This week we are thinking of books as children around the
country dress up for World Book Day. Below are images from our fascinating
collection of early printed books and manuscripts, dating
from the early 16th to the 19th centuries.
Southwark Diocesan Archives
Tuesday, 3 March 2020
Archive love
14 February 2020
14 February 2020
On Valentine’s Day, something I love about working in the
archive. I love holding original documents which bring history to life in a way
simply reading about something in a book could not. This is a letter sent to
Bishop Grant by Florence Nightingale from the Crimean war.
Harry Potter and the archive store
6 February 2020
6 February 2020
On Harry Potter Book Night, a photo of the archive office
who’s old fashioned library shelves spark comments of how the room is, “like
something from Harry Potter.” The archive will soon be moving to more modern
storage leaving this room to be restored.
Wednesday, 7 September 2016
Irish Easter
Rising 1916
Irish
prisoners strike in Lewes Jail
This year marks one hundred years since the Irish
Easter Rising of 1916, an armed insurrection against British rule in Ireland.
Following the Rising, 3,430 men and 79 women were arrested, though many were
subsequently released. Those remaining in custody were held in camps and
prisons in England and Wales.
On 5 December 1916, Bishop Amigo received a letter
from the Assistant Secretary to the Prison Commission, A.J. Wall, informing him
that, “it has been decided to collect all the Irish prisoners sentenced to
Penal Servitude and imprisonment in connection with the outbreak in Ireland at
Lewes Prison, which will be set apart for them.” He went on to explain that
the Commissioners had arranged to replace the part-time prison chaplain, Canon
McAuliffe, with a full-time chaplain, Dr A.J. O’Loughlin from Portland Prison.
Bishop Amigo was asked by Cardinal Bourne, Archbishop of Westminster, to give
Dr O’Loughlin faculties as Lewes was within Southwark Diocese.
Letter from Mgr Michael Bidwell, on behalf of Cardinal Bourne, to Bishop Amigo, 8 December 1916 |
Letter from Mgr Michael Bidwell,
on behalf of Cardinal Bourne, to Bishop Amigo, 8 December 1916
I believe the Prison
Commission have written to you explaining the circumstances in which they
propose to move Dr O’Loughlin, a whole-time prison chaplain, from Portland to
Lewes, but as arranged at the Low week meeting, 1910, the Cardinal desires me
to inform you of this change and to ask if you will kindly give Dr O’Loughlin
faculties.
Bishop Amigo, who had a difficult
relationship with Cardinal Bourne, was not pleased that he had not been
consulted on this appointment and felt that Canon McAuliffe had been badly
treated. He called on the Home Office later that week to raise his displeasure.
However, he also granted Dr O’Loughlin faculties and O’Loughlin went to Lewes
prison.
Letter from Bishop Amigo to the Prison Commission, 13 December 1916 (see text below) |
Letter from Bishop
Amigo to the Prison Commissioners, 13 December 1916
I fear that there has been some
misunderstanding about appointing a chaplain to Lewes Prison without my being consulted
first. I am anxious to help the Prison Commission in every way, but priests
have their own Superiors in the question of Mass and Confession and besides I
do not like a devoted priest, Canon McAuliffe, to be even apparently treated
badly after so many years at work with the Lewes prisoners.
It is difficult for me to explain
by letter and I propose doing myself the honour of calling at the Home Offices
on Friday afternoon or Saturday morning.
Letter from Bishop Amigo to Mgr Michael Bidwell, 18 December 1916 |
Letter from Bishop Amigo to Mgr Michael Bidwell, 18
December 1916
I was very much surprised at the
appointment of Dr O’Loughlin to Lewes without any reference to me. I did not
know from you or from the Prison Commissioners till Dr O’Loughlin was actually
there. This is not a case contemplated in 1910. There were then only four
Diocese affected and only five first class chaplaincies. Surely before a new
one is started the Bishop of the Diocese should be consulted, especially as the
part-chaplains certainly were not included in the arrangement and this change
very materially affects one of them. After 28 years of most devoted service,
Canon McAuliffe suddenly finds that he is no longer wanted. I grant that he is
very old and would not be equal to the extra work, but if I had been told about
the new arrangement I should have suggested that he should not be dismissed but
that a younger man should be placed there under him to do the work. The Canon
could still have gone to see the prisoners from time to time though the greater
part of the work would have been done by his assistant. I have therefore made
my protest to the Prison Commissioners and the Chief most kindly promised to
write a letter himself to the Canon at Lewes."
Éamon de Valera, a prominent and important figure
in Irish politics in the twentieth century, was one of those imprisoned in
Lewes Prison. Under his leadership, on 28 May 1917 the Irish prisoners began a
strike demanding prisoner of war status.
The Hastings and St Leonards Observer, Saturday 16
June 1917, gave an account of the strike:
THE IRISH REBELS. TROUBLE AT
LEWES GAOL. The Sinn Fein prisoners at Lewes Gaol recently went "on
strike." After giving great deal of trouble they have been taken back to
the convict prisons where their treatment, presumably, will be less considerate
than at Lewes. In the House of Commons, on Monday the Home Secretary, in reply
to Mr. Byrne, the Nationalist Member tor Dublin Harbour, said: The Irish
prisoners were collected at Lewes and granted special privileges on the clear
and definite condition of good conduct and obedience to rules. On May 28, on
the professed ground that they wished to be treated as if they were prisoners
of war, they were guilty of concerted refusal to work and disobedience to rules;
and it became necessary to confine them to their cells. All the prisoners
admitted the offences, which were committed openly. They were to be allowed to
attend chapel on Sunday, June 3, but it was discovered that they proposed
immediately after Mass and Holy Communion to refuse to enter their cells and,
if forced to return, to wreck prison property.
The service therefore was not
held. When this attempt failed they refused to leave their cells for exercise
unless all were taken out together. In these circumstances, no course was open
to me but to direct that they should go back to the convict prisons (Maidstone,
Parkhurst, and Portland), and be subject to the ordinary prison rules. Some of
them have already been removed with such precautions only as were necessary to
prevent any violence or attempt to escape. I need hardly say that the
suggestion that they were starved is absolutely without foundation.
INTENDED OUTBREAK AFTER MASS. On Tuesday Mr. Ginnell asked whether the Home Secretary would specify any evidence that the Irish political prisoners at Lewes intended last Sunday week to commit any crime. Sir G. Cave replied: I stated the main facts yesterday. Evidence of the intended outbreak after Mass was obtained from a written communication which was being passed between the prisoners, and a large number of them, on being asked if they would undertake to proceed to and from chapel in a quiet and orderly manner, refused to give the promise. They were confined in their cells on account of their refusal to work and obey the rules, but they would in accordance with the usual practice have been allowed exercise daily had they not themselves persistently refused to leave their cells for that purpose. The use of a light chain during removal is a necessary precaution to prevent escape or violence on the part of convicts; there was no danger attempted rescue. The prisoners who are still mutinous are confined to well ventilated cells. There is no occasion for calling in any outside medical advice.
On 3 June 1917, the chaplain, Dr O’Loughlin, wrote to
Bishop Amigo giving his account of the strike and asking for his advice on how
he should deal with Mass attendance and confession in relation to the strike.
Letter to Bishop Amigo from Dr O'Loughlin, 3 June 1917 (see text below) |
Letter to Bishop Amigo from Dr
O'Loughlin, 3 June 1917
As I hold faculties from the
Southwark Curia for the time, I beg to make a brief recital of events and to
ask instructions as to the exercise of them.
On Whit Monday De Valera, the
military leader of the Irish Prisoners here, handed in a joint note that no
more labour would be done unless they were made prisoners of war. They were
ordered to cells pending a decision from H.O. Exercise in silence was offered
them but they have refused it day by day since.
As Sunday was approaching, the
matter of Mass-attendance arose. The first order was for no unlocking and so no
attendance. I begged that they might be allowed to attend. This was granted on
condition that each promised to go and come from chapel in an orderly manner.
No further decision had been sent down by Saturday last.
I begged these men to give the
understanding required so as to be able to attend. Some of them agreed. The
great majority replied that they had the orders of their superior officer to
obey, and refused. I pointed out to them that I had never interfered with their
politics or Committee, but that in this matter their officer had no power to
dispense them from attending Sunday Mass. They adhered to his orders.
I visited De Valera and
challenged his right to give such an order. He replied that he expected that I
would do so, and as a compromise he said he would issue an order that each man
was to say he would give the required undertaking but not to any person officer
and only to the priest. Subsequently eighty six of the 119 gave such an
undertaking. Some ten or twelve had already agreed unconditionally.
I fancied I had found a via
media. But all my effort collapsed by one of the prisoners dropping the
original ‘general orders’ note that De Valera had issued. It was picked up by a
warder. Its contents were: “Give no undertaking, but on return from Mass,
refuse to enter your cell, injure the lock, prize back the door on its hinges
so that you cannot be locked in. No scuffle, no attack on warders. On Monday
Morning at 8.30 a.m. when the bell rings, each to smash the windows of his cell
on pretext of needing fresh air, Thus get the military called in.”
The contents were reported to
H.O. on Sunday evening.
The discovery of these general
orders joined to the fact that not all had given the subsequent undertaking to
me, made unlocking for Mass on Sunday impossible. I quite agreed.
On Sunday therefore as the chapel
is in a wing of the main building, with its doors at its inner end, I said Mass
in a loud voice, announcing its beginning progress and end by having the bell
rung by the server.
And now I am in difficulty. Will
Your Lordship kindly inform me: if these men come to confession and either do
not confess their past determination to sacrifice attendance at Mass or openly
defend it to me, am I to absolve them? I have to consided [sic] what the
English authorities will think of the Church, if such conduct is easily
condoned i.e. that of making attendance at Mass the occasion for a display of
insubordination and the refusal to attend mass on such conditions as would
defeat the project.
Also some of these men are
Fenians. They assure me Fenians are absolved in Ireland. Is that the case in
England?
I am sorry to trouble you, My
Lord, but if their superior officer acts thus, I desire to have instructions
from MY superior officer.
The Bishop replied:
Bishop Amigo to Dr O'Loughlin (see text below) |
Bishop Amigo to Dr O'Loughlin
I am very sorry that Irishmen
under your care propose to use the occasion of being let out to Mass for the
purposes of annoying the prison authorities, thus depriving themselves of the
consolation which the Mass would give them. As to the absolution each case
would have to be judged by you. It strikes me that they have shown no desire to
miss Mass, but that they are determined to use any opportunity which presents
itself to annoy the prison authorities.
As a result of the strike, many of the prisoners
were sent to other prisons around England. In June 1917 the British government
declared an amnesty and all remaining Irish prisoners from the Rising in
British prisons, including Éamon de Valera, were released.
Bishop Amigo was a keen supporter of Ireland and in
later years built up a good relationship with Éamon de Valera. After de
Valera’s release from prison in 1917 the Bishop wrote to de Valera and it would
appear that de Valera was appreciative of the Bishop.
Letter from Thomas Carey to Fr John Cooney (parish priest, Wandsworth), 29 August 1917 (See text below) |
Letter from Thomas Carey to Fr
John Cooney (parish priest, Wandsworth), 29 August 1917
I sent a copy of the Bishop’s
letter to you, to the Bishop of Killaloe who is in touch with De Valera. In
addition, I had an interview with De Valera at the funeral of the Bishop
of Limerick and he quite understands and appreciates your Bishop’s action and
is glad that they were not condemned as conducting themselves as bad Catholics.
He had received your letter all right but since he came to Ireland he has had
not a moment to spare.
Again I had the honour of dining
with the Bishop of Ross on Monday and he told me that he had written to your
Bishop on the subject. Irishmen at this side of the water, as far as I can
learn, quite appreciated the fact that an English Bishop with a Spanish name is
not one that would misguide them.
Éamon de Valera, as Taoiseach (prime minister) of Ireland, with Archbishop Amigo in the ruins of St George's Cathedral, 1942 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)