Fawley Court - Documents of treason

In the fifties there arose a project to establish a school for Polish boys in England, to be led by Father Josef Jarzembowski, a well known and renowned Marian. Former Polish soldiers and pilots, the émigrés and the Polish Government in Exile supported this action with enthusiasm. The appeals for money to purchase Fawley Court are well documented in the press at that time.

The first stage of the purchase (the building) took place on 7 October 1953, with an approximate investment of less than 14% by the Marian Fathers. Their Declaration of Trust, recently obtained from the Office of the Attorney General is dated 8 October 1953. In this document the Marians declare that the property, Fawley Court, will be an integral part of a charitative and educational foundation managed by them and quote a sum of £5000 from “their joint account” and a mortgage loan of £5700 from the Temperance Permanent Building Society (paid off by civilians and Polish organisations, also investing £30 000 in the sixties for the School). The existing documentation confirms that at least £3000 (of the £5000) came from émigré sources. We assume, from the statements of people who played an active role in setting up the School, which began to accept pupils in 1954, that the investment of the community was in fact larger. There is a further document of the same date, 8 October 1953 of the purchase of Fawley Court by one William Nichols for £9000, who most probably sold Fawley Court to the Marians for £10700; however there is no document confirming this sale signed by him and the Marian Fathers. In summary, there is no document of purchase but there is an undertaking to create a trust for the School, signed, among others, by Fr.Jarzembowski.

A year later (3 May 1954) the Fathers signed a document which refers to the purchase from William Nichols and confirms the mortgage from the Temperance Permanent Building Society. From the analysis of this document it follows that The Temperance Permanent Building Society forced the Fathers to sign it to safeguard their mortgage. The Office of the Attorney General considers these two documents to be inconsistent, adding that no one questioned it at the time and that the Charity Commission’s determination rests on the 1954 document (as they did not have the 1953). The 1954 document also refers to an undertaking to create a trust for the School.

In our voluminous correspondence with the Charity Commission, Jackie Joyce agrees with us that further documents are missing, however she writes about one missing document, and we about five. The caseworker who took over from her started everything from the beginning and stated that that she only accepts the 1954 document, terminating our correspondence. There remains the question where is the document confirming the actual purchase, and also the trust document of Divine Mercy College which contains records of land (purchased in further transactions), of the Museum named after Fr.Joseph Jarzembowski and money from appeals? Many letters to the Charity Commission (written by the founders of the School, e.g. Otton Hulacki, Kazimierz Fedorowicz RAF, the former Chair of the School Council and the Save Fawley Court Heritage Committee as well as Fawley Court Old Boys Association) have not led to a clarification of these inconsistencies, as pointed out by the Attorney General in reply to our complaints about the position taken by the Charity Commission.

Our list of protests is a long one. In the winter of 2009 we appealed to the Pope Benedict XVI. Mr.Kazimierz Fedorowicz wrote to Queen Elizabeth II about St.Anne’s Church at Fawley Court. Her Majesty’s office referred this matter to John Denham (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government). We sent two further letters there raising current issues: planning permission for security gates, which curtails the rights of way through Fawley Court, the matter of St.Anne’s Church and the exhumation of the remains of Fr.Jarzembowski. After many attempts we found out that the letters have been forwarded to the Ministry of Justice, as they deal with licences for exhumation. This Ministry confirmed receipt of our letters, and they were redirected to John Denham, with a note that the matter of security gates falls under his jurisdiction. Eventually a brief reply arrived to the effect that the decision to grant planning permission was a local matter in which the Ministry will not be involved.

Despite letters of protests regarding the exhumation (1300 according to the officials, our estimate being 2000), The Ministry of Justice granted a licence on 1 March 2010. This licence was frozen a week later by the intervention of a family member in the High Court.

Other matters were raised in the official correspondence both with the Charity Commission and the Office of the Attorney General, for instance financial irregularities as in the appeal for a new building for the Apostolate at Fawley Court which was never built, falsified accounts and the statement that planning permission was obtained (which was not). In the letters from the Charity Commission, the Attorney General and the Ministry of Justice, there were indications to refer any matters of a criminal nature to the Police. We first referred there the matter of the removal of the Museum and the transfer of remains of the deceased from the crypt of St.Anne’s Church without permission. After apparent investigations the Police’s answer can be summarised as follows: The Museum was removed with permission of the Ministry of Culture – the Ministry wrote to us that they know nothing about it.2.The ashes of the deceased in the crypt of the church were “above ground” and in this case no permission was necessary. By way of answer we sent to the Police photos of the tomb in the crypt of Baron du Puget Puszet and his wife, made from bricks and with a headstone, taken in November 2009. The Police wrote to us that the Marians moved “the urns with the ashes of the Baron and his wife over a year ago” 3.There were no financial irregularities (The Police determined this after 48 hours of so-called investigation).They did not wish to talk about the matter of Fr.Wladyslaw Duda, maintaining that they follow the guidelines of the Ministry of Justice, who replied in turn that it is the Police who determine current issues.