HC Deb 18 July 1881 vol 263 cc1119-21
MR. HEALY

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. T. A. Macaulay, a matriculated student in arts of the Queen's University, confined under the Coercion Act in Kilmainham Gaol, was on the 9th instant informed that he would be released on signing a document then presented to him; whether Mr. Macaulay refused to sign; whether he is still detained in gaol; if so, whether he is now confined for refusing to sign this document, or for being "reasonably suspected;" if the latter, would he state on what grounds the Government proposed to release him; if the former, whether there is anything in the Coercion Act authorising the Government to keep a man in gaol for refusing his signature to conditions; whether, in consequence of Mr. Macaulay's refusal, it is intended to keep him the full eighteen months in gaol; and, if it is the fact that, after his refusal to sign, he was dismissed by the prison doctor from the hospital where he previously was, and sent back to his cell?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Sir, Mr. Macaulay was offered his release if he would sign the undertaking now usually signed by such persons on their release. His release was offered him chiefly on account of his health, and partly because it was considered safe for the public peace to set him at liberty. But he refused to sign the undertaking, and consequently he is still detained in prison. When I read to the House what the undertaking is, I think the House will understand that a refusal upon the part of prisoners to sign it is proof that it is not safe to release them. It is simply this— I——now a prisoner in——Jail under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, hereby undertake, on being released from custody under the said Act, not to commit any treasonable practices or to commit any act of violence or intimidation against any of Her Majesty's subjects, or in any manner, directly or indirectly, to incite others to the commission of such an act; and I hereby acknowledge and I shall be liable to be re-arrested if I fail to comply with this undertaking. It is an argument against liberating a man that he refuses to sign such a document. On the 11th, Mr. Macaulay and two others were discharged from the infirmary, but his discharge had no connection with his refusal to sign the document.

MR. HEALY

asked whether it was not the fact that Mr. Macaulay said he would not sign, because that would have been an admission of guilt; and if he was suffering, as the Chief Secretary had admitted, as he was about to release him on account of ill health, from some form of pulmonary disease?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Sir, I am not aware that he made such a statement, and I do not see how he could have made such a statement. The document is purposely drawn up so as to avoid giving the impression that there is any acknowledgment of guilt in signing it. Such an impression is an extraordinary one, and on consideration it will be seen that it is a mistaken one. As to the state of his health, I am informed that he was well enough to be discharged from the infirmary, and that is all the information I have.

MR. HEALY

asked how, if Mr. Macaulay was not well enough to be kept in prison, he was well enough to be discharged from the infirmary and sent to a cell, and whether it was the intention of the Government to keep him in prison till the end of the term?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the idea of this man——

MR. HEALY

This gentleman. He is a matriculated student.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

, resuming, said, the idea of Mr. Macaulay on this matter had nothing to do with the question of his release. The reason for offering him his release was the condition of his health; and, secondly, because it was deemed safe for the public peace to release him; but his extraordinary refusal to sign the undertaking rather removed the latter impression.