Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

Lux Radio's Apology for Slur on Priest
Unhistorical Picture of Fr.
Harold in Broadcast Drama
By Lesley Morris
EAR LISTENERS,
D
Pardon me if I seem to
be flaunting my cold at
you ... it is quite better now,
thank you . . . but, apparently,
it struck at a bad time. Mind
you, I'm not saying that I would
have been listening to the Lux
Radio Theatre if I had been out
of bed, but it seems that I should
have been doing so. My information
about "Castle Hill," the play
broadcast by DB on Sunday, May
4, comes from some justifiably
indignant listeners who resented
the distortion of the story of the
first Irish priest to land in Australia.
Lux, I may say, have
apologised for the presentation
. . . but mud sticks, as we have
good reason to know.
The priest, the Rev. James
Harold, was, according to "Castle
Hill," a leading exponent of
Luther's doctrine that the end
justifies the means. He incited
a rebellion amongst the Irish
convicts, and, it was suggested,
got what was coming to him by
being sentenced to death.
TRUE STORY
So much for our Australian
author's picture of Fr. Harold;
now for the truth. In 1798, he
was in charge of a Dublin parish,
where, in the midst of violence,
he urged and begged his congregation
to remain at peace and to
, keep clear of the rebellious element.
On the Sunday before the
outbreak of the rebellion he
preached two sermons pleading
with his people to shun disorder
and discord, but he also stressed
the fact that the barbarity of the
yeomanry and the military^ was
responsible for the dreadful suffering
which the people were enduring.
'
Free speech and the right to
justice were not part of the plan
for Ireland; Fr. Harold was arrested
for his iattack, being seized
at the altar while he was celebrating
Mass. He was kept in
gaol for several monhs, and
without further trial was shipped
to Botany Bay. He was not
unhappy about his transportation,
considering his persecutors
instruments in the hands of Providence,
in that he was going to
a place where there were Catholic
convicts with no priest.
A simple soul, Fr. Harold; he
might have known that he would
not be allowed to exercise his
religious functions. He sent
petition after petition to authority,
and authority laughed heartily
at his presumption. A
Protestant clergyman, by the way,
suffered no obstruction whatever.
PLOT TO DISCREDIT
PRIEST
In 1800, the events which
formed the basis of the Lux
fairytale took place. Information
was given to the Governor
that some of the Irish convicts
were engaged in seditious correspondence
and unlawful meetings.
The matter was investigated, but
the conspiracy seems to have
been on the part of those reporting
it rather than the victims
who were discovered and maltreated
in the gentle ways of our
early years as a penal settlement.
It has been suggested that there
was no plot at all, but a concoction
dreamed up by a few
officials to improve their own
position and to discredit the
Catholic element. Strenuous
efforts were made, without success,
to involve Fr. Harold.
Three months later new
rumours began to circulate . . .
a new plot^ bigger and better
than ever. Fr. Harold, on the
vaguest suspicions, was thrown
into prison; the suspected convicts
were treated appallingly.
One man, Maurice Fitzgerald, was
sentenced to receive 300 lashes
. . . 300! His arms were extended
around a tree, and he was
pressed closely against it so that
he could not flinch from the cat.
An eye-witness reported that at
a distance of 15 yards he was
annoyed by blood, skin and flesh
blowing into his face as it was
shaken from the lashes. Fr.
Harold was made to put his hands
on the tree by the prisoners, apparently
to indicate that he was
implicated in the plot, and that
by not admitting it he was the
real culprit and responsible for
the punishment to which his
fellow-convicts were subjected.
HISTORICAL RECORDS'
TESTIMONY
In the New South Wales Historical
Records covering the
governorship of Hunter and King,
the following note appears; "Fr.
Harold was charged with complicity
in the alleged attempted
rebellion in Sydney in 1800, but
no evidence has survived which
would justify us in concluding
that the suspicion was well
founded."
After these events, Fr. Harold
was transported to Norfolk Island
, a hell-hole if there ever was
one.
5 In a letter from the settlement,
Fr. Harold told his nephew
most emphatically that he had
had no part in any plot. . . .
"I endeavoured at all times to
prevent any disturbance, and to
preserve the peace of the colony."
From Norfolk Island he went to
Tasmania, and in 1813 he was
returned to Dublin . . . having
spent 15 years as a convict because
he had protested against
the barbarity of the military.
Personally, I think historical
plays might steer clear of subjects
of this nature . . . there
are too many people whose blood
boils at the memory of the injustices
perpetrated on a defenceless
people. However, that has'
nothing to do with the case; if
history is to be presented, let it
be presented accurately.
SIN OF INACCURACY
Dorothy Sayers, in one of her
mysteries, sets the stage with
Oxford dons to whom the ultimate
sin is inaccuracy in the
treatment of facts. A magi has
written a thesis on his pet subject
before he discovers a letter
which completely invalidates his
whole theory; rather than' discard
it . . . because it's a very
attractive theory ... he steals
the letter so that there will be
no evidence to contradict him.
A woman discovering this makes
the matter public; he loses his
position, is completely discredited,
and eventually commits suicide.
When she is asked if she regrets
what she did, she answers that
she should have tried to find out
after her disclosures how he stood
financially . . . but that not even
to save his life could she have
allowed his falsification to stand,
because facts must be treated
accurately for the sake of
humanity . . . even an innocent
distortion is inadmissible, because
it may lead to worse.
I realise that radio writers are
not necessarily scholars, and have
no such high moral approach to
the tyranny of fact; but I suggest
that Madge Parkin, who was responsible
for "Castle Hill," look
into Miss Sayers' "Gaudy Night"
to find what a historian would
think of her approach to her subject.
Don't get the book wrong
by its title, by the way; it is not
another "Forever Amber" . . .
Harriet and Lord Peter are very
restrained people. The Lux
Radio Theatre has apologised for
the play . . . but for one person
who reads the apology, there will
be a hundred who heard the
play and who will have one more
stick with which to beat the dirty
Irish.
$