§ MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, upon Catholic holidays, visits have been stopped to the suspects in Clonmel Gaol; whether he is aware that the suspects are not allowed to dine together, although they allege that the expense would be diminished by one-half, and the meals much more comfortably served, if this were allowed; and, whether it is a fact that, in the association room, out of 107 suspects, chairs are only provided for 20, and that, for the same number of suspects, the total number of visits per day is limited to 28?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he found that visits had been stopped on Catholic holidays in Clonmel Gaol owing to a misrepresentation of the rules by the Governor; but the matter had been put right, and would not occur again. The "suspects" did not take their dinner together in any prison, and no complaint on the subject had been received, except from one prisoner. There were 91 "suspects" now in the prison at Clonmel. There were 39 chairs and some forms in the association rooms. As many were admitted to the visiting rooms as could be accommodated each day, and an additional room was being got ready.
§ MR. HEALYasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give directions that in future "suspects" should not be confined in any prison which did not afford sufficient room for the accommodation of visitors and for the prisoners during the hours of association?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could only repeat that he had been endeavouring, and should endeavour, to carry out the rules as much as could be done in accordance with good discipline and the safety of the prisoners.
§ MR. REDMONDasked if it was true that in Kilmainham the time spent in religious exercises was deducted from the hours of association?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he believed that was not so; but if it were, the matter would be set right.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman has put a Question, and has received an answer, and is not entitled to speak now.
§ MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether two brothers named Daniel and Edward Flanagan were, upon the evidence of one Molloy, a farm-servant about sixteen years old, convicted in January last, at the Munster Winter Assizes, of having fired into the house of one James Moloney, and were sentenced by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald to seven and five years' penal servitude respectively; whether the learned Judge in charging the jury warned them that the case was one "requiring considerable caution" on their part; that "the whole case rested upon the evidence of Molloy;" and, that "it was for the jury to exa- 288 mine, with suspicion, with careful scrutiny, the statements "he had made; whether the said Molloy, since the trial, has been living in the Ennis Police Barrack; and, whether, a few days since, he was accused of stealing a silver watch from a constable, and of representing to a local watchmaker that he had won it at a raffle, and of obtaining another watch in exchange; and, whether the Government will examine the charge against Molloy, and review the evidence, verdict, and sentence in the case of the brothers Flanagan?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the Flanagans, who were brothers, were convicted at the Winter Assizes at Cork of having fired into the house of a man named Moloney in Clare. Molloy was not the only witness examined for the Crown, and no witness appeared to have been examined for the defence. It was a fact that the learned Judge was reported to have made use of the words attributed to him by the hon. Member; but after the prisoners were convicted he not only expressed his approval of the verdict, but he was reported to have said that the indictment against Daniel Flanagan could have been for the higher crime of shooting with intent to murder his father-in-law. It was true that the lad Molloy had since been accused of stealing a silver watch from a constable; but as there were other witnesses against the Flanagans, he saw no reason for reconsidering the case.
§ MR. SEXTONasked if it was not true that Molloy had since restored the watch to the constable?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had not heard that.
§ MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. Martin O'Sullivan, who was arrested on the 23rd June 1881, was deprived by the Governor of Limerick Gaol of his necktie; whether, although Mr. O'Sullivan demanded it several times, the Governor refused to give it up; whether it is true that the flags in one of the yards in Limerick Prison on a wet day are so covered with water that the yard cannot be exercised in, and that in another yard there is a closet which sometimes emits such an odour as to prevent the suspects from going within a long distance of it; whether it is a fact that, when letters are stopped by the Governor of Lime- 289 rick Gaol, he will not return to the suspects the penny stamps on the back of the envelopes; and, whether it is true that, in this and other gaols, suspects are charged for having their cells cleaned?
§ Mr. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had directed a report to be made upon this matter.
§ Mr. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Thomas R. M'Carthy, formerly a monitor in the Millstreet Male National School, was arrested under the Coercion Act on the 21st November last, and is still detained a prisoner in Clonmel Gaol; whether it is the fact that Mr. M'Carthy, on concluding his term of three years as monitor, obtained from the National Education Board a classification as third-class teacher, and was thereby deprived of his employment in the Millstreet National School, because the principal of the school was only a third-class teacher, and a rule of the Board forbade the employment under him of a teacher of the same grade; whether Mr. M'Carthy, having a family of three dependent upon him, and having remained a year and a-half without employment, opened a private school at Millstreet in April of last year, the result being a large and constant attendance of pupils, and the almost complete desertion of the Millstreet National School; whether, in November last, the Hon. Captain Plunkett, R.M. of the Millstreet District, sent for Mr. M'Carthy, informed him that he was doing an illegal act in teaching a private school, and threatened, unless he gave it up, to have him arrested under the Coercion Act, at the same time refusing to give any further explanation; whether Mr. M'Carthy, having continued to teach his school, the local sub-inspector and police dispersed the children on several successive days from the school, and subsequently from Mr. M'Carthy's private residence, where he endeavoured, when harassed by the police, to conduct the work of teaching; and, whether, about a fortnight after the intimation by Captain Plunkett, Mr. M'Carthy's school was finally broken up by his arrest under the Coercion Act; whether it is an illegal act to teach a private school in Ireland; and, whether the Government will now order the release of Mr. M'Carthy?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that Mr. Thomas R. M'Carthy was arrested on the 21st of November last. He was a teacher in the lower division of the third class. In the examination his answers were very poor, and did not entitle him to promotion; but he was not precluded from obtaining employment in national schools. M'Carthy being out of employment, having left the Millstreet National School, opened a school in Mill Street. To the best of the Chief Secretary's belief, he intimidated not only children, but parents into leaving the Millstreet National School and attending his own school. M'Carthy's school was a Land League school, and Land League doctrines were taught in it. Captain Plunkett sent for him, and warned him that if he persisted in these illegal practices he was liable to prosecution. Notwithstanding this, he continued to hold what were practically Land League meetings in the rooms of the Land League in Mill-street, and eventually he was arrested. The question of his release was now under consideration. He need not say that it was a perfectly legal act to teach a private school in Ireland.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will now consider the advisability of recommending the release of Messrs. Thomas Lydon, John Sheridan, Patrick J. Craig, and Thomas Dunleavy, all of Kilmonee, county of Mayo, and now detained as suspects in Galway Gaol, the district to which they belong being in its usual state of tranquillity?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the question of the release of the prisoners mentioned in the first part of the Question was under the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant and himself. They had consented to the release of the gentlemen referred to in the second part of the Question.
§ MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. Abraham, at present a suspect in Kilmainham Gaol, complains that, on being first arrested and conveyed to Limerick Gaol, he was placed in a dark cell, where he had to sleep on a filthy matress, which in the morning was found covered with vermin; and, whether an inquiry into this matter will be granted?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the statement in the Question was not true. There was no dark cell in Limerick Prison, and Mr. Abraham had a mattress supplied by his friends, and, when visited by a member of the Prisons Board, made no complaint of his treatment.
§ MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a further letter from Mr. Nicholas H. Devine, recently released from Armagh Gaol, in which he asserts that the hospital in that gaol is occupied by the chief warder and is not available for use of the prisoners; and, whether proper hospital treatment is afforded to suspects who have become invalided?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had not seen the letter, but he had received a report from the Prisons Board on the subject, which stated that the hospital accommodation was ample.
§ MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received an affidavit sworn by Mr. James Dooley, a suspect in Clonmel Gaol, asserting his innocence of the charge upon which he was arrested; and, whether the district in which Mr. Dooley resides is in a peaceful condition; and, under these circumstances, whether he will order his release?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that he had received from Mr. James Dooley a declaration to the effect stated in the Question. Mr. Dooley was released on parole on 25th of February. The district in which Mr. Dooley resided was quiet, and he was glad to say that Mr. Dooley had since received his order of discharge.