London, February 21, 1870
I
The silence which is observed in the European press concerning the disgraceful acts committed by this oligarchical bourgeois government is due to a variety of reasons. Firstly, the English Government is rich and the press, as you know, is immaculate. Moreover, the English Government is the model government, recognised as such by the landlords, by the capitalists on the Continent and even by Garibaldi (see his book[3]): consequently we should not revile this ideal government. Finally, the French Republicans are narrow-minded and selfish enough to reserve all their anger for the Empire. It would be an insult to free speech to inform their fellow countrymen that in the land of bourgeois freedom sentences of 20 years hard labour are given for offences which are punished by 6 months in prison in the land of barracks. The following details concerning the treatment of Fenian prisoners have been taken from English journals:
Mulcahy, sub-editor of the newspaper The Irish Peopled sentenced for taking part in the Fenian conspiracy, was harnessed to a cart loaded with stones with an iron collar round his neck at Dartmoor.
O'Donovan Rossa, owner of The Irish People, was shut up for 35 days in a pitch-black dungeon with his hands chained behind his back day and night. They were not even unchained to allow him to eat the miserable slops which were left for him on the earthen floor.a
Kickham, one of the editors of The Irish People, although he was unable to use his right arm because of an abscess, was forced to sit with his fellow prisoners on a heap of rubble in the November cold and fog and break up stones and bricks with his left hand. He returned to his cell at night and had nothing to eat but 6 ounces of bread and a pint of hot water.b
O'Leary, an old man of sixty or seventy kept in prison, was put on bread and water for three weeks because he would not renounce paganism (this, apparently, is what a jailer called free thinking) and become either Papist, Protestant, Presbyterian or even Quaker, or take up one of the many religions which the prison governor offered to the heathen Irish/
Martin H. Carey is incarcerated in a lunatic asylum at Millbank. The silence and the other bad treatment to which he was subjected have made him lose his reason/[1]
Colonel Richard Burke is in no better condition. One of his friends writes that his mind is affected, he has lost his memory and his behaviour, manners and speech are those of a madman.e
The political prisoners are dragged from one prison to the next as if they were wild animals. They are forced to keep company with the vilest knaves; they are obliged to clean the pans used by these wretches, to wear the shirts and flannels previously worn by these criminals, many of whom are suffering from the foulest diseases, and to wash in the same water. Before the arrival of the Fenians at Portland all the criminals were allowed to talk with their visitors. A visiting cage was installed for the Fenian prisoners. It consists of three compartments divided by partitions of thick iron bars; the jailer occupies the central compartment and the
a See this volume, pp. 414-15, 417-19. See also The Irishman, No. 49, June 12, 1869, "O'Donovan Rossa. To the Editor of The Irishman; The Press on the Treatment of the Political Prisoners: The Treatment of O'Donovan Rossa"; The Irishman, No. 30, January 22, 1870, "The Political Prisoners — Misguided Men and Their Desires".— Ed.
lj Report of the Commissioners on the Treatment of the Treason-Felony Convicts in the English Convict Prisons, London, 1867, p. 19. See also this volume, p. 422.— Ed.
[1] The Irishman, No. 12, September 18, 1869, "The Irishman in Paris. John O'Mahony and Pagan O'Leary".— Ed.
prisoner and his friends can only see each other through this double row of bars.
In the docks you can find prisoners who eat all sorts of slugs, and frogs are considered dainties at Chatham. General Thomas Burke said he was not surprised to find a dead mouse floating in the soup. The convicts say that it was a bad day for them when the Fenians were sent to the prisons. (The prison regime has become much more severe.)
I should like to add a few words to these extracts. Last year Mr. Bruce, the Home Secretary, a great liberal, great policeman and great mine owner in Wales who cruelly exploits his workers, was questioned on the bad treatment of Fenian prisoners and O'Donovan Rossa in particular.[11] At first he denied everything, but was later compelled to confess.[6] Following this Mr. Moore, an Irish member in the House of Commons, demanded an enquiry into the facts.c This was flatly refused by the radical ministry of which that demigod Mr. Gladstone (he has been compared to Jesus Christ publicly) is the head, and that old bourgeois demagogue, John Bright, is one of the most influential members.d
Recently, when rumours concerning the bad treatment of the Fenians were resumed, several members of Parliament requested Mr. Bruce for permission to visit the prisoners in order to be able to verify the falseness of these rumours." Mr. Bruce refused this permission on the grounds that the prison governors were afraid that the prisoners would be too excited by visit of this kind.'
Last week the Home Secretary was again submitted to question-ing. He was asked whether it was true that O'Donovan Rossa received corporal punishment (i. e., whipping)s after his election to Parliament as the member for TipperaryH1; the Minister confirmed that he had not received such treatment since 1868a
(which is tantamount to admitting that the political prisoner had been given the whip over a period of two to three years).
I am also sending you extracts (which we are going to publish in our next issue) concerning the case of Michael Terbert, a Fenian sentenced as such to forced labour, serving his sentence at Spike Island Convict Prison in the county of Cork, Ireland. You will see that the CORONER0 himself C attributes this man's death to the torture which was inflicted on him. This investigation was held last week.d
In the course of two years more than twenty Fenian workers have died or gone insane thanks to the philanthropy of these good bourgeois souls, backed by these good landlords.
You are probably aware that the English press professes a chaste distaste for the dreadful general security laws which grace la belle France. Well, except for a few short intervals, it has been general security laws that formed the Irish Charter. Since 1793 the English Government has taken advantage of any pretext to suspend the Habeas Corpus Bill (a law guaranteeing the liberty of the individual)[142] regularly and periodically, in fact all laws, except that of brute force. In this way thousands of people have been arrested in Ireland on suspicion of being suspected of Fenianism without ever having been tried, brought before a judge or court, or even charged. Not content with depriving them of their liberty, the English Government has had them tortured in the most savage way imaginable. The following is but one example.
One of the prisons where persons suspected of being Fenians were buried alive is Mountjoy Prison in Dublin. The prison inspector, Murray, is a despicable brute. He maltreated the prisoners so cruelly that some of them went mad. The prison doctor, an excellent man called M'Donnell (who also played a creditable part in the enquiry into Michael Terbert's death), spent several months writing letters of protest which he addressed in the first instance to Murray himself. As Murray did not reply, he sent accusing letters to higher authorities/ but being an expert jailer Murray intercepted these letters.
Finally M'Donnell wrote directly to Lord Mayo, then Viceroy of Ireland. This was during the period when the Tories were in power (Derby and Disraeli). What effect did his actions have? The documents relating to the case were published by order of Parliamenta and ... Dr. M'Donnell was dismissed from his post!!! Whereas Murray retained his.
Then the so-called radical ministry of Gladstone came to power, the tender, unctuous, magnanimous Gladstone who had shed such warm, sincere tears before the eyes of the whole of Europe over the fate of Poerio and other members of the bourgeoisie who were badly treated by King Bomba.[143] What did this idol of the progressive bourgeoisie do? While insulting the Irish by his insolent replies to their demands for an amnesty,[1]' he not only confirmed the monster Murray in his post, but endowed the position of the chief jailer with a nice fat sinecure as a token of his particular satisfaction![1] There's the apostle of bourgeois philan-thropy for you!
But something had to be done to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. It was essential to appear to be doing something for Ireland, and a law regulating the land question (LAND BILL) [144] was proclaimed with a great song and dance. All this is nothing but a pose with the ultimate aim of deceiving Europe, winning over the Irish judges and advocates with the prospect of endless disputes between landlords and farmers, conciliating the landlords with the promise of financial aid from the state and deluding the more prosperous farmers with a few mild concessions.
In the long introduction to his grandiloquent and confused speech Gladstone admits that even the "benevolent" laws which liberal England bestowed on Ireland over the last hundred years have always led to the country's further decline.d And after this naive confession the same man persists in torturing those who want to put an end to this harmful and stupid legislation.
I I
The following is an account taken from an English newspaper of the results of an enquiry into the death of Michael Terbert,a a Fenian prisoner who died at Spike Island Prison due to the bad treatment which he had received.
On Thursday last[1]' Mr. John Moore, Coroner of the Middleton district, held an inquest at Spike Island Convict Prison,' on the body of a convict [...] named Michael Terbert, who had died in hospital.
Peter Hay, governor of the prison, was called first. He deposed — The deceased, Michael Terbert, came to this prison in June, 1866; I can't say how his health was at the time; he had been convicted on the 12th of January, 1866, and his sentence was seven years' penal servitude; he appeared delicate for some time past, as will appear from one of the prison books, which states that he was removed on the recommendation of medical officers, as being unfit for cellular discipline. Witness then went into a detail of the frequent punishments inflicted on the deceased for breach of discipline, many of them for the use "of disrespectful language to the medical officer".[01]
Jeremiah Hubert Kelly deposed — I remember when Michael Terbert came here from Mountjoy Prison; it was then stated that he was unfit for cellular discipline — that means being always confined to a celle; certificate to the effect was signed by Dr. M'Donnel: [...] I found him, however, to be in good health, and I sent him to work. I find by the recordf that he was in hospital from the 31st January, 1869, until the 6th February, 1869; he suffered then from increased affection of the heart, and from that time he did not work on the public works, but in-doors, at oakum; from the 19th March, 1869, until the 24th March,s 1869, he was in hospital, suffering from the same affection of heart; from the 24th April till the 5th May he was also in hospital from spitting of blood; from the 19th May till the 1st June he was in hospital for heart disease; from the 21st June till the 22nd June he was under hospital treatment for the same; he was also in hospital from the 22nd July till the 15th August, for the same — from 9th November till the 13th December for debility, and from 20th December to the 8th February, when he died from acute dropsy; on the 13th November he first appeared to suffer from dropsy, and it was then dissipated; I visit the cells every day, and I must have seen him when under punishment from time to time; it is my duty to remit, by recommendation, that punishment, if I consider the prisoner is not fit to bear it; I think I did so twice in his case.
As a medical man, did you consider that five days on bread and water per day was excessive punishment for him, notwithstanding his state of health in Mountjoy and here? — I did not; the deceased had a good appetite; I don't think that the treatment induced acute dropsy, of which he died [....] Martin O'Connell, resident apothecary of Spike Island, was next examined— Witness mentioned to Dr. Kelly last July that while the deceased was labouring under heart disease he should not have been punished; [...] he was of opinion that such punishment as the deceased got was prejudicial to his health, considering that he was an invalid for the past twelve months [...] he could not say that invalids were so punished, as he only attended cells in Dr. Kelly's absence; he was certain, considering the state of the deceased man's health, that five days continuously in cells would be injurious to his health; [...] The Coroner then [...] dealt forcibly with the treatment which the prisoner had received [...] alternating between the hospital and the punishment cell.
The jury returned the following verdict: "We find that Michael Terbert died in hospital at Spike Island Convict Prison, on the 8th of February, 1870, of dropsy; he was twenty-five years of age,a and unmarried. We have also to express in the strongest terms our total disapproval of the frequent punishment he suffered in cells on bread and water for several days in succession during his imprisonment in Spike Island, where he had been sent in June, 1866, from Mountjoy Prison, for the reason that in Dr. M'Donnell's opinion he was unfit for cellular discipline at Mountjoy; and we express our condemnation of such treatment."
The Irishman
Endnotes
[140] Marx sent this article as a private letter to César De Paepe, the editor of L'Internationale, the newspaper of the Belgian sections of the International Working Men's Association. Marx expected the letter to be edited by De Paepe before it was printed (see Marx's letter to Engels, March 9, 1870; present edition, Vol. 43). The editors, however, published it almost without changes, only adding some explanations in brackets and dividing it into two parts. A small editorial comment was appended, which is not published in this edition. An excerpt from the article was published in La Liberté, No. 10, March 10, 1872. Marx used a great amount of factual material from The Irish People and The Irishman for 1869 and 1870. Contextually close to this article are those written by Jenny, Marx's daughter, for La Marseillaise (see this volume, pp. 414-41).
[3] Marx wrote this item on the basis of a letter from Johann Baptist Schweitzer dated April 29, 1868. The item was included in the report of the General Council meeting of May 12, 1868 published in The Bee-Hive Newspaper, No. 344, May 16, 1868, but is not to be found in the Minute Book. Informing Engels of Schweitzer's letter, Marx wrote to him on May 4, 1868 that he intended "to use this question in the interests of the Party", and insisted on an inquiry into the condition of the workers employed in the iron trade of the Rhine Province (see this letter and Marx's letter to Engels of May 7 and the latter's reply of May 6-7, 1868, present edition, Vol. 43).
[11] The text of this resolution, adopted by the General Council meeitng of August 25, 1868 in connection with the preparations for the Brussels Congress, has been preserved in the minutes of this meeting; it was also published in The Bee-Hive, No. 359, August 29, 1868 (for the record of Marx's speech in substantiating this resolution see this volume, p. 387). At the Brussels Congress this resolution was moved by Eccarius and read in the report of the commission on reducing the working day on September 12, 1868. It was published in English in the reports of the Congress sittings in The Times, No. 26232, September 17, 1868 and in the pamphlet The International Working Men's. Association. Resolutions of the Congress of Geneva, 1866, and the Congress of Brussels, 1868 published in London in 1869; in French it was published in a special supplement to Le Peuple Belge, No. 399, September 18, La Cigale, No. 38, September 20 and La Tribune du Peuple, No. 10, November 8, 1868.
[6] " The public meeting to celebrate the anniversary of the June 1848 insurrection of the Paris workers was held on June 29, 1868 in the Cleveland Hall, London. Such meetings were annually held by the German Workers' Educational Society in London jointly with other émigré organisations. The French petty-bourgeois democrat Félix Pyat, who attended the meeting, delivered a speech and moved a provocative resolution urging terroristic acts against Napoleon III (the resolution was published in The Bee-Hive, No. 351, July 4, 1868). The Brussels Espiègle, No. 25, July 5, 1868, published a report of the meeting which described it as a meeting of the International with Pyat as one of its leaders. This statement was repeated in other newspapers. The General Council held that this could discredit the International in the eyes of the workers and give the Bonapartist government a pretext for the persecution of its members in France and Belgium. Consequently, at its meeting on July 7 the Council resolved, on Marx's proposal, to disavow Pyat's behaviour in a resolution to this effect (see also Marx's letter to Engels of July 7, 1868, present edition, Vol. 43). When the General Council's resolution against Pyat appeared in the press, a split took place in the French Section in London, of which he was a member. Eugène Dupont, Hermann Jung, Paul Lafargue and other proletarian members of the section expressed their disapproval of Pyat's adventurous and provocative tactics and withdrew from it. Pyat's group lost ties with the International but continued to act in its name and repeatedly supported anti-proletarian elements opposing Marx's line in the General Council. On May 10, 1870, the General Council officially dissociated itself from this group (see this volume, pp. 127-28). The text of this resolution has been preserved in the Minutes of the General Council meeting of July 7, 1868. It was first published in La Liberté, No. 55, July 12, 1868 and reproduced in La Cigale, No. 29, July 19, La Tribune du Peuple, No. 7, July 26, 1868 (with the end of the resolution denying Pyat's connections with the International omitted), and in other newspapers. This resolution was first published in English in The General Council of the First International. 1866-1868, Moscow, 1964.
[142] A writ of Habeas Corpus—the name given in English judicial procedure to a document enjoining the appropriate authorities to present an arrested person before a court on the demand of the persons interested to check the legitimacy^ of the arrest. Having considered the reasons for the arrest, the court either frees the arrested person or sends him back to prison or releases him on bail or guarantee. The procedure, laid down by an Act of Parliament of 1679, does not apply to persons accused of high treason and can be suspended by decision of Parliament. The British authorities frequently made use of this exception in Ireland.
[143] A reference to the pamphlet Two Letters to the Earl of Aberdeen on the State Persecutions of the Neapolitan Government, published in London in 1851, in which Gladstone exposed the cruel treatment inflicted by the Government of the Neapolitan King Ferdinand II (nicknamed "Bomba" for the bombardment of Messina in 1848) on political prisoners arrested for participation in the 1848-49 revolutionary movement.
[144] x h e Land Bill for Ireland was discussed in the English Parliament in the first half of 1870. Submitted by Gladstone on behalf of the English Government, ostensibly to assist Irish tenants, it contained so many provisos and restrictions that it actually left intact the basis of big landownership by the English landlords in Ireland. It also preserved their right to raise rents and to drive tenants off the land, stipulating only that the landlords pay a compensation to the tenants for land improvement, and instituting a definite judicial procedure for this. The Land Act was passed in August 1870. The landlords sabotaged the implementation of the Act in every way and found various ways round it. The Act greatly promoted the concentration of farms in Ireland into big estates and the ruination of small Irish tenants.
[1] In the autumn of 1867 the General Council of the International Working Men's Association launched a widespread campaign among the English workers in support of the Irish national liberation movement led by the Fenians. The memorial written by Marx was an integral part of this campaign. The Fenians were Irish revolutionaries who named themselves after the "Féne"— a name of the ancient population of Ireland. Their first organisations appeared in the 1850s in the USA among the Irish immigrants and later in Ireland itself. The secret Irish Revolutionary Brotherhood, as the organisation was known in the early 1860s, aimed at establishing an independent Irish republic by means of an armed uprising. The Fenians, who expressed the interests of the Irish peasantry, came chiefly from the urban petty bourgeoisie and intelligentsia and believed in conspiracy tactics. The British Government attempted to suppress the Fenian movement by severe police reprisals. On September 18, 1867, the Fenians made an armed attack on a prison van in an attempt to liberate Kelly and Deasy, two of their leaders. The latter managed to escape but a policeman was killed during the clash. Five Irishmen (Maguire, Condon, Larkin, Allen and O'Brien) were charged with murder and brought to trial. Although there was no direct evidence, they were sentenced to death. Maguire was subsequently pardoned, and Condon, as an American citizen, had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment. The others were executed. The Fenian trial in Manchester aroused a storm of protest in Ireland and England. On the insistence of Marx, the General Council of the International began, on November 19, a discussion on the Irish question during which the leaders of the international proletarian organisation expressed their solidarity with the struggle of the Irish people for independence and condemned the position of the reformist trade union leaders who, in the wake of the English bourgeois radicals, denied the right of the Fenians to resort to revolutionary methods in the struggle. The discussion was scheduled to continue on November 26 (see this volume, pp. 189-93), but when the news of the conviction was received, the General Council convened a special meeting on November 20 and addressed a memorial to the Home Secretary asking for the commutation of the death sentence. The British Government ignored the memorial. Because of opposition from the trade union leaders, the English labour press did not publish the memorial in its original wording. A report on the special meeting of the General Council, published in The Bee-Hive, No. 319, November 23, 1867, only summarised it, and named the General Council members who had signed it. The French translation was published by Le Courrier français, No. 163, November 24. In English the memorial was first published in full in The General Council of the First International. 1866-1868, Moscow, 1964. This document is also preserved in the form of the manuscript copy made by Mrs. Marx which fully coincides with the text entered into the Minute Book. Written as an article, this copy was apparently to be sent to the press. In this volume the memorial is reproduced from this copy.