Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Death of an Irish Hunger Striker

By Pauline Murphy | CounterPunch | September 8, 2017

One hundred years ago Thomas Ashe became the first Irish Republican to die on hunger strike. Ashe was imprisoned in Mountjoy Jail in Dublin for delivering a ‘seditious speech’ to a public gathering in County Longford. On the 20th of September Ashe decided to go on hunger strike when he was denied the status of political prisoner. Five days later on September 25th he was dead.

Although Ashe is considered the first Irish Republican prisoner to die on hunger strike, his death was not the direct result of starvation, instead it was caused by force feeding. This brutal act carried out by prison authorities involved inserting a tube into the mouth of the hunger striker and pushing it down into their stomach. Gruel was poured down this ghastly device which caused gagging, vomiting and for Thomas Ashe – death.

Austin Stack was also a Republican prisoner who went on hunger strike around the same time as Ashe. Stack also underwent force feeding but lived to recall the terrible technique used by the prison authorities: ” It was very painful. My eyes watered during the whole time so that I could see nothing. I vomited during and after the process so that not one half of the food entered my stomach. My clothes were covered with vomit. There was no attempt made to examine me.”

The act of refusing food is a powerful weapon used by those who have nothing else left to fight with. This tool of protest against injustice was first used in the early 1900s by imprisoned British and Irish suffragettes. It was also the first time force feeding was used to break a hunger strike.

In 1912 Suffragettes Gladys Evans and Mary Leigh became the first prisoners in Ireland to hunger strike for political status and receive the treatment of force feeding. They were jailed along with Lizzie Barter who flung a hatchet at British Prime minister Herbert Asquith while he was visiting Dublin. She missed Asquith but hit Irish Home Rule leader John Redmond instead!

Barter evaded arrest but was apprehended the next day when she was involved in a disturbance at Dublin’s Theatre Royal where the British PM was due to speak. Barter hurled a burning chair into the orchestra pit while Leigh and Evans were caught at the same venue attempting to set fire to the royal box.

The Suffragettes were jailed in Mountjoy for “having commited serious outrages at the time of the visit of the British Prime Minister”. Leigh and Evans went on hunger strike and were force fed until they were released months later.

In September 1913 Labour leader James Connolly was arrested after speaking at a mass rally with Jim Larkin outside Liberty Hall in Dublin city. Connolly was sentenced to three months imprisonment and was labeled a common criminal. Inspired by the Suffragettes, he went on hunger strike which lasted eight days before he was released. While Connolly came out of his hunger strike unscathed, the same cannot be said for James Byrne.

In October 1913 Labour activist James Byrne was arrested on false charges of intimidation and he was sent to Mountjoy jail. The 38 year old father of six from Dun Laoghaire was a secretary of the trades council and when he was denied political status in prison he followed the example set by Connolly just months previously and he went on hunger strike. Byrne also undertook a thirst strike and his health rapidly declined while imprisoned. The authorities released Byrne when his condition worsened and just under two weeks later he died of pneumonia. His funeral drew thousands of mourners and James Connolly delivered the graveside oration.

In 1917 the death of County Kerry native Thomas Ashe resulted in an inquest which revealed the barbarity of force feeding. The inquest also revealed that he had been stripped of his boots, bed, bedding and clothes. Ashe was left with a single blanket and the cold stone ground to lie on. The pathologist’s report revealed markings and bruising around Ashe’s mouth and jaw indicating the brutality of force feeding.

The verdict of the inquest declared that Ashe “died of heart failure and congestion of the lungs….. that his death was caused by the punishment of taking away from the cell, bed, bedding and boots and allowing him to be on the cold floor.” British authorities refused to accept the result of the inquest and many copies of it were burned by order. The copies that survived ensured the truth was revealed and the act of force feeding was later abandoned but, the act of hunger striking for political status would remain a staple of protest for Republicans throughout the rest of the 20th century. Following the death of Thomas Ashe 100 years ago, 22 more Republicans would die in prison in the following years and decades after 1917.

Pauline Murphy is a freelance writer from Ireland.

September 10, 2017 - Posted by | Civil Liberties, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular | , ,

2 Comments »

  1. THE STUPID ROMAN CATHOLIC IRISH: A SAXON POPE GAVE A SAXON KING THE RIGHT TO INVADE IRELAND

    BULL LAUDIBILETER

    The Bull of Pope Adrian IV Empowering Henry II to Conquer Ireland. A.D. 1155
    (Lyttleton’s “Life of Henry II.,” vol. v. p. 371.)

    Bishop Adrian, servant of the servants of God, sends to his dearest son in Christ, the illustrious king of the English, greeting and apostolic benediction. Laudably and profitably enough thy magnificence thinks of extending thy glorious name on earth, and of heaping up rewards of eternal felicity in Heaven, inasmuch as, like a good catholic prince, thou dost endeavour to enlarge the bounds of the church, to declare the truth of the Christian faith to ignorant and barbarous nations, and to extirpate the plants of evil from the field of the Lord. And, in order the better to perform this, thou dost ask the advice and favour of the apostolic see. In which work, the more lofty the counsel and the better the guidance by which thou dost proceed, so much more do we trust that, by God’s help, thou wilt progress favourably in the same; for the reason that those things which have taken their rise from ardour of faith and love of religion are accustomed always to come to a good end and termination.
    There is indeed no doubt, as thy Highness doth also acknowledge, that Ireland and all other islands which Christ the Sun of Righteousness has illumined, and which have received the doctrines of the Christian faith, belong to the jurisdiction of St. Peter and of the holy Roman Church. Wherefore, so much the more willingly do we grant to them that the right faith and the seed grateful to God may be planted in them, the more we perceive, by examining more strictly our conscience, that this will be required of us.
    Thou hast signified to us, indeed, most beloved son in Christ, that thou dost desire to enter into the island of Ireland, in order to subject the people to the laws and to extirpate the vices that have there taken root, and that thou art willing to pay an annual pension to St. Peter of one penny from every house, and to preserve the rights of the churches in that land inviolate and entire. We, therefore, seconding with the favour it deserves thy pious and laudable desire, and granting a benignant assent to thy petition, are well pleased that, for the enlargement of the bounds of the church. for the restraint of vice, for the correction of morals and the introduction of virtues, for the advancement of the Christian religion, thou shouldst enter that island, and carry out there the things that look to the honour of God and to its own salvation. And may the people of that land receive thee with honour, and venerate thee as their master; provided always that the rights of the churches remain inviolate and entire, and saving to St. Peter and the holy Roman Church the annual pension of one penny from each house. If, therefore, thou dost see fit to complete what thou hast conceived in thy mind, strive to imbue that people with good morals, and bring it to pass, as well through thyself as through those whom thou dost know from their faith, doctrine, and course of life to be fit for such a work, that the church may there be adorned, the Christian religion planted and made to grow, and the things which pertain to the honour of God and to salvation be so ordered that thou may’st merit to obtain an abundant and lasting reward from God, and on earth a name glorious throughout the ages.

    POPE ADRIAN’S BULL “LAUDABILITER” AND NOTE UPON IT
    Taken from A History of Ireland by Eleanor Hull
    Volume One, Appendix I

    “ADRIAN, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his most dearly beloved son in Christ, the illustrious king of the English, greeting and apostolical blessing.[1]

    “Laudably and profitably doth your Majesty consider how you may best extend the glory of your name on earth and lay up for yourself an eternal reward in heaven, when, as becomes a Catholic prince, you labour to extend the borders of the Church, to teach the truths of the Christian faith to a rude and unlettered people, and to root out the weeds of vice from the field of the Lord; and to accomplish your design more effectually you crave the advice and assistance of the Apostolic See, and in so doing we are persuaded that the higher are your aims, and the more discreet your proceedings, the greater, under God, will be your success; because, whatever has its origin in ardent faith and in love of religion, always has a prosperous end and issue. Certainly it is beyond a doubt, as your Highness acknowledgeth, that Ireland and all the other islands, on which the Gospel of Christ hath dawned and which have received the knowledge of the Christian faith, belong of right to St Peter and the holy Roman Church. Wherefore we are the more desirous to sow in them the acceptable seed of God’s word, because we know that it will be strictly required of us hereafter. You have signified to us, our well-beloved son in Christ, that you propose to enter the island of Ireland in order to subdue the people and make them obedient to laws, and to root out from among them the weeds of sin; and that you are willing to yield and pay yearly from every house the pension of one penny to St Peter, and to keep and preserve the rights of the churches in that land whole and inviolate.

    “We, therefore, regarding your pious and laudable design with due favour, and graciously assenting to your petition, do hereby declare our will and pleasure, that, for the purpose of enlarging the borders of the Church, setting bounds to the progress of wickedness, reforming evil manners, planting virtue, and increasing the Christian religion, you do enter and take possession of that island, and execute therein whatsoever shall be for God’s honour and the welfare of the same.

    “And, further, we do also strictly charge and require that the people of that land shall accept you with all honour, and dutifully obey you, as their liege lord, saving only the rights of the churches, which we will have inviolably preserved; and reserving to St Peter and the holy Roman Church the yearly pension of one penny from each house. If, therefore, you bring your purpose to good effect, let it be your study to improve the habits of that people, and take such orders by yourself, or by others whom you shall think fitting, for their lives, manners and conversation, that the Church there may be adorned by them, the Christian faith be planted and increased, and all that concerns the honour of God and the salvation of souls be ordered by you in like manner; so that you may receive at God’s hands the blessed reward of everlasting life, and may obtain on earth a glorious name in ages to come.”

    Comment by Buddy Silver | September 10, 2017 | Reply

  2. PRIVILEGE OF POPE ALEXANDER III TO HENRY II, CONFIRMING THE BULL OF ADRIAN, 1172 [2]
    “Alexander, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to our well-beloved son in Christ, the illustrious king of the English, health and apostolic benediction.

    “Forasmuch as these grants of our predecessors which are known to have been made on reasonable grounds, are worthy to be confirmed by a permanent sanction; We, therefore, following in the footsteps of the late venerable Pope Adrian, and in expectation also of seeing the fruits of our own earnest wishes on this head, ratify and confirm the permission of the said Pope granted you in reference to the dominion of the kingdom of Ireland; (reserving to Blessed Peter and the holy Roman Church, as in England, so also in Ireland, the annual payment of one penny for every house;) to the end that the filthy practices of that land may be abolished, and the barbarous nation which is called by the Christian name, may through your clemency attain unto some decency of manners; and that when the Church of that country which has been hitherto in a disordered state, shall have been reduced to better order, that people may by your means possess for the future the reality as well as the name of the Christian profession.”
    NOTE.�In recent years the authenticity of Adrian’s so-called “Bull” has been disputed by authorities like Cardinal Moran and Cardinal Gasquet. The latter has, in his Monastic Life in the Middle Ages (1922), republished an essay originally printed forty years ago in the Dublin Review for July 1883, without any alterations, although a number of its dates and statements have been challenged by later writers (cf. Miss Kate Norgate’s paper in the English Historical Review, vol. viii, pp. 18-52[3]).

    But none of these writers notices the important fact that through the whole of the Middle Ages and up to late times the Bull was accepted without question as genuine both by the Irish nation and by the Vatican. The Privilege of Pope Alexander III, Adrian’s successor, confirmed the Bull, and his letters to the King, to the clergy and bishops of Ireland, and to the nobles, enforced obedience to it. A copy existing in the Book of Leinster, on a fly-leaf (p. 342 of the facsimile), shows that in the thirteenth century, to which date this copy is ascribed, it was looked upon as part of the historical material belonging to that province.

    It is most singular that Cardinal Gasquet should state that Pope John XXII was ignorant of the Bull of Adrian. In the Appeal sent by Donal O’Neill and the Irish princes to this Pope, at the time of the invasion of Edward Bruce, they distinctly appeal to this Bull as a reason for the Pope’s interference on their behalf. They say: “Adrian IV, your predecessor, an Englishman, more even by affection and prejudice than by birth, blinded by that affection and by the false suggestions of Henry II, King of England, . . . gave the dominion of this our island, by a certain form of words, to that same Henry II, whom he ought better to have stripped of his own, on account of the above crime” (i.e., the murder of St Thomas á Becket). In his reply, consequent on this Irish appeal, the Pope, writing from Avignon to King Edward II, in the second year of his pontificate, to recommend to him the advisability of dealing more leniently with his Irish subjects, himself refers to Adrian’s Bull as follows: [4]

    “Know then, Son, that we have received a certain letter directed in the first instance from the Irish nobles and people to our sons Anselm, presbyter, of the title SS. Marcellinus and Peter, and Luke, deacon of St Mary’s in the Broadway, Cardinal Nuncios of the apostolic see, and by them enclosed to us in a letter of their own.[5]

    In which we see it stated, among other things, that whereas our predecessor Pope Adrian of happy memory, did, in a certain mode and form of grant, which was distinctly specified in his apostolic letters drawn up in that behalf, convey to your progenitor, Henry, King of England, of illustrious memory, the supreme dominion over Ireland, that king himself and the kings of England his successors, even to the present time failing to observe the mode and form so set forth, have in direct violation of them, for a long period past kept down that people in a state of intolerable bondage, accompanied with unheard-of hardships and grievances. Nor was there found during all that time, any person to redress the grievances they endured or be moved with a pitiful compassion for their distress; although recourse was had to you . . . and the loud cry of the oppressed fell, at times at least, upon your own ear. In consequence whereof, unable to support such a state of things any longer, they have been compelled to withdraw themselves from your jurisdiction and to invite another to come and be ruler over them,” etc.

    It is clear that in the early fourteenth century both the Irish and the Popes believed the grant of Adrian to have been genuine. The appeal of O’Neill founds its complaint on the fact that the English kings had not fulfilled the conditions on which the grant was made: it does not dispute the grant. Moreover this epistle of the Pope, as also the Bull, are quoted in full by two of the greatest of Irish ecclesiastical authorities, David Rothe, Bishop of Ossory, in his Analecta Sacra (1616), when he was secretary at Rome to the Primate, Peter Lombard, and by the Primate himself in his book De Regno Hiberniae (1632).[6]

    He was long resident in Rome and in close touch with the Papal Court, and his book is dedicated to Pope Urban VIII. Neither of these men had any doubt of the genuineness of the document. A later example of the Papal recognition of the Bull is found in the letter of instructions given by Pope Innocent X to the nuncio Rinuccini, when he was sent from Rome to Ireland during the Confederate Wars in 1645. It contains a brief summary of English dealings with Ireland in the past. In it occur the words: “Henry, desiring to strengthen his empire, . . . wished to subdue the island of Ireland; and to compass this design, had recourse to Adrian, who, himself an Englishman, with a liberal hand granted all he coveted. The zeal manifested by Henry to convert all Ireland to the faith moved the soul of Adrian to invest him with the sovereignty of the island,” etc. [7]

    It is clear that later Popes did not disavow Adrian’s act. Nor is the distinction attempted to be drawn by some modern writers between the “Donation” and the “Bull” visible in the writings of these authorities. The so-called Bull was an expression of approval and benediction of Henry’s action similar to that bestowed by an earlier Pope on Duke William when he proposed to add the crown of England to his dukedom of Normandy, or to the approval by another Pope of John’s visit to Ireland, symbolized by the gift of a crown of peacock’s feathers. Pope Alexander’s three epistles in 1172 declare that when he heard that Henry, “instigated by divine inspiration,” had subjected the Irish people to his dominion he had “returned thanks to Him who had conferred so great a victory.” He “has learned with joy” that the Irish kings have taken Henry as their sovereign and he exhorts them to fidelity.[8]

    His legate, Vivianus, at the synod of Dublin immediately afterward “made a public declaration of the right of the king of England to Ireland” and threatened excommunication against all “who presumed to forfeit their allegiance,” an attitude persevered in by the Papal See up to the reign of Elizabeth, when the Reformation introduced new considerations.

    The gift of Adrian was partly a consequence of the fatherly concern felt by the Pope for the spiritual welfare of the Irish people, of the moral and spiritual condition of whom St Malachy and St Bernard had recently given a desponding report, and it was partly a move in that Weltpolitik which was gradually extending the power of the Roman curia over every part of Europe. At a far later date Pope Alexander VI put forth a similar claim in his division of the entire Western world between Spain and Portugal. These gifts, while extending the Papal support to the recipients in their ambitious projects, at the same time gave expression to the assumption of an authority which claimed to stand above kings and made them suppliants at the hands of the spiritual power.

    [1] The original text of this Bull will be found in Dimock’s edition of the works of Giraldus Cambrensis, vol. v, pp. 317-319 (1867).
    [2] For the original see ibid., pp. 318-319; and Ussher’s Sylloge, No. 47.
    [3] See also G. H. Orpen, Ireland under the Normans (1911), i, 287-318.
    [4] For the original see Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hib. et Scot., No. ccccxxii, p. 201.
    [5] The two cardinals arrived in England in the summer of 1317, more than two years after the landing of Edward Bruce in Ireland.
    [6] Pp. 245-260.
    [7] Rinuccini, Embassy in Ireland, xxviii-xxix.
    [8] Sweetman, Calendar, i, No. 38, pp. 6, 7; Black Book of the Exchequer, Q-R., fol. 8b, 9, 9b.
    Taken from A History of Ireland by Eleanor Hull

    Comment by Buddy Silver | September 10, 2017 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s