Tuesday, 28 November 1922
Dáil Éireann Debate
CATHAL O'SHANNON: This is a subject which most members of the Dáil should be, I think, not only familiar with but interested in. I think there are many things that could be raised on it and I propose to raise one or two, and hope that other Teachtai will raise others. One of the things I would like to ask the Minister is this: whether he has considered, or whether he is likely to consider, the complete reform of the whole civil prison system in Ireland. I grant that in the present circumstances it would be very difficult to effect anything like a general reform, but I think there will be complete agreement amongst those Teachtai who have had the fortune, or misfortune, to spend some time in an ordinary civil prison as conducted in the past, not only here but in England, that there should be reform. The system wants a good deal of overhauling. It seemed to many of us that one of its defects was that the ordinary person brought in there was rather put into a criminal factory. I should like to know if the intention of the Ministry is that the prisons are to be merely places of detention or whether they are to be places of punishment. If I went much further in this I would raise the whole question, which perhaps could better come up on the question of the laws, whether the prisons should be used to deter people from committing crime or for punishing them for committing crimes. There is another thing  that I hope the Ministry will make clear to us and that is the present position and dispositions of the Military prisons and the civil prisons, whether there are such things as purely Military prisons; whether those prisons are inhabited altogether by what we call general political prisoners or whether these military prisons, if there are such, are also inhabited by purely military prisoners, that is offenders in the ranks of the ordinary regular forces. I should like to know also whether, in any of the prisons, ordinary civil or ordinary criminal prisoners are kept, political or otherwise, who have not been prosecuted under any of the ordinary laws and are not serving sentences. One could, if one went into it, raise too, the question of the state of certain prisons. As has been stated here over and over again, and I think we ought to acknowledge the validity of the argument, the prisons are very much overcrowded, and for that reason the state of the prisons is not as good as it might be. That, of course, will probably be said by the Minister, but I want to know whether there is any improvement in that condition of affairs. I see it is stated on behalf of the Government that the number of those prisoners is increasing very rapidly. If that is so, have steps been taken to cope with the rapid increase in the number of prisoners? And while, I think, on the whole, the Minister very largely answered the other day a number of objections and complaints that were made, I should like to know if, say, in the prison in Dundalk everything is going on swimmingly so far as the ordinary conduct of the prison is concerned, or not? I am informed that in regard to purely civil prisoners the state of things there is not as it ought to be; that the cleanliness of the prison is not all it ought to be. That may be partly due to the action of the prisoners themselves. I have no means of knowing, but I want to know if the Ministry, apart altogether from whatever bad things may be happening, or whatever bad state the prisons may be in through the action of the prisoners, if the Ministry is taking steps to see that in the ordinary course the prisons are run properly. Another thing I want to know is whether the ordinary criminal or civil prisoners or prisoners on remand awaiting trial have still a right to visits from their relatives, or whether they have the privilege, as the  Prison Commissioners put it, of receiving visitors. I think the term “privilege” is rather a technical one, but it is the one which used to be hung up on the walls of the cells. There are other matters arising out of this that I want to express myself upon, and I must express myself with some indignation on them, and that are an astonishment to me. I may say, before I mention that, that I am very glad to see that the Ministry has had the good sense to release Miss MacSwiney. I am not arguing for her release, but I am very glad to see that the Government had the good sense to release her. I think the Ministry showed neither sense nor humanity nor ordinary decency in refusing when Miss Mary MacSwiney was on hunger strike to allow Miss Annie MacSwiney to visit her. In this matter I do not want the Ministry to come along and give their personal impression of Miss Mary or Miss Annie MacSwiney. I am not raising the question of personalities at all, but I conceive of numerous cases of prisoners near to the point of death suffering very cruelly in prison, and, owing to the decision of the Ministry in the case of Miss MacSwiney, being refused a visit from their friends. That, I think, is something that cannot be tolerated in Ireland at all. On another occasion someone else may raise the same issue in another connection, but I express the indignation of a great number of people throughout the country at that inhumanity, because it was nothing else but inhumanity. It could not be justified on any ground of policy that the Ministry should refuse the relatives of anyone in danger of death, no matter whether it was Miss MacSwiney or any women or any boy or girl in prison. They should be allowed the ordinary humanitarian privileges of a visit from their relatives.
Mr. K. O'HIGGINS: Deputy O'Shannon has raised a big question when he speaks of sweeping reforms in the prison system—a big question and an interesting question, but scarcely a question for a transitional Government. I think that everyone here would agree that we should aim at improvement and reform in the existing prison system. There is not a member of this present Government who has not been in jail. We have had the benefit of personal experience and personal  study of these problems, and although we have never discussed them, I think we would be unanimous in the view that a change and reform would be desirable. Personally I can conceive nothing more brutalising, and nothing more calculated to make a man rather a dangerous member of society, than the existing system. But one does not attempt sweeping reforms in a country situated as this country is at the moment. One does not build or try to build in the path of a forest fire. This question and many other interesting questions will have to be postponed until the situation alters. If you could cut down the number of jail occupants in this country to something quite small, then it would be possible to start experiments that might lead to better results than simply turning a man out, after eighteen months or two years, a more hardened criminal and a more dangerous man to society than he was when he went in. I have been promised by the Minister for Defence that in quite a short time—certainly not running into months—all civil prisons in the country will be free for civil prisoners. That is a state of affairs which I certainly will welcome, for I agree that the present condition is bad. It is bad to have too many prisoners crowded into a place such as was the case in Limerick. Since I gave that particular interview to the “Freeman's Journal” I think 400 prisoners have been removed from Limerick. It is hoped to free it for prisoners of the country who are undergoing ordinary civil detention. I have no knowledge that the right of civil prisoners on remand has been limited or restricted; I speak of it as a right rather than as a privilege, because it is a long-established practice. If it is not allowed in any particular prison, it might be due to the pressure owing to the abnormal situation and owing to the occupation of the prison by the military and by military prisoners. It might, for instance, be looked upon by the military authority as a danger to have visitors coming into the prison. The Military Governor might have gone to the Civil Governor in that particular prison and said that the practice was one he would have to stop for the time being as a matter of military necessity. I think that is probably the explanation if the right of civil prisoners to visits during the remand period is interfered with. Now,  with regard to the question of Miss MacSwiney. She has been released. We have no wish or intention to comment upon that matter, or to make any personal remarks about Miss MacSwiney or her sister. I am dealing with the question that Deputy O'Shannon has raised simply coldly and upon its merits. Miss MacSwiney was in a state of revolt and in a state of insubordination. She favoured myself and other members of the Ministry with rather abusive letters demanding, not requesting, that her sister should be admitted to see her to deal with purely business matters. She did not base that demand on any extreme illness or on any feeling that death was imminent. She simply said she demanded to see her sister to deal with certain business matters, and on that point she hinted that at a later date she would, of course, require to see her sister again. I assume that that visit was a visit purely to transact certain business, presumably family business. Now, military prisoners, even those not in a state of revolt or insubordination, are not allowed these kinds of visits to transact business. They are not allowed such facilities. I do not know whether anyone here will put up the view that they ought to be allowed. At any rate, the fact is that they are not, and this was a case of a prisoner in a state of revolt and insubordination demanding facilities which she would not receive were she not in a state of revolt and insubordination. This particular demand was not the demand of a dying person to see a relative before death It was strongly and abusively worded and it was a mere bullying demand for this thing as a right. It was not a right. We cannot take the view that it was the right that her sister should be allowed to go in to transact business when she would not be allowed to go in under normal prison regulations. I do not want to say anything more on this question. I hope I will not be taken to have referred in a personally offensive way to either of these ladies. Deputy O'Shannon may feel indignation. I think that indignation is not well-grounded. If he will look into the matter as a cold problem for men with tremendous responsibilities he will see that it was not easy or possible to accede to that particular demand that any persons choosing that form of protest are immediately to have  their relatives or friends in to make disposition about family matters for preparation for a death that might be two or three months ahead.
CATHAL O'SHANNON: The point that I raised is not only of particular application in this case, but of general application, and I want it to be made perfectly clear that the point I am raising is a point of general application. I am not denying the difficulties that the Ministry has, as to the number of prisoners. I know a certain allowance should be made for those difficulties. I am not denying the fact, but I disagree with the policy that the ordinary political prisoner in the prison is not allowed a visit for business, or family, or any other reason. But other cases similar to the one that has arisen may arise, and what I want to object to is what seems to be the policy of the Minister to refuse a relative admission to a prisoner confined in the prison when that prisoner, whether of the prisoner's own volition or otherwise, is in reasonable danger of death. It is no case to argue that in this case the hunger strike might have lasted for two or three months. It might have brought death before two or three months or very many weeks, because I do not know that any medical man will claim that the medical profession can say, notwithstanding the extremely long hunger strike of the great Traolac MacSwiney, that death is likely to occur at any particular period, because hunger strikers have died at a much shorter period than he did. Unless I am very much mistaken one who was an ordinary criminal died in a much shorter period in England than Miss Mary MacSwiney has been on strike. The point I raise is the right. I think it is the duty of any Government to allow a prisoner under sentence and about to be executed or who is likely to die from natural causes, even for business purposes, the visits of some of his friends or relatives, because we can all conceive the case of a breadwinner of a  family who is about to be executed or is about to die from hunger strike, being unable, because he cannot get a visit, to make those ordinary necessary material dispositions of things amongst his family and relatives, and nobody ought to deny to a prisoner to make provision for the future of those dependent upon him, and it is because I believe that this particular example only illustrates a general policy deliberately arrived at—I think by the Government—to deny in such cases the right of a prisoner or a relative of a prisoner to come in when there is reasonable cause of death, that I raise this matter.
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I would like to raise another point—the sanitary condition, or alleged insanitary condition of Mountjoy Prison. For a long number of years Dublin Corporation has had the right to appoint Visiting Justices whose duty it was, at regular intervals, to report upon the general conditions prevailing in that prison. At an early portion of this year a letter was read from the Ministry of Home Affairs at the Dublin Corporation, stating that, in view of the fact that the prison was now a military one, it would not be necessary to appoint such Visiting Justices, and accordingly none was appointed. Recently a number of rather serious allegations, as to the sanitary condition of the prison, have been made, and accordingly the Dublin Corporation requested its Medical Officer of Health to make application to visit that prison and report on its condition. We were informed that he was told he could not be permitted to enter the prison. Correspondence followed and the Ministry of Home Affairs persisted in its refusal to allow the Medical Officer of Health to visit the prison. The Corporation took a very serious view of that matter and, in view of the positive statements that owing to its overcrowding and general conditions an epidemic is likely to break out and possibly spread to the city, they thought that the action of the Ministry of Home Affairs in refusing permission was a very arbitrary and unwise one. Some years ago, when similar allegations were made regarding Frongoch internment camp, the British Government without admitting that the people here had any such right, allowed the Medical Officer of Health of Dublin to visit that camp and present a report.  We would urge the Minister for Home Affairs to allow the Medical Officer of Health to visit that prison and so be able to reassure the citizens that no such epidemic was likely to break out. Since the statement was made that Mountjoy was a military prison another statement has been made that there are still civilian prisoners there. If that is so it would seem to the Corporation that they have a right to appoint their Visiting Justices to visit the prisoners accommodated in Mountjoy. We would be glad to have some information on that point from the Minister.
Mr. GAFFNEY: I agree in the main with what has been put forward by Deputy O'Shannon and Deputy O'Brien. I had intended to raise the state of affairs in Kilkenny prison to-day, but I will leave it till another occasion. As regards this question of visits, as most Teachtai know, the British Government, even when they had military prisoners, allowed friends of those whom they had in custody to visit them. I could even testify to prisoners who were under sentence of death or who were in on the capital charge being allowed three visits per week by the British Government. I think that, in connection with this matter, when we fought so valiantly against the tactics that were used by the British Government, that we ought not to follow in their path. It is all very well to laugh, but people can see things. I would say this much, and I hope to deal with matters of this kind on a future occasion, that if you should sentence people to death, the least you could do at any rate—though I protest against these executions——
Mr. GAFFNEY: At the same time I would say that you should not have denied people admittance to see their friends who were about being sent into eternity. I have a statement that was sent to me by the mother of one of those executed boys. I will deal with it at length on another occasion, as the matter may be out of order now. I would say this, that there ought to be no refusal to allow those prisoners to be visited, and especially where matters of a business nature are concerned. As a matter of fact, I believe there were special exemptions made  in cases where people wanted to see their friends for business purposes. If Miss MacSwiney made a demand to see her sister—even if her sister's death was not imminent, though it looked likely—she should not have been denied the right to see her. She was in prison without any charge being preferred against her except the fact that she stood by an oath she had taken. I will not delay you any further at present, as I will touch on these matters later. I will only say that so long as prisoners are being kept they should be kept under proper sanitary conditions and facilities should be afforded to them such as we or many of us had been fighting and striving for when we were political prisoners. If this Dáil does not appoint a Commission to enquire into the state of the prisons, the Irish people will have sufficient intelligence and moral courage to see that there will be a full enquiry into the present system, and especially as regards prisoners of war or political prisoners.
Mr. SEAN LYONS: As regards the request of Deputy William O'Brien, that doctors be allowed to visit the prisons in Dublin, I would ask, if it be granted, that the same right be allowed to the people in the country. I know a particular gentleman in the town of Moate who went to Athlone last Saturday week to see his son—a boy of 19 years of age—who was in hospital. He would not be allowed to see him. I also went there and I was refused permission to see the boy. If the British Government granted the Irish people—when we were fighting against them—the right to see their friends in prison, surely this Irish Government cannot do anything less. If prisoners are sick, or if they want to see their friends on business matters, they should be allowed to do so. Surely to goodness we are Christians, and we must recognise that they are Christians. We were prisoners and you were prisoners, and you would very much like to have seen friends when you were locked up. Why now deny the right to others which you yourself demanded? I appeal to the Ministers to allow these prisoners in the country and in the city to see their friends at least once a week, and to receive letters. No communications are now allowed, and they are treated just the same as if they were criminals. If they are political prisoners, let them be treated as such.
Mr. LIAM HAYES: There seem to be a good many comments as regards the treatment of prisoners, but I am sure the Government will not adopt the tactics of the Irregulars. I was a prisoner of the Irregulars, and a sister of mine travelled 70 or 80 miles, mostly on a bicycle, and remained three days outside Victoria Barracks, in Cork, but would not be allowed to see me.
Mr. JOHNSON: Before the Minister replies, I thought perhaps some other member on that bench would be taking up the running, and I do not want to give him more trouble than is necessary. I would like to have heard some analysis of the position that obtains in the prisons is respect of the relations between the military prisoners and the civil prisoners. In this estimate they are both mixed up. We have an item, CC, “Pay and allowances for military staff.” Provision is made under this sub-head for the salary of a Governor, a Deputy Governor, and Adjutant of Mountjoy and Portlaoighise, and the detention barracks at Gormanstown and Newbridge, and for the civilian assistance at these institutions. No details of any kind are given for this sub-head, although under all the other subheadings details are given. I think some explanations of that is called for. The total amount required for the military staff of the civil prisons is £9,000. Now on this civil side we find there are 1,430 prisoners referred to, as compared with 2,000 the previous year. I assume that this is the number of prisoners estimated to be catered for either right through the year or at an average time. I do not know how it is worked out, as we do not know what the number of prisoners as between December 1st and April 1st will be. But at least it is an assumption that there are 570 fewer prisoners in 1922-23 than 1921-22. That is quite a remarkable fact in the present circumstances. So, are we to assume that the normal number of crimes are being committed, but a considerable portion of the criminals that would normally be stealing or beating their wives, or committing bigamy or other crimes, are being treated as political prisoners or military prisoners?
Mr. JOHNSON: Is that the case? Whether the Minister, when he says “Hear, hear,” means that they are, for bigamy or wife beating, treated as political prisoners, I do not know; or is it suggested the criminals are “here, here”? Coming to this question of overcrowding and insanitation, Deputy O'Brien has referred to the case of Mountjoy, and asked for some explanation why the sanitary officer of the city, who is responsible for the health of the city, is not allowed to follow out his duties and his jurisdiction in the case of Mountjoy. The Minister has referred to some interview that he has given to the “Freeman's Journal.” I have not seen that interview, and I do not know what answer he has made to the very grievous charges that have been submitted to him by the Mayor of Limerick and the Corporation of Limerick with regard to the City of Limerick prison. I am glad to hear from him that there has been a release of 400 from that prison within the last few days.
Mr. JOHNSON: Transferred from that prison within the last few days. The very fact that as many as 400 were required to be transferred indicates that there must be very, very serious overcrowding and very grave danger of disease. We are told that the prisoners in military prisons are responsible to some extent at least for the insanitation. Well on that point I think some explanation is required in regard to the items E and G. We find that the estimates for clothing, bedding, furniture, etc., are £11,500 for 1922-23 as against £7,500 for 1921-22, an increase of £4,000. That includes, I take it, renewals, an increased supply of clothing, bedding, furniture, kitchen utensils, crockery, etc., and that is quite understandable. But when we come to the item of fuel, light, water and cleaning articles, etc., we find there has been actually a decrease in the amount of the Estimate. Some explanation is required for instance for a decrease of £9,090 for fuel, light and water, where you have so tremendous an increase in the number of prisoners and a decrease of £610 in the cost of soap, scouring and cleaning articles. Presumably, though it is not certain, a supply of disinfectants will be included in that. But here we are being told that there has been a great increase in the number of prisoners, and yet we are having an  Estimate with a great decrease in the amount required for fuel, light, water and soap, scouring and cleaning articles. On the face of it, at least, that suggests that the supply has not been ample, and is not sufficient to do the extra work that the very great increase in the numbers would necessitate. I do not know whether we are to assume that the 497 officials accounted for in this Estimate is the normal number required to deal with 1,430 prisoners, or whether there is slackness or whether these prison officials are transferred to deal with the very great increase in the number of prisoners of a military kind. Is this the normal number of officials to deal with prisoners in those prisons? If it is the normal number, who are dealing with the military prisoners, what is their relation to the Military Governors? What is the relation of the Military Governors mentioned in sub-head (CC.) with the regular Prison Governor? I should like to know whether the Military Governor is the superior; whether the Civil Governor has to take orders from the Military Governor; whether there is a differentiation of functions as between the military prisoners and the civilian prisoners; whether the prisoner knows, and at what point after his arrest does he know, he is a military prisoner and not a civilian prisoner? A very large number of innocent men have been arrested, certainly arrested on suspicion. They are not charged and they do not know what is their offence. They assume, because they are put in amongst the political prisoners, that they are charged with a political offence or that they are detained for fear they may commit a political offence. But I submit it is necessary for a prisoner to know under what charge he is detained. And that question arises quite naturally from a comparison of the numbers of prisoners mentioned in this Estimate, 1922-23, with previous years. I hope the Minister will give answers to some of these questions, answers that I hope will be satisfactory. Whether satisfactory or not, I hope he will deal with them.
Mr. KEVIN O'HIGGINS: I do not know whether either the prisoners or the officials are as metaphysical as Deputy Johnson. I do not know, for instance, whether the Military Governor and the  Civil Governor have periodical debates as to which of them is the superior. I think they are just carrying on and trying to do their best in the circumstances that have arisen. In the division of functions there is nothing very complicated. There is a civil wing, a wing set apart for civil prisoners in Mountjoy Prison, and I assume that in that wing, and in all that pertains to that wing, the writ of the Civil Governor runs. With regard to the custody and detention of military prisoners, the Military Governor is supreme; and if the Military Governor thinks that it would in some way make the custody and detention of military prisoners more difficult for him if visitors were allowed freely to enter the prison, then he is allowed to say so. And in fact everything taking place in this country at the moment is to be regarded in the light of the fact that a state of war or armed rebellion exists. Military necessity must take precedence. I did not think that this matter would be raised in an acute form. I thought people would have learned something by the recent incident in Mountjoy when land mines and revolvers, and so on, were discovered in the possession of the military prisoners. But it would look as if there are some people that are hard to teach, and slow to learn. I do not know why the British allowed Sir Charles Cameron to go to Frongoch and inspect the camp. I take it, it did not arise from any consideration for the health of the citizens of Dublin, or any fear that the germs from Frongoch would play havoc in College Green, or Dawson Street——
Mr. KEVIN O'HIGGINS: Well, we have medical officers in Mountjoy in whom we have every confidence, and reports from those medical officers will be at the disposal of any Deputy who is trembling with fear of smallpox, or any other disease, and the prisons are being kept as clean and as sanitary as it is possible to keep them—in face of the fact that they are occupied by people  who seem to be bending all their energies to see they are neither clean nor sanitary—occupied by people who ripped the cords out of their mattresses and stuffed them down the lavatories to cause flooding; occupied by people who seem to have lapsed into a degradation and demoralisation which almost makes them have an objection to keeping themselves, or their cells, or their clothes or belongings clean. I have said that I have been promised within a short time all the Civil Prisons in the country for civil prisoners. A very energetic attempt is being made to get all the military prisoners into military internment camps, save such as are tried by Military Courts, and sentenced to definite terms of imprisonment. You will not have, and you cannot expect perfection, absolute machine-like perfection, in a state of affairs such as we are confronted with at the moment. And it is ridiculous to talk as if we had all the resources at our disposal of an old-established Government; and that the wheels were running in a well oiled efficient way. That is not the position. The position is that in its infancy this Irish Government is challenged, and challenged more sternly than ever the English Government was challenged here, and challenged by men who never dared to challenge the English Government here, and would not challenge the English Government if it were here for many centuries or many decades. It is a strange thing and it is an unquestionable fact that there are men in arms to-day against this Government who never took arms against the British and never would take arms against the British. It is a peculiar psychological problem capable of explanation only on the basis of its being a re-action from great fear—the drunken mouse out looking for the cat, but not so drunk that it would not find its hole very quickly if the cat came back. There are no super-men in this Government. We had a great man and he was murdered. There are no super-men, but we are doing our best; if the prisoners find the present conditions bad let them try to improve them. Let them co-operate with the prison officials for their improvement. Let them show any spirit of self help and good will and they will be met. The men that ripped their mattresses and stuffed the fibre down from the mattresses into the lavatories are deserving of little sympathy here. And they want  visits! 7,000 military prisoners want visits! Surely they want to transact their business! You have the experience of one who was a prisoner with them. I may say that very little opportunity is given to men to transact their business—the men they are lying in wait for with their revolvers and with their road-mines. There would have been great opportunity given to the men travelling to Inchicore that evening to transact business if they had been a few minutes sooner, and there would have been great opportunity for the harmless civilians passing by in the bus. We have to face this thing with a proper perspective, with a proper sense of proportion, and things that would be serious inconveniences or worthy of attention, or serious abuses in more normal or more settled times, pale into insignificance in view of the situation with which this Government, this Dáil and this country are now confronted. People who cannot see the forest for the trees, people who come along and say it is a great shame to deny these prisoners an opportunity of transacting their business, show an incapacity for the positions they hold which is striking, and show a lack of appreciation of their real responsibility, which is also striking. Deputy Lyons exhorted us to remember that these men are Christians. I tried hard and will continue to try hard to remember that these men are Christians. There are times when it is difficult, but I will try, as Deputy Lyons asks, to remember it.
Mr. O'HIGGINS: Letters! That is a different proposition. Those people can transact their business by post and in that respect they have as great an opportunity of transacting their business as any Member of this Government. We transact our business by post for very good reasons. I will promise no miracles about these prisoners. Steps are being taken to try and get them out of the prisons and put into internment camps. It is to be presumed that in these internment camps their conditions will be somewhat better than they are in the prisons. Solicitude in this Parliament for men who challenge the very basis of Parliamentary government is misplaced; over-solicitude is misplaced. Parliamentary  government cannot proceed in this country until this thing is beaten, and beaten flat. I have my own ideas as to the treatment men who hold their doctrines and men who adopt their methods would receive in any other country. I will not state what they are. People might strain points and say I was attempting to incite the troops to actions that are not sanctioned here. I cannot go detail by detail into the points that have been raised, but at any time, if this Dáil makes up its mind that we are not doing our best, or if this Dáil makes up its mind that it can find men to take our responsibilities and do better, then the road is clear.
Mr. THOS. JOHNSON: I take it there is some purpose in presenting these Estimates in this form to the Dáil. Presumably it was intended that they should be voted on with intelligence and understanding, or they would not have been presented in this form. Are you simply asking for a blank cheque—“We want so many hundred thousand pounds; please give it to us.” They have been presented to us in this form with the object of inviting criticism and requests for explanation. That is all that is done here. This is the only opportunity that is provided in the normal course of the Parliamentary machine, so far as it has been adopted, for extracting information, and when we do that as reasonably and respectfully as any party in any Parliament could do it, we are treated to a speech which suggests that we are going beyond our rights, and that we have no authority whatever to ask questions of this kind. I submit the Minister has entirely misconceived his position and our position.
Motion made and question put: “That the Dáil in Committee, having considered-the Estimates for General Prisons Board in 1922-23, and having passed a Vote on Account of £135,000 for the period to the 6th December, 1922, recommend that the full Estimate of £217,362 for the financial year 1922-23 be adopted in due course by the Oireachtas.”
|Last Updated: 16/05/2011 20:17:24||Page of 32|