of 140 •which the Irish Government has been gnilty — this vain attempt to do- grade a cause by trying to degrade its leaders — did not proceed from the British Parh'ament, but from purblind Irish officials of the ruling aste. It is still more consolatory to feel assured that such conduct has contributed to disgust the English and Scotch people with the way in "which Ireland has been governed. You have rendered a great service by dealing so thoroughly with this subject, and have, I hope, given a final and fatal blow to a system for which England may well blush. — Very faithfully yours, J. Brtcb. (74). : , SAMUEL STOnEY, Esq., M.P., Sunderland, Bear Sir — As one of those who aided in opposing and finally defeating Mr. Forstcr's policy of imprisonment of political opponents in Ireland, I have naturally watched with deep interest the development of that policy in other hands. Often in those days I heard Conservatives, and some Liberals, declare that the Irish would never be put down until their leaders suffered, not merely imprisonment, but degradation. This policy thus shadowed foiih has been given effect to by the present government. I regard it with distaste and shame. It is surely too late in the day for free England to subject men, for speeches, to .association with reviled criminals, and that personal degradation which ought to bo reserved for crime. The spirit which dictates such punishment is the same in essence, which has governed the worst conduct of tyrannical governments on the Continent, and which we English have ever condemned. I trust the day is not far distant when political prisoners in Ireland will be treated as first-class misdemeanants, as they are in England. Still more strongly do I hope that, with the advent of a policy of wise conciliation, political prisoners may become as rare there as they happily are here. — I am, very sincerely yours, Samuel Stokbt. AN (75) THE OPINION OF lEISH-AUSTKALIAN STATESMAN. SIR CHARLES G A VAN DUFFY, ex-inmate of Richmond Bridswell, ex-Prime Minister of Her Majestt/s Colony of Victoria, ex-Speaker ofth» Victorian House of Commons^ etc., ete. (This letter is published by special permission.) Mr DEAR Dtt. SiGEUsoN — I cannot give you any information about the treatment of State prisoners in Victoria, because during the quarter of a century I was connected with that colony there were no State prisoners. At the opening of the period Home Rule, in the most perfect form, was established in Victoria. The people elect their o^vn Parliament, the Government is chosen from the Parliament, and only exists so long as it retains its confidence. The Government so chosen appoints to every office, from that of Chief Justice down to the porter on a railway ; they collect and expend the Revenue, of whicli a shilling does not go to the Imperial Treasury, except by free gift ; and the Cabinet in Downing Street cannot appoint or remove a policeman in the Colony. There are naturally no offences against the State in such a country, and if the same system be applied to Ireland, you will have no more trouble about the classification of political prisoners. Before the Australians got a free Constitution there were frequent riots, and even armed insurrection, and of course a liberal crop of prisoners ; but the question how political convicts ought to be treated never arose, as Melbourne juries would not convict men, resisting what was considered illegal exactions and arbitrary arrests under old "Mother Country" regime. As respects the general question, there are some obvious rules which can only be overlooked by wilful blindness. Political prisoners are com- monly of a class to whom, from their training and antecedents, a plank- bed means torture, coarse food, the pangs of indigestion, and menial service, degradation ; and when these inflictions, which habit makes indifferent to the rough and the burglar, are imposed upon political prisoners, a mani- fest injustice is done. Civilized mankind have agreed to treat prisoners, whose offence is not against the moral but the municipal law, as aseparate and special class. I know no exception to this humane practice except Russia — if Russia, which is half-barbarbous, can be regarded as a case in point when we are speaking of civilized nations. "We are going backwards, it seems. Lord Eldon, when he was at the head of the law of England, treated Cobbett and Leigh Hunt better than Irish journalists are treated to-day. I do not cite the case of O'Connell and the State prisoners of 18il, because the Dublin Corporation, which had control of the Richmond Penitentiary, permitted us liberties which no one claims for political prisonei at pre- sent. It is not asked that they should have virtual levees, or give daily entertainment to their friends, but that they shall not have a sentence of detention turned into physical and moral torture. — Believe me, very faith- fully yours, C. Gavax Duffy. Shelboume Hotel, July 20th. FEELING IN IRELAND. A GREAT MUNICIPAL PROTEST. THE CLASSIFICATION OF PBISONERS. SixcE the Eeport of the Abevtlaro Commission it lias become more and more apparent that the Irish people will not accept any concession in connection with the treatment of political prisoners not based upon the principle of classification. The action taken by the Corporations of Ireland removes any doubt previously existing in this regard. (76) The Dublin Corporation. On 28th June, 1889, the Ileporfc of the Abcrdare Committee was published in the Freemmi's Journal. Upon the same day a special meeting of the Corporation of Dublin was held in obedience to a re- quisition to the Lord Mayor (Mr. Sexton), that the Council should con- sider the question of the treatment of political prisoners in Ireland. Kef erring to the " International Protest," which was then appearing in the columns of the Freemanh Journal, Mr. Dawson said : " There was scarcely a rank of any importance in political, religious, or social life in which he (Mr. Gray) did not find some distinguished men to pro- nounce condemnation upon the policy of Mr. Balfour in this matter. Finally, after an able statement by Mr. Dawson, and speeches from the High Sheriff (Alderman Meade, J.P.)> Mr. Miley, Mr. Mayne, M.P., and ^. D. Sullivan, M.P., the following resolutions, proposed by Mr. Dawson and seconded by the High Sheriff, were passed unani- mously : — " 1. That this Council strongly protests again ^ the treatment of political offenders as common criminals, as a policy at variance with all principles of justice, and contrary to the practice of foreign countries, to international law, and to precedent at home." ** 2. That in the opinion of this Council prisoners confined under the Irish Crimes Act should be treated as first-class misdemeanants." *' 3. That the rights of such persons should be clearly determined, and not left to the discretion of the officers of any prison, and that the vesting in such officers of discretionary powers (as in the " 143 recent modifications in prison discipline) is likely to lead to con- fusion and dissatisfaction." *' 4. That the Report of Lord Aberdare's Committee supplies, on the one hand, a condemnation of the proposals of the Chief Sec- retary, and furnishes on the other proof that his instructions Lave rendered the inquiry nugatory, as the Committee can only recommend modifications based npon sanitary considerations — a system which the Committee itself expressly condemns aa defective." ** 5. That any investigation into the treatment of prisoners, which ignores the fundamental distinction between men convicted of political offences and ordinary criminals, is defective in its essence, and must be futile in its results. That by limiting the scope of the present inquiry to two questions of discipline the Government prevented a full and proper consideration of the matters at issue, a course which was bound to lead to an incom- plete and unsatisfactory conclusion." (77) The Cork Corporation. A few days later, at a special meeting held for the purpose, the Oor- poration of Cork, on the motion of Alderman Hooper, adopted, in globo, he series of resolutions passed by the Dublin Corporation. The proceed- ingSjWere unanimous. (78.) The Waterford Corporation. The Waterford Corporation followed the same course. (79.) Unanimous. The SUgo Corporation. The Sligo Corporation passed a resolution as appended ; one dissentient : " Resolved — That we, the members of the Sligo Municipal Council, hereby express our emphatic condemnation of the treatment to which political prisoners have been, and are, subjected in Ireland by the present Administration ; we protest against the persistent endeavour of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to crush his political opponents by prison torture, and to degrade by association with criminals the most loved and respected of our countrymen ; we call for an immediate and radical change in the treatment of men undergoing imprisonment for Coercion-made crimes ; we cannot consider satisfactory any change, which does not provide for the proper classification of prisoners and secure political misdemeanaats from contact with criminals." 144 Councillor Sedley was the only member who opposed the resolution,, vhich was adopted. (80.) The Drogheda Corporation. The Drogheda Corporation (the Mayor presiding), passed the resolu- tions of the Lublin Corporation unanimously. (81.) The Limerick Corporation. The resolutions of t^o Dublin Corporation were passed unanimously. (82.) The Clonmel Corporation. At a meeting of the Town Coimcil, the Dublin resolutions wore adopted unanimously. (83.) T?ie Kilkenny Corporation, At a meeting of the Kilkenny Corporation the following resolution was passed unanimously : — " That we consider the scandalous and barbarous treatment of political prisoners under the Coercion Act of Mr. Balfour a great national grievance, as well as degradation, and that the inhuman conduct practised upon some of the truest and best sons of the Irish nation under the Coereion Act calls for our special condemnation, the more so since Thomas Larkin, one of the prisoners under the Act, was done to death in Kilkenny jail." The resolutions passed by the Corporations of Ireland fitly bring this pamphlet to a conclusion. FlKIS. THS FBEEHAK S JOUKNAL, LIUII£D, PIUNIEBS, DUBLUT. te resolution,. d tho resola- nanimously. lutiona wore esolution was at of political aal grievance, eil upon some Coereion Act I Larkin, one ny jail." tly bring this 2r. iliMlii ifmw * This Pamphlet may be obtained at the "Freeman's Journal " Office, at any of the Branch Offices, or team any Bookseller or News Agent. W^r'- nan*8i firom ■*!'