1 Irish Prisoners,
Internment Camp,
Frongoch. 4th Oct. 1916. To
Timothy Healy, K.C., M.P., Esq. Sir, Some time ago you were good enough to visit the above Camp, and
to hold converse with some of the Irish Prisoners. We, the under—
signed, being the duly elected Camp Leaders, are aware that the prison—
ers whom you saw on that occasion laid before you a number of very
serious complaints concerning the insanitary, and other most
unsatisfactory conditions under which we are interned here. We much
regret to say that not only has there been no improvement in our
conditions of internment, but that they have steadily gone from bad
to worse. As a punishment, no doubt, for making these complaints
Mr Doris has been removed to Reading Prison. Recently the Military authorities in charge of this Camp have
adopted such an attitude of consistently vindictive injustices towards
us that we are reluctantly compelled to believe that there must be
some ulterior motive behind it. We fear that recent events may
incline the prisoners to a course of action which may have disastrous
results. We can do very little to help ourselves cut off as we are
from all the world, and strictly prohibited — officially — from sending
out a single complaint. After mature deliberation we have decided to
lay in detail before you two or three typical cases of vindictive
injustice; and to ask you to let in the healthy light of publicity
upon them by questions in Parliament. We know that if you take up the matter you will not allow
yourself to be put off with evasive and stereotyped answers, but will
probe the matter to the bottom; therefore, we want you to feel
assured that these complaints are not made by irresponsible individuals.
but are made on the authority of the Camp Leaders, who are prepared to
substantiate all our statements. And we on our part will have the
assurance that the matter is being attended to by an Irishman, who, 2
though he may differ from us on many points of national polity
is nevertheless both impartial and honest. Towards the end of last August the military Staff Sergeant
Major informed the prisoners Camp Leaders that the local contract
for the removal of Camp refuse would expire on the last day of that
month, and that from the 1st September a party of eight prisoners
was to be detailed daily to perform the work of clearing the
Campash pit. It is to be clearly understood that in this instruction
there was no mention of the clearance of anyashtpits other than
the prisoners own. 1st. Sept. On this date the first prisoners work party cleared their own
ash—pit, removing the contents in an unyoked cart to an Incenderator
some short distance from the Camp. When their work was completed
the prisoners were surprised to receive an order from the military
to proceed to the soldier quarters and to remove therefrom ashes
and other refuse. This they strongly protested against. The men
were subsequently brought on report before the Camp Commandant for
refusing to remove the soldiers refuse. During the investigation,
the Commandant (Colonel F.A. Heygate Lambert) stated that he had
come to the conclusion that the prisoners method of removing the
Camp refuse by local contract was a waste of public funds; and that
in future he intended using the prisoners labour in every way he
possibly could. Eventually it was decided on to refer the whole
matter to the Home Office for instructions, and at this point the
Adjutant (Lieut. J.I. Burns) appealed personally to the prisoners
to perform the work until such time as the Home Office reply would
be received. Now the prisoners were most anxious to make it quite
clear that their refusal to remove the soldiers refuse was based on
principle, and did not originate from insubordination, or resentment
against the most unjust treatment under which they were even then
smarting; and to this end they consented to perform the work until
such time as the Military authorities should receive an instruction
from the Home Office relieving them of this work. We are not aware
of the terms of the letter which the military authorities forwarded
to the Home Office; but we were subsequently informed that the
Home Office instructions were that we were to undertake the work of 3 removing the soldiers refuse. The matter being thus cleared up
the men vindicated their principle by declining to remove any refuse
other that that of their own Camp. 13th Sept. On this date 16 prisoners, composed of two fatigue
parties, detailed to remove the contents of their own ash—pit, and
who had refused an order from the military authorities to remove the
contents of the soldiers refuse pit, were sentenced by the Camp
Commandent, to seven days in isolation in the North Camp. They were
deprived of all letters, visitors, parcels, papers and all private
property. Indeed so vindictive was the sentence that they were even
deprived of devotional books, and, in consequence some of the men
found themselves in the deplorable position of being unable to
perform necessary religious duties; and it was only upon the very
strong protest of the resident chaplain that they were enabled to
hear Holy Mass on the following Sunday. Regularly since this date
(Saturdays and Sundays excepted) batches of eight prisoners have been
daily sentenced to this punishment. These prisoners are kept permanently isolated in the North Camp;
placed under lock and key in the huts from 9 a.m. to 12 noon, and
from 2 P.m to 4 p.m. Their beds are removed from them each morning
and whilst thus confined in the huts they have to sit or recline on
the floors no other accommodation being available; they are deprived
of all amusements; access to the recreation field; smokes and tobacco;
all intercourse with the South Camp is strictly prohibited; no visitors
are allowed under any circumstances; the Camp canteen is closed
against them, and they are confined to the Gov. ration which is bad
in quality and inadequate in quantity. They have been further
informed by the Commandant that they will be kept in this deplorable
state until such a time as they give a guarantee to obey all orders
whatsoever. Moreover, some of the prisoners parcels of food had gone
bad during the week they had been witheld; and others had been
destroyed by rats which infest the whole place. 26th Sept. On this date the portion of the punishment depriving prisoners
of all letters and parcels was increased from seven days to fourteen days,
with the threat added that on the following Monday a bread and water
diet would be added. 4 30th Sept. On this date the number of men undergoing this excessive punishment
had reached a total of 107 men. During the trial of these prisoners
by the Commandant various dire threats were made to them, including
threats to try them be courts martial and sentence them to penal
servitude; to break up the whole Camp and send the prisoners back
in batches to Knutsford, Wandesworth,, and Woking Prisons to be
treated as criminals. The Adjutant was informed that the whole body of prisoners
objected en bloc on principle to the work of cleaning out the
soldiers refuse pits. But the only reply was that they would be
sent at the rate of eight men per day to the North Camp, or else to
place the South on the same punishment as the North. It requires a daily detail of 190 men to efficiently perform
the necessary sanitary and other work in connection with the Camp:
and if to this we add an average daily sick attendance at the
Hospital of 49men, and 20 men excused fatigue work from old age
and other disabilities it will readily be seen that we are rapidly
approaching a state in which the Leaders will find themselves in the
unpleasant position of being unable to carry on even the absolutely
essential sanitary work of the South Camp, which being an old
distillery building lying many years in disuse is most difficult
to be kept in anything like an approximately clean condition. 2nd Sept. Again in the end of August volunteers were asked for from among
the general body of prisoners to work in the neighbouring quarries,
at wages to be announced later. No volunteers were forthcoming. On
the 2nd Sept. the Adjutant interviewed the Camp Leaders in the matter,
and informed them that the men would received 51/2d. per hour from the
quarry owners; that 3d. per hour would be deducted from this amount
by the Govt. in respect of their board and lodgings in Frongoch
Internment Camp, and that in addition the men would have to pay their
own train fare to and from the quarries. He asked why there were no
volunteers for the work and was informed that the main reason was that
whereas they were held by the Govt. at Frongoch against their wills,
and as there were quarries in Ireland undeveloped through want of men, 5 none of the prisoners here would be willing to lend their aid to the
working or development of British quarries. They were also of the
opinion that if they made themselves useful to the Govt. in this way
it would prejudice their early release. The Commandant is known to
have said as a result of this refusal that his whole opinion of the
men here has changed, and some of the vindictiveness complained of
is certainly due to the men not undertaking the quarry work. The second typical case of vindictive and unjustifiable
punishment to which the whole body of prisoners has been subjected
may be said to have begun on Sunday Sept. 3rd when the Military
staff sergeant and one of the military police took one of the
prisoners, Hugh Thornton, to the Adjutant's office wherein he was
informed by that officer that he was a deserter under the Military
Service Act. This having been done Thornton, who is a mere youth,
was sent back into the prisoners compound, and the matter appeared
to have dropped. Sept.5th. On this date, about 10 o'clock a.m. one of the staff sergeants
came into the prisoners compound looking for Hugh Thornton, stating
that he was going to be sent home, a statement which all the
prisoners knew to be false. At this hour the cleaning of the Camp
was in full swing: and none of the military could find Thornton.
As soon as this was made known to the Adjutant he ordered that all
the prisoners within the compound, no matter on what work they were
engaged were to be lined up in the outer yard — even the cooks had
to cease their preparations for dinner and line up. All the
available staff sgts. and military police were sent into the
prisoners quarters to tern them out into the yard and were
unnecessarily vicious and abusive in doing so — we say unnecessarily
advisedly, because the prisoners, as is their invariable custom,
promptly obeyed the Camp Leaders present, and lined up in the outer
yard in two ranks. The Adjutant accompanied by a large armed quard, and sereral
officers came into the compound. He placed the armed quard around
the prisoners, this proceeding was absolutely unnecessary, and only
calculated to disturb and excite the men, who, fortunately, kept the
best of temper, The Adjutant accompanied by the staff sergeants, 6
individually inspected the prisoners, and failing to identify any
of them as Thornton, he passed on to the Recreation Field, where
the majority of the prisoners were already drawn up for his
inspection. The same process was here gone through but without
success. All the prisoners were then marched back from the field
to the distillery yard, and there ordered to re—form by dormitories—
an order which the wholr body promptly obeyed. By this time every available soldier off duty was placed
under arms, and marched into the prisoners compound, The Camp
Commandant entered the compound shortly before the return of the
prisoners from the field. This formidable array of military with
loaded carbines, and fixed bayonets were drawn round the prisoners
in a close cordon, a proceeding as unnecessary as it was uncalled
for. When this precautionary(?) measure was completed the Adjutant
again called loudly; " No. 1454, Hugh Thornton" to which there was
no response. The Camp Register was next brought on the scene, The
Adjutant then issued instructions that as each prisoners Camp
number, and name were called out, he was to answer: "Here, Sir,"
step out of the ranks, and moving round in front of the Adjutant
was to proceed to the bottom of the yard, where the whole body of
prisoners was to be again re—formed in numerical order. These
instructions were promptly and even cheerfully obeyed by all the
prisoners. Eventually the name and number of Hugh Thornton was
reached and called, to which he responded. The Adjutant,
obviously in a vicious temper, rushed with upraised stick, and
yelled at the prisoner: " Why didn't you answer your name before,
you bloody brat?" And received the quiet and respectful response :
"I had private reasons for not doing so, Sir." The Camp Commandant who was standing silently by during all
these proceedings, promptly ordered toe prisoner to be handcuffed.
The prisoner Thornton having been removed to the quard—room, the
remaining prisoners whose names had not been called over were
ordered to join their comrades at the bottom of the yard — an order
which they promptly obeyed. The armed quard was next concentrated
in front of the prisoners. The Commandant accompanied by his entire
staff came down, and taking up a position in front of this quard he 7 addressed the prisoners as follows:— "You have," he said "hitherto conducted the camp in an
excellent manner; bu t this incident this morning was the worst
exhibition od insubordination which I have met with so far, and
I cannot overlook it." He then inflicted the following punishment
upon the whole body of prisoners on account of their "insubordination" 1: All letters withheld for one week from Tuesday, 5th inst. 2: All papers withheld for one week from Tuesday, 5th inst. 3: All visits stopped for one week from Friday 8th inst. Now, nothing even remotely approaching insubordination took
place. All the prisoners, with the one single exception answered
their names, and obeyed with promptitude and respect every order
given them — even though many of the orders were given harshly
and viciously. Obviously this harsh and unjust punishment was
meted out to all the prisoners because none of them would identify
and inform upon, one of their comrades. And the punishment is much
exaggerated by the fact that the Camp Leader has told the Adjutant
that he did not know Thornton. He could not identify him even if
he was willing to do so — a fact which was equally true of at least
90% of the prisoners. If there was any cause for blame in the
incident the fault clearly lay with the Adjutant, and staff sergts.,
before whom the prisoner Thornton was paraded only two days
previously for identification purposes. All persons possessing a knowledge of Irishmen will readily
understand the condition of mind of the prisoners after the
infliction of this utterly unjust punishment. 6th Sept. On this date the situation had become so acute that the Camp
Leaders deemed it necessary to address the following letter
to the Home Secretary:- "Sir - we respectfully beg to bring under your notice that the
following punishment was yesterday inflicted by the Commandant of this
Camp on the general body of prisoners here. 1. All letters withheld for one week from Tuesday 5th inst. 2. All papers withheld for one week from Tuesday 5th inst. 3. All visits stopped for one week from Friday 8th inst. (7) 8 The reason for the infliction of this punishment is alleged
to be that when on yesterday it was desired for some purpose to
identify one of the prisoners here none of the other prisoners
assisted to identify him. Apart altogether from the facts that
the great majority of the prisoners here could not have known the
man in question, and the great majority of them were not asked
to identify him, we beg to submit that the responsibility to
identify any prisoner here rests with the military authorities
and that it is quite illegal for these authorities to
punish any prisoner for failing to identify another, or even for
being unwilling to do so. We ask that the punishment inflicted
be immediately withdrawn, and that the necessary steps be taken
without delay to secure for the general body of the prisoners
immunity from such illegal punishments and also to secure them
against the danger of being driven to insubordination by the
adoption towards them on the part of the Camp Commandant of an
attitude similar to that adopted towards them in the present instance. We are Sir, on behalf of the general body of prisoners, Your
obedient servants.( Sgd ) Head Leader. etc This letter was signed by the Head Leader and the 13 Mess
Leaders, and a copy was given to the Camp Commandant. This letter has
been entirely ignored. 6th Sept. On this date the punishment of all the prisoners was attempted
to be increased by the Commandant, who ordered a party of prisoners
to be daily detailed for agricultural work in kitchen garden plots
adjacent to the Camp. This work was being done previously by the
members of the large military quard of the Camp, for whose kitchen
the produce was intended. But the prisoners en bloc sent a protest
through the Head Leader against such punitive labour, with the
result that the work has since been completed by the people most
concerned in the produce. But the vindictiveness of our military
guardians was not by any means appeased. They were determined
on additional punishment. 11th Sept On this date compulsory daily route marches for all the
prisoners were ordered by the Commandant on the specious plea that
the prisoners were lazy and indolent. An armed guard was sent into (8) 9 the rooms after dinner to clear the prisoners out at the point of
the bayonet. The manner and method of carrying out these marches —
ordinarily a pleasure to us — made them extremely irksome, and
their frequency seriously upset our hitherto excellent domestic
arrangements. Moreover, old men and others not capable of these
marches were also turned out. 14th Sept. The first delivery of inward letters after the infliction of
the punishment of the 5th inst. was made on this date. After dinner
about 1.30p.m. a number of men were engaged in one of the
dormitories writing letters, when the Sergt. Major and a number of
soldiers entered the room and ordered all present to "clear out" for
a compulsory route march. The letter writers continued writing, and
he approached the tables and roughly told them that if they did'nt
move quickly he would "upset the — tables on top of them."
One of the prisoners, Patrick Daly, was writing to his wife a reply
to a letter of hers which had reached him that morning — having
been delayed in consequence of the punishment mentioned; and he
protested that it was bad enough to have his wife's letter witheld
for a week without preventing him from answering it for another day.
The Sergt. —Major persisted in his endeavour to overturn the tables
on him, and then Daly definitely stated that he would not move from
the table until he had completed his letter — if the small amount
of matter that can be got on to one of the official slips can be call —
ed a letter. He was immediately pounced on by the soldiers and
brought to the cells. 15th Sept. On this date the prisoner Patrick Daly was charged with
"insubordination", and sentenced by the commandant to 168 hours cells
on bread and water diet. Such was this prisoners treatment that he
was forced to undergo the torture of a hunger strike in the
endeavour to better his condition; and he was allowed to starve
for three days before the military authorities took any effective
steps to deal reasonably with him. Subsequently the man had to be
removed to Hospital; and this wasonly done at the very urgent request
of the medical officer. It may also be remarked that this prisoner
Daly was not allowed to attend Mass on Sunday Sept. 17th. (9) 10 7th Sept. On this date one of the North Camp prisoners, Maurice
Fitzsimons, was admitted to the South Camp hospital suffering from
appendicitis. He was deprived of his clothing, and not even allowed
the use of his trousers when requiring to go to the lavatory for
purposes of nature - thus compelling the unfortunate prisoner to
risk the grave danger of contracting pneumonia during the intense
cold weather. 3rd Oct. Herewith is a copy of a letter that the Camp Leader found
it necessary to send to the Commandant at a later date:-
"Sir - with reference to the continued insistence on the
removal by the prisoners here of refuse created by other than
themselves, and entirely outside of their Camp, we feel it
necessary formally to bring to your notice that the prisoners as a
body refuse to do this work. It has not been possible to get a
party voluntarily to undertake it. The continued infliction of
punishment for not doing this work is tending seriously to impair
the discipline of the Camp, and if persisted it will, in our opinion,
bring about such a state of discontent that it will be necessary
for us to resign the position we hold here. A copy of this letter
is being sent to the secretary of state, Home Office. This letter was signed by the Head Leader and the four Room
Leaders. Having read these details you will agree with us that this
attitude of the Home O ffice, and our military guardians, towards a
large body of untried and unconvicted Irishmen is uttererly
unjustifiable; and if persisted in will certainly result in disastrous
consequences. We, therefore, repeat our appeal to you to bring these
matters to public notice —- in the hope of having them remedied —- by
any means you may think desirable and effective. We desire to remain, Sir,
Your obedient servants,
M. Staines Head Leader
James Murphy No.1 Room Leader
Edward A. Miskan No.2 Room Leader
R.J. Mulcahy No.3 Room Leader
Thos. D. Sinnot No.4 Room Leader Frongoch
Oct. 4. 1916 (10)