A

>\rm& ^h.ip^cruijed h
waiting forctsignaL

that came
^HereJl- Casement toas held
Tnifhto before being taken to T.O.VfJOiV

I Here arms were

w
to be landed

' Me KemMA’S fort —-—^

\J^t~BRANOOhf where R. Cosement wos difeovered

ButVHASrRAKDj inhere ^
RCasemenh ^ 2 others did
land from the Submarine
KlIXORGUN
WE S

attempt to C*
Jandorms nowfM:.
abandoned,. / |5

/H.M.S. B-LUEBEIC intercepts

arms! ship Auo and bids
her proceed ia putcxsnw\r\
2b Dublin ohitherH-Casement
was conveyed before hr was
removed to LoNoorffor Trial

A
E
?4at> of
Here arms ship Aud Sir R. Casements
Surrenders end doth
ilow%erfelf up. treafonabh $ fatefull.
Journey to Ireland
mTlptUL MCMXVI

de/igned. by A. SAVoRV
for G. tie C. PARMITER,
engravedby WG3RUKȣ
MCMKXXVL

V T FL
ROGER CASEMENT
By

GEOFFREY de C. PARMITER

LONDON

ARTHUR BARKER LTD.

2 1 GARRICK STREET, COVENT GARDEN
 FIRST PUBLISHED 1936

3 1223 00347 3882

Printed in Great Britain by T. and A. Constable Ltd.

at the University Press, Edinburgh
 To

M. G. H.
WITH LOVE
 ROGER CASEMENT1
I dream of one who is dead,
As the forms of green trees float and fall in the water,
The dreams float and fall in my mind.

I dream of him wandering in a far land,

I dream of him bringing hope to the hopeless,
I dream of him bringing light to the blind.

I dream of him hearing the voice,

The bitter cry of Kathleen ni Houlighaun
On the salt Atlantic wind.

I dream of the hatred of men,

Their lies against him who knew nothing of lying,
Nor was there fear in his mind.

I dream of our hopes and fears.

The long bitter struggle of the broken-hearted,
With hearts that were poisoned and hard.

I dream of the peace in his soul,

And the early morning hush on the grave of a hero
In the desolate prison yard.

I dream of the death that he died,

For the sake of God and Kathleen ni Houlighaun,
Yea, for Love and the Voice on the Wind.

I dream of one who is dead.

Above dreams that float and fall in the water
A new star shines in my mind.
Eva Gore-Booth.

1 Printed in Prison Letters of Countess Markiewicz, ed. by

Esther Roper: pubd. by Longmans, Green & Co.

lx
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I have to thank the following authors and publishers for

permission to use copyright material contained in the works
named:
Miss Esther Roper and Messrs. Longmans, Green & Co.
Ltd., Prison Letters of Countess Markiewicz', Messrs. William
Hodge & Co. Ltd., Trial of Roger Casement; The Con¬
troller, H.M. Stationery Office, various Command Papers;
Mr. Denis Gwynn and Messrs. Jonathan Cape Ltd., The
Life and Death of Roger Casement; Dr. Charles E. Curry,
Diaries of Sir Roger Casement: his Mission to Germany and the
Findlay Affair', The Editor, Irish Independent, for various
extracts from that newspaper; Mr. H. W. Nevinson, Last
Changes, Last Chances.

Extracts from the above-mentioned works are indicated

by footnotes throughout the text. A detailed reference to
each of these works, together with others, will be found in the
bibliography at the end of the book.
G. DE C. P.

xi
 : -

'
 CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE

i. Early Life ...... i

ii. The Birth of the Congo Free State . 12

hi. The Enquiry in the Congo . . .18

iv. Rumours from the Putumayo ... 46

v. The Putumayo ...... 58

vi. The End of the Putumayo ... 83

vii. Back in Ireland ..... 93

vra. War . . . . . . . .127

ix. The Findlay Affair . . . . -154

x. Germany and the Irish Brigade . .166

xi. The Treaty ...... 198

xii. Last Days in Germany . . . .231

xni. Good Friday, 1916 . . . . . 249

xiv. The 4 Aud ’...... 260

xv. The Easter Rebellion . . . .270

xvi. The Trial in the King’s Bench . .281

xvii. Appeal and Execution . . . -314

xviii. Conclusion ...... 325

xiii
XIV ROGER CASEMENT

Appendices—
PAGE

i. Chronological Table ..... 333

n. Sir Roger Casement’s Letter to Sir Edward
Grey.335
hi. Proclamation of the Provisional Government . 342
iv. Police Warrant ...... 344
v. Petitions on behalf of Roger Casement . . 345
vi. ‘For God and Kathleen ni Houlihan’ . . 354
vii. Proposed Conditions of Service in the Irish
Brigade ...... 360
viii. Address of the Irish Brigade . . . 362
ix. Bibliography . . . . . -363

Index 366
 PREFACE

This life of Roger Casement is not intended to be in any

sense an ‘official5 biography. Neither does it aim at com¬
pleteness. There are several matters which I considered
were not of sufficient general interest to merit their inclusion
in a book of this nature. Accordingly I have made no more
than a passing reference to Casement’s visit to the German
Headquarters at Charleville during the war, although, in
his diaries, there is a long and detailed description of this
visit. Again, I have not discussed Casement’s project of
sending the Irish Brigade to the East. Among Casement’s
papers there is a long memorandum, dated Zossen, gth
December, 1915, dealing with this idea, and entitled
‘ Memorandum stating some of the reasons for active
service of the Irish soldiers now at Zossen.’ Neither have
I described many of Casement’s speech-making tours in
Ireland.
In the course of the following pages I have endeavoured
to describe Casement’s own view of what he did, and I
have only occasionally expressed my personal opinion.
This I have done of set purpose. My political opinions
do not coincide with those of Casement, and so I have
tried as far as possible to suppress such opinions. I like to
think that in this I have succeeded. Although one may
disagree with, or disapprove of Casement’s political views,
yet there is much that one may admire in his personal
character.
XV
xvx ROGER CASEMENT

I have been fortunate in the materials at my disposal and

in the help that has so freely been given to me. Through
the great kindness of Mrs. Sydney Parry I have been able
to read some hundreds of Casement’s letters and have
had access to the personal papers and diaries of Casement
relating to his stay in Germany and to the Irish Brigade,
which are now sealed and deposited in the National Library
in Dublin. All the letters quoted are from this source
unless otherwise indicated. Moreover, she has given me a
great deal of information relating to Casement’s early life,
and she has performed the thankless office of Maecius,
reading through the entire manuscript. For all her help
I am most grateful. I have also to thank Mr. J. H.
Morgan, K.C., who has revised the chapter on the trial.
Several of the persons mentioned in this book have
supplied me with information, and Mr. Desmond Ryan has
read and criticised the book while in manuscript. To all
these people I offer my thanks. I also wish to thank my
father for much helpful criticism and advice.
It only remains to say that I have been at pains to remove
any errors of fact from these pages, but if, through any
cause, mistakes have crept in, the fault and the responsibility
are mine alone.
Geoffrey de C. Parmiter.

Kenley, Surrey.
 CHAPTER I

EARLY LIFE

Roger David Casement was born on i st September, 1864,

at Doyle’s Cottage, Lawson Terrace, Sandycove, Co. Dublin.
He came of a family of Ulster Protestants, although his
mother was a Catholic before her marriage. His father,
Roger Casement, had been a Captain in the 3rd Dragoon
Guards and later in the Antrim Militia, and had married
Miss Annie Jephson. Casement adored his mother and he
often talked about her after her death. Although his father
was stern and sometimes harsh, Casement had a great
affection for him and always spoke of him with respect. His
father was a strict disciplinarian and would give a thrashing
to any of his children who had been guilty of an infraction of
discipline. If the young Casement felt that he deserved a
beating he would submit, but if he felt that he was innocent,
then nothing would make him submit to the punishment.
On one occasion, when he was only nine years old, consider¬
ing that he was being unjustly punished, he darted upstairs
and locked himself in a room. His father, very angry,
pursued him and called to him to come out. * Shan’t,’
replied Roger, and started to sing. His father, after threat¬
ening all sorts of penalties, was forced to give up the attempt
to chastise his refractory child, and came downstairs,
followed by the sound of his son’s singing. A little later
Roger came down, quite calm and self-possessed.
Until he was nine years old, Casement’s life was a con¬
tinual pilgrimage, moving from place to place, for his
parents never remained in any one spot for any length of
time. Soon after his ninth birthday his mother died in
childbirth, and the young Roger Casement was sent to stay
with his uncle at Magherintemple, Ballycastle.
2 ROGER CASEMENT

He was educated at the Diocesan School at Ballymena

(later called the Ballymena Academy), of which the head¬
master was the Rev. Robert King. His holidays were spent
either at Magherintemple, or with Mrs. John Young of
Lismore, or with his cousins, the Bannisters. Mr. King was
a good classical scholar, and from him Roger acquired an
adequate knowledge of the classics. At school he seems to
have been a very bright and adventurous boy, thoroughly
enjoying every moment of his life. Because of his attractive
disposition he seems to have taken his place as the ringleader
of his schoolfellows in their pranks and escapades, and he
always had an innate love of adventure. But in spite of all
this he did not neglect his studies and won a number of
prizes. Once, just before nightfall, when he was staying
with the Bannisters, he dressed himself in some African mats,
blackened his face and put a Kroo-boy’s cap on his head.
This cap was made of grass and round it there was a thick
fringe of grass which stood out some distance. Thus attired
he crept out of the house and sat on the wall, below which
ran a road. Along this road came an unsuspecting man,
carrying an umbrella. When Roger saw him he gave a yell
and sprang off the wall. The poor man, terrified out of his
wits, took to his heels and ran, pursued by Roger yelling
horribly. He was last seen bounding up the steps to his
front door, and slamming the door to.
Casement had a great love for animals, and always kept
a dog until, in his later life, he threw himself into his work
for Ireland. Cruelty was abhorrent to him, and invariably
he was to be found on the side of the under-dog, a trait which
was so marked a characteristic of his whole life. A wounded
or ill-treated animal always excited his sympathy and he
would spend great care in nursing it back to health. His
kindness of heart later led him to expend a great deal of his
small means in relieving the sufferings of the Irish poor.
Mrs. Gertrude Parry, Roger Casement’s cousin, records that
it was this characteristic that led him ‘ to provide a midday
meal for children in the Gaeltacht, who after walking per-
 EARLY LIFE 3

haps for miles to school, would have gone hungry all day if
his kindly heart had not pitied them. When he was stricken
with misfortune, it was these same children whose touching
letters to him and whose words of consolation, with their
prayers, brought tears to his eyes.’
Even as a small boy he was fond of music and he had a
beautiful baritone voice. Later in life he sang often, usually
Irish airs of which his most frequent choice was ‘ Silent, O
Moyle, be the roar of thy waters.’ He spent a great deal of his
holidays in walking. These walks, around Magherintemple,
on Fair Head and at Murlough Bay, were a great joy to him,
and he would often talk of his doings on these walks.
At a very early age he showed that he was deeply attached
to Ireland, much of his time being spent in the library at
Magherintemple reading books about Ireland and her his¬
tory. At school he was never taught anything of his native
country, and all his vast knowledge of Irish history and
of Ireland was acquired elsewhere. This love of Ireland,
evinced very early, never left him, and in his more mature
years, when his knowledge was greater, he saw Ireland as a
suffering people who had been so long oppressed by the
imperial might of England that everything good and vital
in her national life had been sapped away. To free Ireland
from what he considered was an influence leading to a
national death became, eventually, the absorbing work of
his life. As a small boy, he pleaded with his aunt for the
possession of a room in the Bannisters’ house at Liverpool,
and on the walls of the room he pasted pictures, cut from a
newspaper, of Irish Nationalists who had been executed or
imprisoned in English gaols.
When he was seventeen he left the school at Ballymena and
studied for a time for the Civil Service, but he soon aban¬
doned this project. Instead, he crossed over to England
and was employed by the Elder Dempster Shipping Com¬
pany in their Liverpool Offices.* A little before this he went
to stay with an uncle and aunt, the Rev. Somervel and
Mrs. Lamplier, who had a daughter, Eva, slightly older than
4
ROGER CASEMENT

Roger Casement. Casement fell deeply in love with her,

and when he returned home, they wrote to each other every
day. Eva was probably not very serious over the affair,
although Roger took it very seriously. It has often been
said that Casement had no feelings towards women and that
the only love of his life was Ireland. This is not so. He
was not indifferent to women and he would have liked to
marry, but he detested the idea of marriage until he had
sufficient money to enable him to stay at home. His uncle
and aunt, Mr. and Mrs. Bannister, were separated from each
other for years at a time, for Mr. Bannister was employed for
many years in West Africa, where he could never take his
family on account of the climate, so that he only saw his wife
and children every three or four years when he was home on
leave. To Casement this seemed a very unhappy idea of
married life and he was determined that it should not be
his fate.
He remained with Elder Dempster for two years before he
set sail, in one of the Company’s ships, for the West Coast of
Africa to get his first acquaintance with a country in which
he was to perform such great work for humanity under the
aegis of the British Government
In 1887 an American, General Henry Sandford, was
preparing an expedition for the further exploration of the
Congo, and he included Roger Casement among the per¬
sonnel of his expedition. This early acquaintance with
Africa and the Congo was to be of great value to him later
in his life. On his return to England from this expedition
he travelled to America, where he engaged in a lecturing
tour, describing the work and the discoveries of General
Sandford’s expedition. By these means he acquired for
himself a reputation as an explorer and as a man with a
considerable and intimate knowledge of Central Africa, a
knowledge which at that time he shared with few. And so
it was not unnatural that in 1892 he should enter the service
of the Niger Coast (Oil Rivers) Protectorate, under the
Colonial Office, as Travelling Commissioner. His duties in
 EARLY LIFE 5
Nigeria were mainly the collecting of information for the
British Government upon which they might base their policy
of administration. He discharged these duties with an
efficiency and zeal which earned for him official commenda¬
tion. In 1895 he was transferred from Nigeria and appointed
Consul at Lourengo Marques, where he lived for three years
until, in July 1898, he was appointed Consul for the Portu¬
guese Possessions in West Africa, south of the Gulf of
Guinea, when he took up his residence at Loanda. At this
time he was also Consul in the Gaboon and Consul to the
Independent State of the Congo.
But during all this time his thoughts turned often to
Ireland. In his letters home there were frequent requests for
news of Ireland and for newspapers. By this time the
question of the Boer republics in South Africa was promin¬
ently before the public and Casement was much interested
in the trend of events. His opinions, at the outset, were, for
perhaps the only time in his life, decidedly imperial, even
betraying a trace of jingoism, for he felt that England had
right on her side. This is illustrated by the letter he sent to
his great friend, Richard Morten, from which the following
is an extract:
‘British Consulate
‘St Paul de Loanda
‘Sunday, July 2/99.
‘My dear D.,
‘I am just back from 6 weeks in the Congo and north of
this beastly hole! I’ve had about enough of Africa. I got
fever then and chiggers in my feet and am lame.
‘Your Morning Posts came delightfully—only one draw¬
back—the 2nd June number—the last—only the advertise¬
ment side came and I had turned to it to see what Kruger
had said to Milner, and what Milner said to Kruger! It’s
a regular Kru-Mill, and I fancy the dear old Dutch came
out top-dog. I like Milner, and I think him a fine specimen
of the Englishman, and I think he will win in the end if
England backs him up; only it means a big, a very big
fight.
 6 ROGER CASEMENT

‘We shall have to send about 60,000 to South Africa, and

good men at that, and more than the men even, we shall
have to make quite sure we’ve got a leader who can use
them. 60,000 men not well led won’t keep South Africa
British—but less than that number might entirely suffice
if we had a proper General. The Boers—if war comes, as
to me seems very likely—will play the old game of good
positions chez eux and leave us to attack these well-chosen
and ably-defended sites. If our generals don’t know what
they are going to do then that will spell disaster, and I’m
sorry to say, my dear D., with all my admiration for your
race (the English) they seem in their history to have per¬
sistently shown a remarkable aptitude at the start of every
crisis, of not knowing what they were going to do, or what
^ they quite wanted. To me the South African question is
in a nutshell. It is either Boer or Briton. It can’t be both.
There isn’t room for a divided rule; one or other must be
Boss. Now the Uitlander question is not so much getting
the franchise for a certain large number of our own folk
whom we think—rightly—ought to have it, as a final
showing who is Master in South Africa. If we fail to get
the rights (and I use the word advisedly) of the Uitlanders
extorted from or granted by the Boers, then you may rest
assured South Africa will recognise, if England doesn’t,
that the power of Yea and Nay lies at Pretoria and not in
London, or Cape Town. The end of that would inevitably
be that South Africa would as a whole turn to Pretoria more
and more, and to the strong men sitting there who know
their own minds and their right strength—and that British
paramountcy in South Africa would become as idle a phrase
as the integrity of China or the policy of “the open door”
—to say nothing of Taliemoan!
‘These absurdities have all come to pass through British
Statesmen not quite knowing what they wanted and being
brought into sharp and sudden contact with Statesmen who
did know what they wanted and how to get it.
‘ I believe Chamberlain and Milner both know what they
want and the way to get it, but I doubt greatly if England at
large is prepared to back them up to the bitter end, for
that very possibly will mean war—a war not against the
 EARLY LIFE 7

Transvaal so much, I fear, as against the Dutch in

South Africa.
‘ I think the time has come to be absolutely unflinching—
or rather it came long ago—but to-day we have it and the
opportunity together.
‘Europe is calm and not rapidly anti-English at the
moment. We have a fairly free hand, freer than we shall
probably ever have again in the next 50 years. France is
a sucking dove, Germany a sucking pig, and Russia has
got her Port Arthur, North China, Peace Conference and
obsequious touts everywhere, while we—well, we have the
ships, the men and the money, and the grievance, and I
say have it out once and for all with the Boers and South
Africa generally. Send Kruger an ultimatum, and if he
doesn’t come to straightforward terms, then make him.
That means war, of course, and it’s better that than give
up South Africa to Kruger, or let things drift—the latter
a fairly damnable way of going to hell, much in vogue with
British Ministers.
‘I sat down to scribble you a few lines while waiting for
my bath this cold, raw morning, and here I am, launching
out into these endless topics. Oh! for an Hour of Case¬
ment as Prime Minister! and if I wouldn’t paint things a
lively green all round!

‘Goodbye. Love to you, dear old D., and with very,

very kindest remembrances to . . . etc. etc.

‘Yours always
‘Roddie.’

This unaccustomed attitude of mind did not last long, and

as the war went on his opinions changed and he became
pro-Boer.1 He saw England oppressing a small people, and

1 Years later he referred to this. In a letter to his great friend, Mrs.

J. R. Green, dated 20 April, 1906, written from Santos, he says: ‘ If
things go as I wish I shall be back in Africa before long. It is a mistake
for an Irishman to mix himself up with the English. He is bound to
do one of two things—either to go to the wall, if he remains Irish, or
become an Englishman himself. You see I very nearly did become
one once. At the Boer War time. I had been away from Ireland for
8 ROGER CASEMENT

his natural instinct to champion the under-dog came to

the fore.
While he was Consul at Lourengo Marques he had
acquired a considerable knowledge of Swaziland and the
Transvaal which was near to him, and in consequence, at
the outbreak of the war, he was employed on a special
mission at Cape Town. For the services which he then
rendered he received the Queen’s South African Medal. A
curious incident occurred while Casement was in South
Africa which is, perhaps, worth while recalling. He was
sitting with several companions on the verandah of his hotel
when a woman approached and spoke to them, saying how
much they interested her. She asked permission to tell their
fortunes, a request to which they acceded. When at last she
turned to Casement she said that he was the most interesting
of all. After describing his life she said, ‘You must take
care: at the age of fifty-two you will come to a violent end.’
Sir Roger Casement was executed within a month of his
fifty-second birthday.
At the conclusion of his mission in South Africa he went
back to the Congo as Consul at Kinchasa in the Congo
State, in 1900, and in August, 1901, he was appointed, in
addition, Consul for part of the French Congo Colony,
appointments which he held for three years until he took
up his great work of investigation into the trading conditions
on the Congo.
After his return to the Congo, Casement remained in¬
tensely interested in the war in South Africa, and in his

years—out of touch with everything native to my heart and mind,

trying hard to do my duty, and every fresh act of duty made me appre¬
ciably nearer the Ideal of the Englishman. I had accepted Imperialism.
British rule was to be extended at all costs, because it was the best for
everyone under the sun, and those who opposed that extension ought
rightly to be “ smashed.” I was on the high road to being a regular
Imperialist Jingo—altho’ at heart, underneath all and unsuspected
almost by myself, I had remained an Irishman. Well, the war gave
me qualms at the end—the concentration camps bigger ones—and
finally when up in those lonely Congo forests where I found Leopold
I found also myself—the incorrigible Irishman.’
 EARLY LIFE 9
letters home he discussed the prospects. In a letter written
from Matadi, River Congo, on the 15th March, 1901, while
his opinions were still those of an imperialist, to Richard
Morten, he says:
‘To me the war is still the most interesting thing in
my surroundings. Do you remember my telling you in
August and September last that it was by no means over,
and that to my mind it would drag on as long as there
were any armed Boers left ? Well, it has done so. We made
the mistake of taking the Boer to be an oath-respecting
creature. We should have taken the Boer, not his word,
and cleared the country of every male inhabitant as we
moved in from Paardeberg. Had we done that—“loyals”
as well as disloyals—the war would have been over, I think,
six months ago. Where De Wet, Botha, and Co. get their
recruits from, their food, their carts, their horses, their
information and everything they need is from these very
oath-taking “loyal,” pardoned farmers. Had there been
none of these to help the scattered remnants of Commanders
which still keep the field, the matter would have died of
inanition and want of physical and material means of
carrying on the game. That, I have always thought, was
Lord Roberts’ one mistake—the letting prisoners of war
go back to their farms on promise of good behaviour. You
can’t make war and peace at the same time, and while war
lasts it should be thorough and severe, so that it may sooner
be over. Our mistaken kindness was really cruelty, and has
only perpetuated the sorry bloodshed and misery of a
strife that has now no political meaning.’

Such, in bare outline, is the life of Roger Casement before

he achieved world-wide fame as the friend of suffering
humanity. He was particularly fitted both in character and
knowledge to undertake such a task, and his tenacity and
steadfastness of purpose enabled him to bear the sight of such
awful suffering, which must have been a sore trial to a man
of his kindliness and largeness of heart. Ulster dourness was
never one of his characteristics, but he was always a man
of fanatical intensity, to whom the sufferings of oppressed
10 ROGER CASEMENT

peoples, of whatever race, colour, or creed, made an over¬

whelming appeal. It was this championship of the oppressed
coupled with a devoted love for his native land, Ireland, that
was his guiding star all through his life, but he suffered from
the inherent weakness and warped judgment of the fanatic.
His nobility of mind was reflected in his features, and with
his pale face, tanned by the African sun, and black beard, he
was a man of striking appearance.

‘ In parts of Ireland to-day, and in Connaught rather than

Ulster, there are men, even of the peasant class, who might
be grandees of old Spain—tall, stately figures, with deep,
dark sombre eyes, hair almost purple in its blackness, long
oval faces of the rich colour of old ivory, and a certain
grace and distinction of courtesy not indigenous to these
islands.
‘One of the most pronounced of the Castilian type in
Ireland is Sir Roger Casement, who looks exactly as if he
had stepped out of a canvas by Velasquez.
‘He is tall above the average, and resembles a virile
edition of Mr. Cunninghame Graham, himself a man of
much physical distinction and of the Romance type, but
generally too well tailored and barbered for the antique
dignity displayed by the larger Sir Roger, who has, on the
whole, perhaps, with him a stronger air of Parnell, another
dark Celt who carried his tragic destiny in his pallid, sombre
face.
‘There has never been any feminine gossip attached to
Sir Roger Casement’s name, though his is a type which
would appeal to many women by reason of its intensity.
If that intensity had been a source of power to Sir Roger,
it has also been a significant indication of weakness; for it
means fanaticism.
‘There is about every Ulsterman, whether he be Roman
Catholic, Protestant, Presbyterian, or Methodist, a large
leaven of Puritanism, and this leaven went all through the
Casement family, who were well-known residents of County
Antrim, their property being in the vicinity of Ballymena.’ 1

1 Louis M‘Quilland, in the Sunday Herald, 30 April, 1916.

 EARLY LIFE 11

Perhaps the most striking features about him were his eyes,
eyes of great kindness. It is related 1 that the small child of
a charwoman, in whose house Casement was lodging, used
to creep into his room and try to attract his attention as he
sat working. One day her mother, catching her trying to
open Casement’s door, scolded her. The child replied, ‘I
want to see the gentleman with the kind eyes.’ He had a
great gift for friendship, but although he delighted in the
company of his friends, he cared nothing for society. His
dominant note was simplicity and love of Ireland. He made
many contributions to further and enrich the national life
of Ireland; he gave prizes for the study of Irish and con¬
tributed to the support of a number of Irish schools. He was
never so happy as when he was listening to the sad lilt of the
Gaelic songs or watching the jigs and dances at a Ceilidh
or in a peasant house. Ireland was his passion and he
devoted his life, and his death, to Kathleen ni Houlighaun.

1 Gertrude Parry, in the introduction to Some Poems of Roger Casement.

 CHAPTER II

THE BIRTH OF THE CONGO FREE STATE

Let us pause for a moment to consider the state of affairs in

Africa when Casement was Consul there. The last quarter
of the last century saw the birth of imperialism. Each of the
great European powers was engaged in a desperate race to
expand her overseas possessions, and it was at this period
that the work of several explorers had revealed the vast
wealth of Africa, waiting to be exploited. It was only
natural, therefore, that the powers, in pursuit of their
imperialist aims, should turn towards Africa. It is not
proposed to give an account of the partition of Africa, for
such an account would be outside the scope of this book;
but part of the story must be set out here.
The competition amongst the nations was fiercest in
Africa, and it was imperative that there should be some
regulation of the imperialist aims of the powers, at any rate
so far as Africa was concerned. A lead was given in this
direction by Leopold II, King of the Belgians, who, in 1876,
summoned a conference which was not official, to consider
the various questions raised by the partition and opening up
of Africa. This conference met at Brussels. At first King
Leopold’s intentions seem to have been of the best: as
Professor Ramsay Muir says1: ‘ He seems sincerely to have
desired that the work should be done on an international
basis; and if this had been possible many future troubles
would have been avoided.’ The result of the Brussels Con¬
ference was the establishment of the International African
Association, the president of which was King Leopold.
There were branches of the Association for each country,
but these branches pursued their own national interests,
1 Ramsay Muir, A Brief History of our Own Times, p. 22.
12
 THE BIRTH OF THE CONGO FREE STATE 13

without a thought for the international aspect of the affair,

and the main group, under the aegis of King Leopold,
became predominantly Belgian. In 1878 H. M. Stanley
returned from his great journey up the Congo, and immedi¬
ately King Leopold commissioned him to return to the
Congo and establish there an administration under the
authority of the International African Association. In this
way, in 1879, there came into being the Independent State
of the Congo.
Meanwhile England, France, Italy, Germany, Portugal
and Belgium had been establishing claims and endeavouring
to expand their influence, and the situation was beginning to
look serious; there was endless opportunity for controversy,
friction and dispute among the European powers engaged in
colonising Africa, and an international conflagration seemed
imminent. Accordingly, in an attempt to pour oil on the
troubled waters, an international conference was summoned
at Berlin in November, 1884. Fourteen powers, including
America, took part. One of the results of this conference
was the insistence of free trade in the Congo valley and the
recognition of the Independent State of the Congo, which,
although not actually annexed by any power, was greatly
under the influence of Belgium. But the great powers did
not come to Africa in any spirit of philanthropy; they came
primarily to make trading profits and to make those profits
quickly. It was inevitable, therefore, that abuses and evils
should arise, especially in view of the fact that many of the
powers at work in Africa had no experience of dealing with
backward peoples. But perhaps the worst state of affairs was
that obtaining in the Independent State of the Congo. As
has been explained, King Leopold was the trustee for the
administration of this tract of land, and he seems to have
begun his work with the highest motives and with humane
and benevolent purposes in view. But King Leopold was a
shrewd man, and he, quicker than any other, realised the
possibilities of Central Africa. Moreover, he was sovereign
of the Independent State and constitutionally was absolutely
14 ROGER CASEMENT

unrestricted as regards that state. He saw that there was

untold wealth to be made out of the ivory and rubber of the
Congo.
The traders who were established along the Congo, in the
Independent State, were already using every means in their
power to increase the profits to be made from their trade,
and conditions were becoming worse and worse. The
natives of that region, though extremely primitive, were very
docile and bore no ill-will or resentment against the white
man who had so suddenly come amongst them, although
they were at the mercy of Arab slave-traders and cannibals
who descended upon them at intervals and carried them off.
Accordingly, King Leopold applied for international sanc¬
tion to raise an armed force, of large numbers, for the sup¬
pression of the slave-trade. Though this request was viewed
with suspicion by a few, Leopold’s reputation then was such
that the request was immediately acceded to. He also
obtained permission to levy taxes upon the native population
with which to defray the expenses of this army.
But to Roger Casement, performing his various Consular
duties in Africa, there came many disquieting rumours
regarding the conditions of the natives in the Independent
State of the Congo. Complaints were made to him, as
English Consul, regarding breaches of the declarations of the
Berlin Conference, in the Congo.1 If all these rumours were
to be credited the natives were being exploited in the most
appalling manner and reduced to a condition far worse than
that of slavery. It was being said that they were forced to
work for immense periods for little or no wages, and were
constrained to live in the most vile conditions, while if they
did not obey their masters’ orders, they were visited with
almost unbelievable brutalities. To one of Casement’s
temper, with his fine soul and great love for humanity, such
tales of barbarity were nauseating and he found them diffi¬
cult to credit. However, the evidence that was accumulating
was such that it was impossible not to believe that the
1 See Casement’s Congo Report, Cmd. 1933 of 1904, p. 53.
 THE BIRTH OF THE CONGO FREE STATE 15

conditions on the Congo were of the very worst. These tales

had found their way to England by various channels, and
a campaign was launched, and maintained for years, both
in the country and in Parliament, agitating for better
treatment for the natives of the Congo. Furthermore, the
Government was being bombarded with protests against the
restrictions which had been imposed upon Congo trade,
contrary to the declarations of the Berlin Conference. When
Casement, in 1900, came to the Congo State, he was able to
make himself acquainted, to some extent, with conditions
there.
The volume of reports concerning the horrible conditions
on the Congo was such, and public opinion in England was
so inflamed, that on 8th August, 1903, the Foreign Secretary,
Lord Lansdowne, sent a circular despatch to the English
representatives accredited to the governments who were
parties to the Act of Berlin, for communication to those
governments. This despatch 1 stated that the attention of
the Government had been repeatedly called to the conditions
existing in the Independent State of the Congo, both as
regards the ill-treatment of natives and the existence of trade
monopolies. A distinction was drawn between isolated acts
of cruelty committed by individuals, and a system of ad¬
ministration which involved systematic cruelty and oppres¬
sion. It was pointed out that it had been proved in the local
courts that many acts of cruelty had been committed, but
in view of the conditions, it was fair to assume that the
actual number of cases of cruelty far exceeded the number of
convictions obtained. The despatch concluded by saying
that in view of the grave suspicions regarding the administra¬
tion of the territory which were then prevalent, the Govern¬
ment considered that the time had come when the powers
parties to the Berlin Act should consider whether the system
of trade prevailing in the Independent State of the Congo
was in harmony with the provisions of the Act, and suggested
a reference to The Hague Tribunal.
1 Cmd. 1809 of 1903.
i6 ROGER CASEMENT

The reply of the Government of the Independent State of

the Congo was received on the 21st September, being trans¬
mitted to the Government through the British Ambassador
at Brussels, Sir Constantine Phipps. This reply,1 signed by
M. de Cuvelier, was a lengthy document, and declared that
the Government of the Independent State of the Congo was
in agreement with the British Government on two funda¬
mental points: -that the natives should be treated with
humanity, and that complete freedom of trade should obtain
in the Conventional Basin of the Congo. "|t was denied that
the system of administration in the Congo State was one
of oppression, and so far from admitting that the number of
cases of cruelty was in excess of the number of convictions,
the Government of the Congo State claimed that the
sentences inflicted in the cases that had come into the courts
would prove a deterrent in the future. The note observed
that cruelty was not confined to the Congo State, but was
to be found in all colonies, and went on to say, ‘ The English
note proceeds chiefly on hypotheses and suppositions: “It
was alleged ... It is reported ... It is also reported . . .”
and it even says that “His Majesty’s Government do not
know precisely to what extent these accusations may be true.”
This is an acknowledgment that, in the eyes of the British
Government themselves, the accusations in question are
neither established nor proved. And, indeed, the violence,
the passion, and the improbability of many of these accusa¬
tions must raise doubt in an impartial mind as to their
genuineness.’ Dealing with the British suggestion of a
reference to The Hague Tribunal, the note observed that
every tribunal in the world would refuse to take action, when
the accusations were supported by such flimsy evidence, and
were mainly supposition. The note concluded with a thinly
veiled gibe at the British methods of colonial administration.
A tone of sarcastic impudence prevailed throughout this
note, but the references to lack of adequate evidence left the
Marquess of Lansdowne in no doubt as to what he should
1 Cmd. 1933 of 1904, p. 9.
 THE BIRTH OF THE CONGO FREE STATE 17

do. For the time being no further note was sent to Brussels
by the British Government, for they were awaiting a detailed
report from the Congo regarding the conditions there.
But before this despatch had been sent to the British
Government, Roger Casement was already on the Congo.
He had been sent by Lord Lansdowne to investigate the
conditions there and report upon them as soon as possible,
and his report was now anxiously awaited by the Foreign
Secretary. When the British reply was eventually sent it
was supported by evidence which could not be gainsaid.
It is interesting to note that in January, 1903, the Earl of
Cromer paid a visit to the Belgian stations of Kino and Lado,
on the edge of the Congo State. On 21st January, 1903, he
sent a letter to Lord Lansdowne describing what he had seen
on his journey from Khartoum, and in particular what he
had observed at the two Belgian stations. In the course of
this letter he said:

‘The reason of all this is obvious enough. The Belgians

are disliked. The people fly from them, and it is no wonder
they should do so, for I am informed that the soldiers are
allowed full liberty to plunder, and that payments are
rarely made for supplies. The British officers wander,
practically alone, over most parts of the country, either on
tours of inspection or on shooting expeditions. I under¬
stand that no Belgian officer can move outside the settle¬
ments without a strong guard.
‘ It appears to me that the facts which I have stated above
afford amply sufficient evidence of the spirit which animates
the Belgian administration, if, indeed, administration it
can be called. The Government, so far as I could judge,
is conducted almost exclusively on commercial principles,
and, even judged by that standard, it would appear that
those principles are somewhat short-sighted.’ 1
1 loc. cit., p. 2.

2
 CHAPTER III

THE ENQUIRY IN THE CONGO 1

Accordingly Roger Casement set out on his journey, during

which he was to spend two and a half months on the Upper
Congo. Leaving Matadi on the 5th June, 1903, he arrived
at Leopoldville the following day. By reason of the restric¬
tions and crowded conditions of travel he was forced to
remain in the neighbourhood of Stanley Pool until the
2nd July, and though he chafed at the delay, he spent the
time not unprofitably. His chief fear was that during this
time the Government might have prepared the way for him,
and that in consequence he might not see those things upon
which he had come to report. He spent this enforced delay
in acquainting himself with the conditions obtaining in
Leopoldville and the neighbouring districts. He noticed and
commented upon the well-built and excellently maintained
stations, the fleet of river steamers owned by the Congo
Government, the railways and many other things which
were such an improvement upon the state of affairs during
his previous visit. He also became acquainted with the
incidence and ravages of that terrible scourge, sleeping-
sickness, which was working havoc among the population.
But in his report he attributed the alarming death-rate to
another and more sinister cause as well. The change in the
country since his former visit which struck him most forcibly
was the great reduction in the numbers of the population
Even during his stay at Stanley Pool he obtained a fore-
1 The matenals for this chapter were derived almost exclusively
from Casement’s report, printed in a White Paper, entitled Cone-
sfiondenceand Report from His Majestys Consul at Boma respecting the Admins-
tration of the Independent State of the Congo (Cmd. 1933 of 1904). Many
of the names of persons and places have been suppressed, and letters
are used to indicate them. 11 5 letters
18

I
 THE ENQUIRY IN THE CONGO 19

taste of the conditions which, later, so revolted him. He

found that several workpeople had contracts expressed to be
drawn up at Boma, but none of these people had ever been
to Boma. These contracts were brought to him by their
owners in order that he might tell them how long a period
they still had to serve; and in each case they had only a few
months before they completed the full term of their engage¬
ment of seven years. In three cases there had been an
alteration in the period in the following terms: ‘Je reduis
de sept a cinq ans le terme de service du . . .’ and this
entry was signed by a State Inspector. However, the
Inspector’s successor struck it out and reimposed the term
of seven years, which had almost expired.
He found that the natives of the district were forced to
supply a fixed quantity of the staple food of the district for
the Government staff. This food was a preparation of the
root of the cassava plant, steeped and boiled, and made up
into puddings, and its preparation and transport, which
entailed much labour, was a most unwelcome task for the
natives. The Government station at Leopoldville, in so far
as it concerned Europeans, Casement found to be well built
and efficiently run, but the provision made for the native
population nauseated him, and the condition of the native
hospital profoundly shocked him. ‘The native hospital—
not, I am given to understand, through the fault of the local
medical staff—is, however, an unseemly place. When I visited
the three mud huts which serve this purpose, all of them
dilapidated, and two with the thatched roofs almost gone, I
found seventeen sleeping-sickness patients, male and female,
lying about in the utmost dirt. Most of them were lying on
the bare ground—several out on the pathway in front of the
houses, and one, a woman, had fallen into the fire just prior
to my arrival (while in the final, insensible stage of the
disease), and had burned herself very badly. She had since
been well bandaged, but was still lying out on the ground
with her head almost in the fire, and while I sought to speak
to her, in turning, she upset a pot of scalding water over her
20 ROGER CASEMENT

shoulder. All of the seventeen persons I saw were near their

end, and on my second visit, two days later, the 19th June,
I found one of them lying dead out in the open.’ 1 He was
much struck by the contrast between the neglected state
of the native people and the ‘brightness, care, order and
activity ’ that was to be found in the Government workshops.
One of his special duties was to enquire into the manner
in which the Congo Government was upholding its pledge
to maintain freedom of trade on the Congo, and the
results of his investigations in this direction were certainly
disquieting. ‘ The various companies carrying on operations
on the Upper Congo,’ he wrote in his report, ‘and who hold
concessions from the Congo Government, are bound, I was
told, by Conventions to abstain from carrying, save within
the limits of their concessions, either goods or passengers.
This interdiction extends to their own merchandise and to
their own agents. Should they carry, by reason of imperative
need, outside these limits any of their own goods or their own
people, they are bound to pay to Congo Government either
the freight or passage money according to the Government
tariff, just as though the goods or passengers had been
conveyed on one of the Government vessels. The tariff upon
goods and passengers carried along the interior waterways
is a fairly high one, not perhaps excessive under the circum¬
stances, but still one that, by reason of this virtual monopoly
can produce a yearly revenue which must go far towards
maintaining the Government flotilla. By the estimates for
1902, published in the Bulletin Officiel of January this year
the transport service is credited with a production of
3,100,000 fr. of public revenue for 1902, while the expendi¬
ture for the same year is put at 2,023,376 fr.’ 2 it was due
to those restrictions and the consequent delay that Casement
had to postpone his departure to the Upper Congo for
nearly a month. Through the good offices of a Director of
the Soctete Anonyme Beige du Haut-Congo he was given a
I ,Cmd- J933 of 1904, p. 23.
■ loc. Clt., p. 24.
 THE ENQUIRY IN THE CONGO 21

passage, as a guest, in one of that company’s steamers, but

even so, special governmental permission had to be sought
before this courtesy could be extended to him. He goes on,
in his report, to give particular instances of this type of
restriction.1
These instances seemed to give complete justification for
the words of Lord Lansdowne, when he wrote, in a despatch
for communication to the Signatory Powers to the Berlin
Act: ‘ Article I of the Berlin Act provides that the trade of
all nations shall enjoy complete freedom in the basin of
the Congo; and Article V provides that no Power which
exercises sovereign rights in the basin shall be allowed to
grant therein a monopoly or favour of any kind in matters
of trade. In the opinion of His Majesty’s Government, the
system of trade now existing in the Independent State of the
Congo is not in harmony with these provisions.’ 2 Casement
found that no firewood for the ships might be cut by the
trading companies within half-an-hour’s steaming distance
of any of the Government wooding posts, which were the
best available sites for their purpose, and that to cut wood
elsewhere a licence costing 10,000 fr. in the case of the
President Urban was necessary.
On the 2nd July Casement left Leopoldville, and after a
journey of 160 miles, arrived at F*, which he had visited
previously in 1887. Here, during his four days’ stay, he
found that the population had been reduced from 5,000 to
little more than 500. The natives of this district were forced,
for no remuneration, to keep the telegraph line running
through the district, clear of undergrowth. Some of the
natives had to come twenty or more miles from their homes,
and they found it difficult to feed themselves while engaged
upon this compulsory task. In addition to this the in¬
habitants of the F* villages had to supply about a ton of
carefully prepared food each week, comprising 380 kwanga
(or cassava puddings), for which they were paid one brass
1 loc. cit., p. 24.
2 Cmd. 1809 of 1903, p. 2.
22 ROGER CASEMENT

rod 1 per kwanga, giving an equivalent of 19 fr. in all for

the week’s supply of food. This food requisition was levied
for the wood-cutters of the local post and was far in excess
of their requirements, the excess being sold to passing vessels.
Furthermore, the wood-cutters, although working com¬
pulsorily and sometimes irregularly detained, were properly
paid, and this gave rise to a genuine grievance and sense of
wrong on the part of the villagers. ‘ These people said:
“How can we possibly plant and weed our gardens, seek
and prepare and boil the cassava, make it into portable
shape, and then carry it nearly a day’s journey to the post?
Moreover, if the kwanga we make are a little small or not
well cooked, or if we complain that the rods given us in
settlement are too short, as they sometimes are, then we are
beaten by the wood-cutters, and sometimes we are detained
several days to cut firewood as a punishment.” ’ 2 Casement
records with satisfaction the complete disappearance of slave¬
trading, but he noted that with it had disappeared much
that was not reprehensible in the native life. He noted that
continual pressure was necessary in order to obtain the
provisions of kwanga and so forth, and that this pressure
sometimes took the form of armed expeditions. Writing of
one such expedition, which had been sent to a district in
which the natives had been backward in sending goats and
fowls, he said: ‘ The result of this expedition, which took
place towards the end of 1900, was that in fourteen small
villages traversed seventeen persons disappeared. Sixteen
of these whose names were given to me were killed by the
soldiers, and their bodies recovered by their friends, and one
was reported missing. Of those killed eleven were men,
three women, and one boy child of five years. Ten persons
were tied up and taken away as prisoners, but were released
on payment of sixteen goats by their friends, except one,
a child, who died at Bolobo. In addition 48 goats were
taken away and 225 fowls; several houses were burned, and
1 Brass rods were the native currency.
2 Cmd. 1933 of 1904, p. 25.
 THE ENQUIRY IN THE CONGO 23

a quantity of their owners’ property either pillaged or

destroyed.’1 The damage done was estimated at 71,730
brass rods (3,586 fr.),2 and as a result of representations
made to the Inspecteur d’Ltat at Leopoldville, compensation
was paid to the villages to the extent of 18,000 brass rods
(950 fr0-
Casement spent ten days at Bolobo waiting for a steamer,
and he found a similar state of affairs prevailing there.
What the natives most bitterly complained of, and what was
having the most deleterious effect upon them, was the
irregular manner in which the compulsory labour was called
for. A regular tax or requisition they did not so much mind,
for they could prepare to meet it and govern their lives
accordingly, but sudden and unexpected labour tasks threw
them into utter confusion and disorganised their whole
method of living. Casement writes: ‘ The labour required
did not seem to be excessive, but it would seem to be
irregularly called for, unequally distributed, and only poorly
remunerated, or sometimes not remunerated at all.’3 At
Bolobo a large wooden pier for the Government vessels had
been constructed by means of native labour. Even in its
uncompleted state some 2,000 trees had been used in its
construction. These trees had to be cut down and most of
them carried some miles, many of them being extremely
heavy, and for this very onerous work the natives received no
remuneration whatever. Moreover, the pier, under the
supervision of Government officials, was so badly constructed
that the first annual rise of the river would have swept most
of it away. At a village some four or five miles from the
Government post, Casement was told that the inhabitants
(some forty adult males with their families) had to supply
1,250 pounds of food weekly for which a payment of 400
rods (20 fr.) was made. When they were unable themselves
1 loc. cit., p. 26.
2 This cannot be regarded as excessive, as 3 chiefs were among those
killed, and for whom 1,000 brass rods (50 fr.) per head were asked ;
goats were valued at 400 rods (20 fr.) each.
3 Cmd. 1933 of 1904, p. 27.
24 ROGER CASEMENT

to produce sufficient cassava, they bought it in the local

market in its unprepared state for a price just twice that
which they received for the prepared article. In addition,
the village had to supply canoe paddlers, labourers both
male and female, timber gatherers and wood-cutters. Alto¬
gether this small village seems to have been in a parlous
condition, sleeping-sickness and smallpox being rife. The
natives’ resistance to disease was seriously lowered owing
to their lack of proper food by reason of the Government
requisitions.
While at Bolobo Casement heard that a large influx from
the I* district (comprising the ‘Domaine de la Couronne’)
had taken place into the country behind G*, and thither he
at once repaired, a journey of some twenty miles. He found
that these people had fled from the white men and taken up
their abode with their friends. ‘ They went on to declare,
when asked why they had fled, that they had endured such
ill-treatment at the hands of the Government officials and
the Government soldiers in their own country that life had
become intolerable, that nothing had remained for them at
home but to be killed for failure to bring in a certain amount
of rubber or to die from starvation or exposure in their
attempts to satisfy the demands made upon them. The
statements made to me by these people were of such a nature
that I could not believe them to be true. The fact remained,
however, that they had certainly abandoned their homes
and all that they possessed, had travelled a long distance,
and now preferred a species of mild servitude among the
K* to remaining in their own country.’ 1 He found these
unfortunate refugees industrious and peaceable folk, engaged
m various trades. Casement, followed by his bultdog
entered one of the blacksmiths’ sheds in which were working
ten women, six men and five lads and girls, and sat down
when five men ceased work and came over to speak to him
He asked them why they had left their homes, and sitting
there in that rude hut, carefully and patiently he took notes
1 loc. cit., p. 29.
 THE ENQUIRY IN THE CONGO 25

of their answers, repeatedly asking for certain parts to be

gone over again. They all gave as a reason for leaving
their homes, that it was the rubber tax, levied by the Govern¬
ment posts. They were referring to the system, which was
prevalent, whereby the natives were forced to bring in
certain definite quantities of rubber a week. The rubber
was not paid for, nor was the labour of collecting it, and if
the natives failed to bring in their quota they were severely
punished. No effort was made on the part of the authorities
to conserve the rubber supply, with the consequence that the
rubber-gathering labours of the natives became increasingly
more difficult and burdensome. When Casement asked
them if they would like to return home, they said that they
loved their country but they dared not return home.
At another group of houses an old chief gave him further
details of the iniquities practised by the white men, the
Belgian administrators. He told Casement that the natives
were sent out to get rubber, and if they returned with an
insufficient amount a European officer would stand them
in lines, one behind the other, and shoot them, all with one
bullet. This took place actually in the stations of the
Europeans, and more often than not, was done by white men.
In all the districts round about Casement gathered further
evidence of the abominable conditions in which the natives
were forced to live and work, and his soul must have revolted
within him. But in the later part of his journey he came
across things even more unspeakable than anything of which
hitherto he had knowledge. That his experiences during
his Congo journey had a profound and lasting effect on him
we are well aware from his diaries and letters to his friends,
but we can only vaguely guess what this effect must have
been. Reading the cold print of Casement s report to-day
is disturbing enough, but to have heard the oral testimony
and to have seen the living evidence must have been a rare
torture to one of Casement’s temper and sensitiveness.
A few days after his visit to these refugees, Casement
received two letters which, later, formed an appendix to his
 q6 ROGER CASEMENT

report. The writer of the first of these letters, when describ¬

ing the condition of the natives, said, ‘M N told me that
when he took over the station at EE* from D E he visited
the prison, and almost fainted, so horrible was the condition
of the place and the poor wretches in it. He told me of
many things he had heard of from the soldiers. Of D E
shooting with his own hand man after man who had come
with an insufficient quantity of rubber. Of his putting
several one behind the other and shooting them all with one
cartridge. Those who accompanied me, also heard from the
soldiers many frightful stories and abundant confirmation of
what was told us at N* about the taking to D E of the organs
of the men slain by the sentries of the various posts. I saw a
letter from the present officer at FF* to M N, in which he
upbraids him for not using more vigorous means, telling him
to talk less and shoot more, and reprimanding him for not
killing more than one in a district under his care where there
was a little trouble. M N is due in Belgium in about three
months, and says he will land one day and begin denouncing
his predecessor the next.’ i The second letter writer says
speaking of a Government post, ‘It was here a white man,
known by the name of D E lived-He came to the dis¬
trict, and, after seven months of diabolical work, left it a
waste. Some of the stories current about him are not fit
to record here, but the native evidence is so consistent and
so universal that it is difficult to disbelieve that murder and
rapine on a large scale were carried on here. His successor
a man of different nature, and much liked by the people’
after more than two and a half years has succeeded in
winning back to the side of the State post a few natives, and
there 1 saw them in their wretched little huts, hardly able
to cal their lives their own m the presence of the new white
man (myself) whose coming among them had set them all
a-wondenng. And the same writer, after giving native
versions of the most fearful abominations, says, ‘And looking
around on the scene of desolation, on the untended farm!
1 loc. cit., p. 63.
 THE ENQUIRY IN THE CONGO 27

and neglected palms, one could not but believe that in the
main the story was true. From State sentries came informa¬
tion and particulars even more horrifying, and the evidence
of a white man as to the state of the country—the unspeak¬
able condition of the prisons at the State posts—all combined
to convince me over and over again that, during the last
seven years, this “domaine prive ” of King Leopold has been
a veritable “hell on earth.” ’1
Casement had been able to secure a small steam-launch
for his private use, which lightened his task to a small extent,
and in this launch he left Bolobo on the 23rd July. He
touched at several points on the French shore and on the
25th he arrived at Lukolela, where he spent two days. This
district, during Casement’s previous visit, had a population
of about 5,000; at his visit in 1903 the population had sunk
to less than 600. Writing of this he says, ‘The reasons given
to me for their decline in numbers were similar to those
furnished elsewhere, viz., sleeping-sickness, general ill-health,
insufficiency of food, and the methods employed to obtain
labour from them by local officials and the exactions levied
on them. The Lukolela district furnishes a small supply of
rubber, which is required by the Local Government posts
to be brought in at fixed periods as a general contribution.
Food—“kwanga” and fish—is also required of the river¬
side dwellers. The towns I visited were very ill-kept and
tumble-down, and bore no comparison, either in the class of
dwelling-houses now adopted or in the extent of cultivated
ground around them, to the condition in which these people
formerly dwelt.’2 On his way back to Stanley Pool, towards
the end of his mission, he called in at Lukolela on the 12th
September, and the local missionary, the Rev. John White-
head, gave Casement copies of two letters which he had
written to the Governor-General of the Congo State, con¬
cerning the state of the natives and the treatment meted out
to them. These letters themselves are a formidable indict¬
ment of the Government, and Casement added them as an
1 loc. cit., p. 64. 2 l°c< ch'j P- 29-
28 ROGER CASEMENT

appendix to his report.1 Mr. Whitehead, speaking of the

prevalence of sleeping-sickness, attributed the natives’ lack
of resistance to the disease in great part as due to their
conditions of iife and to the treatment meted out to them by
the Belgian officials, and he gave it as his opinion that if
nothing was done to give them heart and remove their fear,
‘conditions which generate fruitfully morbid conditions and
proneness to attack of disease,’ it would not be long before
there was no population left at all.
From Lukolela, Casement went on to O* and its adjoining
villages. The population of this place on his previous visit
in 1887 had been 4,000 to 5,000. But when he visited it the
second time, he found that the village had completely dis¬
appeared, and was occupied by a large ‘ camp d’instruction ’
in which native soldiers were drilled by a Commandant and
a small staff of European officers. There were, in different
parts of the country, several of these ‘ camps d’instruction ’
in which the Congo Government trained its soldiers. This
‘Force Publique’ numbered about 18,000 and was composed
of black men of an extremely savage disposition. It was
used mainly for coercing the natives and for punitive
expeditions against the natives, although its ostensible
purpose was the protection of property. It was officially
prescribed that no detachment of the ‘ Force Publique ’ was
to proceed on military operations unless there was a white
officer; 2 but this ordinance was hardly ever observed, and
when an expedition was sent against the natives, the detach¬
ment was usually commanded by a black non-commissioned
officer, with the result that awful barbarities ensued.
O* is near Irebu, and from Irebu Casement went on to
Ikoko, on the shore of Lake Mantumba. He spent seventeen
days on Lake Mantumba, visiting the districts and tribes in
the neighbourhood. Lake Mantumba is a large stretch of
water, some thirty miles long and fifteen broad, and sur¬
rounded by a dense forest. Cannibalism was still practised
by some of the tribes in the neighbourhood of the lake,
loc. cit., p. 64. 2 joc> p. 8I#
 THE ENQUIRY IN THE CONGO 2Q

although it had been repressed. The Mantumba people, in

former days, had been very active as fishermen, going out for
long fishing expeditions in their canoes, but all this had
ceased by the time of Casement’s visit. Most of the canoes
had been taken by Government officials and little or no
payment made for them. If the natives complained they
were beaten. Casement was told that one of the Govern¬
ment officials of the district had been ‘ making war ’ on one
of the towns for failure of the food supply, and had taken
many prisoners. Many women, thus rendered homeless,
were distributed as wives. Casement wrote in his report,
‘ The population of the Lake-side towns would seem to have
diminished within the last ten years by 60 or 70 per cent.’ 1
In 1893 the Government had levied an india-rubber imposi¬
tion on the district, but this was abandoned after some years
when it was found that the collection of the rubber was
almost impossible. Instead the natives were forced to
deliver a food supply. In addition, each village had to bring
to the Government station about 6^ tons of gum-copal per
annum. One village, after bringing in a quarter of a ton
of gum-copal, was paid one piece of blue drill.2 Writing in
his report of the collection of gum-copal, Casement says,
‘The value of the annual payment in gum-copal made by
each town would seem to be about 3601., while at an average
of 9 fr. as the remuneration each receives fortnightly, they
would appear to receive some 10/., in annual return.’3
Casement also visited Montaka on the lake, and it seemed to
him that almost the whole of the population was engaged in
the task of preparing the gum-copal for shipment to Bikoro,
and in getting ready their yield of fish for the same place.
He calculated that the equivalent wages which a Montaka
native received for a year’s labour was U. A.d. At yet another
village the natives had to deliver their quantity of food¬
stuffs and a number of baskets also, which were used for the

1 loc. cit., p. 31.

2 The local value of this, after adding the cost of transport, was 1 \\ fr.
3 Ctnd. 1933 of 1904, p. 31.
 ROGER CASEMENT
30
transport of the gum-copal. The workers of this village
complained that often they were paid with reels of sewing
cotton and shirt buttons. ‘As these natives go almost
entirely naked,’ wrote Casement, ‘I could believe that
neither thread nor shirt buttons were of much service to
them.’ 1 The remuneration of the natives was dealt with by
instructions in the Bulletin Ojficiel, but it was clear that long
before Casement arrived, these instructions had ceased to be
observed. It is worthy of note that many of the rules and
regulations which Casement quotes in his report seem to
have been unobserved for some time.
Casement writes in his report, ‘A careful investigation of
the conditions of native life around the lake confirmed the
truth of the statements made to me—that the great decrease
in population, the dirty and ill-kept towns, and the complete
absence of goats, sheep, or fowls—once very plentiful in this
country—were to be attributed above all else to the con¬
tinued effort made during many years to compel the natives
to work india-rubber. Large bodies of native troops had
formerly been quartered in the district, and the punitive
measures undertaken to this end had endured for a con¬
siderable period. During the course of these operations
there had been much loss of life, accompanied, I fear, by a
somewhat general mutilation of the dead, as proof that the
soldiers had done their duty.’ 2 In the Upper Congo, fear
of the white man was widespread among the natives. When
Casement approached one village, all the inhabitants took
to their heels and fled into the forest, snatching up and
carrying with them whatever property they could, and the 1
women carrying their babies. It was with great difficulty
that Casement managed to restore confidence among them,
and when he asked them why they had run away at his
approach, they answered smilingly, ‘We thought you were
Bula Matadi.’3 Fear of this kind seemed to be quite general
in the Lake Mantumba district, but its existence was scarcely
1 loc. cit., p. 32. 2 loc. cit., p. 33.
3 i.e. men of the Government.
 THE ENQUIRY IN THE CONGO 31

to be wondered at, in view of the frightful atrocities com¬

mitted during the period of the rubber wars which began in
j893. In this year the Congo Government started to
compel the natives to collect rubber, and in ten years’ time
all the districts around Mantumba were decimated. The
manner in which these wars were conducted was, in most
cases, extremely revolting. When a band of the black
soldiery was sent to make war upon a village in order to
force it to yield a supply of rubber, only in very few instances
was a white officer placed in charge, ‘so that there was
nothing to keep them from awful excesses.’ Casement made
many enquiries into the nature of these wars and several
statements made to him are included in his report; others,
he records, were unfit for repetition. There is reproduced
here one such statement.

‘U U’s Statement.
‘When we began to run away from the fight we ran away
many times. They did not catch me because I was with
mother and father. Afterwards mother died; four days
passed, father died also. I and an older sister were left
with two younger children, and then the fighting came
where I had run to. Then my elder sister called me:
“U U, come here.” I went. She said: “Let us run
away, because we have not any one to take care of us.”
When we were running away we saw a lot of WW* people
coming towards us. We told them to run away, war was
coming. They said: “Is it true? ” We said: “It is true;
they are coming.” The WW* people said: “We will
not run away; we did not see the soldiers.” Only a little
while they saw the soldiers and they were killed. We
stayed in a town named XX*. A male relative called me:
“U U, let us go”; but I did not want to. The soldiers
came there; I ran away by myself: when I ran away I
hid in the bush. While I was running I met an old man
who was running from a soldier. H (the soldier) fired a
gun. I was not hit, but the old man died. Afterwards
they caught me and two men. The soldiers asked: “Have
32 ROGER CASEMENT

you a father and mother?” I answered, “No.” They said

to me, “If you do not tell us we will kill you.” I said:
“Father and mother are dead.” After that my oldest sister
was caught, too, in the bush, and they left my little brother
and sister alone in the bush to die, because heavy rain came
on, and they had not anything to eat for days and days. At
night they tied my hands and feet for fear that I should
run away. In the morning they caught three people—
two had children; they killed the children. Afterwards
I was standing outside, and a soldier asked me, “Where
are you going?” I said, “I am going home.” He said,
“Come on.” He took his gun; he put me in the house; he
wanted to kill me. Then another soldier came and took me.
We heard a big noise; they told us the fighting was over
but it was not so. When we were going on the way they
killed ten children because they were very, very small;
they killed them in the water. Then they killed a lot of
people, and they cut off their hands and put them into
baskets and took them to the white man. He counted out
the hands—200 in all; they left the hands lying. The
white man’s name was C D. After that C D sent us prisoners
with soldiers to P* to ST. ST told me to weed the grass.
When I was working outside a soldier came and said:
“Come here ”; and when I went he wanted to cut my hand
off, and so I went to the white man to tell him, and he
thrashed the soldier.
‘On our way, when we were coming to P*, the soldiers
saw a little child, and when they went to kill it the child
laughed, so the soldier took the butt of the gun and struck
the child with it, and then cut off its head. One day they
killed my half-sister and cut off her head, hands, and feet
because she had on rings. Her name was 0,0,0,. Then
they caught another sister, and they sold her to the WW*
people, and now she is a slave there. When we came to P*
the white man said to send word to the friends of the prisoners
to come with goats to buy off some of their relatives. A lot
were bought off, but I had no one to come and buy me off
because father was dead. The white man said to me,
“You shall go to . . . ” The white man (ST) gave me
a small boy to care for, but I thought he would be killed,
 THE ENQUIRY IN THE CONGO 33

so I helped to get him away. ST asked me to bring the

boy to him, but I said: “He has run away.” He said he
would kill me, but . . .

‘ (Signed) U U.
‘ Signed by U U before me,
‘Roger Casement.
‘ His Britannic Majesty’s Consul.’1

While in the Lake Mantumba district Casement came

across several cases where the natives had been mutilated
by having their hands cut off. And he heard of many more
such cases. The details of one case he deals with are
peculiarly repellent. In the course of a raid by the soldiery,
under the command of a European officer, a number of
native prisoners were taken. They were tied up tightly by
the wrists with native rope and left out in the open. It was
raining hard, and in consequence the thongs contracted and
their hands swelled. In some cases the thongs had cut into the
bone. The hands of one native were so swollen as to be quite
useless, and the soldiers, seeing this, beat his hands against
a tree with a rifle. When he was released his hands dropped
off. All the while this ghastly business was in progress a
white man was not far away, drinking palm-wine, and could
see what was being done. At another village Casement
found a boy of about twelve years old with his right hand
missing. As far as Casement could ascertain, it had been
cut off about five years previously. Writing of the case of
this child, Casement says, ‘His father and mother were
killed beside him. He saw them killed and a bullet hit him
and he fell. He here showed me a deep cicatrised scar at
the back of the head, just at the nape of the neck, and said
it was there the bullet had struck him. He fell down,
presumably insensible, but came to his senses white his hand
was being hacked off at the wrist. I asked how it was he
could possibly lie silent and give no sign. He answered that
he felt the cutting, but was afraid to move, knowing that he
1 Cmd. 1933 of 1904, p. 75.
3
34 ROGER CASEMENT

would be killed if he showed any sign of life.’1 Casement

was able to make some provision for this poor child. This
mutilation of human bodies seems to us excessively revolting,
and Casement says of it, ‘ Of acts of persistent mutilation by
Government soldiers of this nature I had many statements
made to me, some of them specifically, others in a general
way. Of the fact of this mutilation and the causes inducing
it there can be no shadow of doubt. It was not a native
custom prior to the coming of the white man; it was not the
outcome of the primitive instincts of savages in their fights
between village and village; it was the deliberate act of the
soldiers of a European Administration, and these men them¬
selves never made any concealment that in committing these
acts they were but obeying the positive orders of their
superiors. I obtained several specific instances of this
practice of mutilation having been carried out in the town
of Q* itself, when the Government soldiers had come across
from P* to raid it or compel its inhabitants to work.’ 1
Casement found that in almost every district of the Congo
State a form of taxation (of a very oppressive nature, be it
said) was levied upon the native population. They were
required to furnish food of various sorts, rubber and other
goods, to the Government posts, payment for which was
extremely inadequate and, in many cases, non-existent.
Any failure to complete the requisition levied upon them
was punished by summary arrest and imprisonment and, in
some cases, forced labour. It may be noted that Casement
was unable to discover any legal authority for such punish¬
ments. If the shirking of this form of taxation was individual,
the shirker was arrested and imprisoned, if that was possible;
if not, someone else was imprisoned. But if the shirking
became general, then punitive measures were undertaken
against the refractory community. ‘Where these do not
end in fighting, loss of life and destruction of native property,’
wrote Casement of these punitive measures, ‘ they entail very
heavy fines which are levied on the defaulting village.’ 2
1 loc. cit., p. 77. 2 loc> citj p_ 35?
 THE ENQUIRY IN THE CONGO 35

From Lake Mantumba Casement went on to the neigh¬

bourhood of Coquilhatville, where he spent five days. Here
again he found the population much reduced and broken
up, and altogether overburdened by the taxes and levies.
With incessant imprisoning for shortage of supplies, the
number of males to do the required work and to obtain the
necessary food, rubber, and so forth, was becoming very
small, and some villages had only five men in them.
On the 21 st August Casement visited W*, as he had heard
that an especially severe fine had been levied on the town.
The upper end of the town had to supply 100 rations of
kwanga weekly, and thirty fowls at a longer interval. In
addition they had to take 1 o fathoms of wood each week to
the local wooding post, which was more often than not unpaid
for, and the women had to work twice a week in the Govern¬
ment coffee plantation near the wooding post. The population
of the whole town was about 600 all told. When Casement
arrived he found considerable activity, getting ready the
firewood. He found that at the beginning of the year a
punitive expedition had been sent against the town, and
the inhabitants fled. On being persuaded to return, the
principal men were at once tied up to trees and told that
they would be punished. The European officer commanding
the expedition required, as a punishment, that 25 men
should be furnished for Government service. These 25 men
were taken away and had not since been heard of. The
officer, as a further punishment, then imposed a fine of
55,000 brass rods (2,750 fr. or -£i 10). As the natives had no
means wherewith to raise this sum they were forced to sell
their wives and children. Many of these people came to
Casement with their tale of woe, begging him to effect the
return of their relatives, and in at least two instances he
managed to bring about the return of children to their
parents. In another village Casement found that a fine
(20,000 rods or 1,000 fr.) was in the course of collection, and
of this 6,000 rods was to be paid by W*, which had not
recovered from its previous and larger fine. The men of
36 ROGER CASEMENT

W* begged him to intercede for them, and Casement records

that ‘one of them—a strong, indeed a splendid-looking man
—broke down and wept, saying that their lives were useless
to them, and that they knew of no means of escape from the
troubles which were gathering round them.’ 1 All these
fines were quite illegal, and seem to have been imposed at
the caprice of some Government official. Moreover, they
never found their way into the public revenues, but were
spent as the official pleased.
From Coquilhatville and its neighbouring villages, Case¬
ment went to the Lulongo River, one of the most productive
of the rubber districts. The Lulongo is formed by the two
great feeder rivers, the Lopori and the Maringa, each about
350 miles long, and uniting at Bassankusu, 120 miles above
the place where the Lulongo enters the Congo. The basins
of these two rivers formed the concession known as the
A. B. I. R. This concession had numerous stations and a
large European staff. It was actively engaged in exploiting
the rubber industry, and its output of rubber was very large,
being in value some £150,000 a year. The A. B. I. R. had
a large force of sentinels (‘ forest guards ’) armed with cap-
guns, and these forest guards were quartered in the native
villages to ensure that the inhabitants brought in the proper
quantity of rubber. The regulations regarding the employ¬
ment of armed men by the concession companies do not
seem to have been well observed. In a number of instances
the concession companies seem to have waged war exten¬
sively against the natives on their own account. Casement
had a conversation on this subject with ‘a gentleman of
experience, and in the course of this conversation the
gentleman produced a diary in which Casement found the
following entry:

‘M.P. called on us to get out of the rain, and in con¬

versation with M.Q. in the presence of myself and R.,
said: “The only way to get rubber is to fight for it. The

1 loc. cit., p. 41,

 THE ENQUIRY IN THE CONGO 37

natives are paid 35 centimes per kilog., it is claimed, but

that includes a large profit on the cloth; the amount of
rubber is controlled by the number of guns, and not the
number of bales of cloth. The S. A. B. on the Bussira, with
150 guns, get only 10 tons (rubber) a-month; we, the
State, at Momboyo, with 130 guns, get 13 tons per month.”
“So you count by guns?” I asked him. “Partout,” M.P.
said. “Each time the corporal goes out to get rubber
cartridges are given to him. He must bring back all not
used; and for every one used, he must bring back a right
hand.” M.P. told me that sometimes they shot a cartridge
at an animal in hunting; they cut off a hand from a living
man. As to the extent to which this is carried on, he
informed that in six months they, the State, on the Momboyo
River, had used 6,000 cartridges, which means that 6,000
people are killed or mutilated. It means more than 6,ooos
for the people have told me repeatedly that the soldiers
kill children with the butt of their guns.’ 1

It appeared that the M.P. referred to was an officer in the

Government service.
Casement, in his report, notes with satisfaction the
absence of slave-dealing and cannibalism, which were so
prevalent when he had visited the district in the past, but
his opinion was that the methods employed to eradicate
these savage practices were themselves of a very savage
nature, and that the methods of obtaining recruits for the
public service were no better than those formerly used to
obtain slaves.
In a neighbouring concession, La Lulanga, Casement
found very similar conditions. This district was regarded
as one of the free-trading districts, but, as usual, the general
transport was performed by Government ships. The La
Lulanga, although it did not enjoy rights of police, as did
some other concessions, nevertheless maintained a large
number of ‘forest guards,’ whose sole duty was to compel
by force the collection of rubber. Previous to the operations
of the La Lulanga Society, the district had been compre-
1 loc. cit., p. 43.
38 ROGER CASEMENT

hensively handled by two of the larger concession companies,

so that the district was almost exhausted and the stock of
rubber vines coming to an end. In consequence it was only
with the greatest difficulty that the natives could produce
sufficient rubber to satisfy the La Lulanga Society, and the
‘forest guards,’ in performing their function, had committed
gross offences which went unpunished. The conditions that
Casement encountered in this territory were, perhaps, worse
than anything which he had hitherto met, and most of the
evils seemed to spring from the activities of the ‘forest
guards.’ The number of these armed guards was far in
excess of what was needed for the legitimate purpose of
protecting Europeans and their property. Men, women and
children were tied up, and in each trading-post there was
maintained a local prison, called a ‘maison des otages,’
where natives were imprisoned for long periods, needless to
say, without any sort of trial or enquiry. The explanations
of all this offered to Casement were neither self-consistent
nor consistent with one another.
At a village up the Lulongo River Casement found the
natives in a desperate plight. There was no rubber to be
obtained, yet the La Lulanga Society continued to force
them to supply it. The village was much depopulated,
and there was no livestock anywhere, whereas a few years
previously the village had been full of people and well
stocked with sheep, goats, ducks and fowls. Casement was
only able to count ten men with their families, who were
living in wretched huts in the utmost distress.
Casement wished to visit a village unexpectedly, so that
his coming might be unheralded. Accordingly, he went in
his steamer to the village of A**, lying somewhat off the
beaten track. Here the first thing he came upon was two
sentries guarding fifteen women, five of whom had infants
at the breast and three others were about to become mothers.
One of the sentries, believing Casement to be a missionary,
gave an explanation of these women’s incarceration. Most
of the women, the sentry said, had been caught and detained
 THE ENQUIRY IN THE CONGO 39

in order to compel their husbands to bring in their quota of

rubber on the next market-day. When Casement asked the
sentry why he caught the women since the collection of
rubber was a man’s work, he replied, ‘Don’t you see, if I
caught and kept the men, who would work the rubber?
But if I catch their wives, the husbands are anxious to have
them home again, and so the rubber is brought quickly and
quite up to the mark.’ The sentry explained that he made
the chief of A* * provide their food, and that he caught the
women at the direction of his employers. Casement asked
him if he had any use for the shot-gun he was carrying, and
he said that it had been given to him by the white man ‘ to
frighten people and make them bring in rubber,’ but that
he had never otherwise used it. The two sentries at A**
were complete masters of the town, and no one thought of
disobeying them.
At nightfall, the fifteen unfortunate women were tied
together, neck to neck or ankle to ankle, and left, trying to
huddle round the fire. In the morning one of the sentries
discovered that Casement was not a missionary and went
off to inform his employers of the appearance of a strange
white man.
From A** Casement went to Bongandanga, a station of
the A. B. I. R. Company, and arrived there on the 29th
August, after a journey of some 130 miles up the Lopori
River, a tributary of the Lulongo. He found all the houses
there were well constructed and were all made of materials
supplied by the natives. ‘Building materials,’ Casement
wrote, ‘ of all kinds from very heavy timber to roofing mats
and native string to tie these on with are provided by the
natives; but their services in supplying these indispensable
adjuncts to civilised existence do not appear to be every¬
where equally remunerated. At Bongandanga I saw thirty-
three large tree trunks, each of which could not have
weighed less than J a ton, some of them nearer 1 ton, which,
I was told, had been felled and carried in by the natives for
his \i.e. an agent of the company’s] use in building a new
40 ROGER CASEMENT

house. He explained that as the natives came in from different

districts fortnightly, and then had only to carry very small
baskets of india-rubber, this additional burden was imposed
upon them, but that this was one reserved for unwilling
workers of india-rubber. It was, in fact, one of the punish¬
ments for backward “recolteurs.” ’1 In the local ‘maison
des otages5 at Bongandanga, Casement found many natives,
and at this village he was able to watch carefully the ‘market,’
as one was in progress when he arrived. All the natives in the
market were guarded by armed natives. Of the methods of
obtaining the rubber, Casement says, ‘ I went to the homes
of these men some miles away and found out their circum¬
stances. To get the rubber they had first to go fully a two
days’journey from their homes, leaving their wives, and being
absent for from five to six days. They were seen to the forest
limits under guard, and if not back by the sixth day trouble
was likely to ensue. To get the rubber in the forests—which
generally speaking are very swampy—involves much fatigue
and often fruitless searching for a well-flowing vine. As the
area of supply diminishes, moreover, the demand for rubber
constantly increases. Some little time back I learned the
Bongandanga district supplied 7 tons of rubber a-month, a
quantity which it was hoped would shortly be increased to
10 tons. The quantity of rubber brought by the three men
in question would have represented, probably, for the three
of them certainly not less than 7 kilog. of pure rubber.
That would be a very safe estimate, and at an average of
7 fr. per kilog. they might be said to have brought in 21.
worth of rubber. In return for this labour, or imposition,
they had received goods which cost certainly under is., and
whose local valuation came to 45 rods (is. iod.). As this
process repeats itself twenty-six times a year, it will be seen
that they would have received in return some 24^. or 25^.
worth of goods, which had a market value on the spot of
2l. 7s. 8d. In addition to these formal payments they were
liable at times to be dealt with in another manner, for should
1 loc. cit., p. 47.
 THE ENQUIRY IN THE CONGO 41
their work, which might have been just as hard, have proved
less profitable in its yield of rubber, the local prison would
have seen them. The people everywhere assured me that
they were not happy under this system, and it was apparent
to a callous eye that in this they spoke the strict truth.’ 1
In September Casement paid a friendly visit to one of the
natives who lived in a village a few miles from the A. B. I. R.
factory at Bongandanga. On the way there he encountered
several sentries armed with revolvers and guns, and at one
spot he found two soldiers settling a ‘palaver’ among the
natives. It was a common practice amongst these men to
use their authority for their own interests, levying blackmail
and compelling payment for their ‘judicial ’ decisions, and
interfering in the domestic affairs of the natives. Casement’s
friendly visit to this native caused great annoyance to the
Company’s officials, and Casement later learned that his
host had been arrested and taken to the A. B. I. R. factory,
as it was said that he had been telling lies about the treat¬
ment accorded the natives by the Company. Two of his
wives and one of his children had fled for refuge to the
mission station. Shortly afterwards a native came to
Casement bitterly complaining of the treatment he had to
endure. Some sentries had arrived to arrest a certain chief
on account of a meat shortage and his people had gathered
round him to protect him. Whereupon the sentries killed
one man and severely wounded in the thigh the one who
was complaining to Casement. An enquiry was held into
this outrage and the offending sentry was removed, but
within a short time he was back in the country a free man.
The wounded man had received no compensation, and was
forced to hunt meat. In his partially disabled state this was
a difficult matter, but if he was short with his ration he was
flung into prison. Further investigation convinced Case¬
ment of the truth of all this. Whilst he was within the
A. B. I. R. territory Casement saw many instances of the
capture of the natives, men and women, and in some cases
1 loc. cit., p. 49.
42 ROGER CASEMENT

children, who were detained in the ‘maison des otages5 to

ensure that the food supply should be maintained. In most
cases they had just been captured and were brought past
him, chained together, on their way to prison. Casement
wondered sadly how the children, deprived of their parents,
obtained their food.
On the 3rd September Casement left Bongandanga, on his
return journey. The following day, at a village at which he
stopped, a boy was brought to him who had his right hand
missing. He had also been shot in the shoulder blade, caus¬
ing deformity. It appeared that after he had been shot by
a sentry he had fallen down insensible, and the sentry had
then cut off his hand to take it to the Director of the Com¬
pany at Mampoko. The people who had brought the boy
to him besought him to return with them to verify the truth
of their statements, and to this request Casement acceded.
But before he started, the next morning, many people from
the surrounding country came to him, bringing with them
men, women and children who had been shockingly mutil¬
ated. And accordingly, Casement delayed his start, and
listened patiently to the horrible stories that were told to
him, taking notes of everything that was said. One of
these men, on being asked by Casement why he did not
complain to DF, when the sentries beat him, opened his
mouth and, pointing to a tooth which was just dropping out,
said, That is what I got from the DF four days ago when I
went to tell him what I now say to you,’ adding that he, and
others of his people, were frequently beaten. Casement goes
on to relate in his report, ‘ One of the men with him (the man
with the broken tooth), who gave his name as HH, said that
two weeks ago the white man at Q** had ordered him to
serve as one of the porters of his hammock on a journey he
proposed taking inland. HH was then just completing the
building of a new house, and excused himself on this ground,
but offered to fetch a friend as a substitute. The Director
of the Company had, in answer to this excuse, burnt down
his house, alleging that he was insolent. He had had a box
 THE ENQUIRY IN THE CONGO 43
of cloth and some ducks in the house—in fact, all his goods,
and they were destroyed in the fire. The white man then
caused him to be tied up, and took him with him inland, and
loosed him when he had to carry the hammock.’ 1
Casement could delay his departure no longer, and per¬
force had to leave many witnesses unexamined. Arrived at
his destination, he found amid a large concourse of natives,
a sentry and a boy of about fifteen years old whose left arm
was wrapped in a dirty rag. Casement removed the rag and
found that the hand had been hacked off at the wrist and
that a shot-hole appeared in the boy’s forearm. A man
carrying a cap-gun was produced and accused of mutilating
the boy. Casement thereupon conducted an informal
enquiry, but nothing he could do would get this man either
to deny or accept the charge brought against him.
Casement was becoming pressed for time and could not
visit all the villages, as he was besought to do by their
inhabitants, and on the nth September he left Coquilhat-
ville, arriving again at Stanley Pool on the 15th.
This journey which Casement made, lasting two and a
half months, among fever-ridden swamps and jungle during
the hottest time of the year, must have sorely taxed his
strength, and all that he saw and heard, faithfully recorded
in his report, must have left an indelible impression upon
his mind. But throughout this trying ordeal, he was at
infinite pains to verify all that he heard. Much he found
difficult to believe, and he had to make allowances for the
fact that the statements were made by rude savages who
were endeavouring to awaken his sympathy. ‘But,’ he said,
‘the broad fact remained that their previous silence said
more than their present speech.’

As soon as he was able, Casement travelled on to London,

taking with him all his notes and documents, to prepare his
report. His report is dated December nth, 1903, and it
was received by the Foreign Secretary, Lord Lansdowne,
1 loc. cit., p. 56,
44 ROGER CASEMENT

on the 12th. In the early part of the following February a

copy of Casement’s report, together with a covering memor¬
andum, was transmitted to the Government of the Inde¬
pendent State of the Congo, in reply to the Memorandum
of M. de Cuvelier of the 17th September. The British
Government also decided to circulate the report to all the
Governments parties to the Berlin Act, and accordingly
copies were sent to Paris, Berlin, Vienna, St. Petersburg,
Rome, Madrid, Constantinople, Brussels, The Hague,
Copenhagen, Stockholm and Lisbon. The result of this
widespread publicity, and the pressure which was brought
to bear, was that Leopold II was forced to abandon his
methods of autocratic government in the Congo and institute
a better system of government.
Casement’s report caused a veritable sensation when it
was published, as a White Paper, in February, 1904, and
Casement leaped from obscurity to international fame. The
effect on the public conscience was tremendous: meetings
were held and lectures given up and down the country.
Naturally enough, the report was not favourably received
at the Belgian Court, and a determined effort was made to
discredit Casement, even the Irish-Americans joining in the
attack. But, as Mr. Gwynn says, ‘ the fury of these continuing
onslaughts only increased Roger Casement’s reputation and
prestige in Whitehall.’ 1 On the 30th June, 1905, he received
the C.M.G. His report, written in such moderate language,
is, together with E. D. Morel’s Red Rubber, a classic indict¬
ment of the conditions in the Congo under the august rule
of Leopold II, King of the Belgians.
Out of the storm of protest which the publication of
Casement’s report aroused was born the Congo Reform
Association. This Association did great and valiant work
to bring about a proper state of affairs in the Congo basin.
It actively carried on its work for nearly ten years until it
was brought to an end. The final meeting of the Association
was held on the 16th June, 1913, at the Westminster Palace
1 D. Gwynn, The Life and Death of Roger Casement, p. 107.
 THE ENQUIRY IN THE CONGO 45
Hotel. Sir Gilbert Parker, M.P., presided, and a dis¬
tinguished company was present, including Mr. E. D. Morel.
After various resolutions had been passed, some letters were
read, and among them was one from Roger Casement, which
was as follows:

‘ The work you have done and the way you have done it
entitles you and the movement you have led and directed
to the gratitude of the whole world. And when I say the
gratitude of the whole world, I think first of the black
peoples of the Congo basin, and next, if I may say so, of
the Belgian people. For your work has been no less for them
and their fair name in the world, than for the material
welfare of the Congo natives. I am convinced that when
the whole story of the Congo has passed into history the
Belgian people will feel that the work of the Congo Reform
Association was a work of friendship and enlightenment
in their behalf no less than a struggle in the interests* of those
distant Africans whose welfare had been committed to their
trust. I am sorry I cannot be with you in person on the
16th, but to you and to the members of the Congo Reform
Association who will meet there, I send this word of farewell
and gratitude.’1

1 See The Times, 17th June, 1913.

 CHAPTER IV

RUMOURS FROM THE PUTUMAYO

When his arduous work in the Congo had been completed

Casement was granted an extended leave. The Foreign
Office did not wish him to leave the country, for they wanted
him at hand to assist in the negotiations which were still
proceeding, and which resulted in the complete reform of
the Congo State and the establishment there of a proper
system of government. But eventually there came a time
when he could go away to Ireland.
In June, 1905, after his Congo report had been published,
he was awarded a C.M.G. in recognition of his services.
Casement disliked this honour intensely, and wrote a very
rude letter to Lord Lansdowne about the matter, while he
firmly refused to be invested with the Order by the King.
He never opened the parcel which contained the insignia
of the Order, and the parcel remains, in the possession of
one of his relatives, unopened and with the Foreign Office
seals intact. On July 3rd, in a letter to Richard Morten,
he said:
‘My cousin Jack—the Captain of the Duncan—came to
see me while I lay abed yesterday to offer his congratula¬
tions on some decoration or other he saw I got on the King’s
birthday! It’s the first I’ve heard of it. The Irish papers
I see don’t mention these things, thank Heaven! So I
suppose I have some letters after my name now.
‘I will not tell you what I think of it, D., for I should only
offend your honest old heart—but I’m SICK! Why on
earth these things can be done without a man’s consent I
don’t know; it’s quite childish; like giving a poor baby a
name at the font it cannot resist or discard.’

It was during this stay of nineteen months in Ireland, in

46
 RUMOURS FROM THE PUTUMAYO 47

his native country, only interrupted by occasional visits to

London, that Casement first became active in Irish politics,
and in promoting schemes to further the national life. In
May, 1904, he wrote to his cousin, Mrs. Parry, ‘I am busy
in Ireland learning Irish, and helping on that movement
there. It is a delightful study.’ The agitation in Ireland
was increasing in intensity, and the Sinn Fein movement,
born of the failure to obtain Home Rule by constitutional
means, was gaining ground. During his holiday Casement
came into contact with the leaders who were actively working
to bring about Irish self-government. He spent many hours
with these men and was entranced by their love of Ireland
and things Irish. The idealist Casement yearned to see
Ireland an Irish-speaking nation once more, and enjoying
once again her old traditional culture. Gradually he became
imbued with their ideas, and although at the time he fought
shy of an active political life, as indeed a consular officer
must, he was induced to perform certain services for them,
and occasionally, under an assumed name, he published
articles urging their point of view. Some of his views at this
time are set out in a letter which he wrote to Richard
Morten.
‘Ballycastle Club
■ ‘ Ballycastle
‘Co. Antrim.
‘10 July, 1906.
‘My dear D.,
‘Many thanks for both your letters, and for Morning Post
cutting. The Times gave Lord FitzM.’s words in full, and
it was a generous tribute of esteem he paid me, for which I
am very grateful to him. I cannot discuss Sir Robert
Anderson’s book in a letter, and I have not read it. Only
extracts from it. But you should remember that he has as
much right to talk for Ireland as an English official in
India would have to'talk for the Indians. Very few
Protestants in Ireland are by education or temperament
(the product largely of education and early influence)
qualified to discuss any Irish question from an Irish stand-
48 ROGER CASEMENT

point! They are reversing the old Anglo-Norman saw of

the “degenerate” English-Irish aristocracy who were said to
have become “more Irish than the Irish themselves.” Ipsis
Hibernis Hiberniores—“more English than the English
themselves,” and I do not know any official of the Crown
in Ireland who is not far more anti-Irish than any English¬
man in England. It is not merely “patriotism” but place
and profit they think is at stake, and in talking frankly
to any Irish “loyalist” (who is quite disloyal really, for he
cares only for himself) he will tell you he is not a Home
Ruler or an Irish worker, because he thinks (mistakenly, but
he is taught from pulpit and press to believe it) that if any
form of national government came to Ireland he and his
“jobs ” would go to the wall.
‘Jobbery, I hope, would go to the wall, but no good man,
Protestant or Catholic, would be boycotted or dispossessed
under a self-governing Ireland.
‘As to the economic advantages of self-government to
Ireland, they are the real arguments for it; not the misdeeds
of the past.
‘ But I cannot go into the list of them, altho’ if you lived
in Ireland and gave the matter serious thought you would
become a convinced Home Ruler. Miss F. who came to
Ireland with the Cadogans as Lady Cadogan’s lady-in-
waiting, and came of course a Unionist, told me that
she had not been a year in Ireland before she perceived
the necessities of the case. But she came without pre¬
judices, and without an axe to grind, or self-interest to
“preserve.”
‘You know my view well. If the British Empire is to
endure it can only be by recognising Ireland’s right, not by
“holding down” a “sister country.” The British Empire
must become a great Commonwealth of free States, bound
together by love and interest and fellow feeling, not kept
chained to heel.
‘The liberty you are delighted to give Natal, or New
Zealand or Canada must also be exported to Ireland.
‘You will have a far closer union, and a real one, when
Ireland is free to develop nationally on national and inde¬
pendent lines of thought; to develop her own charac-
 RUMOURS FROM THE PUTUMAYO 49

teristics and elevate her own ideals of life freely as a friend.

But I cannot go on; it is hard to discuss these things with
an Englishman, because there are fundamental issues at
stake that he cannot well realise, since he invariably thinks
he is conferring an enormous benefit in “anglicising” a
people or a country, whereas he may be working a great
wrong.
‘Every people has a right to live its own life, provided
that it works thereby no grievous wrong on its neighbours.
England has that right; but she has no right to insist that
another country shall adopt her mode of life, and to break
them on the wheel if they resist.
‘Enough of this—by letter impossible—and in a speech
distasteful to me, for I feel so strongly some of the shameful
things done (and not done longer ago than 40 years, nay
20 years) that I find words inadequate to deal with the
matter.

‘Thank you again and again, dear D., for your generous
offers and kind thoughts of me. Please God, all will go
well with me yet.

‘Very kind regards to Mrs. M.

‘Yours ever
‘Roddie.’

This period, also, saw a deepening of his dislike for

imperialism. His dislike of England’s attitude towards
Ireland also grew, and to him the idea of an Irishman owing
loyalty to England was rather fantastic. He wrote to his
cousin, Mrs. Parry, as follows:
‘ Ballycastle,
‘Co. Antrim.
‘14th July, 1906.
‘My dearest G.,
‘Your letter of the 10th reached me on the 12 th when the
Orange drums were beating and the “Loyalists” parading
their sham of shams through the countryside. “Loyalists”
are the devil, and it is enough to make anyone who is decent
4
50 ROGER CASEMENT

and kind-hearted declare himself a Fenian, just to differ¬

entiate himself from them.
‘At the Feis we had a great Loyalist attempt to prevent
our holding it, by the landlord, F- T-, threatening
to boycott his tenant who was lending the Feis Committee
a field in which to hold the sports. The result was that
some evil-disposed persons actually dared to print and
circulate a “ballad” ridiculing this gentleman, and that
several naughty young boys sang it among the crowd.
‘ I was actually given a copy of this offensive production,
and as I don’t like its contaminating presence I send it on
to you to read and destroy.’

The Feis to which he refers in this letter was the first

Glens Feis, and Casement was on the Committee, repre¬
senting Glenshesk. He and his fellow-organisers worked very
hard to make it a success, often sitting up and writing till
one or two o’clock in the morning. All the negotiations to
secure the field they wanted failed. The only other field
which they could use was very much overgrown with thistles
and weeds. At once Casement, armed with a scythe, set to
work and cleared the field and put it into perfect order for
the sports. The efforts of Casement and his friends to
awaken the spirit of Ireland bore fruit. In the sleepy glens
of Antrim, even, people were seen going to meetings and
attending committees, and soon there was a feeling of
enthusiasm for the old customs. Among his many activities
he attempted to revive Irish dancing, and he became a
familiar figure, striding about in the roads encouraging the
dancers to greater efforts in their jigs and reels.
He also started to take an active part in dissuading Irish¬
men from joining the British Army, and in this he was
closely associated with many of the Sinn Fein movement.
He refers to this episode in his diary, written some eight
years later, and from this source we gather that several
diplomatic posts were offered to him but that he declined
them owing to his preoccupation in Irish affairs. In his
 RUMOURS FROM THE PUTUMAYO 51

diary of the 7th November, 1914, written in Berlin, there

occurs the following passage: •

‘So in December, 1904,1 seconded myself and so remained

a free lance, devoting myself to Irish affairs, until in August,
1906, Sir E. Grey wrote to suggest my return to the Consular-
Service, when I went out first to Santos, then to Para and'
finally to Rio de Janeiro en route to Putumayo.
‘I thought of these things, as I looked at the little town
of St. Pierre, and wondered, as we steamed past it, what
might have been the difference had I accepted the advice
that night at Mrs. Green’s and “applied” for St. Pierre.
Happily I was then so well occupied in Ireland trying to
keep Irishmen out of the British Army and dreaming of
an Ireland that might yet be free, that I gave no second
thought to that after-dinner suggestion any more than to
a later one of Sir Eric Barrington that “Stockholm was
vacant and might be offered me.” I was immersed in Irish
affairs all through 1905 and right up to the very day
of my departure for Santos in August (or was it early
in September?) 1906.’1

To Casement there seemed to be a certain parallelism

between the Congo and the Irish nation which he loved so
dearly. He saw the Irish as a subject nation, oppressed by
the powerful overlordship of England, and struggling for her
freedom. He had already alleviated the lot of the Congo
Africans; later he attempted the same thing on behalf of his
own countrymen.
At this time a Conservative Government was in office, and
their policy towards Ireland was that of ‘ killing Home Rule
by kindness.’ Although the Irish did not take kindly to this
policy, it did, at any rate, hold out some hope to them.
But when this policy appeared to be bearing fruit the Sinn
Fein movement sprang into being and altered the whole
complexion of the Irish Question. And then, at the very
beginning of 1906, there came the great Conservative land¬
slide, when the Liberals were returned with an unprece-

1 Diaries oj Sir Roger Casement, p. 22.

52 ROGER CASEMENT

dented majority. * At once they set about a vigorous legislative

programme, of a radical hue, but they suffered a damaging
rebuff with regard to Ireland. The policy of the Govern¬
ment Was ‘step by step,’ but Ireland would have none of
this.’ Irish Nationalists remembered that, twenty years
before, Mr. Gladstone had introduced the first Home Rule
Bill. That a Liberal Government should follow this up with
a ‘step by step’ policy produced in Ireland a feeling of
exasperation and despair. It was largely felt in Ireland that
the Liberal Party had not fulfilled promises and hopes held
out by earlier Liberal administrations, and it was natural
that this reaction should infuse greater life and vigour into
Sinn Fein. The temper of Ireland was shown at the
beginning of May when the Chief Secretary, Mr. Birrell,
introduced a Bill setting up a Central Irish Representative
Council, which was to take over much of the departmental
control hitherto exercised by Dublin Castle. At Whitsun
there assembled in Dublin the Irish Nationalist Convention
which unanimously rejected the Bill and demanded nothing
less than complete Home Rule. Accordingly the Bill was
dropped.
The policy of the Liberal Government was increasing the
tension in Ireland and Sinn Fein was making rapid strides.
Casement heartily welcomed this new evidence of the rebirth
of an Irish nationalism, and continued his activities. But
his time in Ireland was nearly up. In August he was
appointed Consul for the States of San Paulo and Panama,
and on the 21st September, 1906, he left Southampton in
the Nile for Santos to take up his duties. Just before he left
he sent an amusing postcard to his cousin, Mrs. Parry. It
was a picture postcard of the Euston Hotel, but the Union
Jack flying upon it had been blacked out with ink. Case¬
ment had written:

‘Goodbye- Just off from Southampton and write from

Nile. The “Union” Jack, I am so sorry, got blacked
out over Euston in early hours of this morning. Awful
disaster! Many fainted! R C ’
 RUMOURS FROM THE PUTUMAYO 53
He remained at Santos for nearly eighteen months, except
for a brief visit to Ireland at the end of 1906. In December,
1907, he was transferred to Para and a year later he was
promoted to be Consul-General at Rio de Janeiro.
His appointment to Santos was welcome to him. At the
end of June his second six months of seconding had come to
an end, and he was afraid that owing to the delay in getting
posted he might lose the service he had already done as
counting towards a pension. Any reduction in his pension
would have been a serious matter for him, as he was never
a rich man. On the 24th August, 1906, he wrote to
Mrs. Green:

‘The place I go to, D.V., is Santos, Brazil—about 240

miles south of Rio. I simply go there because it is better
than Bilbao—at latter I should have no money to spare
for Ireland—at Santos I hope to be able to finance one or
two small Irishisms of my own! ’

Wherever he was Ireland remained uppermost in his

thoughts. He earned his salary, not for himself, but that he
might spend it on Ireland.
Shortly before he left Ireland for Santos, the Government
introduced their Devolution Scheme. This scheme made no
appeal to Casement and he thoroughly disliked it. He
considered that it was another measure designed to keep
Ireland in leading-strings.

‘In God’s name what Ireland wants is Responsibility.

Until the public here feel that they must tackle the state
of their own country and abide by their own acts there can
be no real improvement. We have to create a governing
mind again after 106 years of abstraction of all mind from
this outraged land.’1

Santos was not a place which Casement liked. He found

the general surroundings of his Consulate were atrocious.
His office was in a coffee store, and whenever the door was

1 Letter to Mrs. J. R. Green, 8th September, 1906.

 ROGER CASEMENT
54
open a number of the inhabitants would walk into the office,
expecting him, presumably, to provide them with coffee and
buns. Outside the building the noise made by the mule carts,
and the rows of which the inhabitants seemed so fond,
rendered life well-nigh insupportable. The people, too, he
disliked, and thought that they were a type of degenerate
human being. Moreover the cost of living was, he found,
extremely high. ‘Everything,’ he wrote to his cousin, ‘costs
a milreis.’ There were 15 milreis to the pound sterling, and
since a milreis was worth about sixpence, the value of a
pound in Santos was seven and sixpence. The high cost of
living rendered it virtually impossible for him to spend much
money on ‘ the small Irishisms ’ of his own. But nevertheless,
although prevented from giving active support, he remained
eager for news of all that was happening in Ireland. The
Congo, too, continued to engage his attention. On the
9th October, 1906, he wrote to his cousin, ‘Drop me a line
soon and send me news of Congo and Ireland; nothing else
counts. Ireland first and for ever, and poor old Congo too,
for the sake of the dark skins and all they have suffered, and
all the brave, indomitable Morel has done to free them.’
And a fortnight later, ‘Any Irish news deeply acceptable.’
While Casement, by reason of his employment, could take
no active part, the cause of the Congo natives was being
ably carried on throughout the country by Mr. E. D. Morel,
a journalist of Liverpool, who gave up his editorial position
to fight the battles of the Congo Reform Association.
Casement followed these activities with the greatest interest,
giving what little help was in his power.
In January, 1907, on his return from his holiday in
Ireland, he went to stay at Guaruja, a little way out from
Santos. He went into Santos every morning, leaving again
at five or six o’clock in the evening. The loneliness of the
life in Brazil made him constantly wish to return to Ireland.
He had no congenial companions, for the English colony
there was not where one would expect him to seek for
friends, being composed, as he described it, ‘of the shop-
 RUMOURS FROM THE PUTUMAYO 55
keeping class of Englishman, without patriotism or belief,
or any charm or ideas at all.’1 Besides his dislike of Santos,
with its unprepossessing inhabitants and its total lack of
beauty and charm, he felt that his consular work was without
value, and that in paying him to perform such duties the
Government was practising a fraud on the public. His
duties lay almost entirely with dirty sailors, coarse in their
manners and drunken in their ways. Casement wrote to his
cousin that Santos did not need a Consul but a bar-keeper’s
‘chucker out.’
In December he was transferred to Para, which he dis¬
liked even more than Santos, being very expensive and the
people unpleasant. A short time before he had had a small
dispute with the Foreign Office which he describes in a
letter to Mrs. Parry, written on the 6th March, 1908.

‘ I came home from Santos last July, intending to leave

the Foreign Office for good and all. I had been offered an
excellent post out in East Africa by a big undertaking—
good pay, and most interesting duties, far more useful than a
Consul’s. Well, the F.O. on my landing promoted me to
be Consul-General for Haiti and San Domingo, one of the
six first-class, top-rank posts in the whole Consular Service.
I accepted this, after some hesitation, and declined the good
African offer. Well, in November, when I went over from
Ireland to London to get final instructions to go out to Haiti,
and to be gazetted, they had the audacity to appeal to me and
my good nature to make room for another man; to resign
Haiti and wait for another Consulate-General some time
next year when a certain post (Rio de Janeiro) would be
vacant.
c The appeal to my generosity on behalf of the other man
I met. I gave up Haiti for them to give to him, and then
when this had been accomplished, I told them nothing
would induce me to go to Rio, or live in Brazil, and they
might give Rio to anyone they pleased except me. I told
them also, that if they made me Ambassador I should not
live in Brazil. They offered me Paris!!! They thanked
1 Letter to Mrs. Parry, 12th January, 1907.
56 ROGER CASEMENT

me of course profusely and effusively for my generosity in

surrendering Haiti, saying there was no other man in the
service they could have appealed to, and so forth, but they
none the less send me back to the country I told them I
loathed and abominated. They first do me out of my
East African appointment by offering me a post I liked
(Haiti) and where I would save £500 a year clear out of
my pay, and then calmly ask me to surrender it. I have told
them pretty frankly what I think of them, their methods,
—j ^o-called “Service.” It is no service at
all, but only robbery and corruption, and an enormous

Following his appointment as Consul-General at the end of

1908 he went to Rio de Janeiro. In England ugly rumours
began to be put about, and these rumours were once more
concerned with the rubber industry. It was being said that
the natives of the upper reaches of the Amazon were being
ill-treated in the most disgraceful way by those who employed
them to gather rubber. Casement knew something of the
conditions there from all that came to his ears during his
Consulate in South America. Moreover, stories were current
in England charging the Peruvians who worked the Putu¬
mayo rubber with the most ghastly crimes.
The first attempts at gathering rubber in the Putumayo
were made by the Colombians. Subsequently the Peruvians
took a hand in the business, the firm of Arana Brothers
eventually acquiring almost exclusive control of the Putu¬
mayo region. Early in the present century it was decided
to convert Arana Brothers into a company with British
capital, and a desperate effort was made to increase the
output of rubber in order to attract the money of the English
investor. In the latter part of 1907 Arana Brothers was
converted into the Peruvian Amazon Rubber Company
Limited, and this company took over the assets and liabilities
of Arana Hermanos (Brothers) and was registered in
London. Subsequently the company changed its name to
the Peruvian Amazon Company Limited. The company
 RUMOURS FROM THE PUTUMAYO 57

employed a number of British subjects, natives of Barbados,

and because of this, together with its English registration, it
became an object of interest to the Foreign Office, in view
of the rumours then current. The rubber boom was then
at its height; something like £150,000,000 had been sub¬
scribed and shareholders were receiving enormous dividends
of anything up to 25 per cent., but few then paused to
consider the manner in which their incomes were earned for
them. But the rumours were becoming more insistent and
more precise, until at last Truth took up the matter. Natur¬
ally, much of what was going on had come to the ears of
Casement, since he was nearer to the Putumayo than those
at home. Moreover, he had experience of a similar state of
affairs in the Congo. Accordingly he was recalled and spent
some time in London conferring with Sir Edward Grey,
who was then Foreign Secretary. But the articles in Truth,
written with such great particularity and with such an air
of veracity, brought matters to a head, and the Government
could delay action no longer. Sir Edward Grey instructed
Casement to undertake another mission of enquiry. In July
Casement received a letter from the Foreign Office,1 in¬
forming him that he had been selected to accompany the
Commission of Enquiry which had been appointed by the
Peruvian Amazon Company to enquire into the relations
between the native employees and the agents of the com¬
pany on the Putumayo. The commission was to consist of
Col. the Hon. R. H. Bertie ; Mr. L. H. Barnes, a tropical
agriculturist; Mr. W. Fox, a rubber expert; Mr. E. S. Bell,
a merchant; and Mr. H. L. Gielgud, the secretary of the
company. Casement was given complete freedom of action
in regard to his movements, provided he was present at the
scene of the commission’s enquiries on the Putumayo.

1 Cmd. 6266 of 1912, p. 1.

 CHAPTER V

THE PUTUMAYO 1

On the 23rd July, 1910, Roger Casement left England in

company with the Peruvian Amazon Company’s commis¬
sion, and arrived at Manaos, the capital of the State of
Amazonas, in Brazil, on the 16th August. Here one of the
members of the commission, Colonel Bertie, fell ill, and
returned to England, upon medical advice. Casement
travelled on alone, and arrived at Iquitos on the 31st
August, having been joined by the members of the com¬
mission at a point some 160 miles below Iquitos. About a
fortnight was spent in Iquitos, and on the 14th September
the commission, with Casement, left for the Putumayo on
board the Liberal, a vessel belonging to the Peruvian Amazon
Company.
Throughout this very trying investigation, on the rivers
and in the forests, Casement had to contend with every
conceivable form of difficulty, for not only was there not a
vestige of a properly constituted authority to whom he could
appeal for help, but those men who appeared in the course
of his investigations as the greatest criminals, backed by
official support, did their utmost to prevent their crimes
being dragged into the light of day. Witnesses were bribed
to give false evidence, evidence was hastily destroyed or
concealed on Casement s approach, and on one occasion an
attempt was made to ambush three Barbados men who had
given evidence to Casement. True, Casement was armed
with a letter of authority, issued by the prefect of the

1 The materials for this chapter were derived almost exclusively

from a Blue Book, published in 1912 : Correspondence respecting the Treat¬
ment of British Colonial Subjects and Native Indians employed in the Collection
of Rubber in the Putumayo District (Cmd. 6266 of 19x2).
58
 THE PUTUMAYO 59
department of Loreto and addressed to the officers of the
Government said to be in the Putumayo, which was in the
following terms:

‘His Britannic Majesty’s Consul-General in the Republic

of Brazil goes to the Putumayo and its affluents sent by his
Government, and with the assent of ours, to investigate and
appreciate the conditions in which the subjects of His
Britannic Majesty may be found in that region.
‘ I hereby order all the authorities of the district to afford
him every kind of facility, and to furnish such data and
information as the Consul may be in need of for the better
discharge of his mission, and to lend him all the support
he may require.
‘Iquitos, 2nd September, 1910.’1

This document was not of much assistance to Casement,

and his comments upon it are interesting:

‘From first to last I met no authority of the Peruvian

Government, and could appeal for no assistance in my
mission save to the agents of the Peruvian Amazon
Company, who were in absolute control not only of the
persons and lives of the surrounding Indians, but of all
means of transport, and, it might be said, of ingress to or
egress from that region. Had it not been for the presence
of Senor Tizon and his ready co-operation with me, my
journey could not have been carried beyond Chorrera.
The perils, perhaps not to myself but to the Barbados men,
would have been too great. An officer of the Peruvian army,
with *a small file of soldiers, arrived at Chorrera a few days
before I left the river, travelling on the steamer of the
company that conveyed me away, but he left at once for
El Encanto on the Caraparana. A magistrate was said to
be residing at one of the company’s stations on that river,
but I never heard him once referred to, and, when peculiarly
atrocious crimes were dragged to light, admitted and de¬
plored, the criminal charged with them would be sitting
at table with us, and the members of the company’s com¬
mission and myself were appealed to to give no indication of
1 Cmd. 6266 of 1912, p. 40.
6o ROGER CASEMENT

our disgust lest this man “might do worse things” to the

Indians or provoke an impossible situation with the armed
bandits under his orders. The apology for this extraordinary
situation was that there was “no authority, no adminis¬
tration, no one near to whom any appeal could be made,”
and that Iquitos was 1,200 miles away. Every chief of
section was a law unto himself, and many of the principal
agents of this British company were branded by the re¬
presentative of that company, holding its power of attorney,
in conversation with me as “murderers, pirates, and
bandits.” ’1

From all that he had heard and read before his departure
from England, Casement had expected to find dreadful
conditions in the Putumayo, but when he arrived there, the
things that he saw and heard far exceeded his expectations,
and were more dreadful than those revealed during his
Congo journey.
The Putumayo region was inhabited by four principal
tribes, the Huitotos,2 the Boras, the Andokes and the
Ocainas; there were also a number of smaller tribes, of
which the most important were the Muinanes and the
Ricigaros. These tribes had many points of similarity
though they differed among themselves in language, and
to a certain extent in colour, stature and features. Each
tribe was further split up into ‘ families5 or ‘naciones’
between which there was more or less constant friction,
which at times led to war. Thus there was no proper sense
of tribal unity, and in consequence the Putumayo Indians
were at some disadvantage in defending themselves against
the ‘ civilising influence5 of the white man. The district had
been invaded by Peruvians and Colombians, at different
times, a great many years before Casement’s visit, and the
methods of rubber-gathering there employed were presum¬
ably well settled. These invading ‘conquistadores ’ came
in search of rubber, and their one aim and desire was to
accumulate as much wealth as they could as quickly as they

1 loc. cit., p. 40. a Pronounced ‘ Witotos.’

 THE PUTUMAYO 6l
could and then to leave the country. Writing of the methods
of these men, Casement says, ‘The rubber trees of them¬
selves were of no value; it was Indians who could be made
or induced to tap them and to bring in the rubber on the
white man’s terms that all the invading “ conquistadores ”
were in search of. Generally, a leading man fitted out an
expedition with a few companions, partners in effort and
initial expenditure, and with a gang of hired “peons,” or,
as they are called in that region, “racionales” (half-breeds
mostly who can read and write to distinguish them from the
“Indios,” who are ignorant of all save forest lore), he
journeyed to some part of the forest in search of tribes of
wild Indians—“infieles” or “infidels”—who could be easily
subdued and reduced to work the wild rubber trees in the
territory they inhabited. An Indian would promise any¬
thing for a gun, or for some of the other tempting things
offered as inducements to him to work rubber. Many
Indians submitted to the alluring offer only to find that once
in the “conquistadores’ ” books they had lost all liberty, and
were reduced to unending demands for more rubber and
more varied tasks. A cacique or “capitan” might be
brought over to dispose of the labour of all his clan, and as
the cacique’s influence was very great and the natural
docility of the Indian a remarkable characteristic of the
Upper Amazon tribes, the work of conquering a primitive
people and reducing them to a continual strain of rubber¬
finding was less difficult than might at first be supposed.
Moreover, their arms of defence were puerile weapons to
oppose to the rifles of the “blancos.”’1
The primary object of these ‘caucheros’ was not rubber
but Indians: an Indian tribe, once conquered, became the
exclusive property of the conquerors, and the interference
with another’s Indians was visited with bloody reprisals.
Indians so conquered were forced to work rubber and the
terms of this labour were nothing more or less than slavery.
The Indians were coerced in all manner of revolting ways,
1 loc. cit., p. 27.
62 ROGER CASEMENT

and beaten and flogged, to ensure that they brought in a

quantity of rubber sufficient to please their white masters.
To such a tradition succeeded the firm of Arana Brothers
(later the Peruvian Amazon Company), and in general it
was faithfully followed by them.
It was not unnatural, with such a system of commercial
exploitation (it can scarcely be called ‘trade’), so rife with
abuses and shocking cruelty, that the Indians should do their
poor best to rid themselves of their persecutors. Whenever
an opportunity presented itself, which was infrequently, the
Indians killed their white oppressors, and possessed them¬
selves of their arms. But the white man was particularly
anxious that no arms of precision should fall into the hands
of the Indians, and frequent raids, or commissions, were
made against the Indians for the purpose of recovering such
arms. These commissions were invariably attended by the
most fearful barbarities. The ‘caucheros ’ trained a number
of Indians in the use of arms, and these Indians, or ‘ much-
achos,’ were employed to terrorise and oppress their fellow-
tribesmen in the interests of the white men. Every station
that Casement visited had its force of ‘muchachos,’ and each
station was built, and well built, by the forced labour of the
Indians of the surrounding forests.

While Casement remained at Iquitos he had not been idle.

His primary duty was to enquire into the condition of
British subjects in the district, and this he proceeded to do
without delay. In 1904-5 the firm of Arana Brothers appear
to have engaged, in the island of Barbados, 196 labourers
(these were British subjects) who were brought to the
Putumayo to work for the company. In each case a contract
in writing was entered into between the company and the
labourer, although it does not appear that the company
faithfully adhered to their part of the bargain. The greater
number of these men had left before Casement’s arrival, but
some still remained, and while in Iquitos Casement inter¬
viewed seven of them. Casement, in his report, came to the
 THE PUTUMAYO 63
conclusion that these men had been badly treated and
underpaid, and in a number of cases were ordered and
compelled, by responsible agents of the company, to commit
many crimes, including murder, flogging and torture. Gam¬
bling was rife among the company’s employees, and large
sums were lost and won. Payment was made by chits, which
the winner passed on to the chief agency in La Chorrera,
where it was carried to the debit of the loser in the company’s
books. Another evil practice of the company was to provide
its employees with an Indian girl, as a temporary ‘wife.’
These ‘ wives ’ were usually attached to a station, and when
an employee was moved from a station he returned the girl
to the company, who looked upon her as their property, and
gave her to the new incoming man. Most of the Barbadians
interviewed by Casement were much in debt to the company,
and this was due in great measure to the gambling and the
system of ‘wives.’ To keep these men in debt seems to have
been a deliberate part of the policy of the company in order
to keep them in a perpetual state of bondage, for the only
store at which goods could be bought was that belonging to
the company. The prices charged were out of all proportion
to the value of the things bought, much of which represented
necessities for themselves and their ‘wives.’ For although
under their contracts the company was to provide them
with food, the food actually provided was so inadequate and
of so poor a quality that much money was spent in supple¬
menting their meagre diet.
In his report Casement deals specifically with the com¬
plaints of four of these men, and one of these is here
reproduced:

‘The third incident I would cite is that of a native of

Barbados named Joshua Dyall. He, like the two preced¬
ing men, was engaged in Barbados at the end of 1904, and
was one of the party that went to Matanzas under Sanchez
and Normand. This man, like most of the Barbados men,
was passed from one station to another, and in the year 1907
he was serving at the station of Ultimo Retiro, where he
64 ROGER CASEMENT

was grossly maltreated by the agent, Alfredo Montt, who

was then chief of that district, and who at the date of my
visit was the company’s representative in the district of
Atenas. Montt charged Dyall with having improper
relations with the concubine of one of the white employes,
all of whom, it should be stated, kept Indian women,
many of them more than one. The accused man was
hung up by the neck, beaten with machetes, and then
confined by the legs in heavy wooden stocks, called locally
a “cepo.” Each station is furnished with one of these
places of detention. The stocks consist of two long and
very heavy blocks of wood, hinged together at one end
and opening at the other, with a padlock to close upon a
staple. Leg-blocks so small as just to fit the ankle of an
Indian are cut in the wood. The top beam is lifted on the
hinge, the legs of the victim are inserted in two of these
holes, and it is then closed down and padlocked at the other
end. Thus imprisoned by the ankles, which are often
stretched several feet apart, the victim, lying upon his back,
or possibly being turned face downwards, remains some¬
times for hours, sometimes for days, often for weeks, and
sometimes for months in this painful confinement. Prisoners
so detained are released from these stocks only to obey the
calls of nature, when for a few moments, guarded by armed
men, they enjoy a brief release. Some of these implements
of torture that I saw ready for use had nineteen leg-holes.
In one case I counted twenty-one. The stocks at Ultimo
Retiro, where Dyall was confined, were, in my opinion,
the cruellest of those I actually saw. The ankle-holes were
so small that, even for an ordinarily well-built Indian, when
closed the wood would often have eaten into the flesh. For
an ordinary-sized European or negro the top beam could
not close upon the leg without being forced down upon the
ankle or shin bone, and this was what happened to Dyall.
He and men who had witnessed his imprisonment assured
me, that to make the top beam close down so that the pad¬
lock could be inserted in the staple two men had to sit upon
it and force it down upon his legs. Although more than
three years had passed since he suffered this punishment,
both his ankles were deeply scarred where the wood (almost
 THE PUTUMAYO 65

as hard as metal) had cut into the ankle flesh and sinews.
The man’s feet had been placed four holes apart—a distance,
I should say, of from 3 to 4 feet—and with his legs thus
extended, suffering acute pain, he had been left all night
for a space of fully twelve hours. When released next day
he was unable to stand upright, or to walk, and had to
reach his quarters crawling on his belly propelled by his
hands and arms. I have no doubt of the truth of this man’s
statement. I saw the stocks just as they had been used to
confine him. I caused a man of ordinary stature, a Barbados
man, to have his legs enclosed before me. The stock did
not close upon the legs, and to have locked the two beams
together at the end could only have been done by great
pressure and weight exerted upon the top beam so as to
force it down upon the leg and thereby undoubtedly to
inflict much pain, and cause lasting wounds.’1
But Casement, in the course of his interrogation of the
Barbadians at Iquitos, learned not only of the Peruvians’
treatment of the British subjects but of their treatment of the
natives as well. The first man whom Casement examined
was Frederick Bishop, a native of Barbados, who was sub¬
sequently engaged as Casement’s servant and interpreter.
This man had made many commissions against the Indians.
It was his duty to see that they brought in a sufficient
quantity of rubber at fixed times, and if they were short, he
was sent out to search for them. When they were brought
in they were cruelly flogged. Sometimes they would lie
down of their own accord to receive their floggings, but some
struggled and had to be forcibly put down. Many times
Bishop had seen Indians pegged out to stakes in the ground
and flogged. The Indians, thus forced to bring in rubber,
received no payment and were given no food to go into the
forest. Most of them were half-starved. Frequently they
were put in the stocks, or ‘cepo,’ where they were flogged
and left sometimes for weeks. Sometimes, after being
flogged they would be shot or beheaded. The Indians who
were flogged were not only males, but women and small
1 loc. cit., p. 14.
5
66 ROGER CASEMENT

children. Casement computed that about go per cent, of

the Indians bore traces on their persons of severe floggings.
Later in his investigations, on the evening of the 6th Sep¬
tember, Casement again interrogated Bishop, when he was
told of even more revolting practices.
Another man told Casement of the killing of an Indian
woman that he had seen. She had been brought in with a
chain round her neck, when one of the Peruvians, a man
named Miranda, sent an Indian boy to take her about twenty-
five yards from the house and shoot her. Her head was cut
off and brought in, and shown to the Indians, who were
told that if they ‘ did bad ’ they would be treated likewise.
Afterwards her body was burned. What she had done to
deserve this was not discovered. Yet another man told
Casement that at Morelia he had seen two old Indian
women so badly flogged that they were cut and bleeding.
Their only ‘ crime ’ had been that they had pulled up some
potatoes to eat because they were hungry.
All this evidence Casement carefully sifted and took down
in writing, verifying it where he was able. On the 14th
September he left Iquitos in the Liberal for the Putumayo.
He found that two Barbadians, Stanley S. Lewis and James
Clark, were working on board the Liberal. Stanley Lewis
was apparently the man referred to in Truth by Mr. Harden-
burg, as an ‘Englishman named Estan Luiz.’ While Case¬
ment was in Iquitos he had twice sent for this man to come
to the British Consulate, but Lewis was afraid, and refused
to come. However, Casement took the opportunity of
questioning him on board. A deponent in Truth, who gave
only his initials, ‘M. G.,’ had referred to this man as having
flogged an Indian girl, Simona, whom ‘M. G.’ was after¬
wards forced to shoot. Casement asked Lewis about this
incident and he seemed surprised that Casement knew of it.
He said that he had been ordered to flog the girl by one,
Argaluza, a subordinate white man who acted under the
orders of Jose Innocente Fonseca, the chief. He said that
the man who signed himself ‘M. G.’ was a man named
 THE PUTUMAYO 67

Marcial, and he believed his second name to be Gomez.

After Lewis had flogged the girl Gomez took her out into
the bush and there shot her.
This same Fonseca seems to have been one of the worst
of all the Peruvians on the Putumayo, terrorising every¬
one under him, and committing acts of almost unbelievable
bestiality. Stanley Lewis related that he was frequently
punished by Fonseca for refusing to flog the Indians. The
following is taken from Casement’s precis of his statement:

‘He often saw Indians flogged at Ultimo Retiro, very

often; they were badly cut, sometimes each time they got
a lash the flesh would be cut. They were staked to the
ground, and naked, and he has known them to die after
flogging. The wounds would get maggots in them and then
fester, and the house even became foul smelling from the
number of these people in this condition. They would
then be taken away and shot. He has seen men and women
shot like this.’ 1

Ultimo Retiro was the station in the charge of Jose Innocente

Fonseca.
All the evidence that Casement took, throughout his
journey, was almost invariably taken in the presence of at
least one of the members of the commission and also of
Senor Tizon, the representative of the Peruvian Amazon
Company. Senor Tizon occasionally made some attempt
to mitigate the effect of the evidence given to Casement,
but when Casement demanded that the evidence should be
put to the only possible test, namely, the confrontation of
the witnesses with those whom they accused, Senor Tizon
accepted the evidence, and asked Casement not to press
his request.
Casement had noticed that all the Indians whom he had
met had an inherent dislike of flogging and a great dread of
the lash. When he arrived in La Chorrera, on the 22nd
September, he found that the Indians there betrayed the
x loc. cit., p, 65.
68 ROGER CASEMENT

same fear. Almost all the native population bore terrible

scars upon their bodies, and several young men were brought
to him, with requests that he would give them some healing
lotion. This flogging was universal, and in many cases
resulted in the death of the victim. Casement wrote,
‘ Flogging was the least of the tortures inflicted on the failing
rubber-gatherer, but it was the most universal and indis¬
criminate. Every section visited had its “cepo” or stocks
and its duly appointed floggers in ordinary. At some of the
stations the principal flogger was the station cook—two such
men were directly named to me, and I ate the food they
prepared, while many of their victims carried my baggage
from station to station, and showed often terrible scars on
their limbs inflicted at the hands of these men. Indians
were often flogged while actually confined in the stocks, but
this would be a sort of extra or gratuitous beating. The
general method of flogging described to me by those who
had themselves administered the lash was to apply it to the
bare buttocks, the back and thighs coming in for a share
of the blows, while the victim, male or female, lay or was
forcibly extended on the ground, sometimes pegged out.
Needless to say, I did not witness any of these executions.’ 1
As a rule, as soon as the chief of a section learned of
Casement’s approach, he would give orders that the worst
flogged of the native population were to be kept out of the
way. Nevertheless, Casement saw many of them. These
poor Indians were of a very docile nature and in many cases
they knew the quantity of rubber expected of them. When
a man saw that his load was not sufficient when weighed
on the scale, he would prepare himself for a flogging. A
Peruvian agent said to Casement, ‘The Indian is so humble
that as soon as he sees that the needle of the scale does not
mark the io kilog., he himself stretches out his hands and
throws himself on the ground to receive the punishment.
Then the chief or a subordinate advances, bends down, takes
the Indian by his hair, strikes him, raises his head, drops it
1 loc, cit., p. 34,
 THE PUTUMAYO 69
face downwards on the ground, and after the face is beaten
and kicked and covered with blood the Indian is scourged.’1
Indians were flogged not only for shortage of rubber, but
also if they dared to run away and escape from the tasks
put upon them. Many of the commissions which were
fitted out were sent to catch such fugitives.
The depths of Casement’s disgust and horror at such brutal
treatment can only be imagined, but it served to increase a
thousandfold his pity for those unfortunate Indians, and to
strengthen his resolve to do all in his power to alleviate their
sufferings, who were unable to help themselves.
At La Chorrera Casement spent a great deal of time in
questioning Barbados men, and this was usually done in the
presence of at least one member of the commission and also
of Senor Tizon. Roger Casement had told Senor Tizon that
he would like to interview five men, and these were duly
brought up by Macedo. But as Casement was informed
privately that Macedo had threatened these men, it was
deemed inadvisable that Macedo should be present during
the interrogations. Casement was convinced that the first
of these men was not speaking the truth, and the event
proved him to be right. For this man came to see Casement
some ten days later and admitted that he had lied. He had
done so, he said, because he had not liked to speak out before
Senor Tizon, and because he was ashamed of what he had
done. He also told Casement that Macedo had begged him
not to say anything against him, and had offered to increase
his pay by £8 a month. One of these Barbadians, a man
named James Chase, questioned by Casement, made a
lengthy statement. He said that he was chiefly employed,
when in Abisinia, in ‘making commissions’ against the
Indians. Often, he said, had he seen these Indians flogged
for not bringing in rubber, and frequently they were killed.
Senor Tizon interrupted at this and sought to assure Case¬
ment that floggings were past history, and that Indians were
not then either flogged or killed. But Chase reiterated his
1 loc. cit., p. 35.
70 ROGER CASEMENT

statement and, in answer to Casement, said that he had seen

Indians flogged and killed quite recently. As Chase related
each instance of flogging, Senor Tizon sought to shake his
evidence, but was unable to do so. Casement questioned
this man on many other occasions, and elicited charges of
the gravest kind.
He gave Casement a detailed account of a commission to
the Caqueta River upon which he was sent in about May
of that year, 1910. The expedition was under the command
of one, Filomene Vasquez. There were two other Peruvians,
Armando Blondel and Esias Ocampo, and eight Indian
‘ muchachos ’ besides Chase himself. Everyone was armed
with Winchester rifles and carried cartridges. They were
sent by one of the chiefs of sections, Abelardo Agiiero, to an
Indian settlement on the River Pama to look for Indians
who had run away from Blondel. They were also to look
for a Boras Indian named Katenere. Katenere, who had
formerly worked rubber in the Abisinia district, had escaped
and captured some rifles. With these rifles he armed a band
of Indians and had successfully resisted all attempts at his
recapture. He had shot a number of white men and was
terrorising the Peruvian rubber-workers.
At the first Indian ‘ house5 at which the expedition arrived
they caught eight Indians, five men and three women.
These were tied up and marched with the expedition to the
next house, where four more Indians were captured, one
woman and three men. For no apparent reason Vasquez
ordered one of the ‘muchachos’ to cut off the head of this
woman. The ‘muchacho ’ took her by the hair of her head
and, flinging her on the ground, hacked off her head with a
machete. The mangled remains of this poor woman were
left in the path while the expedition moved on, taking with
them their prisoners, securely tied up. When they ap¬
proached the house where they believed Katenere was living,
Ocampo and two of the ‘ muchachos ’ were left to guard the
prisoners, while Vasquez and the rest of the expedition went
forward to the house. There they found Katenere and his
 THE PUTUMAYO 7*
wife. The woman was captured but Katenere got away.
Four ‘muchachos’ were sent out to look for him, and these
men, on arriving at another house in the forest, found
several more Indians whom they captured, together with
four rifles. The leader of the ‘muchachos,’ a Boras Indian
named Henriques, ordered these Indians to be released, and
sent three ‘muchachos’ into the forest to find more Indians.
Amongst the Indians captured Henriques discovered a girl
of whom he was very fond. He tried to seize this girl, and
in the scuffle that followed, he was killed. When the three
‘ muchachos ’ returned they found that the released Indians
were armed with the rifles which had belonged to Katenere.
Each party fired, the forest Indians without effect, and two
of the Indians were killed. The whole party then returned
to the house where Vasquez was spending the night.
The next morning they began their journey again, and
soon after starting they met a little girl, a daughter of Kate¬
nere, who could not have been more than eight years old.
The sight of the armed men frightened her and she began
to cry. Immediately Vasquez ordered her to be killed. A
young ‘ muchacho ’ boy cut her head off, and the body was
left where it fell. After about half an hour’s further march,
it was noticed that one of the women prisoners was lagging
behind, as she could not walk fast enough to keep up with
the expedition. Vasquez ordered the ‘muchacho’ to kill
her, and this he did by throwing her on the ground and
hacking off her head with several blows of his machete.
By this time the party were becoming anxious of pursuit by
the Indians and were walking very fast. An Indian lad of
about sixteen, who could not keep up, was beheaded at the
order of Vasquez. And three Indian men who were so
weakened by hunger that they could hardly walk, were shot
because they could not keep up, one by Vasquez and the
other two by the ‘muchacho,’ Cherez, who had performed
the previous killings. Altogether thirteen Indians were
killed on this expedition, and when they reached Morelia
they had only five prisoners, one of whom was a small child.
72 ROGER CASEMENT

Three of these, two men and a woman, were at once put in

the ‘cepo ’ with chains round their necks. The child was not
tied up but was kept with its mother all night. The fourth
prisoner was hung up by a chain round his neck, which was
pulled taut over the beam in the roof of the house, so that
only his toes rested upon the ground. In this position he
remained all night. They were given no food, either that
night or before they were taken, the next morning, in chains
from Morelia to Abisinia, a journey of some seven hours
over a very rough track through the forest.
Casement asked Chase questions regarding the flogging of
Indians by Fonseca, and he answered that often he had seen
Fonseca kill Indians by flogging them. ‘Asked if he had seen
women thus killed, he replies, “Yes. They were shot and
died from blows ” (from floggings). They were cut to pieces
sometimes and smelt dreadfully. Once he himself was put
in “cepo” alongside some of these rotting human beings
who had been inhumanly flogged, and the smell was so bad
he begged and implored to be taken out—he could not stand
it, but Fonseca kept him in all night. He saw these people
die from these floggings; their bodies would sometimes be
dragged away and thrown in the bush around the station,
or burnt. He has seen the “muchachos” shoot Indians
under the order of Fonseca. Continual floggings went on
at that time among women and children.’ 1
While Casement was at Entre Rios, Chase described the
murder of an Indian which had taken place almost on the
spot on which Casement was standing. ‘Asked if he had
seen anyone killed here, he answers, “Yes, one man.”
Asked to describe how, he states that he does not know the
reason. “An Indian came in one day from the forest and
the present chief, O’Donnell, spoke to a ‘muchacho’ up
here on the verandah where we now are, and the Indian was
standing down below in the compound. His hands were
not tied, he had apparently come in of his own accord;
he had been sent for probably. The ‘muchacho’ went
1 loc. cit., p. 75.
 THE PUTUMAYO 73
straight away from talking with Senor O’Donnell and took
his shot-gun, not his carbine, and shot the Indian in the
face, in the head.” He states it was here in the compound
before all their eyes; he and others were all looking on.
The Indian fell down, but not dead; he was groaning on
the ground, so the “muchacho” took a bow and arrow—a
poisoned arrow he thinks—and shot him as he lay on the
ground. O’Donnell was looking on from the verandah.’1
Finally, on the 5th November, at La Chorrera, Chase
charged Fonseca with a crime committed in the most revolt¬
ing circumstances. ‘He states that amongst other things he
saw Fonseca do was to kill an Indian man who was at that
time confined in the stocks, or “cepo,” at Ultimo Retiro.
The Indian in question had run away from working rubber,
but had been caught and brought in a prisoner. Fonseca
said to him: “I am going to kill you.” The man protested,
and said he had done no harm. He had not killed a white
man, he had not injured anyone or killed anyone, and could
not be killed for running away. Fonseca laughed at him,
and hung him up by the neck first with a chain drawn tight,
and then when let down from this torture he had him put
in the “cepo” with one foot only, the other leg being free.
Fonseca came up to the “cepo” with a stick with a club
head much bigger than the handle of the stick. He put
one of his legs against the Indian’s free leg and stretched
it apart from the confined leg. He then pulled off the
man’s “fono,” or loin-cloth made of beaten bark, so that he
was quite naked, and then struck the man many times with
the club-end of the stick on his exposed parts. These were
“smashed,” and the man died in a short time. Deponent
described the occurrence fully, declaring that he was an
eye-witness. {Note.—This statement was confirmed by the
Barbados man, Stanley S. Lewis, who stated he also saw
Fonseca commit this deed.) ’2 When this was related
Casement felt physically sick, and could scarcely bear to
think of it.
1 loc. cit., p. 75. 2 loc. cit., p. 77.
74 ROGER CASEMENT

At Ultimo Retiro Fonseca would indulge in a perverted

sport for the amusement of his friends, at the expense of the
unfortunate Indians. This was shooting Indians. Some¬
times he would shoot them in the stocks, and at others they
would be taken out to the open ground while Fonseca shot
at them from his verandah. On one occasion Fonseca took
a young girl and bandaged her eyes and face. Then she
was made to walk away, while Fonseca shot at her ‘as a
sport for his friends.’ Chase also saw a Colombian, Aquileo
Torres, cut off the ears of living Indians for his amusement.
‘Once,’ wrote Casement, ‘he cut off a man’s ears and then
burnt his wife before his eyes.’1
While Casement was interrogating another witness,
Stanley Sealey, Senor Tizon admitted to him that the system
was ‘a criminal one, a barbarous one,’ and that ‘it could not
be allowed to go on.’ This man, Stanley Sealey, described
to Casement incidents which took place when he went
on a commission to catch fugitive Indians, under Augusto
Jimenez, from Abisinia. On the afternoon of the first
day’s march they caught an old Indian woman. Jimenez
asked her where the rest of the Indians were. She seemed
frightened and told him that next day, at eleven o’clock, he
would reach a house where there were some Indians. They
took the old woman with them, and when at two o’clock the
next day they had found no house, Jimenez said to her,
‘Where is the house where are the Indians?’ The old
woman made no reply, whereupon Jimenez said to her,
‘You were telling me lies yesterday, but now you have got
to speak the truth.’ Then he called to his wife, an Indian
woman, ‘Bring me the rope off my hammock,’ and with this
he tied the old woman’s hands behind her back. Near by
there were two upright trees, and Jimenez made an Indian
cut a post and fix it horizontally between them. Then he
tied the woman up to this cross-post, her feet not reaching
the ground. Calling out to his men, ‘Bring me some leaves
—some dry leaves,’ he kindled a fire beneath her feet and
1 loc. cit., p. 77.
 THE PUTUMAYO 75

set light to it. The woman started to burn and large blisters
rose up on her thighs. All the time she was screaming and
crying out in the extremity of her agony. When they took
her down she was still alive, and Jimenez said to one of the
Indians, ‘Now if this old woman is not able to walk, cut her
head off.5 Accordingly the Indian put the poor tortured
soul out of her agony by beheading her.
A few hours after this loathsome execution Jimenez met
two women with a child. He asked the child where were
the Indians who had run away, and on the child professing
that it did not know, Jimenez gave it to an Indian to be
beheaded, which was done. Then the party proceeded,
taking with them the two women, one of them crying
piteously for her child. A little further in the wood they
met an Indian, a fine strong young man. By this time they
were near the Caqueta River, and since Jimenez wished to
cross to the other side, he asked this Indian where he could
obtain a boat. The Indian replied that he did not know.
Jimenez, calling him a liar, ordered him to be strung up in
the same manner as the old woman had been. Jimenez
kindled a fire under his feet and burned him. While the
poor man was burning, yelling in his pain, Jimenez said to
him, ‘Well, you will not tell me where the boat is, so you
must bear with that.5 Mercifully he was spared part of his
torture, for before he was dead, a ‘muchacho5 shot him.
A Barbadian, Joshua Dyall, confessed to Casement that
he had killed two men in an unspeakable way, by beating
them between the legs, at the order of Armando Normand.
In each case Normand himself seems to h'ave held the
prisoner’s legs apart. Normand was the most barbarous of
all the white men on the Putumayo. In the Black List which
Casement compiled, he writes of Normand as ‘a man of
whom nothing good can be said. The crimes committed by
this man are innumerable, and even Peruvian white men
said to me that Normand had done things that none of the
others had done. ... If anyone on the Putumayo deserves
punishment this man should be made an example of,
76 ROGER CASEMENT

From La Chorrera Casement went up the River Igara-

parana to Occidente, and then on to Ultimo Retiro, arriving
on the 7th October, where he spent some time pursuing his
investigations and taking statements from the Barbadians.
Here a man named Edward Crichlow, who had some skill
as a carpenter, described to Casement how the chief of
Santa Catalina, Aurelio Rodriguez, made a plan for a
double ‘ cepo ’ to hold the head and arms at one end while
the other end, which was movable, held the legs. It was
thus possible to fit into it persons of any stature, and Crichlow
assured Casement that quite small children, girls as well as
boys, had been flogged in it. Crichlow himself constructed
this devilish apparatus under the direction of Rodriguez.
Crichlow gave Casement an account of an expedition across
the Caqueta, but when Casement arrived at Entre Rios it
became clear that Crichlow had concealed a number of
circumstances attendant upon that expedition. For at
Entre Rios a voluntary statement was made to Casement by
a white Peruvian employee of the company, named Pinedo.
It appeared from this statement that an Indian had been
shot by Aquileo Torres in an unusually callous way, and
seemingly from sheer brutality or for sport. Torres had put
his rifle to the Indian’s face and told him to blow down the
barrel as a joke. The Indian did so, and Torres pulled the
trigger and blew the man’s head off.
After leaving Entre Rios Casement came to Matanzas in
the Andokes country, where he spent two days questioning
the Barbadians. Two days before Casement arrived at
Matanzas, the Peruvian chiefs, hearing that he was coming,
carried away the local ‘cepo’ and hid it in the bush. But
one of the Barbadians told Casement of this and showed
him where it was hidden. James Lane gave an account of
the death of an Indian named Kodihmka who was so
brutally flogged in the ‘cepo’ that his flesh became rotten
before he died, with his family beside him. This was done
in the presence of Armando Normand. Normand had
attempted to bribe a number of the witnesses at Entre Rios,
 THE PUTUMAYO 77
but fortunately these attempts did not succeed. A statement
which had appeared in Truth concerning three old Indians
and two young women, their daughters, who were murdered
by Normand in cold blood and their bodies eaten by dogs,
was confirmed by a man named Westerman Leavine. This
man had also seen an Indian chief burned alive in the
presence of his wife and children. The wife was then
beheaded and the children dismembered and their remains
thrown upon the fire. On another occasion Leavine saw
Normand himself cut to pieces an Indian woman because
she had refused to live with one of his employees. Leavine
told Casement that Normand frequently gave Indians as
many as 200 lashes and that his common practice was to
burn children to force them to reveal where their parents
were. Casement, in his precis of this man’s evidence,
writes, ‘ He saw Normand on one occasion take three native
men and tie them together in a line, and then with his
Mauser rifle shoot all of them with one bullet, the ball going
right through. He would fire more than one shot into them
like this.’ 1
On the 19th October Casement left Matanzas to return to
Entre Rios. The journey, which he made in the company
of a large number of Indians carrying in their rubber, took
two days. The night of the 19th Casement spent with over
100 Andokes and Boras Indians in a deserted Indian house
in the forest. While in this house at least a dozen young men
applied to Casement for healing lotions to relieve the pain
in the wounds caused by flogging. He was only too glad
to be able to do something to ease their unhappiness. This
journey made by the Indians whom Casement accompanied
was one of the many similar journeys on which the Indians
were forced to carry rubber from distant places through the
almost tracldess forest down to La Chorrera and other places.
Casement, in his report, gives a description of this journey:
CI witnessed one such march, on a small scale, when I
accompanied a caravan of some 200 Andokes and Boras
1 loc. cit., p. 99.
78 ROGER CASEMENT

Indians (men, women, and children) that left Matanzas

station on the 19th October to carry their rubber that had
been collected by them during the four or five preceding
months down to a place on the banks of the Igaraparana,
named Puerto Peruano (Peruvian Port), whence it was to
be conveyed in lighters towed by a steam launch down
to La Chorrera. The distance from Matanzas to Puerto
Peruano is one of some 40 miles, or possibly more. The
rubber had already been carried into Matanzas from
different parts of the forest lying often ten or twelve hours’
march away, so that the total journey forced upon each
carrier was not less than 60 miles, and in some cases probably
a longer one. The path to be followed was one of the worst
imaginable—a fatiguing route for a good walker quite
unburdened.
‘For two days—that is to say, from Matanzas to Entre
Rios—I marched along with this caravan of very unhappy
individuals, men with huge loads of rubber weighing, I
believe, sometimes up to 70 kilog. each, accompanied by
their wives, also loaded with rubber, and their sons and
daughters, down to quite tiny things that could do no more
than carry a little cassava bread (prepared by the mothers
before leaving their forest home), to serve as food for parents
and children on this trying march. Armed “muchachos,”
with Winchesters, were scattered through the long column,
and at the rear one of the “racionales” of Matanzas, a
man named Adan Negrete, beat up the stragglers. Behind
all, following a day later, came Senor Normand himself,
with more armed “racionales,” to see that none fell out or
slipped home, having shed their burdens of rubber on the
way. On the second day I reached Entre Rios in the
early afternoon, the bulk of the Indians having that morning
started at 5.15 a.m. from the place where we had slept
together in the forest. At 5.15 that evening they arrived
with Negrete and the armed “muchachos” at Entre Rios,
where I had determined to stay for some days. Instead of
allowing these half-starved and weary people, after twelve
hours’ march staggering under crushing loads, to rest in
this comparatively comfortable station of the company,
where a large rest-house and even food were available’
 THE PUTUMAYO 79
Negrete drove them on into the forest beyond, where they
were ordered to spend the night under guard of the
“muchachos.” This was done in order that a member
of the company’s commission (Mr. Walter Fox), who was at
Entre Rios at the time along with myself, should not have
an opportunity of seeing too closely the condition of these
people—particularly, I believe, that we should not be able
to weigh the loads of rubber they were carrying. I had,
however, seen enough on the road during the two days I
accompanied the party alone to convince me of the cruelty
they were subjected to, and I had even taken several
photographs of those among them who were more deeply
scarred with the lash.
‘Several of the women had fallen out sick on the way,
and five of them I had left provided for with food in a
deserted Indian house in the forest, and had left an armed
Barbados man to guard them until Senor Tizon, to whom
I wrote, could reach the spot, following me from Matanzas
a day later. An opportunity arose the next day to weigh
one of these loads of rubber. A straggler, who had either
fallen out or left Matanzas after the main party, came into
Entre Rios, staggering under a load of rubber, about mid¬
day on the 21 st October, when Mr. Fox and I were about
to sit down to lunch. The man came through the hot sun
across the station compound, and fell before our eyes at
the foot of the ladder leading up to the verandah, where,
with the chief of the section (Senor O’Donnell), we were
sitting. He had collapsed, and we got him carried into the
shade and revived with whisky, and later on some soup and
food from our own table. He was a young man, of slight
build, with very thin arms and legs, and his load of rubber
by no means one of the largest I had seen actually being
carried. I had it weighed there and then, and its weight
was just 50 kilog.
‘ This man had not a scrap of food with him. Owing to
our intervention he was not forced to carry on this load,
but was permitted the next day to go on to Puerto Peruano
empty-handed in company with Senor Normand. I saw
many of these people on their way back to their homes some
days later after their loads had been put into the lighters at
 8o ROGER CASEMENT

Puerto Peruano. They were returning footsore and utterly

worn out through the station of Entre Rios on their way back
to their scattered houses in the Andokes or Boras country.
They had no food with them, and none was given them at
Entre Rios. I stopped many of them, and inspected the
little woven string or skin bags they carry, and neither man
nor woman had any food left. All that they had started
with a week before had been already eaten, and for the last
day or two they had been subsisting on roots and leaves and
the berries of wild trees they had pulled down on the way.
We found, on our own subsequent journey down to Puerto
Peruano, a few days later, many traces of where they had
pulled down branches and even trees themselves in their
search for something to stay the craving of hunger. In
some places the path was blocked with the branches and
creepers they had torn down in their search for food, and
it was only when Senors Tizon and O’Donnell assured me
that this was done by “Senor Normand’s Indians” in their
hungry desperation that I could believe it was not the
work of wild animals.’1

After a stay of about a week Casement left Entre Rios, and

after visiting Atenas, arrived again in La Chorrera. While
he was in La Chorrera he visited a number of places in the
district and interviewed some ten Barbadians, and took
further statements from some of the men that he had
examined on his previous visit.
A Barbadian, James Mapp, saw Jimenez burn a man alive,
after his neck had been cut, for no apparent reason. It
appeared from the evidence of other witnesses that the
burning alive of Indians was a common practice of Jimenez,
for many spoke of seeing this done on a number of occasions.
But it is useless and nauseating further to multiply the
list of horrors related to Casement and which formed his
staple mental diet for about three months, and of which the
memories were to remain with him for the rest of his life.
It was, perhaps, the floggings and the ‘commissions’ which
made the most profound impression upon Casement. In
1 loc. cit., p. 36.
 THE PUTUMAYO 8l

his report he continually returns to this subject, pointing out

again and again how widespread and frequent this form of
punishment was. In many cases the victims died, and not
even women were spared. In many cases they were so
cruelly flogged that the flesh putrefied and maggots appeared.
A frequent concomitant of flogging was prolonged confine¬
ment in the ‘ cepo ’ without food or water. So great was the
craving for food of these poor wretches that they would
scrape up with their fingers the dirt near the ‘ cepo ’ and
eat it, and they would even eat the maggots in their own
putrefying flesh. Some attempt was made by the company’s
executive to stamp out this barbarous practice, but it was
quite ineffective, as most of the posts where these floggings
took place were so remote as to be wholly uncontrolled. In
1910, at Occidente, a cowardly substitute had been found
for flogging with tapir hide, which left no scars upon the
victim. The beating there was carried out with the flat side
of a machete. Another substitute for flogging was evolved
at Occidente, and this, too, left no marks. Indians were
tied up and held under water till their bowels filled and they
became unconscious, when they were laid out on the bank
of the river. This was done in the presence of the terrified
natives, who were forced to look on. One Indian, con¬
demned to this punishment, struggled so violently that his
torturers lost their hold upon him and he got away, but as
he was pinioned he was drowned. His body was recovered
four days later. In some stations no attempt was made to
collect rubber, and the sole occupation of those in charge
of these stations was catching Indians. This seems to have
been the state of affairs obtaining throughout the Putumayo
district generally when first Arana Brothers came on the
scene, but after a time rubber-gathering became the chief
work until the district produced many thousands of pounds’
worth a year.
It must have been with a heavy heart that Casement
recorded all these things which were to prove such a damn¬
ing indictment of the administration of the Putumayo dis-
6
82 ROGER CASEMENT

trict. On the 16th November he left La Chorrera for

Iquitos in the Liberal. He was horrified to find that one of
the worst criminals on the Putumayo, Armando Normand,
proposed to travel in the same boat. Casement strongly
objected to this and begged Senor Tizon to send him by
another vessel, which was done. Arrived at Iquitos he
caught the first downstream boat to Para. There he obtained
a passage in the first homeward bound mail steamer, the
Ambrose, and in her he left the scene of such unbelievable
brutality, bearing with him the voluminous notes of all that
he had seen and been told. It can be imagined with what
relief he left South America for home.
He arrived in London at the end of the year, and before
the New Year was a week old he sent a short preliminary
report to Sir Edward Grey. This report was the barest of
summaries, but he enclosed with it a list giving the names
of the worst criminals on the Putumayo. He did this so that
action could be taken against these men without delay, and
before they had an opportunity to escape. But it was ten
days before Sir Edward Grey instructed Mr. des Graz, the
British Minister at Lima, to make confidential representa¬
tions to the Peruvian Government with a view to its taking
action against those concerned. At the end of January
Casement submitted a long report concerning the treatment
accorded the Barbados men, and in March he sent to Sir
Edward Grey a further, and even fuller, report dealing
with the methods of rubber collection of the Peruvian
Amazon Company, and of their treatment of the native
population.
 CHAPTER VI

THE END OF THE PUTUMAYO

The Government was in close touch with its representative

at Lima, but little satisfaction could be obtained from
the Peruvian Government. They did not seem disposed
to take any action against those men mentioned in Case¬
ment’s Black List. Delay was fatal, since ample opportunity
would be afforded the criminals to escape. Casement was
desperately anxious that these men should be punished
without delay, but this continued inactivity on the part
of Peru was beginning to arouse a fury in him. He
redoubled his efforts to obtain some sort of action, and
he spent many hours at the Foreign Office urging the
importance of proceeding without delay. The information
received from Peru was far from satisfactory. The Peruvian
Government had issued a judicial commission under Dr.
Paredes, but this commission was to take three months.
Aurelio Rodriguez had been arrested but was allowed bail,
and the worst criminals had already fled, taking with them
large numbers of Indians whom they were selling as slaves
for £50 each.
However, in May, 1911, in order that further pressure
might be brought to bear on the Peruvian Government,
Casement’s report was confidentially communicated to the
United States Government, who so heartily sympathised
with the British Government that they made representations
at once to Peru. Further communications to Peru produced
no appreciable result, and matters continued in this dilatory
way for some time.
But the Government had not failed to appreciate the value
of Roger Casement’s arduous work. Casement was staying
83
84 ROGER CASEMENT

with his friend, Richard Morten, in Buckinghamshire, and

was dressing one morning when Morten came up to his
room, with a newspaper in his hand, to tell him that it was
announced that he was to receive a knighthood. This news
was by no means welcome to Casement, and he replied,
‘ I wish they had asked me first—I thought after my previous
action in 1905 there would be no fresh attempt.5 If he had
been approached beforehand and asked whether he would
accept a knighthood he would certainly have refused. He
felt that it was wrong and disloyal for a man holding the
views that he did with regard to Ireland and England, to
receive an honour from England, Ireland’s sworn enemy.
But once the announcement was made he found it impossible
to refuse the honour thrust unsolicited upon him, without
giving considerable offence. Moreover such a course would
have entailed the resignation of his post and the abandon¬
ment of the cause of the Putumayo Indians, which was very
near his heart. This weighed with him very greatly, and
he accepted the knighthood. Soon after he saw the an¬
nouncement in the papers, he received a letter from Sir
Edward Grey telling him that he was to be honoured, and
to which he sent the following reply:

‘The Savoy,
‘ Denham,
‘Bucks.
‘Dear Sir Edward Grey,

‘ I find it very hard to choose the words in which to make

acknowledgment of the honour done me by the King. I
am much moved at the proof of confidence and appreciation
of my service on the Putumayo conveyed to me by your
letter, wherein you tell me that the King has been graciously
pleased to confer upon me the honour of knighthood. I
am, indeed, grateful to you for this signal assurance of your
personal esteem and support. I am very deeply sensible
of the honour done to me by His Majesty. I would beg
that my humble duty might be presented to His Majesty
when you may do me the honour to convey to him my
 THE END OF THE PUTUMAYO 85

deep appreciation of the honour he has been so graciously

pleased to confer upon me.
‘ I am, dear Sir Edward,
‘Yours sincerely,
‘Roger Casement.1
‘19th June, 1911.5

He expressed his real feelings, however, in a letter which

he wrote to Mrs. J. R. Green, two days later, when con¬
gratulations were arriving from his friends. Part of this
letter is as follows:
‘The Savoy, &c.
‘21 June, 1911.

‘My dear Woman of the Good Words,’

‘Your congratulations have been the best—for you alone
have seen there was the Irish side to it all. What you say
is true—altho’ few will believe it. Very few can possibly
believe that I have not worked for this—for a “distinction,”
“an honour”—or whatever they call it—instead of, in
reality, deeply desiring not to get it. In this case it was like
the —I couldn’t help it at all—and I could not
possibly fling back something offered like that. Yes, it was
Sir E. Grey—I had a charming letter from him telling me
it was he did it. But there are many in Ireland will think
of me as a traitor—and when I think of that country and of
them, I feel I am. At least I feel always that until Ireland
is safe and her outlook happy no Irishman has any right
to be accepting honours or having a good time of it anywhere.
Sir George White showed that spirit in the war time rather
finely—and altho’ otherwise he is hateful to me as one of
the Unionist anti-Irish throng, still I thought that act was
the outbreaking of some strain of Irish feeling in him. The
City of Aberdeen presented him with a sword of honour
during the Boer War—at the time he had returned from
Ladysmith and was Governor of Gibraltar. He declined
it until peace came. He said he could accept no honour,
no distinction while the war lasted, but that when peace
1 Quoted in full in Trial of Roger Casement, p. 8.
86 ROGER CASEMENT

came he would. It was the right note—and if only every

Irishman thus situated could do the same it would be a fine
thing indeed. How I should have rejoiced if I could have
done this, and said to the King what is really in my heart
instead of the perfunctory words of thanks (cold and formal
enough) I have said. I want you, please, to keep always
writing to me just as “Roger Casement”—will you? That
will be a distinction now. If Irish hearts that know my
real feeling will keep on addressing my letters in the old
way it will be a little consolation—for oh! you don’t
know how I hate the thing—and I shall expect and hope
that all who really care for me will omit the words.

‘Adios—Yours always, oh! Dear Woman of the Kind

Words, Roger Casement.’

But with regard to the Putumayo nothing was done.

Casement, who had arrived back in England with such high
hopes of the betterment of the condition of the natives and
of the punishment of the criminals, was becoming extremely
dejected and was displaying signs of a great disillusionment.
Telegrams and despatches continued to pass between
London and Lima, but despite the support of the United
States, little was done. Dr. Paredes had completed his work
and issued 215 warrants of which only six were executed,
and he had completed a voluminous report of 1,300 pages,
which amply corroborated Casement’s charges. Judge
Valcarlel was entrusted with the case against the criminals
of the Peruvian Amazon Company, but he threw up his
appointment. Nearly a year had passed and nothing of
any consequence had been done. Casement was becoming
increasingly impatient at these continued delays, and he
returned to London. He had several interviews with Sir
Edward Grey, whom he urged to allow him to return to the
Putumayo to see for himself what was being done. Accord¬
ingly, on the 16th of August, 1911, Casement once more
left England for the Putumayo, arriving exactly two months
later at Iquitos.
 THE END OF THE PUTUMAYO 87

Meanwhile further despatches were sent to Peru, and at

last the President seems to have awakened to the necessity
of the situation, but he experienced considerable difficulty
in galvanising his government into activity. On the 12 th
December the President sent the following telegram to the
prefect:

‘Slowness of proceedings against Putumayo criminals

and failure to capture them yet, including Fonseca and
Montt, are cause of great harm to country in England,
where it is imagined that my Government has not done
everything possible to capture delinquents. It is my desire,
in the interest of the country and my own, that you should
make every possible effort to capture refugees in Brazil and
all the others; also that trial should be pressed on and
terminate in severe punishment of the guilty.” 1

A large volume of correspondence from the British and

American Governments was accumulating, but it had little
or no effect on Peru. Casement, who did not actually visit
the Putumayo, found a state of things even worse than he
had expected. He found that the number of warrants issued
was by now 237, but only nine arrests had actually been
made, and those who were arrested, with the exception of
Aurelio Rodriguez, were inferior agents who had done no
more than obey their masters. The manager of the company
at Iquitos, Pablo Zumaeta, who had been arrested on a
warrant issued by Judge Valcarlel, appealed to the Superior
Court of Iquitos, which annulled the warrant ‘ without trial
or public investigation of the charges against him.’ Further¬
more, the Court refused to proceed with the case against
those already arrested until the others who were equally
implicated could be brought to trial. Casement could
discover no legal justification for this.

‘Two of the worst of the murderers who had fled from

the Putumayo after my visit in 1910, Peruvians named Jose
Innocente Fonseca and Alfredo Montt, were said to be
1 Cmd. 6266 of 1912, p. 150.
88 ROGER CASEMENT

engaged in rubber-gathering by means of enslaved Indians

they had carried away from the Putumayo into Brazilian
territory at a spot quite close to the Peruvian frontier.
Efforts were made, at my instance, by the Brazilian auth¬
orities to arrest these men and expel them from Brazilian
soil, but, unfortunately, owing to the remote region in which
they had established themselves, and to other causes, the well-
meant efforts of the Brazilian Government failed in execution
on the spot.’1

But what angered Casement most was to find many of the

men who should have been arrested still in their houses and
going about their business without let or hindrance. By the
time Casement arrived again in Iquitos the number of
warrants issued by Dr. Valcarlel had risen to more than 237.
Many of those named in the warrants had left the region,
while many others had continued ‘ to dwell on the Putumayo
and to follow their ordinary avocation of forcing the Indians
to bring in rubber at stated intervals.’ Casement could ob¬
tain no explanation of why the police left undisturbed so
many of the criminals who were in either Iquitos or places
easily accessible therefrom. Following Casement’s return to
Iquitos an effort was made to arrest some 20 employees
of the company, but the commissioner entrusted with the
arrests in each case took action just too late, possibly because
he was a brother-in-law of the managing-director of the
company. The impression which Casement obtained during
his stay in Iquitos was that the punishment of the wrong¬
doers was a thing not to be expected.
It was made increasingly clear to Casement that unless the
Government were speedily roused from their apathy, nothing
whatever would be done to remove the abuses which were so
prevalent, and that in a short time the former state of affairs
would be re-established. ‘It was abundantly clear,’ he
wrote, ‘that the company, or those who locally controlled
the Putumayo in its name, having recovered from the shock
of exposure and fear that followed the visit of the com-
1 loc. cit., p. 154.
 THE END OF THE PUTUMAYO 89

missioners and myself in 1910, had determined to retain

forcible exploitation of the Indians as their right by conquest
and their surest means of speedy gain.’ 1
The Indian population, under the tyranny of the Peru¬
vians, had fallen from 50,000 in 1906 to not more than 8,000
in 1911, while the former large output of rubber had sunk
to less than half. It is noteworthy that after the formation
of the Peruvian Amazon Company the annual yield of
rubber progressively declined.
Some indication of the feelings of Casement, excited by
the treatment of the Indians, is given by the following prosaic
words of his report, which afford a glimpse of the smouldering
fire of resentment which lay beneath them:

‘ The fate of the Indian supporter of this fabric of civilised

society is of no account. The short-sighted policy which
ends in working him to death, and denuding whole regions
of their entire population, is only what has been the settled
custom and practice of well-nigh 400 years of Iberian
occupation of that part of the world.
‘It was not ever a fact, and is not now a fact, that the
presence of the Peruvian or Amazonian Indian is incom¬
patible with the existence or civilisation of the white man.
It was not ever, and is not now, a war of plough against
tomahawk, of colonist and cultivator against barbarism and
warrior hunter.
‘On the contrary, the Peruvian Indian is a being of
extreme docility of mind, gentleness of temper, and strength
of body, a hardy and excellent worker, needing only to be
dealt with justly and fairly to prove the most valuable
asset the country possesses. Instead of this he has been
from the first enslaved, bent by extortion and varying
methods of forced labour to toil, not for his own advantage
or the advancement of his country, but for the sole gain and
personal profit of individuals who have ever placed their own
desires above the common welfare.
‘In the Amazon territories of Peru—the great region
termed the Montana—the entire population, it may be said,

1 loc. cit., p. 157.

90 ROGER CASEMENT

consists of native Indians, some brought into close touch,

as at Iquitos and in the settled mission centres of the Ucayali,
with white civilisation, but a great proportion of them, like
those on the Putumayo, still dwelling in the forest, a rude
and extremely primitive existence. To these remote people
civilisation has come, not in the guise of settled occupation
by men of European descent, accompanied by executive
control to assert the supremacy of law, but by individuals
in search of Indian labour—a thing to be mercilessly used,
and driven to the most profitable of tasks—rubber-getting
—by terror and oppression. That the Indian has disap¬
peared and is disappearing rapidly under this process is
nothing to these individuals. Enough Indians may remain
to constitute, in the end, the nucleus of what is euphemisti¬
cally termed a civilised centre.51

On leaving Iquitos Casement went to New York. He had

told Mr. Bryce, the British Ambassador there, of his impend¬
ing arrival, and when he arrived the two met to discuss the
situation on the Putumayo. Mr. Bryce thought that it
would be an excellent thing if Casement would personally
tell the officials of the American Government of the state of
affairs in Peru, and accordingly he asked Casement to delay
his departure from New York. Casement, therefore, re¬
mained three days in Washington, days which he spent in
conference with various officials and with President Taft.
These conferences, to quote a despatch from Mr. Bryce to
Sir Edward Grey, ‘ seem to have been of considerable interest
and importance.5
Casement arrived back in London on the 20th January,
1912, and in the first week of February he presented his
report to Sir Edward Grey. This report revealed the
appalling lack of diligence in apprehending the criminals
exhibited by the Peruvian Government, and resumed all
that he had seen while in Iquitos. It concluded with these
eloquent words: ‘All that is sensible of this among those
interested in the rubber industry, whether of Europe, the

1 loc. cit., p. 157.

 THE END OF THE PUTUMAYO 91
United States, or Brazil, should heartily unite in assisting
the best elements of Peruvian life to strengthen the arm of
justice, and to establish upon the Putumayo and throughout
the Montana, wherever the rubber-seeker seeks his profits, a
rule of right dealing and legality. It may be long before a
demoralisation drawing its sanction from so many centuries
of indifference and oppression can be uprooted, but Chris¬
tianity owns schools and missions as well as Dreadnoughts
and dividends. In bringing to that neglected region and to
those terrorised people something of the suavity of life, the
gentleness of mind, the equity of intercourse between man
that Christianity seeks to extend, the former implements of
her authority should be more potent than the latter.’ 1
Armed with this document the Government made more
vigorous representations to Peru, but still nothing was done,
till at last, in desperation, Sir Edward Grey, after consulta¬
tion with the United States Government, published Case¬
ment’s reports, together with the relevant correspondence,
as a Blue Book. When the actual details of the Putumayo
atrocities became known a thrill of horror ran through the
country. When the first shock was over a storm of indigna¬
tion broke loose, not only in England but in America also.
The shareholders of the Peruvian Amazon Company, horri¬
fied at the way in which their dividends were obtained,
presented a petition compulsorily to wind up the company.
The action came on for hearing in March of 1913 and a
winding-up order was made. On the 19th March the
Honourable Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady delivered judgment,
in which he castigated the company in scathing terms.
This judgment was subsequently issued as a pamphlet by
the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society.

Casement’s work was done, but done in such a splendid

manner as justly to earn him the reputation of being ‘the

1 Iqc. cit., p. 159. It is interesting to note that Casement’s report

formed the basis of W. E. Hardenburg’s well-known book, The Devil’s
Paradise.
92 ROGER CASEMENT

Bayard of the English Consular Service.’ His reputation

was very high and his fame was not confined to England
alone. But the rigours of the climate in which he had done
so much and the fearful experiences of his work had left their
mark upon him. He was broken in health, and in August
of 1913, while still a comparatively young man, he retired
on a pension.
When he returned from his second visit to the Putumayo
he was suffering from a bad attack of arthritis, which caused
him considerable pain. Early in January, 1912, he went out
to Las Palmas to recuperate and to find rest and quiet.
But in the hotel in which he was staying he found neither,
for as soon as it was known that Sir Roger Casement was in
the hotel, his life was made unbearable by the unwelcome
attentions of all those who wanted to meet a famous man.
He was not even secure in his bedroom; one day, when he
was in bed according to the orders of his doctor, the door
opened and in walked a stranger who introduced himself
and said how glad he was to meet Sir Roger. It was only
with the greatest difficulty that he was induced to quit the
room. Following this experience Casement moved to a
smaller hotel where he was less pestered. In May he paid
a visit to Germany. He was impressed by much that he
saw during his visit, and came back believing that the
German people were greater than he had thought. The
people he thought were ugly ‘ with thin pork chops of cheeks,
criss-crossed as if for cooking,’ but he admitted that they had
a great capacity for work and that their application and
organisation were wonderful. By 1913 he was nearly
restored to health, and in February he went out to South
Africa to see his brother, Tom.
 CHAPTER VII

BACK IN IRELAND

When Casement retired on a pension he went to live in

Ireland. It was seven years since he had last been there for
any considerable length of time, and during that time Irish
politics had been advancing rapidly. The birth of Sinn Fein
has already been noted, and the doctrines of this party
rapidly spread. Nevertheless, Casement was well aware of
all that had been happening in Ireland. While he was
away, in Africa and South America, he followed all that
went on in Ireland with the closest attention.
When Casement returned to Ireland, after being released
from his official duties, he began once more actively to
interest himself in the ‘ Irishisms of his own.’ He began at
once to do what he could to foster Irish education, an
education that would provide a knowledge of Ireland and
her history for her sons and daughters. His views on such
matters are set out in a letter that he wrote at this time. In
May, 1912, Mr. W. A. Fullerton, who was then headmaster
of the Ballymena Academy, the school at which Casement
had been educated, wrote to him, as the school’s most
famous old boy, to ask for a subscription towards an exten¬
sion fund for the school. The answer which Casement wrote
somewhat surprised the headmaster, who imagined Casement
to be the usual product of the ‘ascendancy’ type of school.
Casement wrote:
‘I fear it is not in my power to give you any substantial
help, for I am already committed by promise to aid several
educational movements in Ireland of a distinctively national
character which must have the first claim upon my sympathy
ana support. These are a Training College in Donegal—
an Irish school in Galway and a school in Dublin (St.
93
94 ROGER CASEMENT

Enda’s) where the course of teaching is Irish throughout

—that is, a course devised primarily to interest boys in their
own country and make them good and useful citizens of it.
Now from my own recollection of the old Diocesan School
and from what I know of similar establishments in Ireland,
their aim is not so much to fit a boy to live and thrive in his
own country as to equip him for export from it.
‘ I was taught nothing about Ireland in Ballymena
School—I don’t think the word was ever mentioned in a
single class of the school—and all I know of my country I
learned outside the school. I do not think that is a good or
healthy state of mind in which to bring up the youth of any
country—and while it endures, as it unhappily does, in so
many of the schools in Ireland—which are in but not of
Ireland—we shall see our country possessing inhabitants
fit to succeed and prosper in every country but their own—
citizens of the world, maybe, but not of Ireland.
‘As an Irishman, I wish to see this state of things changed
and Irish education to be primarily what that of every
healthy people is—designed to build up a country from
within, by training its youth to know, love and respect their
own land before all other lands. It is on this foundation,
and on this alone, that all countries that are prosperous
build their educational systems. The only school in Ireland
I am personally acquainted with that is attempting to do
this is St. Enda’s at Rathfarnham, and I have promised to
do all in my power to help that institution, a promise that
practically ties my hands in a case such as that of Ballymena.
However much I sympathise with you personally and your
unselfish efforts for your school, I sympathise much more
with my country which finds herself with no schools—or
say very few—that ever dream of the duty they owe to her,
and where they are not turning children against their
parent are at best training them to be of little or no service
to her.
‘Had Irish education been nationally conceived and
directed by men with a sense of patriotism, should we have
had the state of things that is revealed, for instance, in the
letter of Professor Culver well to The Times of 28 May
last? “Many school houses are not only entirely unsuited
 BACK IN IRELAND 95
for schools but they are quite unsanitary. The provision
for teachers’ pensions has long been an acknowledged
disgrace. But if the provisions for primary teachers and
education is altogether inadequate, that for secondary
teachers and education is far worse. Mr. Dale’s official
report was published several years ago and matters have
not been improved one whit since.” This indictment,
which we know to be true, is to my mind an indictment of
the anti-national system of thought training and upbringing
which has controlled Irish life and of which Professor
, Culverwell’s University has been the highest expression.
Our schools have been turning out “Irishmen” to care
nothing, to think nothing, to do nothing for Ireland—and
one of the results we see in Professor Culverwell’s picture of
Irish education in 1912. Patriotism has been stigmatised
and often treated as “treason,” as a “crime”—or dismissed
with superior scorn as “local.” One of the effects we see
to-day, when an admittedly useful and badly needed school
situated in the heart of one of the most prosperous districts
of Ireland cannot depend on local support for its vital needs
but is forced to appeal for external help.
‘Your letter reached me in Bavaria, and I could not help
contrasting the state of educational advance I found around
me there—the widespread interest in and support of educa¬
tion everywhere visible—with the state of things in my own
country.
‘I should be glad to help Ballymena School were I sure
it was not to help an institution that was doing its share to
denationalise my fellow-countrymen.
‘ In any case, I fear I could not give very much help, for
I have already promised over £100 this year to educa¬
tional efforts in Ireland that are directed to a national end,
and tend to remove the reproach from our system of in¬
struction that they beget a race of men incuriosi suorum,
whose neglect of public duty and want of patriotism are
the chief causes of the state of things Professor Culverwell
denounces. No self-respecting people would ever have
allowed their schools to fall so low.
‘Despite my commitments to Irish educational bodies
that come nearer my ideal, I shall be happy to give a little
96 ROGER CASEMENT

help to your school for the sake of old associations and boyish
memories, if you care to accept it after this letter, and feel
that your course of instruction justifies you in receiving
support from a very pronounced Irish Nationalist.
‘Believe me, my dear Sir,
‘Yours very faithfully,
‘Roger Casement.’

When Parliament assembled in February, 1912, the

Liberals had a majority over the Unionists but were not
independent of the Irish members, for an adverse Irish vote
would bring the Ministry to an end. It was openly said by
the Unionists that the Government acted under Irish com¬
pulsion. Early in the first session Mr. Asquith introduced
his Home Rule Bill. All Irish matters were to be transferred
to an Irish Parliament, while the Imperial Parliament re¬
tained control of the armed forces, Irish foreign policy and
kindred subjects, and all matters affecting the Crown and
the Royal Prerogative. The Irish Parliament was to be
prevented from practising religious discrimination, and while
there was to be no independent Irish treasury, the Irish
Parliament was not to add more than 1 o per cent, to income
tax, customs and excise or death duties, as fixed by the
Imperial Parliament. The Royal Irish Constabulary was
not to be transferred to Irish control for six years. There
were still to be Irish members of the Imperial Parliament,
but these were to be reduced to 42. In the last week of April
the National Convention met in Dublin, and the Nationalists
gave the Bill a warm welcome. But the Unionist Party was
determined to see the rejection of the Bill at all costs, and
accordingly they fought it tooth and nail, stage by stage.
However, the Bill passed the Commons in January of 1913
but was rejected by the Lords with a decisive majority.
This, however, did not spell the death of the Bill, for under
the provisions of the Parliament Act of 1911, if the Commons
passed the Bill again in two successive sessions the Bill would
become law, whether the Lords agreed or not.
 ' BACK IN IRELAND q7
IA
The six counties of Ulster were implacably opposed to
Home Rule and would be ruled by no other Parliament than
that at Westminster, and this opposition provided the
greatest obstacle in the Government’s path. At numerous
Unionist meetings in Ulster, it was declared that Ulster
would go to any lengths in her resistance to Home Rule.
‘Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right,’ said Sir Edward
Carson. In September a mass meeting was held near
Belfast, when large numbers of Ulstermen signed the ‘ Coven¬
ant.’ In this Covenant they vowed to use ‘all means which
may be necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up
a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland.’ The Covenanters had
for their leader Sir Edward Carson, who had been Attorney-
General in a previous Unionist Government, and who had
as his Galloper, Mr. F. E. Smith. Carson had publicly
declared that he would not shrink from breaking any law in
his fight for Ulster, and both he and ‘ Galloper ’ Smith were
quite reckless of the consequences. The Ulster Volunteers
quickly set about arming themselves. They were constantly
drilling and holding parades and reviews. Such tactics soon
made both England and Ireland realise that the Ulstermen
were in earnest, and they had the solid backing of the
Unionist Party.
Thus the Government was placed upon the horns of a
dilemma: if they proceeded with the Bill as it was, including
Ulster within its scope, there was every likelihood of an
armed rebellion in the North; if, on the other hand, they
excluded Ulster from the operation of the Bill, it would
appear as if they had given way to unconstitutional threats,
and their loss of prestige would be incalculable. In the
event, the Government did nothing for nearly eighteen
months. But if nothing was done in England, a great deal
was done in Ireland on both sides. Ulster was by now in a
ferment, and the South was watching with apprehension
the tactics of the North. Inevitably the appeal of Sinn Fein
became wider, and so the tension grew.
To such a state of affairs did Roger Casement come when
7
98 ROGER CASEMENT

he returned to his home in Antrim in Ulster in 1913. It

must be remembered that in his previous stay in Ireland,
Casement had become extremely friendly with the young
leaders of the Sinn Fein movement, and had become imbued
with their ideas. He was an ardent Irish patriot who longed
to see Ireland a free country and mistress of her own des¬
tinies. In Ulster he saw a new side to Irish politics. He
made the acquaintance of Carsonism, of lawlessness and
armed resistance to Parliament, which was, perhaps, remin¬
iscent of Wolfe Tone. It was not long before Casement
adopted the spirit of Carsonism, but he applied it from a
National and Southern point of view.
Almost as soon as he had returned from the Putumayo he
had been contributing articles to the Press, and in particular
to the newly founded Irish Review. In this magazine, in
July, 1913, there appeared one of the most famous of all
Casement’s writings, an article entitled ‘Ireland, Germany
and the Next War.’ Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had published
an article in which he appealed to Ireland to recognise that
her interests were identical with those of England in the
event of war. He wrote, ‘ I would venture to say one word
here to my Irish fellow-countrymen of all political per¬
suasions. If they imagine that they can stand politically
or economically while Britain falls, they are woefully
mistaken. The British Fleet is their one shield. If it be
broken, Ireland will go down. They may well throw
themselves heartily into the common defence, for no sword
can transfix England without the point reaching Ireland
behind her.’ 1
In March Casement wrote his reply to Conan Doyle,
which is the article already mentioned. But he postponed
its publication until after his retirement, when he had
attained a position of less responsibility and greater freedom.
He had long been convinced of the inevitability of war
between England and Germany, but he did not anticipate
1 ‘ Great Britain and the Next War,’ by Sir A. Conan Doyle, Fort¬
nightly Review, February, 1913.
 BACK IN IRELAND 99
the outbreak of hostilities until 1915. Casement attempted
to demonstrate that Ireland, so far from suffering from
England’s defeat, would emerge from such a disaster into
a position of much prosperity. In the course of the article
Casement wrote:
‘ The conclusion that Ireland must suffer all the disasters
and eventual losses defeat would entail on Great Britain is
based on what may be termed the fundamental maxim
that has governed British dealings with Ireland throughout
at least three centuries. That maxim may be given in the
phrase, “ Separation is unthinkable.” Englishmen have come
to invincibly believe that no matter what they may do or
what may betide them, Ireland must inseparably be theirs,
linked to them as surely as Wales or Scotland, and forming
an eternal and integral part of a whole whose fate is in¬
dissolubly in their hands. While Great Britain, they admit,
might well live apart (and happily) from an Ireland safely
“sunk under the sea,” they have never conceived of an
Ireland, still afloat, that could possibly exist, or be permitted
to exist, apart from Great Britain. Sometimes, as a sort of
bogey, they hold out to Ireland the fate that would be hers
if, England defeated, somebody else should “take” her.
For it is a necessary corollary to the fundamental maxim
already stated that Ireland, if not owned by England, must
necessarily be “owned” by someone else than her own
inhabitants.
‘The British view of the fate of Ireland in the event of
British defeat may be stated as twofold. Either Ireland
would remain after the war as she is to-day, tied to Great
Britain, or she might be (this is not very seriously entertained)
annexed by the victor. No other solution, I think, has
ever been suggested. Let us first discuss No. 1.
‘This, the ordinary man-in-the-street view, is that as
Ireland would be as much a part of and belonging to Great
Britain after a war as before it, whatever the termina¬
tion of that war might be, she could not fail to share the
losses defeat must bring to the common realm. The partner¬
ship being indissoluble, if the credit of the house were
damaged and its properties depreciated, all members of the
100 ROGER CASEMENT

firm must suffer. In this view, an Ireland weaker, poorer

and less recuperative than Great Britain, would stand to
lose even more from a British defeat than the predominant
partner itself. Let us at once admit that this view is correct.
If on the conclusion of a great war Ireland was still to
remain, as she is to-day, an integral portion of a defeated
United Kingdom, it is plain she would suffer possibly more
even than fell to the share of Great Britain.
‘But that is not the only ending defeat might bring to
the two islands. We must proceed then to discuss No. 2,
the alternative fate reserved for Ireland in the unlikely
event of a great British overthrow. This is, that if the
existing partnership were to be forcibly dissolved, by
external shock, it would mean for Ireland “out of the
frying-pan into the fire.” The idea here is that I have
earlier designated as the “bogeyman” idea. Germany,
or the other victor in the great conflict, would proceed to
“take” Ireland.
‘An Ireland administered, say, by Prussians would soon
bitterly regret the milder manners of the Anglo-Saxon and
pine for the good old days of “doles ” from Westminster. I
know many Irishmen who admit that as between England
and Germany they would prefer to remain in the hands of
the former—on the principle that it is better to keep the
devil you know than fall into the hands of a new devil.
‘ German rule, we are asked to believe, would be so bad,
so stern, that under it Ireland, however much she might
have suffered from England in the past, would soon yearn
to be restored to the arms of her sorrowing sister. Assuming,
for the sake of argument, that Germany ‘ ‘ annexed ” Ireland,
is it at all clear that she would (or could even) injure Ireland
more than Great Britain has done? To what purpose and
with what end in view? “Innate brutality”—the English¬
man replied—“the Prussian always ill-treats those he lays
hands on—witness the poor Poles.” Without entering into
the Polish language question, or the Polish agrarian question,
it is permissible for an Irishman to reply that nothing done
by Prussia in those respects has at all equalled English
handling of the Irish language or English land dealings in
Ireland. The Polish language still lives in Prussian Poland,
 BACK IN IRELAND IOI

and much more vigorously than the Irish language survives

in Ireland.
‘But it is not necessary to obscure the issue bv a reference
to the Prussian Polish problem. An Ireland annexed to
the German Empire (supposing this to be internationally
possible) as one of the fruits of a German victory ovei . Great
Britain would clearly be administered as a common posses¬
sion of the German people, and not as a Prussian province.
The analogy, if one can be set up in conditions so dissimilar,
would lie not between Prussia and her Polish provinces, but
between the German Empire and Alsace-Lorraine. What,
then, would be the paramount object of Germany in her
administration of an overseas Reichsland of such extra¬
ordinary geographical importance to her future as Ireland
would be?
‘Clearly not to impoverish and depress that new-won
possession, but to enhance its exceeding strategic importance
by vigorous and wise administration, so as to make it the
main counterpoise to any possible recovery of British
maritime supremacy, so largely due as this was in the past
to Great Britain’s own possession of this island.
‘A prosperous and flourishing Ireland, recognising that
her own interests lie with those of the new administration,
would assuredly be the first and chief aim of German
statesmanship.
‘ The very geographical situation of Ireland would alone
ensure wise and able administration by her new rulers had
Germany no other and special interest in advancing Irish
well-being; for to rule from Hamburg and Berlin a remote
island and a discontented people, with a highly discontented
and separated Britain intervening, by methods of exploita¬
tion and centralisation, would be a task beyond the capacity
of German statecraft. German effort, then, would be
plainly directed to creating an Ireland satisfied with the
change, and fully determined to maintain it. And it might
be remembered that Germany is possibly better equipped,
intellectually and educationally, for the task of developing
Ireland than even 20th century England. She has already
faced a remarkable problem, and largely solved it, in her
forty years’ administration of Alsace-Lorraine. There a
 102 ROGER CASEMENT

province, torn by force from the bleeding side of France and

alien in sentiment to her new masters to a degree that
Ireland could not be to any changes of authority imposed
upon her from without, has within a short lifetime doubled
in prosperity and greatly increased in population, despite
the' open arms and insistent call of France, and despite a
rule denounced from the first as hateful.
‘However hateful, the Prussian has proved himself an
able administrator and an honest and most capable in¬
structor. In his strong hands Strassburg has expanded
from being an ill-kept, pent-in French garrison town to a
great and beautiful city. Already a local Parliament gives
to the population a sense of autonomy, while the palace and
constant presence of an Imperial prince affirm the fact that
German imperialism, far from engrossing and centralising all
the activities and powers of the Empire in Berlin, recognises
that German nationality is large enough and great enough
to admit of many capitals, many individualities, and
separate State growths within the sure compass of the one
great organism.
‘That an Ireland severed by force of arms from the
British Empire and annexed to the German Empire would
be ill-governed by her new masters is inconceivable. On the
contrary, the ablest brains in Germany, scientific, com¬
mercial and financial, no less than military and strategic,
would be devoted to the great task of making sure the
conquest not only of an island but of the intelligence of a not
unintelligent people, and by wisely developing so priceless
a possession to reconcile its inhabitants, through growing
prosperity and an excellent administration, to so great a
change in their political environment. Can it be said that
England, even in her most lucid intervals, has brought to
the government of Ireland her best efforts, her most capable
men, or her highest purpose? The answer may be given
by Li Hung Chang, whose diary we have so lately read.
Recording his interview with Mr. Gladstone the Chinese
statesman says: “He spoke about . . . Ireland; and I
was certain that he hoped to see that unhappy country
governed better before he died. ‘They have given their
best to England,’ he said, ‘and in return have been given
 BACK IN IRELAND IO3

only England’s worst.’ ” It is certain that Germany, once

in possession of Ireland, would assuredly not give to that
country only Germany’s worst.
‘ In a score of ways Ireland would stand to gain from the
change of direction, of purpose, of intention, and, I will
add, of inspiration and capacity in her newly-imposed
rulers.
‘Whether she liked them or not, at the outset, would be
beside the question. In this way they would differ but
little from those she had so long and so wearily had measure
of, and if they brought to their new task a new spirit and a
new intellectual equipment, Irishmen would not be slow to
realise that if they themselves were never to rule their own
country, they had, at least, found in their new masters
something more than Emigration Agents.
‘Moreover, to Germany there would be no “Irish
Question”; no “haggard and haunting problem” to
palsy her brain and miscredit her hand with its old tags and
jibes and sordid impulses to deny the obvious.
‘To Germany there would be only an English Question.
To prevent that from ever again imperilling her world-
future would be the first purpose of German overseas
statesmanship. And it is clear that a wise and capable
Irish administration designed to build up and strengthen
from within and not to belittle and exploit from without,
would be the sure and certain purpose of a victorious
Germany.
‘I have now outlined the two possible dispositions of
Ireland that up to this British opinion admits as conceivable
in the improbable event of a British defeat by Germany.
Only these two contingencies are ever admitted. First,
that Ireland, sharing the common disaster, must endure with
her defeated partner all the evils that a great overthrow must
inflict upon the United Kingdom. Second, that Ireland,
if Great Britain should be completely defeated, might
conceivably be “taken” or annexed by the victor and held
as a conquered territory, and in this guise would bitterly
regret the days of her Union with Great Britain. I have
sought to show, in answer to the latter argument, that were
annexation by the victor indeed to follow a British defeat,
I04 ROGER CASEMENT

Ireland might very conceivably find the changed circum¬

stances greatly to her advantage.
‘But there is a third contingency I have nowhere seen
discussed or hinted at, and yet it is at least as likely as
No. 1, and far more probable than No. 2—for I do not
think the annexation of Ireland by an European power is
internationally possible, however decisive might be the
overthrow of England. It is admitted (and it is on this
hypothesis that the discussion is proceeding) that Great
Britain might be defeated by Germany, and that the British
fleet might be broken and an enemy’s sword transfix
England. Such an overthrow would be of enormous import
to Europe and to the whole world. The trident would have
changed hands, for the defeat of England could only be
brought about by the destruction of her sea supremacy.
Unless help came from without, a blockaded Britain would
be more at the mercy of the victor than France was after
Sedan and Paris. It would lie with the victor to see that
the conditions of peace he imposed were such as, while
ensuring to him the objects for which he fought, would be
the least likely conditions to provoke external intervention
or a combination of alarmed world interests. Now, putting
aside lesser considerations, the chief end Germany would
have in a war with England would be to ensure her own
free future on the seas. For with that assured and
guaranteed by victory over England, all. else that she
seeks must in the end be hers. To annex existing British
Colonies would be in itself an impossible task—physically
a much more impossible task than to annex Ireland.
‘To annex Ireland would be, as a military measure,
once command of the seas was gained, a comparatively
easy task. No practical resistance to one German army
corps even could be offered by any force Ireland contains
or could, of herself, put into the field. No arsenal or means
of manufacturing arms exists. The population has been
disarmed for a century, and by bitter experience has been
driven to regard the use of arms as a criminal offence.
Patriotism has been treated as felony. Volunteers and
Territorials are not for Ireland. To expect that a disarmed
and demoralised population who have been sedulously
 sack in Ireland 105
batoned into a state of physical and moral dejection, should
develop military virtues in face of a disciplined army is to
attribute to Irishmen the very qualities their critics unite
in denying them. “The Irishman fights well everywhere
except in Ireland,” has passed into a commonplace; and
since every effort of Government has been directed to
ensuring the abiding application of the sneer, Englishmen
would find, in the end, the emasculating success of their
rule completely justified in the physical submission of
Ireland to the new force that held her down. With Great
Britain cut off and the Irish Sea held by German squadrons
no power from within could maintain any effective resistance
to a German occupation of Dublin and a military adminis¬
tration of the island. To convert that into permanent
administration could not be opposed from within, and with
Great Britain down and severed from Ireland by a victorious
German Navy, it is obvious that opposition to the permanent
retention of Ireland by the victor must come from without.
It is equally obvious that it would come from without, and
it is for this international reason that I think a German
annexation of any part of a defeated United Kingdom need
not be seriously considered. Such a complete change in the
political geography of Europe as a German-owned Ireland
could not but provoke universal alarm and a widespread
combination to forbid its realisation. The bogey that
Ireland, if not John Bull’s other island, must necessarily
be somebody else’s other island, will not really bear
inspection at close quarters.
‘ Germany would have to attain her end, the permanent
disabling of the maritime supremacy of Great Britain, by
another and less provocative measure. It is here and in
just these circumstances that the third contingency, and
one no Englishman, I venture to think, has ever dreamed
of, would be bom on the field of battle and baptized a
Germanic godchild with European diplomacy as sponsor.
Germany, for her own imperial ends and in pursuit of a great
world policy, might successfully accomplish what Louis XIV
and Napoleon only contemplated. An Ireland already
severed by a sea held by German warships, and temporarily
occupied by a German army, might well be permanently
io6 ROGER CASEMENT

and irrevocably severed from Great Britain, and with

common assent erected into a neutralised, independent
European State under international guarantees. An
independent Ireland would, of itself, be no threat or hurt
to any European interest. On the contrary, to make of
Ireland an Atlantic Holland, a maritime Belgium, would be
an act of restoration to Europe of this the most naturally
favoured of European islands that a Peace Congress should,
in the end, be glad to ratify at the instance of a victorious
Germany. That Germany should propose this form of
dissolution of the United Kingdom in any interests but
her own, or for the beaux yeux of Ireland, I do not for a
moment assert. Her main object would be the opening
of the seas and their permanent freeing from that over¬
whelming control Great Britain has exercised since the
destruction of the French Navy, largely based, as all naval
strategists must perceive, on the unchallenged possession
of Ireland.
‘That Ireland is primarily a European island, inhabited
by a European people who are not English, and who have
for centuries appealed to Europe and the world to aid them
in ceasing to be politically controlled by England, is historic
fact. And since the translation of this historic fact into
practical European politics would undoubtedly affect the
main object of the victorious power, it is evident that,
Great Britain once defeated, Germany would carry the
Irish Question to a European solution in harmony with her
maritime interests, and could count on the support of the
great bulk of European opinion to support the settlement
those interests imposed. And if politically and commercially
an independent and neutral Irish State commended itself
to Europe, on moral and intellectual grounds the claim
could be put still higher. Nothing advanced on behalf of
England could meet the case for a free Ireland as stated by
Germany. Germany would attain her ends as the champion
of national liberty, and could destroy England’s naval
supremacy for all time by an act of irreproachable morality.
The United States, however distasteful from one point of
view the defeat of England might be, could do nothing to
oppose a European decision that would clearly win an
 BACK IN IRELAND 107

instant support from influential circles—Irish and German

—within her own borders.
‘In any case, the Monroe Doctrine cuts both ways, and
unless at the outset the United States could be drawn into
an Anglo-Teutonic conflict, it is clear that the decision of
a European Congress to create a new European State out
of a very old European people could not furnish ground for
American interference.
‘So long as the vae victis took so altruistic a form as the
restoration of national liberty to a people who had per¬
sistently demanded it, America could not openly oppose so
unobjectionable a consummation of German policy.
‘ I need not further labour the question. If Englishmen
will but awaken from the dream that Ireland “belongs”
to them and not to the Irish people, and that that great and
fertile island, inhabited by a brave, a chivalrous and an
intellectual race (qualities they have, alas! done their
utmost to expel from the island), is a piece of real estate they
own and can dispose of as they will, they cannot fail to
perceive that the “Irish Question” cannot much longer be
mishandled with impunity, and that far from being, as they
now think it, merely a party question—not even a ‘ ‘ domestic
question” or one the Colonies have a voice in—it may in
a brief epoch become a European question.
‘With the approaching disappearance of the Near Eastern
question (which England is hastening to the detriment of
Turkey) a more and more pent-in Central Europe may dis¬
cover that there is a Near Western question, and that Ireland
—a free Ireland—-restored to Europe is the key to unlock
the western ocean and open the seaways of the world.” 1

Here was a seditious article, and it was the first really

plain statement in public of his views that Casement had
made. His hatred of England was already evident, but it
1 ‘ Ireland, Germany and the Next War,’ by Sir Roger Casement,
Irish Review, July, 1913. This article, with several others, was published
as a pamphlet in 1915 and widely circulated both in Germany and
America. The pamphlet was called The Crime against Europe: A
Possible Outcome of the War of 1914. The article above quoted appears
at p. 74 of the pamphlet. The article provoked considerable comment
in Ireland and was largely quoted in the German magazines following
some references to it by General von Bernhardi.
io8 ROGER CASEMENT

had not yet achieved that peculiar ferocity which, later, was
its distinguishing characteristic. It will be seen that he was
already seriously considering the idea of the liberation of
Ireland by means of German intervention, for he never
doubted for a moment that England and Germany would
eventually be at war.
Meanwhile Ulster, where Casement was living, was be¬
coming more and more the scene of lawlessness and disorder.
The Ulster Volunteers were by now a large body, and the
Covenanters were increasingly vociferous. The spirit of
Ulster Carsonism was anathema to Casement. That his
dream of a united and free Ireland should be frustrated by
a lawless and illegal armed force, which was actively en¬
couraged by a large English political party, roused him to
fury, and it was not long before he made his first political
speech to protest against such methods. On the 24th
October, a Friday, a meeting was held in the Town Hall of
Ballymoney. It was a gathering of Ulstermen who had
come to protest against the aims and methods of the Coven¬
anters and who refused to consider the exclusion of Ulster
as a solution of the crisis. Casement was one of the principal
speakers at this meeting. He spoke with feeling, but he
avoided making any bitter reference to Carson’s movement.
The next day The Times devoted half a column and a lead¬
ing article to a description of this meeting, a description,
particularly the references to himself, which did not meet
with Casement’s approval. Soon after he had read the
account, he sent the following letter to The Times1:

‘Sir,—In your editorial comments and those of your

Special Correspondent on the meeting of Protestants in
Ballymoney, held last Friday to “protest against the lawless
policy of Carsonism” at which I had the honour to be
present, there are some errors of statement or of opinion
that perhaps you will allow me to correct.
‘You say that “Ballymoney ... is probably the only
place in the whole province where such a gathering could be
x The Times, 31st October, 1913,
 BACK IN IRELAND IOg

held with any prospect of success,” and you go on to say

that “this small and isolated ‘pocket’ of dissident Pro¬
testants” represents “the last few survivors of the Ulster
Liberals of the old type.” In both statements you are
writing I fear from insufficient information. There are
many districts, to my knowledge, in Antrim and Down,
where similar meetings to that so successfully held at
Ballymoney could and probably would be held during the
coming weeks. Those who dissent from what is called
“Carsonism” and who are in favour of considering with
an open mind the question of the coming change of Irish
government and of Ulster’s part in it are a much larger
body in the province than is summed up in the phrase
“Ulster Liberals.” So far as I am aware, only two of the
speakers on Friday last belonged to what may be called the
Ulster Liberal Party. I am certainly not one of them, nor
have I until I spoke at Ballymoney taken any part in politics
of any kind. The same, I think, may be said of three of the
other principal speakers.
‘ The meeting, well attended as it was and representative
of the Presbyterian community of the district, would have
been much larger could those anxious to come have been
assured that the threats of intended violence that were
made in some quarters were groundless.
‘As it was, the Town Hall was filled, and a larger audience
would have had to be addressed elsewhere.
‘Your correspondent is good enough to refer to me as one
who ‘ ‘ combines citizenship of the world with an enthusiastic
attachment to romantic Nationalism,” and he adds that,
with the exception of Mr. Wilson of Belvoir Park, we were
somewhat out of contact with everyday life and feelings in
Ulster, and might incur the reproach of being “cranks and
faddists” to the Philistines who make so much of Ulster’s
muscular Christianity.
‘It was doubtless an enthusiastic attachment to romantic
humanitarianism that led my footsteps up the Congo and
Amazon Rivers, and probably without that quality I should
have failed in the very practical investigations I was privi¬
leged to conduct in both regions, and to bring to a not
unsuccessful issue.
no ROGER CASEMENT

‘ That humanity has lost, from my being an Ulster crank

or faddist of this kind, I must leave to a wider public to
decide.
‘ I may say, however, that whatever of good I have been
the means of doing in other countries was due in the first
place to the guiding light I carried from my own country,
Ireland, and to the very intimate knowledge I possessed
not only of her present-day conditions, but of the historic
causes that led up to them.
‘With a mind thus illumined, I was not ill-equipped for
comprehending that human suffering elsewhere, however
dissimilar that apparent environment might be, originated
in conceptions of human exploitation that are both very
old and very widespread and have not always been confined
by civilised men to the merely savage or barbarous citizens
of the world.
‘Since a personal reference has been made to me you
may pardon my adaptation of it, and admit that a wide
outlook on human affairs is not incompatible with a very
near insight into, and a close comprehension of, other
things. For, unlike Sir Edward Carson, Lieutenant-General
Richardson, Lord Charles Beresford, Mr. F. E. Smith and
many of those who represent Ulster either in Parliament
or on the “Provisional Government,” I am both by family
and education an Ulsterman. My father and grandfather
were both citizens of Belfast, and my family, for generations,
has been closely associated with County Antrim life. I was
educated at Ballymena in the centre of this county, and I
know the people of Antrim from my early boyhood.
‘The only “romance” of my Nationalism is that it is
wholly impersonal, and it is not associated with any party,
or expectant of any party or personal gain. In this I believe
I represent far more truly many, and a growing number, of
the sturdy peoples of this kindly part of Ireland than those
who misrepresent them as being aliens in their own land.
‘ It is true that I have not harangued or addressed Ulster
audiences, but I have lived amongst Ulster people many
years of my life, and in quiet and daily contact with them
I have learnt to know them well. Many who read my
remarks on Friday last have already assured me I spoke for
 BACK IN IRELAND 111

them, and I doubt not that the note of love for Ireland then
sounded by a small band of Ulster folk will yet be echoed
on a score of platforms in this most Irish province of Ireland.
‘ I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
‘Roger Casement.
‘Belfast, Oct. 29.
‘P.S.—Since writing the above The Times of the 27th
has reached me, and I see your correspondent returns to
this charge, and because I cannot be “labelled ” a “Liberal,”
a “Russellite” or a “Covenanter” I become a “romantic.”
The local committee knew, from my prior statement, what
my views were, and they nevertheless invited and welcomed
me, and it is perhaps significant that the passages of Mrs.
Green’s address most warmly applauded were precisely
those when the true national appeal was the strongest.
There is a good deal of Irish Nationality, in the best and
highest sense, in Ulster, as, perhaps, the next election for
more than one seat now held by those who deny its existence
will prove. R. C.’

This letter, besides giving an expression of Casement’s

views, throws considerable light upon the workings of his
mind. But to Casement in Ulster, living right among
militant Carsonism and daily watching their parades and
military exercises, it was becoming clear that there must be
a counterpoise to the Ulster Volunteers. Those who desired
Home Rule must take a leaf out of Carson’s book and fight
for it. All through 1913 the Government were receiving
reports from the Chief Secretary that there was grave danger
of rebellion in Southern Ireland. Steps had already been
taken to organise an armed force of Southerners, the Irish
Volunteers, to fight for Home Rule. The work of organisa¬
tion of this force was mainly carried on by two influential
Sinn Feiners, Bulmer Hobson1 and Professor Eoin MacNeill.
MacNeill was a most useful ally, and his vigorous personality
1 Bulmer Hobson wrote an account of the Volunteers, History of the
Irish Volunteers. To this, and another book, Secret History of the Irish
Volunteers, by The O’Rahilly, the author is indebted for much
information.
112 ROGER CASEMENT

and great influence soon attracted many men who added

great strength to the movement. MacNeill published a series
of articles in the weekly organ of the Gaelic League urging
that the supporters of Home Rule should band themselves
together into the Irish Volunteers. A committee, of which
Casement was a member, was formed to work out details and
carry forward the work of organisation. An interesting
document of about this time is the Manifesto of the Irish
Volunteers which was drawn up by Sir Roger Casement and
Eoin MacNeill. This document, in spite of its extremism, was
later fully endorsed by the Irish Party. It runs as follows:

‘At a time when legislative proposals universally con¬

fessed to be of vital concern for the future of Ireland have
been put forward, and are awaiting decision, a plan has
been deliberately adopted by one of the great English
political parties, advocated by the leaders of that party
and by its numerous organs in the Press, and brought
systematically to bear on English public opinion, to make
the display of military force and the menace of armed
violence the determining factor in the future relations
between this country and Great Britain.
‘ The party which has thus substituted open force for the
semblance of civil government is seeking by this means not
merely to decide an immediate political issue of grave
concern to this Nation, but also to obtain for itself the
future control of all our national affairs. It is plain to
every man that the people of Ireland, if they acquiesce in
this new policy by their inaction, will consent to the
surrender, not only of their rights as a nation, but of
their civic rights as men.
‘The Act of Union deprived the Irish Nation of the power
to direct its own course and to develop and use its own
resources for its own benefit. It gave us, instead, the
meagre and seldom effective right of throwing our votes
into the vast and complicated movement of British politics.
Since the Act of Union a long series of repressive statutes
has endeavoured to deal with the incessant discontent of
the Irish people by depriving them of various rights common
to all who live under the British Constitution. The new
 BACK IN IRELAND 113
policy goes further than the Act of Union, and further than
all subsequent Coercion Acts taken together. It proposes
to leave us the political franchise in name, and to annihilate
it in fact. If we fail to take such measures as will effectually
defeat this policy, we become politically the most degraded
population in Europe, and no longer worthy of the name
of Nation.
‘Are we to rest inactive, in the hope that the course of
politics in Great Britain may save us from the degradation
openly threatened against us ? British politics are con¬
trolled by British interests, and are complicated by problems
of great importance to the people of Great Britain. In a
crisis of this kind, the duty of safeguarding our own rights
is our first duty and foremost. They have rights who dare
maintain them. If we remain quiescent, by what title can we
expect the people of Great Britain to turn aside from their
own pressing concerns to defend us ? Will not such an attitude
of itself mark us out as a people unworthy of defence?
‘Such is the occasion, not altogether unfortunate, which
has brought about the inception of the Irish Volunteer
movement. But the Volunteers, once they have been
enrolled, will form a prominent element in the national
life under a national Government. The Nation will maintain
its Volunteer organisation as a guarantee of the liberties
which the Irish people shall have secured.
‘ If ever in history a people could say that an opportunity
was given them by God’s will to make an honest and manly
stand for their rights, that opportunity is given us to-day.
The stress of industrial effort, the relative peace and pros¬
perity of recent years, may have dulled the sense of the full
demands of civic duty. We may forget that the powers
of the platform, the Press, and the polling-booth are derived
from the conscious resolve of the people to maintain their
rights and liberties. From time immemorial, it has been
held by every race of mankind to be the right and duty of a
freeman to defend his freedom with all his resources and
with his fife itself. The exercise of that right distinguishes
the freeman from the serf, the discharge of that duty dis¬
tinguishes him from the coward.
‘ To drill, to learn the use of arms, to acquire the habit of
8
114 ROGER CASEMENT

concerted and disciplined action, to form a citizen army

from a population now at the mercy of almost any organised
aggression—this, beyond all doubt, is a program that
appeals to all Ireland, but especially to young Ireland. We
begin at once in Dublin, and we are confident that the
movement will be taken up without delay all over the
country. Public opinion has already and quite spon¬
taneously formed itself into an eager desire for the establish¬
ment of the Irish Volunteers.
‘The object proposed for the Irish Volunteers is to
secure and maintain the rights and liberties common to all
the people of Ireland. Their duties will be defensive and
protective, and they will not contemplate either aggression
or domination. Their ranks are open to all able-bodied
Irishmen without distinction of creed, politics or social
grade. Means will be found whereby Irishmen unable to
serve as ordinary Volunteers will be enabled to aid the
Volunteer forces in various capacities. There will also be
work for women to do, and there are signs that the women
of Ireland, true to their record, are especially enthusiastic
for the success of the Irish Volunteers.
‘We propose for the Volunteers’ organisation the widest
possible basis. Without any other association or classifica¬
tion, the Volunteers will be enrolled according to the district
in which they live. As soon as it is found feasible, the
district sections will be called upon to join in making
provision for the general administration and discipline,
and for united co-operation. The provisional Committee
which has acted up to the present will continue to offer its
services until an elective body is formed to replace it.
‘A proportion of time spared, not from work, but from
pleasure and recreation, a voluntary adoption of discipline,
a purpose firmly and steadily carried through, will renew
the vitality of the Nation. Even that degree of self-
discipline will bring back to every town, village and country¬
side a consciousness that has long been forbidden them—
the sense of freemen who have fitted themselves to defend
the cause of freedom.
‘In the name of National Unity, of National Dignity,
of National and Individual Liberty, of Manly Citizenship,
 BACK IN IRELAND 115
we appeal to our countrymen to recognise and accept
without hesitation the opportunity that has been granted
to them to join the ranks of the Irish Volunteers, and to
make the movement now begun not unworthy of the historic
title which it has adopted.’

By the middle of November the Committee of the Irish

Volunteers had completed their labours, and their next
objective was the enrolment and training of recruits.
Accordingly a large meeting was organised on the 25th
November, in the Rotunda at Dublin. This meeting was
a great success, even a triumph, for the Nationalists, and
although it did not pass off without a good deal of disorder,
it brought the Irish Volunteers into existence. But before
this, as a direct result of the great Dublin lock-out, there
was formed the Irish Citizen Army, mainly recruited from
Trade Unionists. The following account of the meeting in
the Rotunda appeared in the Press the next day:
‘ Disturbances and exciting scenes marked a great meeting
in the Rotunda, Dublin, last night, to start a National
Volunteer force and to take steps to enable volunteers to
be enrolled in Dublin. The manifesto calling the meeting
referred to the Ulster Volunteers and said:—“The party
which has thus substituted open force for the semblance
of civil government is seeking by this means not only to
decide an immediate political issue of grave concern to this
nation, but also to obtain for itself the future control of all
our national affairs. . . . Public opinion has already and
quite spontaneously formed itself into an eager desire for the
establishment of the Irish Volunteers.”
‘Between 8,000 and 9,000 people were present at the
meeting, including a very hostile element, and many
outside clamoured to get in, and finally rushed the doors,
smashing the glass. The transport workers, who are organis¬
ing an army of their own, were against the objects of the
meeting and interrupted at every point. Nearly all present
carried sticks and clubs, and matters became very threaten¬
ing. What sounded like revolver shots were heard, but it
was afterwards found that University students had been
116 ROGER CASEMENT

letting off fireworks. This caused something like a panic,

hundreds of people scrambling to get outside. They re¬
turned when order was restored. The transport men ultim¬
ately left in a body, and marched through Sackville Street
to Liberty Hall, shouting as they went.
‘At the close of the meeting some 10,000 members were
enrolled in the Irish Volunteer corps.’1

The impetus thus given to the movement was very great

indeed, and recruits joined in great numbers. Companies
and battalions were formed which immediately began train¬
ing. Drilling was taking place in various places in Dublin
and in other parts of Ireland. A counter-force to the Ulster
Volunteers had thus come into being, and a very serious
situation had arisen, for the prospect of a clash between the
two armed and opposing factions was imminent. Both sides
were striving hard to increase their armaments, and accord¬
ingly the Government prohibited the importation of arms
into any part of Ireland. But Ulster had been arming for
some time and gun-running had proceeded at a furious pace,
whereas the Nationalists had only just started, and were
comparatively unarmed. The result of the prohibition,
therefore, was to maintain Ulster in an armed state, and to
prevent the Nationalists from arming. Such discrimination
between orange and green seemed to the Irish Volunteers
to be most unfair. ‘ Since the attitude of the Government,’
Casement wrote, ‘is to make arming illegal for Irishmen
favourable to the policy of Irish national autonomy, while
those opposed to it are allowed to arm and are assisted by
the wealth and the governing classes of Great Britain, we
Irish Volunteers, lawlessly disarmed, assert as Irishmen the
right to carry arms, and demand the immediate withdrawal
of the English Government’s proclamation against the im¬
portation of arms.’
Meanwhile Casement was extremely active. Together

1 The Times, 26 November, 1913. This account is probably much

exaggerated and in parts untrue. One speaker was howled down, but
the disorder was mainly verbal.
 BACK IN IRELAND 117
with others prominent in the Volunteer movement, he
travelled about the country addressing meetings and explain-
ing the principles for which they stood. Starting in Dublin,
he went down to Galway, on to Cork and then back to
Dublin. On this tour he was accompanied by Eoin MacNeill.
They arrived in Cork on December 12th. They came there
full of the new movement and with a genuine admiration
for Sir Edward Carson, who had brought a new realism
into Irish politics. It was to imitate his methods that the
Volunteers had been formed. On their way to the meeting
they mentioned their intention of calling for cheers for Sir
Edward Carson, and were warned of what would happen.
This meeting in the City Hall is the most famous that
Casement ever addressed. The audience listened atten¬
tively while MacNeill and Casement outlined the objects of
the Volunteers, but the climax was reached at the end of
Casement’s speech. MacNeill called for three cheers for
Carson. Immediately pandemonium broke loose. Chairs,
benches and tables were flung about and Casement and
MacNeill were forced to retreat. Later, Casement returned
to the platform, and he spoke for a short while, being
listened to in silence. A week later, when he was in London,
Casement sent the following letter to his cousin and sister:

‘ 19 Dec. 1913.
‘Dearest Children,
‘To both of yes! I got back from Erin the brave and
free this morning. The Cork meeting was a great success
the Press report lies. I had a grand reception, a hurricane
of cheers and embraces too from workmen and 700 men
enrolled as volunteers! The reporters bolted when the
row began, and we held our place, and then when the
tumult died the O’Scodge called the sea back from its bed,
and the Cork men cheered and said yes, they wanted to
hear me; and so it all ended splendidly. I am fighting
hell and all its angels over Cork and Queenstown route to
U.S.A. 1 and may go to Hamburg next week. The Anglo-
1 See next chapter*
118 ROGER CASEMENT

Saxon are in a blue funk, a regular panic, and are trying

every dodge they can to keep the German line off; but the
O’Scodge has got them hip and thigh, and if the Germans
do funk it (I don’t think they will) then he has another card
up his sleeve.
‘Ide the hospitable tells me you and E. are off to her for
Xmas. Good, I wish I were too but I can’t leave. ... I
must stay here now to spike the Anglo-Saxon guns over the
Hamburg-Amerika Line. Rest assured O’Children that
the poor despised Ireland will yet give these bloated wind¬
bags a good run for their money. Here is a verse I’ve made
on them.
‘ Forefainted and bursted with running
They died where they sank,
And the grass on the hillside was shunning
Those Knights of the Shank !

‘ Forefainted is a nice early English word!

‘Here also a copy of the Volunteers Manifesto for scatter¬
ing in the Glens with Ide.
‘I had an awful time in Ireland, right through Dublin
on the run to Galway and then ditto ditto to Cork, and
finally back to Dublin to intrigue over the H. A. Line, and so
across last night.
‘Love to Eilis and Geelet
‘Is mise do
‘Scodgin.’

These activities of Casement’s bore fruit in the enlistment

of further recruits to the Irish Volunteers.
The situation was becoming extremely menacing, and
opinions were freely canvassed as to the attitude of the Army
stationed in Ireland, should they be called upon to force
Home Rule upon Ulster, particularly in view of the fact that
many Army officers were Ulstermen, domiciled in the north.
It was, perhaps, unduly optimistic to look to the War Office
for guidance in the matter, for there opinions were sharply
divided, and two sides sprang up, both violently partisan.
Very interesting light is thrown upon what was happening
 BACK IN IRELAND Iig

in the inner councils of State, particularly in the War Office,

by the diaries of Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, at this
time Director of Military Operations, which were published
after his death. Sir Henry Wilson actively sympathised with
the Ulster Volunteers and was in constant and regular com¬
munication with the Orange leaders. In December, 1913,
the Chief of the Imperial General Staff reported to the
Minister for War that there was danger of a serious breach
of discipline in the Army, because of the numerous attempts
which had been made to seduce both officers and men from
their duty. A conference was held in London attended by
the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief at which Colonel
Seely, the Secretary of State for War, outlined the legal
position of a soldier’s obligation to obey an order to shoot.
In his memorandum of this interview, Colonel Seely wrote,
on this topic, ‘If, therefore, officers and men in the Army
were led to believe that there was a possibility that they
might be called upon to take some outrageous action, for
instance, to massacre a demonstration of Orangemen who
were causing no danger to the lives of their neighbours, bad
as were the effects on discipline in the Army, nevertheless it
was true that they were, in fact and in law, justified in
contemplating refusal to obey.’ 1
But the situation in Ulster was growing worse and the
quantity of arms in the province was increasing, despite the
official ban on the importation of arms, until, by the middle
of March, 1914, it seemed that the depots and other places
where arms and stores were kept were in danger. On
March 14 the War Office issued instructions to the Com-
mander-in-Chief in Ireland, General Sir A. Paget, to take
all the necessary steps to ensure the safety of the depots.
Armagh, Omagh, Carrickfergus and Enniskillen were
mentioned as being insufficiently guarded and as specially
liable to attack. General Paget was also ordered to report
to the War Office the details of the steps he had taken to
carry out these instructions. It might be supposed that
1 Cmd. 7329 of 1914, p. 3.
120 ROGER CASEMENT

troops would at once be moved to these vital points to ensure

their adequate defence against attack, but General Paget
seems to have thought otherwise, for on the 17th March,
he telegraphed to Colonel Seely, the Secretary of State
for War:

£ In further reference to your telegram, under the present

circumstances I am not moving troops north for the pro¬
tection of the four places referred to in paragraph 3 of War
Office letter. A sufficient number, however, are in readiness
to move at short notice. Am despatching letter in explana¬
tion to-day.’1

He justified this action, which appears to the non-military

mind as something well-nigh indistinguishable from dere¬
liction of duty, by giving his opinion that in the state of the
country a movement of troops ‘ would create intense excite¬
ment in Ulster and possibly precipitate a crisis.’ It does not
seem to have occurred to the General that an attack on the
depots and the capture of the arms therein would have a
far more serious effect upon the situation than the hypo¬
thetical results of a movement of troops into Ulster. But the
real reason for this delay is the sympathy which General
Paget felt, and openly expressed, for the Ulster cause.
Following a telegram from the Secretary of State for War,
General Paget travelled to London to confer with Colonel
Seely. While in London he issued instructions to Major-
General Friend to move a battalion to Newry and Dundalk,
just south of the Ulster border. Major-General Friend’s
reply was rather surprising. He said, ‘ It is rather doubtful
whether the Northern Railway will allow troop trains to
travel northwards.’ Accordingly, arrangements were made
to transfer these troops to Dundalk by sea, in H.M.S.
Gibraltar and H.M.S. Royal Arthur. On his return to Dublin,
General Paget at once summoned a conference of senior
officers to meet at ten o’clock on the morning of March 20.
The General explained to these officers that he had received
1 loc. cit., p. 4.
 BACK IN IRELAND 121

orders to carry out certain moves of a precautionary nature.

The Government believed that these moves would be carried
out without exciting resistance. The General, however, was
not of the same opinion, and told his officers that he believed
that these moves would lead to opposition, and that the
result might be ‘the taking of active operations against
organised bodies of the Ulster Volunteer Force under their
responsible leaders.’ He told his officers that he had been
able, during his consultations with Colonel Seely, to secure,
with the help of Sir John French, some concessions for them.
Those officers who were actually domiciled in Ulster would
be exempted from taking part in any operation that might
take place, and they would be permitted to ‘disappear,’ to
use the phrase of the War Office. When all was over, they
would be allowed to resume their places without prejudice
to their careers or positions. Such a concession, provided it
was not extended beyond those officers domiciled in Ulster,
was probably wise, but unfortunately, in answer to a
question put to him, General Paget said that other officers
who were not prepared, from conscientious or other reasons,
to carry out their duty would be dismissed from the Service
at once. This was in the nature of an ultimatum, and it
seemed to many of the officers present that they must make
a choice of two alternatives: to fight against Ulster or
accept dismissal.
A second conference was to be held at two o’clock that
afternoon. General Paget told his officers that he would
not allow any officer to attend the second conference who
did not feel he could obey orders. When the conference
assembled more than half of the officers were absent. When
all these officers returned to their units, they put before
their commands the alternative which had been put before
them, and in consequence of this a very serious situation
arose.
Sir Nevil Macready had been appointed as General
Officer Commanding the Belfast District, but owing to ill¬
ness, he was unable to take up his appointment, and Major-
122 ROGER CASEMENT

General Friend was temporarily appointed to the post. The

anticipated unwillingness of the railway company to trans¬
port troops proved to be without foundation, and a battalion
was moved north by train. A company, however, was sent
by sea to Carrickfergus. General Paget, on March 20, had
telegraphed to the Secretary of State for War that the move¬
ment of troops had started successfully. However, later on
the same day he sent two further telegrams of a much more
sinister nature. The first read:

£ Officer Commanding 5th Lancers states that all officers

except two, and one doubtful, are resigning their commissions
to-day. I much fear same conditions in the 16th Lancers.
Fear men will refuse to move.’1

And the second:

‘Regret to report Brigadier and 57 officers, 3rd Cavalry

Brigade, prefer to accept dismissal if ordered north.’1

The Curragh Mutiny had started. The War Office made

a half-hearted attempt to deal with it. General Paget was
ordered to do what he thought proper to cope with the
situation. Brigadier-General Gough2 and the Officers
Commanding the 5th and 16th Lancers were relieved of
their commands, and were to report to the War Office as
soon as possible. General Paget was instructed to refuse
the resignations of all officers. Gough had an interview
with his officers, the result of which he reported to the Irish
Command. In his memorandum he said that if their duty
involved ‘ the initiation of active military operations against
Ulster’ 59 officers out of a total of 70 ‘would respectfully,
and under protest, prefer to be dismissed.’ In addition
5 officers claimed exemption because of their Ulster domicile.
The War Office were not, apparently, clear as to whether
the 4th Hussars were implicated and wired for information.

1 loc. cit., p. 7.
2 General Officer Commanding 3rd Cavalry Brigade. The 3rd
Cavalry Brigade were stationed at the Curragh.
 BACK IN IRELAND 123

On March 21, General Paget despatched the following

two telegrams:

‘All officers 4th Hussars doing duty are implicated.

Believe Colonel is present but will wire again.’1
‘Am going myself this morning to the Curragh and will
send a full telegraphic report later. Colonel 4th Hussars
is implicated.’2

The fears of the result of a movement of troops towards

Ulster entertained by General Paget do not seem to have
been justified in the event, for both Major-General Friend
and Sir Neville Macready reported that everything was
quiet in Ulster. But it may very well be that General
Paget’s extreme caution was born of his political opinions.
On March 23 General Paget arrived at the War Office for
a consultation on the Curragh incident, and among those
present was Brigadier-General Gough, who left the meeting
armed with the following document:

‘Brigadier-General H. De la P. Gough, C.B.

‘ You are authorised by the Army Council to inform the
officers of the 3rd Cavalry Brigade that the Army Council
are satisfied that the incident which has arisen in regard to
their resignations has been due to a misunderstanding.
‘It is the duty of all soldiers to obey lawful commands
given to them through the proper channel by the Army
Council, either for the protection of public property and the
support of the civil power in the event of disturbances, or for
the protection of the lives and property of the inhabitants.
‘This is the only point it was intended to be put to the
officers in the questions of the General Officer Commanding,
and the Army Council have been glad to learn from you
that there never has been and never will be in the Brigade
any question of disobeying such lawful orders.
‘His Majesty’s Government must retain their right to
use all the forces of the Crown in Ireland, or elsewhere, to
maintain law and order and to support the civil power in
the ordinary execution of its duty.
1 Cmd. 7329 of 1914, p. 8. 2 loc. cit., p. 8.
124 ROGER CASEMENT

‘ But they have no intention whatever of taking advantage

of this right to crush political opposition to the policy or
principles of the Home Rule Bill.
‘J- s.
‘J- F.
‘J. S. E. 1
‘23rd March, 1914.’

The news of these events caused consternation in England.

Parliament became extremely excited, and a number of
debates took place. Both Liberal and Labour demanded
that the Government should restore discipline in the Army,
and that the mutineers should be made subject to the
authority of Parliament. In order to restore confidence
Mr. Asquith took over the War Office and declared that
the whole incident was nothing more than a misapprehension
as to the meaning Sir A. Paget wished to convey to his
officers on March 20. But the wisdom and propriety of ever
making such remarks at all is open to question. Asquith
laid it down that no one, officer or man, should ask questions
about the orders he received, nor should he be questioned
regarding his attitude to his orders. Thereupon all the
officers concerned returned to their commands in Ireland.
But the incident left an unpleasant memory.
To those in Ireland, however, the Curragh Mutiny gave
a fairly plain indication of the true state of affairs. Dis¬
content was widespread and growing, and to Sir Roger
Casement the events in the Curragh seemed decisive. He
sent the following letter to the Irish Independent:

‘Sir,—Irishmen should be grateful to the English Unionist

leaders, their Press organs, and above all, their military junta
for the “striking revelation” we have had, once and for all,
of the true meaning of the words “Union,” “Unionist,”
and “Unionism,” in British politics.
‘Not that any Irishman of average intelligence has ever
been in doubt about the realities. No matter what side we
1 loc. tit., p. 11. The initials are those of Colonel Seely, Sir John
French and General Ewart.
 BACK IN IRELAND 125
take in politics we all know in our hearts that the “Union ”
means the military occupation of Ireland as a conquered
country, that the real headquarters of Irish government,
on the Unionist principle, is the Curragh Camp, to which
the Offices of Dublin Castle are a sort of vermiform appendix.
‘Though Irishmen of all parties recognise the truth, a
contrary pretence has been strenuously maintained for the
other “partners” in the “Union,” and for other countries,
especially for the other country in which the English
language prevails—the United States of America.
‘The pretence has now been shattered for ever. We can
trace in the English Unionist Press for months past the
anticipation of, and preparation for, the grand military
coup d'etat. From Lord Roberts, late military ruler of
India, we gather in his pronouncement made in the House of
Lords that military rule over Ireland was to be asserted,
even at the risk of grave injury to the national defences of
Great Britain.
‘Lord Lansdowne, leader of the English Unionist aris¬
tocracy, speaking on the Home Rule Bill in the House of
Lords, expressed the truth in a phrase of frank brutality
worthy of the days of Sir William Petty: ‘ We have Ireland
and we mean to keep her.”
‘Lord Wolseley, a former military ruler of Ireland, has
consecrated the truth in a letter addressed to the late Queen
Victoria, and lately carried in a triumphal round of the
English Unionist Press. The Army, the Sovereign was told,
was not in Ireland to enforce a Constitution for, but against,
a “hated and despised race.”
‘These and many similar manifestations were more
intelligible to Irishmen than to the outer world, and excited
no special attention in Ireland, for they added nothing to
what everyone in Ireland knew or instinctively felt.
‘Now, thanks to the sense of truth of our military rulers,
the cat is out of the Irish bag. The significance of the
Curragh coup d'etat will not be mistaken by any European
Government or people, or by the Government and people
of the United States of America. The cardinal fact is not
the successful attempt of the Curragh military junta to
dictate the policy and future of Irish government to the
126 ROGER CASEMENT

Imperial Ministry, who in a moment of aberration believed

an army of occupation could be used to impose Self-
Government.
‘The thing that speaks to the world is the whole-hearted
and unanimous endorsement of the Curragh pronuncia-
mento by the leaders and spokesmen of the English govern¬
ing classes, the owners of Ireland who, as the ‘ ‘ Constitu¬
tional Party,” are ready and eager for the opportunity of
again undertaking the government of Ireland by the Army.
‘The Liberal Government admits its error and counter¬
mands the foolish and subversive orders given. The
British Constitution does not die so easily in Ireland.
British Ministers and ex-Ministers will do their best to slur
over the significance of recent events. They know well
that military government will not be tolerated in Great
Britain. They know equally well it is the only government
in Ireland.
‘We know equally well that Great Britain, having asserted
its own rights, will see that the “Constitution ” is maintained
in Ireland by the necessary weapon, whatever particular
form of civil matter may congest the vermiform appendix.
Liberalism having asserted public rights in Great Britain,
will not and cannot free Ireland from British military
domination. Somebody else must do that.
‘Perhaps, however, it is best that the menace and insult
should remain, and that nothing should take place to cloak
the naked truth until the Irish people fully realise the duty
imposed upon their honour and patriotism.

‘Roger Casement.
‘Eoin Macneill.
‘Dublin, 27th March, 1914.5

This letter is of great interest, as it may be said, perhaps,

with some truth, that when Casement wrote it there dis¬
appeared the last vestige of his loyalty to England. The
letter appears to have given the Volunteers a considerable
impetus, and the movement grew considerably. Their spirit
of nationalism developed and it became more and more a
military organisation.
 CHAPTER VIII

WAR

A matter in which Sir Roger Casement had greatly inter¬

ested himself was the question of the sea-borne trade of
Queenstown. The various shipping companies trading in
the Atlantic were disputing among themselves as to the share
of the trade each should have. The Cunard Company had
hitherto run Atlantic services whose ships called at Queens¬
town, but in consequence of the shipping ‘ war ’ it was felt
that Irish emigration was not sufficiently large to justify this
call. Accordingly the Cunard Company announced that
in future their ships would not call at Queenstown. This
was a serious matter for Irish trade, and matters could not
be allowed to remain as they were. Soon after the announce¬
ment of the Cunard Company was made public, a meeting
was held in Dublin at which Sir Roger Casement spoke,
advocating the adoption of diplomatic means to ensure that
one of the Atlantic shipping companies should take the
place of the Cunard, as far as Queenstown was concerned.
Some time later it seemed that that for which Casement had
striven so hard was accomplished. The Hamburg-Amerika
Line announced that its outward-bound ships would in future
call at Queenstown. For many months Casement had been
active in the matter, and deserves much of the credit for this
satisfactory solution. The first ship to call at Queenstown
was to be the Rhaetia and she was to pay her first visit towards
the end of January, 1914. The news of this project was
loudly welcomed in Ireland, particularly by those closely
connected with the shipping trade. A further call was to
be made by the Fiirst Bismarck on February 12. It was
arranged that on the first call of the Rhaetia at Queenstown
127
I2& ROGER CASEMENT5

the Lord Mayor of Cork and a number of representative

citizens should be received on board. Shortly afterwards
the Hamburg-Amerika Company telegraphed stating that
in no circumstances could it permit the reception, and that
if any public expressions of dissatisfaction were made, the
steamer would not call at Queenstown. Casement then
wrote to the company saying that, in accordance with its
wishes, no attempt would be made in any quarter even to go
near the ship, and he received a reply from the directors of
the company that they had requested their representative to
explain personally to the Lord Mayor of Cork the delicate
position in which they would be placed if their first call were
‘the cause of such a splendid and important demonstration.’
The reply went on to say that ‘under no circumstances did
we want to hurt the feelings of our English friends,’ and
concluded, ‘we trust that you will understand our position
and the reasons for this step.’ Following this letter the
directors issued a statement by wire through their London
office, on January 15, that the steamer was not calling either
at Boulogne or Queenstown on that trip, because no passen¬
gers had booked for the vessel. On January 21 Casement
again wrote to the directors to the effect that had the steamer
called nothing would have been said that could alarm or ex¬
cite the most tender susceptibilities. On the 26th he received
a reply in which the directors said, ‘Owing to the strong
protests of our Liverpool friends and in view of the present
difficult circumstances we have postponed the beginning of
our Queenstown service.’
To Casement it seemed that England had put pressure
upon the German company to suit her purpose and that in
consequence Ireland had to pay for England’s convenience.
The whole episode bred in his mind a fierce hatred of
England. In a letter to the Irish Times Casement suggested
that the Imperial Government had put difficulties in the
way of the German company’s scheme, and he went on to
say, ‘ I am aware of the true reasons why the Rhaetia did not
call at Queenstown and of the reasons that will prevent the
 WAR 129

Purst Bismarck from calling on February 12. The facts are

known in more than one quarter, and when published they
must prove of much interest to Irishmen at home and abroad.
They will make a chapter in our later commercial history
that I venture to think should turn many Irishmen at home
into Home Rulers and those abroad into something more.’ 1
On the 16th February he published a further letter in the
Irish Independent setting out the history of the negotiations
which finally led to the refusal of the Hamburg-Amerika
Line to allow a ship to call at Queenstown, and quoting a
number of letters and telegrams on the subject. In this
letter he suggested that the failure of the company to make
the Queenstown call was due to political motives.
While the question of the Queenstown call was still being
agitated, Casement, in February, 1914, went to London.
While there he gained a considerable insight into the
international situation, and he saw that a war between
Germany and England was inevitable. On his return to
Ireland he found a letter awaiting him to which he sent the
following reply:

‘The game now, I see, is this. Under cover of “an offer

to Ulster” they are going to strip all the flesh off the Home
Rule Bill—if we let them! Shall we? That is for you and
others to think over. Meantime I am convinced the right
and patriotic thing for all Irishmen to do is to go on with
the Volunteers: Volunteers in every county, city, town and
village of Ireland. Don’t despair of the arms. I think
we can get them. The Irish in America will not desert us
in this crisis. I believe I can get you help from them the
English little dream of to-day. They (the English) are
going to surrender to Carson “to save bloodshed”—please
God, they’ll have more bloodshed than they suspect, if they
consummate this final act of Punica fides.
‘I’ve a good mind to write to Carson to-night and ask him
to come to Cork with me!
‘My God—I wonder what would happen if he said “yes.”
Would you all rise to the occasion—or would you tear us
1 Irish Times, February 2, 1914.
9
I30 ROGER CASEMENT

limb from limb? What you say about him being King of
Ireland, I’ve said too—if he would only rise to the height
of a supreme occasion. He could save Ireland and make
Ireland. But it is a dream to think of him doing it—if he
really loved Ireland as I do, he’d come. Shall I ask him?
I don’t know him at all, and I’ve blackguarded openly in
the Holy of Holies (County Antrim), but he knows I’m
honest, and sincere, and fearless—qualities he himself, I
think, possesses. I like him far better than these craven,
scheming, plotting Englishmen, whose one aim is to see how
little freedom they can give Ireland and call it by another
name.
‘Don’t despair—don’t despond. We shall win, rest
assured of that. Ireland was not born to suffering through
the ages to end in death and despair at last. Her people
have not kept their religion and their souls for nothing.
Let them be men and do, on a far bigger scale, what Ulster
has done. If only all will put their backs into the Volunteer
Cause—freedom may come sooner than you think. Go on
with the Volunteers. . . .
‘This exposure of the Queenstown jugglery is only a small
thing in itself, but it opens a lot. It opens a big door, and
with the help of the good God I mean to see that door kept
open wide. I am going, please God, to carry this fight
much further than they think in Downing Street—to an
arbitrament they dread very much. They will pay dearly
for their “diplomacy,” and our whole people, I hope, will
begin to think on these things—and think as freemen, not as
slaves. For the solution lies always in our hands. The day
we will our freedom we can achieve it. Rest assured of that.
It is not England now enslaves us. She simply deals with us
as slaves because she knows we are slaves.
‘This is the psychology of the situation. She recoils
from the Ulstermen, because they are not slaves—and she
knows it! They tell her to go to hell, and prepare to send
her there, and you see she draws back, talks of compromise,
“concession,” and you and I, the mere Irish, are to take it
in the old abject submission. Well, I for one won’t—I mean
to fight—and if John Bull betrays Ireland again, as I’m
quite sure he means to do, then with the help of God, and
 WAR 13I

some Irishmen, he’ll learn that all Irishmen are not slaves
and there is fight in us still. . . .
‘ I am awfully pressed for I have a lot to do, and I go off
on my great quest in a few weeks. And my word to you is
trust in ourselves—inspire every man in Cork to be a fighting
man in the true sense—to prefer death to dishonour: to
prefer to die rather than live a serf, a bond-serf of the meanest
form of exploitation I suppose any imperial system has ever
devised.
‘I’ll get you arms yet—don’t fear, fifty thousand of them
ifyou'll get the men ready.’1

His ‘great quest’ was a journey to America.

Casement had little or no faith in the Home Rule Bill,
then before Parliament, and believed that it was merely
an English bribe to keep Ireland quiet. In February he
wrote to Mrs. Green:
‘2 Feb. 1914.
‘ Malahide
‘Co. Dublin.
‘Dear Woman of Three Cows, Agra!

‘ (There’s no name sticks like an Irish one.)

‘I send you some interesting cuttings—in a way. The
Irish Times criticism is entirely true. Drainage will be about
all left to us. I find the idea steadily growing, in rank and
file Home Rulers throughout the land, that the Bill is hardly
worth having. There is a sense of “keep it and be damned
to you” growing up that needs very little to find forcible
expression. Redmond’s “Imperialism” is everywhere re¬
pudiated, and by his own supporters too. They are begin¬
ning to kick at being “pledged ” for “such a thing as that.”
‘ Ireland could be and would be loyal to a true imperialism
—or, as I hate the word—to a true Common Weal of
Federated British and Irish States—but to expect Irish
loyalty to an Empire still founded on the degradation and
spoliation of Ireland is absurd.
‘In return for a Debating Society, with all real power
resident at Westminster, the Govt, thinks it is going to get
1 Life and Death of Roger Casement, p. 218,
132 ROGER CASEMENT

Irish loyalty. It will not. You may tell John Simon that
—from me and from thousands more.
‘If even the principle of Home Rule were conceded by
the Bill I’d give much—but for this pretence of self-govern¬
ment that will only add to our perplexities I will give, or do,
nothing. If it comes, it shall come—-but there’ll be no
gratitude or sincere feeling evoked by it. That is certain.
It is mean in spirit, mean in intention, and contemptuous
in scope. Here is a letter from a young Irishman in
Philadelphia—please return it. He is one the Liberals
once sent to gaol—since the present Govt, came into power!
What he says of the Post Office, Parcels Post, &c., &c., is
profoundly true. The attitude of the Post Office on the
Queenstown call for mails is a lesson to us for keeping an
Irish Post Office, and the shameful intrigue of the F.O. to
prevent the H. Amerika Line to call at Cork is a fine illustra¬
tion of their true feeling for Irish welfare. The facts are
known, and will assuredly be made public in America—
where a very strong feeling will certainly be roused by this
contemptible action. I’ve not heard from my Member of
Parliament yet.
‘You know my feeling about the Bill, and its future, has
always been the same. I have said now for 2 years, and I
say it still just as assuredly, that this Bill will never set up a
Parliament House in fact in Ireland. I feel absolutely
convinced of it—and nothing will make me waver.
‘The Govt, may pass it on to the Statute Book, in the
course of this Session—that is all that they are pledged to
do—but it is, in the intervals that follows, before the Parlia¬
ment can come into existence, that the Act will be lost.
‘From one cause or another the Govt, will be driven to
the country before the 10 months are up and before the
Parliament can be constituted. They will not get a mandate
for it—they will be beaten—and the others coming in with a
mandate of one sort or another, will either repeal altogether,
or suspend its operation, and then set to work to dish
“Home Rule” for good by the worst outbreak of corruption
Ireland has ever known since the Union. That is one of
several possible things—but whichever it be I feel convinced
in my instinct (which is so frequently a far truer guide to me
 WAR
133
than reason or judgment) that this Bill will not establish
a Parliament.
‘Where the Liberals have failed is in the long reign of
unrestricted power from 1906 to 1910. Then, with the
greatest majority a Govt, ever had they could have prepared
the way for Home Rule by administrative changes in Ireland
that rendered it inevitable, and necessary for the mere
function of Govt. Of course they’d have had opposition—
granted—but far less than to this belated thing—and they
were powerful then and bound in honour to the principles of
Home Rule. They ignored the principles of Home Rule
from January 1906 until 1912-13! They sent a weakling
like Aberdeen—a lampoonist like Birrell—to go on dealing
with Ireland just the same in principle as the Tories. They
could have revolutionised many departments of Irish
Govt. They could have separated Ireland statistically to
begin with—so as to habituate the minds of this com¬
munity as a whole to look at Irish things in their true light
as apart from Great Britain; this could have been done
in customs and in many things:—a Treasury Minute upset
the Irish customs in 1823 '—a Treasury Minute could have
restored many things in 1907-8-9 or 10. They could have
voted money for administrative needs, so as to establish an
Irish Executive in the country. What have they done to
create any machinery for Irish Govt. ? Absolutely nothing.
They have increased the burden of taxation beyond all
measure or precedent; they have saddled the country with
an infamous Budget,—a worthless Insurance Act; a far too
expensive Old Age Pensions Act; Payment of Members—
and finally have impaired grievously its mail communica¬
tion with its chief foreign market.
‘ They have been a calamity. And we are asked to bless
this calamitous Govt, because, forsooth, having bowed us
down with burdens, it now jauntily says it will cut its losses
and leave us to clean up the mess as best we may!
‘They have allowed Ulster to arm for 2 years—to act,
not merely to preach rebellion and open sedition; and when
the first glimmer of manhood begins to show on the side
of the unhappy people they and their long line of pre¬
decessors have reduced to moral, material, and economic
134 ROGER CASEMENT

servitude, they at once, within a week, pervert the Law of the

U.K. to prohibit the “import” of arms from abroad—
from Gt. Britain! What Liars! For their own purposes,
you see, by a stroke of the pen they can create a separate
customs for Ireland! For their own purposes—but never
for our needs. We become by a mere twist of an Act of
Parliament a foreign State, so far as Arms and Munitions
are concerned—even to the searching of baggage of ‘ ‘ Cross
Channel” passengers. What Loyalty can any Irishman
with brains and a heart have for any English Government?
I have none.
‘I thank God and Ireland I resigned last June and left
their service, for that of my own country and poor, ignorant
demoralised people. If God grant me life and purpose to
end as I hope, I’ll do some of the things John Mitchell left
undone.
‘So then, dear Woman of the House—there is a fiat—a
decree nisi—or absolute (I don’t know what you call
divorce in legal jargon) between me and all I stand for,
and “Home Rule” under Westminster—or rather Home
Rule from Westminster.
‘Redmond cannot bind the heart or pledge the soul of
Ireland—they are still living things and will respond to
only one touch.
‘It will come again—and meantime I do not despair,
when I look on the faces of the young men I meet.

‘Yours always, a devoted

‘Irish Slave.

‘You see an inkling of the truth about the F.O. and the
German ships at Cork in this week’s Gaelic American.

The Irish Volunteers were much elated by Colonel Seely’s

tribute to their importance in his speech on April 18th. He
was reported to have said that Mr. Redmond, by lifting his
little finger, could create a force of 300,000 fighting men.
The Volunteers themselves, however, never aspired to an
army of more than 50,000, and Mr. Redmond had not then
identified himself with the movement, On the 20th 3
 WAR
135
meeting of Volunteers was held at Mullingar, and one of the
speakers said that as the leader of a great party which had
denounced the Ulstermen for forming Volunteers, Mr. Red¬
mond could not be expected to run with the hare and hunt
with the hounds. Sir Roger Casement was at this meeting,
and also at a meeting held at Tullamore. He said that there
would be no politics in the Irish National Army, and he
denied charges of threats and insults which had been made
against the Irish Volunteers. Only one breach of discipline,
he said, had taken place within their ranks and that had
been tried by Court Martial. He declared that a million
and a quarter pounds had been raised in Ireland under the
Insurance Act, but if a similar sum were raised voluntarily
to equip an Irish National Army they would have a far
more effective system of national insurance.
The Curragh Mutiny had stimulated recruiting for the
Irish Volunteers, and it had also shown the Orangemen that
they might defy the Government and the law with impunity.
But the need of both was arms, and they set about getting
them, in spite of the Arms Proclamation. The first to make
a move were the Ulster Volunteers. Forty thousand German
Mauser rifles were bought in Hamburg, paid for by an
English cheque and landed in London. They were con¬
veyed by ship to Larne in County Antrim, where, on
April 24th, most of the cargo was landed. The rest was
transhipped and sent to Donaghadee. The whole operation
was carried through with great efficiency and despatch, and
no detail, however small, was overlooked. A cordon was
thrown round Larne, and roads were picketed by the
Volunteers, and no communication was permitted between
Larne and the rest of the country. The police and the
coast-guards were prevented by force from taking any
action. It was all done quite openly and no one interfered.
An interesting detail is the fact that the password was
‘Gough.’ The news of the Larne gun-running was made
public the next day. Mr. Asquith was annoyed but he
fulminated in vain, for he could do nothing. He could
I36 ROGER CASEMENT

merely describe the incident as an outrage. Carson was

defiant, and in the House of Commons he accepted full
responsibility.
But while the Orangemen had been running their arms,
the Irish Volunteers had not been idle. Meetings had been
held to discuss the means by which the arms might be
obtained. The first difficulty was a financial one, and it
was felt that at least £1,500 was needed. Of this sum about
half was found by Mrs. J. R. Green, and in a few days
Casement had managed to find the rest. The next difficulty
was to obtain the arms and get them into Ireland. Darrell
Figgis and Erskine Childers went to Hamburg to buy 1,500
rifles. This was done under assumed names and for a
fictitious purpose, and now there remained only to run them
into Ireland. Before these arms were landed, Casement had
set sail for America, and while there he waited anxiously for
news of the success of the venture which he had done so
much to further, and of which he was, in the main, the
creator.
The plan was that the arms should be put on board
Childers’s yacht, the Asgard, and conveyed to Howth, where
they would be landed on July 26th. Everything went accord¬
ing to plan; the arms were landed and the Volunteers
started to transport them to Dublin. But on the way they
were met by a Government force which demanded the rifles.
There was something of a skirmish and the Volunteers got
away, bearing their precious arms with them. The Govern¬
ment troops, thus discomfited, returned to Dublin, where the
crowd jeered at them and threw stones and sticks. The
officer in command lost his head and gave the order to fire.
Men, women and children were killed and wounded. The
news of this spread quickly and Bachelor’s Walk became at
once a symbol of English oppression and cruelty.
Meanwhile Redmond’s position, vis-a-vis the Irish National
Volunteers, remained undecided. His aim was Home Rule
by constitutional means, but the rapid growth of Sinn Fein
and of the Irish Volunteers had weakened his position. He
 WAR 137
Saw that his purpose would best be served if he was in control
of the Volunteers movement, and accordingly he made
suggestions to them to bring this end about. In June the
general opinion of the country was that the Irish National
Volunteers would not surrender without a struggle to
Redmond’s claim that they should come under his control.
A large majority of the provincial newspapers supported
Redmond’s claim and said that the Volunteers should come
under the control of the Parliamentary Party. But most
Irish Unionists and many Nationalists were convinced that
Redmond’s real purpose was not merely to capture the
Volunteers but to smash them. It was undeniable that a
large Nationalist Army would be a source of great embarrass¬
ment to an Irish Parliament, in the event of Home Rule
being granted, which would have no legal authority over it.
Casement believed that Redmond would be a real asset to
the Irish Volunteers, since he would bring to the movement
dignity and prestige, so that it would no longer be looked
upon as a rabble.
In England, all through the years 1913 and 1914, the Irish
Question had bulked large upon the political horizon. Both
Ulster and the Nationalists threatened rebellion, and the
King was appealed to by the Unionists to veto the Home
Rule Bill. But the King pursued a wise course and by means
of his influence brought the party leaders together. By the
end of 1913 the Unionists were willing to accept the Plome
Rule Bill provided that Ulster was excluded from its opera¬
tion. Gradually, by means of private talks between Mr.
Asquith, Mr. Bonar Law and Sir Edward Carson, the
points of difference were reduced to few in number. But
these last few points proved exceedingly difficult to resolve,
and at last, in July, these negotiations broke down. In face
of this, the Government decided to press forward with their
Home Rule Bill, which was passed in December, under the
Parliament Act. But an amending Act was added to it
dealing with the position of Ulster. The Home Rule Act
was not to come into force, for its operation was suspended
138 ROGER CASEMENT

by a further statute, the effect of which was to postpone its

operation until after the outbreak of the war.
In the middle of June Casement sent the following letter
to the Press, which gives, in a short compass, some of his
views of the situation in Ireland:

‘ Sir,—Perhaps you will allow me through the Daily News

to deal with a leading article headed “The Irish National
Volunteers ” that appeared in the Morning Post of Thursday
last. I take this article as a sample of much of the comment
now appearing upon one of the latest developments of the
Irish national claim—the Irish Volunteers. As one who
has been closely identified with that force since its inception
last November in Dublin I am perhaps as fully competent
to deal with its aims and objects as the editor of the Morning
Post.
‘It speaks of the Irish “Nationalist” Volunteers. There
is no such designation. The English party organ can think
of Irish affairs only in terms of party politics, and is in¬
capable of understanding that Irishmen, at bottom, are fellow
countrymen, instead of being mere partisans labelled
“Nationalist” and “Unionist,” and some other “ist” of
its own decoction. This particular illustration of the pre¬
vailing perversity of view that denies to the Irishman a
common nationality (I refer to the editorial of the Morning
Post) assumes that the Irish Volunteers—they have no other
official designation—are the bitter and intolerant enemies
of the Ulster Volunteers and of Irish Protestants in general.
In other words they make for “civil war” and all the
horrors of a “religious massacre” that I remember Mr.
Bonar Law holding up as a scarecrow, some two years ago,
to be erected immediately after the introduction of the
Home Rule Bill.
‘The “Civil” war has not yet come. I was in Derry
when ten “war correspondents” from the British Press
were there to chronicle the outbreak of “civil war” on the
passing of the Home Rule Bill through the House of
Commons two weeks ago. The streets that night were
picketed by detachments of the Irish Volunteers, and no
riot or disorder supervened. The “war correspondents”
 WAR 139
left the “front,” attributing much of their failure to the
“menace of the Nationalist Volunteers.”
‘And the Morning Post, sorrowing over the defeat of all
its hopes in Derry two weeks ago, returns to the charge.
We are told in its disgraceful leading article of the nth
inst. that the
Nationalist Volunteers threaten to take the field. From a
military point of view, their resistance might not prove
very formidable. They lack the leadership, the discipline,
the organisation, and the equipment, and, above all, the
determined spirit of the Ulstermen. But they could vent
their wrath on the scattered minority in the Southern
and Western provinces, and anyone who remembers the
horrible outrages that marked the land war in the ’eighties
will not expect the Nationalists, raging at the failure of
their hopes and maddened by racial and religious fana¬
ticism, to show much mercy to their helpless foes. And
if vengeance is wreaked on the Loyalists in Nationalist
Ireland, there is certain to be a savage war of reprisals
in the North.
I said last week at Dungannon at a meeting called to enroll
Irish Volunteers that if the editors of most of the English
newspapers were sent to jail for six months there would be
no “Irish Question.” Dungannon is one of the “storm
centres” of the English Press, in Tyrone, where Catholics
and Protestants are about equally divided. My appeal for
Irish Volunteers to hold out the hand of comradeship and
friendship to the Ulster Volunteers, their Protestant kinsmen
and neighbours, was loudly cheered.
‘The first Volunteers to enroll at Limerick on January
23rd last, the day of the inaugural meeting, was a leading
Protestant merchant of the city. Four days ago, review¬
ing the Limerick Volunteer Regiment, Colonel Maurice
Moore, C.B., late commanding the Connaught Rangers,
stated that in discipline and bearing they compared
favourably with the best Volunteer regiment of the North of
Ireland. The regimental colours will be presented to the
Limerick Regiment of Volunteers by two Irish Protestants—
one a lady, the daughter of an Irish peer, the other a late
member of the British public service. From one of the
I40 ROGER CASEMENT

wildest parts of the West a letter was received last week

saying that a leading Protestant of the district who had
signed the Covenant now wished to enroll in the Irish
Volunteers as offering him a wholly non-sectarian and
national field for displaying his love for Ireland. His offer
was, of course, accepted. Last week Lord Dunsany, a
Protestant peer, and Lord Fingall, a Catholic peer, both
large landowners in Meath, expressed their approval of the
public spirit and patriotic purpose of the Irish Volunteers.
Lord Dunsany hoped to be present on the platform to¬
morrow at Kilmessan when the enrolment of National
conscripts would begin for that part of Meath. And so the
movement spreads everywhere, based on a common goodwill
and love of Ireland, and nowhere on illwill and hatred of
“Ulster” or of Protestants. This is the crime of the Irish
Volunteers—that they enforce a gospel of nationality wide
enough to cover all Ireland and deep enough to embrace
all Irishmen.
‘During the last fortnight I have addressed a series of
public meetings in Tyrone—the centre of “disturbed
Ulster”—on behalf of the Irish Volunteers, attended by
thousands of those “maddened by racial and religious
fanaticism,” who are so eager to “show no mercy to their
helpless foes.” I was quite at their mercy. They knew me
to be a Protestant and to belong to the “scattered minority.”
And yet these bloodthirsty savages everywhere cheered for
their Protestant fellow-countrymen and almost embraced
the speakers. Left to itself, this movement will unify all
Ireland in a common league of patriotism. It is to prevent
that dire consummation, a united Ireland, that the Morning
Post and others of its kind pour forth their copious and un¬
failing stream of defamation against the Irish people. The
latest hope, I take it, is that a “split” in the National ranks
over the control of the Irish Volunteers may now take
the place of “civil war” or the “religious war” that so
obstinately refuses to materialise.
‘ Here again the disappointment will be keen. There will
be no “split.” Irishmen will know how to manage their
own affairs without quarrelling, amazing as this may seem
to the Press and the educated classes of Great Britain. We
 WAR 141

have learned a lesson from the recent output of nautical

civilities between Admirals Lord Charles Beresford and
Percy Scott, and if we may differ from each other we shall
at least choose some other lexicon of discussion than the
vocabulary of the bumboat woman.
‘Roger Casement.1
‘Belfast, June 13, 1914.’

For some time Casement had had the idea of going to

America to raise funds for the Irish Volunteers. On the
2nd July he left Ireland, and on the 4th he sailed from
Glasgow in the Cassandra, as a second-class emigrant to
Montreal.2 He travelled as Mr. R. D. Casement. He wrote
in his diary, ‘No one suspected I was Sir Roger Casement,
and one passenger once asked me if I was any relative to
that “well-known Irish baronet” ! I laughed and said I
believed I was a near relative and that I knew him well.’ 3
On the following morning, looking from his cabin he saw, far
away to the south, the jagged precipices and towers of Tory
Island where, years before, he had spent some happy hours
at a Ceilidh. On the 15th or 16th he reached Montreal,
where he took rooms at the Queen’s Hotel. He left for New
York on the following day, after writing to John Devoy, the
old Fenian leader, to say that he was coming. On his arrival
in New York he went to the Belmont Hotel, as it was near
the station. He was pleased to find that most of the em¬
ployees in the hotel were Irish, and in his diary he noted
his pleasure at seeing so many Irish faces and hearing Irish
voices around him.
This was not the first visit that Sir Roger Casement had
paid to New York: he had been there in 1890, and soon
after his arrival in 1914 he went for a stroll with the thought
of locating places he remembered from his previous visit.

1 The Daily News and Leader, June 16, 1914.

2 The account of his voyage to America and his experiences there are
derived chiefly from Diaries of Sir Roger Casement: His Mission to Germany
and the Findlay Affair.
3 Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, p. 21,
 142 ROGER CASEMENT

He was strolling down Broadway when a young Norwegian

sailor spoke to him. This young man’s name was Eivind
Adler Christensen, and he was twenty-four years old. He
had run away from home when he was twelve and stowed
away in an English collier, and was then trying to earn
his living in America. Casement befriended him and told
him to see him the next morning, for the Norwegian was
out of work and nearly starving. Casement helped him
and eventually he found work.
The morning after his arrival Casement went to see
John Devoy at the office of the Gaelic American, and shortly
afterwards he met John Quinn and Bourke Cockran. He
went on to Philadelphia and spent the night with Joseph
M'Garrity.1 M£Garrity begged him to go to the Con¬
vention of the Ancient Order of Hibernians,2 who were
then holding their annual meeting at Norfolk, Virginia, and
address them in the name of the Irish Volunteers. To this
Casement consented if he were invited. The invitation
arrived by telegraph and Casement, together with M£Garrity,
John Quinn and Bourke Cockran, set off for Norfolk. Nor¬
folk was a mass of flags, green flags and the stars and stripes.
, All the important Irish-Americans were at the meeting,
which was being held in a large theatre. £ Their President,
^ Ex-President and nominees for the presidency for the present
Convention’s Election met us in a deputation—and in a
few minutes Cockran and I were seated on the platform as
guests of our countrymen, with Patrick Egan alongside us.’ 3
Casement spoke first and, speaking on the spur of the
1 moment, described the situation in Ireland as a Volunteer
would see it. Pure politics he avoided, although he made
I some complimentary references to Ulster. Casement ever
remained grateful to Ulster for doing something and pro¬
ducing a practical policy. It was Ulster that gave him the

1 Publisher of the Irish Press, Philadelphia, and an officer of the

Clan-na-Gael.
2 Nicknamed the ' Molly Maguires.’
3 Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, p. 26,
 WAR 143

inspiration to found the Volunteers as a means to bring

self-government to Ireland, when he saw that Parliamentary
methods were of no avail. The meeting was a success and
Casement returned to Philadelphia with M‘Garrity.
The following days were anxious ones for Casement,
wondering what success would attend his gun-running
venture. He was greatly cheered when he received a letter
telling him that all was well and that ‘our friends were on
the sea.’ John Devoy and Joe M'Garrity were the only
persons whom Casement had let into his confidence with
regard to this gun-running. The arms were due to be
landed on the morning of Sunday, the 26th July. ‘That
Sunday,’ wrote Casement in his diary, ‘ I spent at M‘Garrity’s
in great anxiety and on tenterhooks.’ It was a hot day and
Casement and M‘Garrity walked down the fields in front
of the house until it was dark. They lay in the grass and
talked of Ireland, anxiously awaiting a telegram to tell them
of the success of the enterprise. At about nine o’clock the
telephone bell rang; the sub-editor of a Philadelphia paper
told M'Garrity that a message had just come in saying
that a cargo of arms had been landed near Dublin, and
that British troops had been called out. and had captured
the rifles. Consternation filled Casement, and M‘Garrity
rushed to the Hibernia Club. Later a message arrived to
say that the guns were still in the possession of the Volunteers,
and had not been captured by the troops. The plan
had succeeded. Casement hardly slept at all that night.
M‘Garrity returned at two in the morning and told Sir
Roger that he had made all the necessary arrangements for
a great meeting to protest against the shooting in Bachelor’s
Walk, which was to be held the following Sunday, and that
Sir Roger was to be the chief speaker.
The next day a number of Press reporters came to inter¬
view Casement, who spoke strongly of the lawless action of
the British in Ireland culminating in the shooting of women
and children in the streets of Dublin. For this he put the
blame on Mr. Asquith. Casement was overjoyed at the
 144 ROGER CASEMENT

success of the venture, and sent the following letter to

Mrs. Green:
‘26 July /14.
‘Dear Woman of the Ships,
‘How can I tell you all I have felt since Sunday. I can
never tell you. I was in anguish first—then filled with joy—
and now with a resolute pride in you all. We have done
what we set out to do. And done it well. The Irish here
are mad with pride, joy and hope. All else is swept aside in
these feelings—old J. D. [John Devoy] says with a glow of
joy, “the greatest deed done in Ireland for 100 years”—
and keeps on repeating it. Well, Woman of Three Cows,
Agra, you see our plot did not fail—and all we planned
went well—and “Napoleon, ” too, planned well. We have
struck a blow for Ireland will echo round the world. Were
it not for the stupendous War Cloud the Press would be
filled—as it is they give much—altho’ they are a bad Press.
A real bad Press—uninstructed, fumbling, stupid and un¬
enlightened on everything but baseball, Amer: finance
and politics. Their “interviews ” are ineptitude condensed.
The Irish here would make me into a Demi God if I let
them. In Phila. they have christened me, a deputation told
me, “Robert Emmet.” They are mad for a Protestant
leader. At the Hibernian Convention when I opened the
ball and said I was a Protestant they cheered and cheered
and cheered—until I had to beg them to hear me—and
after I had done a man sprang into the stage box and called
for three cheers again and again—and then “priests and
people” came round to “shake” and pledge their support.
Redmondism has no real support here at all. It is all
bunkum. The “promises” of money to him are fakes—
and the only subscribers who materialise are Shoneen Irish
who have made a million or two and want to get into English
Society and find R. respectable and “loyal.”
‘Oh, Woman of t-he Stern and Unbending Purpose,
Autocrat of all Armadas, may your knee never be bowed—
may it be strengthened and may the Gods of Erin put
rifles into the arms of Irishmen and teach them to shoot
straight. My grief is that I was here and not on the Howth
Rd. last Sunday, and my blood is hot with wrath when I think
 WAR 145
of that bayoneting and bulleting—but God bless you and
Mary of the Yacht and all who helped this noble gift of arms
and those two Irish lads who shipped as hands aboard.
May this bring a new day to Ireland—I see it coming—New
hope, new courage on the old, old manhood.
‘Yours devotedly and always,
‘The Fugitive Knight.’

The attitude of Sir Roger was by now causing some

concern to the British authorities and his movements were
being closely watched. While Casement was still waiting
for news of the Howth gun-running there came the
news of the Serajevo murders. This increased his anxiety,
but his ‘fears for the landing of the guns at Howth
swallowed up all other fears for the time.’ Then came the
war, and a wholly different situation was placed before
Sir Roger. To Casement the war seemed an opportunity
for Ireland. He blamed England for engineering it and
sympathised with Germany in her desperate plight. He
had always been an Irish separatist at heart and in thought,
and since 1905 that feeling had deepened, and the war
turned his opinions into actions. When the war came he
saw two things. He felt it to be imperative to keep Ireland
out of the war,1 which he saw as a purely English assault
upon the trade rival of England. It was England’s war and
England should do her own fighting. He saw, also, that
if there was a chance of setting Ireland free from England
1 His reasons for keeping Ireland out of the war are briefly set out
in a letter to Mrs. Green, dated nth October, 1914, and in which he
says:
‘ If Ireland sides actively, viciously, insanely in this English attack
on Germany she goes to a sure and certain loss in any case. Think it
out and you’ll see it is clear. A sure and certain loss—no gain anywhere.
‘ But if she stay at home and keep her soul clean and her hands clean
she can only gain. She gains then in any event. See these gains:
‘ 1st. She keeps her life blood—so vitally needed at home.
‘ 2nd. She keeps her reputation for chivalry and honour.
‘ 3rd. She has not injured the victor willingly—and he, knowing this,
will not willingly injure her.'
10
146 ROGER CASEMENT

or brought into the peace negotiations as a European nation,

then it must be taken. In pursuance of his aim to keep
Ireland out of the war he sent a letter, an open letter to
Irishmen, to the Dublin Press. This was intended to act
as a counterpoise to the recruiting campaign then being
vigorously carried on in Ireland by Mr. Redmond. It was
written straight from his heart, on reading the speeches of
Lord Crewe, Mr. Asquith and many others. He felt that
Redmond’s appeal was an appeal of treachery against
Ireland. This letter appeared in the Irish Independent and
was as follows:
‘New York, 17 September, 1914.
‘As an Irishman and one who has been identified with
the Irish Volunteer movement since it began, I feel it my
duty to protest against the claim now put forward by the
British Government, that, because that Government has
agreed with its political opponents “to place the Home
Rule Bill on the Statute Book,” and to defer its operation
until after the war and until an “Amending Bill” to pro¬
foundly modify its provisions has been introduced and
passed, Irishmen in return should enlist in the British Army
and aid the Allied Asiatic and European powers in a war
against a people who have never wronged Ireland. The
British Liberal Party has been publicly pledged for twenty-
eight years to give self-government to Ireland. It has not
yet fulfilled that pledge. Instead, it now offers to sell, at a
very high price, a wholly hypothetical and indefinite form
of partial internal control of certain specified Irish services,
if, in return for this promissory note (payable after death),
the Irish people will contribute their blood, their honour and
their manhood in a war that in no wise concerns them.
Ireland has no quarrel with the German people or just cause
of offence against them.
‘ I will not pronounce an opinion upon the British stand¬
point in this war, beyond saying that the public profession
under which it was begun, namely to defend the violated
neutrality of Belgium, is being daily controverted by the
official spokesmen of Great Britain. The London Times,
in its issue of the 14th instant, declared that Great Britain
 WAR 147

would not consent to peace on any terms that did not

involve the “dismantling of the German Navy55 and the
permanent impairment of Germany’s place in the world as
a great sea-faring nation. That may or may not be a
worthy end for British statesmanship to set before it and a
warrant for the use of British arms against Germany, but it
is no warrant for Irish honour or common sense to be in¬
volved in this conflict. There is no gain, moral or material,
Irishmen can draw from assailing Germany. The destruc¬
tion of the German Navy or the sweeping of German
commerce from the seas will bring no profit to a people
whose own commerce was long since swept from land and
sea.
‘Ireland has no blood to give to any land, to any cause
but that of Ireland. Our duty as a Christian people is to
abstain from bloodshed; and our duty as Irishmen is to
give our lives for Ireland. Ireland needs all her sons. In
the space of sixty-eight years her population has fallen by
far over 4,000,000 souls, and in every particular of national
life she shows a steady decline of vitality. Were the Home
Rule Bill all that is claimed for it and were it freely given
to-day, to come into operation to-morrow, instead of being
offered for sale on terms of exchange that only a fool would
accept, it would be the duty of Irishmen to save their
strength and manhood for the trying tasks before them, to
build up from a depleted population the fabric of a ruined
national life.
‘Ireland has suffered at the hands of British adminis¬
trators a more prolonged series of evils, deliberately
inflicted, than any other community of civilised men.
To-day, when no margin of vital strength remains for vital
tasks at home, when its fertile fields are reduced by set
design to producing animals and not men, the remnant
of our people are being urged to lay down their lives on
foreign fields, in order that great and inordinately wealthy
communities may grow greater and richer by the destruc¬
tion of a rival’s trade and industry. Had this war the
highest moral aim in view, as its originators claim for it,
it would still be the duty of Irishmen to keep out of it.
‘If Irish blood is to be “the seal that will bring all Ireland
148 ROGER CASEMENT

together in one nation and in liberties equal and common

to all,” then let that blood be shed in Ireland, where alone
it can be righteously shed to secure those liberties. It was
not Germany destroyed the national liberties of the Irish
people, and we cannot recover the national life struck
down in our own land by carrying fire and sword into
another land.
‘The cause of Ireland is greater than the cause of any
party; higher than the worth of any man; richer in its
poverty than all the riches of Empire. If we sell it now we
are unworthy of the name of Irishmen. If to-day we barter
that cause in a sordid bargain, we shall prove ourselves a
people unworthy of freedom—a dwindling race of cravens
from whose veins the blood of manhood has been drained.
If now to fight is our duty, then let us fight on that soil
where so many generations of slain Irishmen lie in honour
and fame. Let our graves be in that patriot grass whence
alone the corpse of Irish nationality can spring to life.
Ireland will be “false to her history, to every consideration
of honour, good faith and self-interest,” if she now willingly
responds to the call of the British Government to send her
brave sons and faithful hearts to fight in a cause that has
no glint of chivalry or gleam of generosity in all its fine
of battle. If this be a war for the “small nationalities,”
as its planners term it, then let it begin, for one small
nationality, at home.
‘ Speaking as one of those who helped to found the Irish
Volunteers, I say, in their name, that no Irishman fit to
bear arms in the cause of his country’s freedom can join
the allied millions now attacking Germany in a war that,
at the best, concerns Ireland not at all and that can only
add fresh burdens and establish a new drain, in the interest
of another community, upon a people that has already
been bled to the verge of Death.
‘Roger Casement.’ 1

This letter evoked an enquiry from the Foreign Office

which sent the following letter to Casement, who did not
reply.
1 Irish Independent, 5 October, 1914.
 WAR 149
‘Foreign Office,
‘October 26, 1914.
‘Sir,

‘The attention of the Secretary of State has been called

to a letter dated New York, September 17th, which appeared
in the Irish Independent of October 5th over your signature.
The letter urges that Irish sympathies should be with
Germany rather than with Great Britain and that Irishmen
should not join the British Army. As you are still liable,
in certain circumstances, to be called upon to serve under
the Crown, I am to request you to state whether you are the
author of the letter in question.
‘I am, Sir,
‘Your most obedient humble servant,
‘A. Nicolson.1
‘Sir R. Casement, C.M.G.5

During August and September Casement had been work¬

ing hard in America. He had managed, by the middle
of August, to collect between $6,000 and $7,000 for the
Volunteers. The Irish-Americans were becoming screwed
up to a high pitch of dissatisfaction with Redmond and were
willing to assist the Volunteers as far as lay in their power.
But the war produced a change of feeling. Casement,
writing to Mrs. Green, mentions that he would have had
nearly $50,000 instead of $7,000 if it had not been for
the war.
Some time previously Major M‘Bride, who was afterwards
shot in Dublin, told Casement of the offer made to him by
the Irish prisoners in the Transvaal, during the Boer War,
to fight for the Boers. This offer Major M'Bride took to the
President and Executive, but it was rejected by one vote.
The ground of the rejection is curious. It was not rejected
as wrong or immoral, but because acceptance would make
the English Liberals the enemies of the Boers. This story
gave Casement the idea of going to Germany to raise an
1 Printed in the Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, p. 15.
150 ROGER CASEMENT

Irish Brigade there. But whereas the Irishmen who made

the offer to Major M‘Bride were willing to fight for the
Boers against England, it was not Sir Roger’s intention that
his Irish Brigade, if formed, should fight directly on behalf
of Germany, but solely for Ireland.1 This idea took root
in his mind, and he paid several visits to the German
Ambassador at Washington, Count von Bernstorff, during
which he laid before him proposals for forming an Irish
Brigade in Germany, out of the Irish prisoners of war, to
fight for Ireland. These proposals seem to have been
favourably received, and subsequently the Foreign Office
in Berlin was informed that Casement was going to Ger¬
many to visit the Irish prisoners.
But these negotiations had not originated with Casement’s
arrival in America. In 1910, at the request of Bulmer
Hobson, who was then editing Irish Freedom, Casement
wrote a memorandum on Ireland and Germany in the event
of the war which both he and Hobson were expecting. This
document Bulmer Hobson proposed sending to the German
Government. However, it remained in Hobson’s possession
for some years, until the early part of 1914, when Hobson
took it over to America. Hobson delivered it to John
Devoy, who forwarded it to Bernstorff, and it was later
sent to Berlin. This document may be considered as the
‘diplomatic preparation’ for Casement’s conversations with
Bernstorff in 1914.
In September the Gaelic American printed two articles2
written by Casement, which were the basis of his idea of
forming an Irish Brigade in the war. The burden of these
articles was that Germany, to win, must cripple or destroy
England. The battles which she might win over France
and Russia would not give her real or final victory or
compensate her for the awful sacrifices of the war. Her real

1 Letter written by Casement in Brixton Prison, asking for some

historical research to be done for him.
2 These articles are dated September 5 and September 10, 1914,
and the first appeared in the Gaelic American on September 19, 1914.
 WAR
151
enemy, who had made the combination against her, was
England, who could afford to see her allies go down in defeat,
ready to profit by their fall, so long as her own shores and
maritime supremacy remained untouched. It was necessary
to strike vital blows at England’s integrity in India, Egypt
and, above all, in Ireland, before her cold-blooded and
relentless policy could be really broken and panic brought
to her doors. If German statesmanship failed to grasp this
vital truth and to act promptly, military triumphs on the
European continent would avail Germany nothing.
Once Casement had decided to go to Germany he was
immediately confronted with the difficulty of reaching that
country. He was aware that for some time past he had been
watched by spies, and for him to leave America unobserved
would be extremely difficult. Some of the leading Irish-
Americans obtained for him a passport and a letter of
recommendation for a certain Mr. James - whom it
was decided he should personate. As a further precaution
Casement engaged as his manservant the man whom he
had befriended soon after his arrival in New York, Adler
Christensen. Christensen was engaged to carry Sir Roger’s
papers, and he booked a second-class passage to return to
his parents at Moss, Norway.
Casement spent two days at a hotel as ‘Mr. R. Smythe’
of London. Rooms had been booked at the La Salle Hotel,
Chicago, for Sir Roger, and his impending arrival there was
announced in the local Press. On the 15th October, after
Christensen had taken his luggage on board, Sir Roger
shaved off his beard and slipped down the back stairs and
out of the hotel. The real Mr. James - accompanied
him on board the Oskar II, which was the ship in which
he was leaving for Christiania on his way to Germany.
At 2 p.m. on October 15th the vessel sailed.
Casement was posing as an American on board, and the
part he had to play was made more difficult by reason of
the fact that three genuine Americans were passengers in
the same ship. He had to account for the discrepancies in
152 ROGER CASEMENT

his speech and his unfamiliar accent by referring to his

foreign education, saying that he had been at school in
England, and had made a long stay in Europe. On board
there were a number of persons also travelling under assumed
names or in disguise, bound for Germany and elsewhere,
and who hoped to evade the vigilance of the Allies. Case¬
ment quickly aroused the suspicions of his fellow-passengers,
who believed that he was an English spy, sent to catch those
who were travelling with forged passports, although it was
not till they were near the coast of Norway and in sight of
Christiansand that he learned of these suspicions. Many of
the passengers would approach him and say all the nice
things they could about the British and how much they
approved of them in the war, and Casement would reply,
‘Well, I guess I don’t. You see my Papa fought in the Civil
War and so did his too—and we ain’t got no love for the
British in my family.’ But nothing he could do allayed their
misgivings. And then happened an event which gave the
passengers cause for even greater alarm.
On the evening of Thursday, 22nd October, the Oskar II
changed her course and headed further north. The change
was not marked on the public chart, but it was not long
before everyone on board knew of it. They heard that it
was to escape British cruisers lying near the Shetlands and
Orkneys. On the afternoon of the following Saturday, when
they were off the Faroe Islands, they sighted a British
cruiser, low down on the sky-line to the south. The cruiser,
H.M.S. Hibernia, swung round and steamed towards them.
As she drew up with the Oskar II she fired a round, and the
passengers were able to see the bluejackets drawn up on the
cruiser’s decks. Casement had hurried below to his cabin,
where he was busy, with the aid of Adler Christensen, hiding
and throwing overboard any papers that might compromise
him in the event of a search being made. Among the papers
which he got rid of were his Diaries giving an account of his
departure from Ireland and of his activities down to the end
of October, 1914. A party of sailors was put on board the
 WAR 153

Oskar II, who hoisted the Union Jack and disabled the wire¬
less installation. Their orders were to seize the ship and
take her into a Scottish port, there to await instructions from
London. A Lieutenant-Commander took charge of the
Oskar II and took her into Stornoway, where she arrived at
sunrise on Sunday morning. Saturday’s dinner seems to
have been a very sorry affair. There was not a passenger on
board who was not quite sure that Casement was responsible
for the seizure of the ship, and that he had sent out a secret
wireless message to have her intercepted. When they looked
at him they seemed scared out of their wits. In a letter 1
which Casement wrote to his sister he says that ‘one poor
old German nearly had a fit and came to tell me he loved
the British.’
Sunday in Stornoway passed drearily enough. On
Monday morning an officer arrived on board and arrested
six men: two German stowaways, two German members of
the crew, the bandmaster and the second cook. Immedi¬
ately they were taken ashore Casement organised a sub¬
scription for them among the passengers, which realised
247 Kroner. This money was sent ashore by the officer.
That afternoon the ship was released and was allowed to
proceed upon her voyage. It was something of a relief to
everyone on board when they reached Christiansand. Case¬
ment had intended leaving the ship at Christiansand, but as
there was no train, he remained on board and went on to
Christiania. The Oskar II arrived at Christiania in the
early morning of the 28th October. Casement and Chris¬
tensen at once went ashore, and took rooms at the Grand
Hotel.
1 This letter, which was never posted but preserved among his
papers, is written in a fictitious form, in case it fell into unauthorised
hands. It is written in American slang, and in it Sir Roger assumes
the role of an American lady.
 CHAPTER IX

THE FINDLAY AFFAIR 1

The events attendant upon Sir Roger Casement’s stay in

Christiania read like an extract from a modern detective
novel, the whole business being of such a singular nature.
On the morning of his arrival, the 29th October, Casement
sent a cable to his ‘cousin James-’ in New York, telling
of his safe arrival, and then he went on to the German
Legation. On the way to the Legation he made purchases
at various shops, and when leaving one of these shops he
noticed that a man was watching him. Later, it appeared
to Casement that this man was following him, and he
confided to Adler Christensen his belief that a spy was
watching him. Arrived at the German Legation he pre¬
sented a letter of introduction to Count von Oberndorff,
the German Minister in Norway, from the German Am¬
bassador in Washington. This letter requested that facilities
to enter Germany should be furnished to Sir Roger. It was
in code and took some time to decipher, and Casement was
asked to return the next morning when it was hoped that
the necessary papers would be forthcoming. That afternoon
Casement spent in his hotel writing letters, while Christensen
went out to buy some things that he needed.
Christensen returned earlier than he was expected, in a
great state of excitement, and told a strange story to Sir
Roger. On leaving the hotel to execute Casement’s com¬
missions a man who was a stranger to him accosted him
in the hall of the hotel and suggested that they should
‘ take a stroll together.’ To this Christensen assented. The

1 The account of ‘ The Findlay Affair ’ is derived from Casement’s

own Diaries, published as Diaries of Sir Roger Casement: His Mission to
Germany and the Findlay Affair.
154
 THE FINDLAY AFFAIR
155
man said that he would get a taxi, but in answer to his sign
a large private touring car drew up. Christensen was
invited to get in and the stranger told the chauffeur to go to
79 Drammensveien. When they arrived at this address they
were greeted by a short, rather bald man, who asked
Christensen to go upstairs with him, and they entered a
room on the first floor. Christensen’s host locked the door
and asked him to sit down. He began by asking Christensen
a number of questions about his voyage, and then said
casually, ‘There is a tall, dark gentleman, an Englishman,
on board; you know him?’ Christensen, whose suspicions
were aroused, replied that he knew of no Englishman, but
that there was an American on board whom he knew
slightly. His host pretended to know his name, saying
‘Mr.-, Mr.-?’ but Christensen refused to fill in the
blank, saying he had forgotten the name. After a number
of further fruitless questions with regard to Casement,
the man asked Christensen, somewhat pointedly, as to his
financial position and if he had done well in America.
Christensen replied that he had done very well and was
coming home to enjoy himself. And again a request was
made for the ‘tall dark gentleman’s name and address,’
which seems to have brought the interview to a close.
When Casement had heard this recital he turned to the
Directory and found that 79 Drammensveien was the ad¬
dress of the British Legation in Christiania. Immediately
he sent Christensen, with a note, to Count von Oberndorff,
to tell him of what had occurred, and asking that the
necessary papers to enter Germany might be sent him at the
earliest possible moment. Count von Oberndorff replied
with an invitation to go to the German Consulate that
evening at seven o’clock. Casement, accompanied by
Christensen, went in a taxi to keep this appointment. They
noticed that they were being followed by a car in which
was the man who had taken Christensen to the British
Legation that morning. The car remained about 300 yards
behind them for nearly half a mile. Sir Roger told his taxi-
156 ROGER CASEMENT

driver to turn down a side street on the right of the street

along which they were travelling. As soon as they had
turned into the side street and were out of sight of the
pursuing car Casement jumped out, leaving Christensen to
return to the hotel, there to wait for him. Thus did Case¬
ment elude his pursuers. When Casement arrived at the
German Consulate, Count von Oberndorff told him that he
had telegraphed to the German Foreign Office, but that he
could do nothing until he received their reply, which, he
said, he expected hourly. Casement explained his whole
position to the German official, and urged that his departure
for Berlin should be expedited as much as possible. He said
that he was in danger of being kidnapped by the British,
and that if that should happen the cause which he repre¬
sented would be seriously injured. His chief fear was that
the British authorities in Christiania might succeed, through
the American Legation, in getting him detained on suspicion,
since he was travelling with false papers.
Meanwhile Christensen had returned to the hotel and was
waiting in the lounge for Sir Roger, when a stranger came
up to him and sat down beside him. Christensen describes
the incident thus: ‘A stranger came up and, uninvited,
sat down beside me and began talking. He brought the
conversation round to money, asking if I was well off. I
showed him a $20 gold piece Sir Roger had given me, and
laughed and said I had plenty of those. He bought two
drinks and said that American money was not worth so
much as English money; that the Norwegian exchange on
the English sovereign had never been as high as now, the
sovereign, he said, was now worth 18.75 Kroner.’ 1 When
Casement was told of this he decided that it would be well
to leave for Berlin the next day, even without the necessary
papers, and he gave Christensen certain instructions to this
end. Shortly before midnight he received a visit from a

1 From Christensen’s sworn statement made at the American Con¬

sulate-General in Berlin, dated 9 April, 1915. Printed in Diaries of
Sir Roger Casement, pp. 55 et seqq.
 THE FINDLAY AFFAIR
157
Mr. Hilmers of the German Legation. This gentleman told
Casement that he was sent by Count von OberndorfF to
reassure him, and to beg him to remain in his hotel during
the following day, when the permit was expected to arrive
from Berlin. To this Casement agreed and countermanded
his previous orders.
On the morning following this eventful day Casement was
up early, and he noticed, out in the street, a man whom he
suspected was watching the hotel. He observed this man
for some time and he scarcely changed his position. At
about seven o’clock in the morning Mr. Hilmers called to
say that Count von Oberndorff would come to see him at
midday to arrange the details of his journey. This informa¬
tion greatly cheered Sir Roger.
Christensen had been sent out with instructions to ‘keep
his eyes open,’ and he returned towards midday, greatly
excited. He threw 25 Kroner in notes on to the table,
saying he had just returned from the British Legation. It
appeared that after Christensen had had his breakfast a
stranger came up to him and pretended to bump into him.
As the man did so he said quickly, ‘ Go to the telephone box
and ring up 11.460 and you will hear something good.’
This Christensen did, when a voice said, ‘Take a taxicab
and come up to 79 Drammensveien.’ But before ringing
up the number, Christensen took the precaution of asking
the telephone operator to listen to the conversation. He
went at once to the British Legation and was shown up into
the same room as before. A tall man came forward to meet
him who, after locking the door, said that he was the British
Minister,1 and then he proceeded, ‘Sit down, I know all
about you and the gentleman you are with. The day before
yesterday you sent a telegram from Christiansand to your
mother. I have got a copy of it here. You are Adler
Christensen of Moss. Now yesterday morning you sent a
telegram for this gentleman to a friend of his in New York.
I want the original so I may have his handwriting. This
1 Mr. M. de C. Findlay.
158 ROGER CASEMENT

gentleman I know all about; he is Sir Roger Casement.’ 1

Such frankness took Christensen somewhat by surprise. He
saw that a denial was of no use. He admitted that all that
Mr. Findlay had said was quite true, but he said there was
no original telegram: Christensen had written it himself.
‘Ah,’ said Mr. Findlay, ‘well, now, let us talk. This
gentleman, Sir Roger, is an Irish Nationalist. Now I don’t
know what he is going to do or where he is going to, but I
know he is a dangerous man and wants to get the Germans
to help the Irish in a rebellion against England.’2
‘I don’t know,’ replied Christensen.
‘Tell me,’ persisted the Minister, ‘did Sir Roger ever talk
to you about Ireland?’
‘Yes, he told me sometimes things about Irish history and
of how badly England had treated Ireland.’
‘Yes,’ said the Minister, ‘that may be, and did he ever
tell you that the Irish had rebelled? ’
‘Yes.’
‘But he never told you that they had ever succeeded, did
he? And they will not succeed this time either. Now I
think he is going to Germany, but we have no proof; we
know nothing except that he is an Irish Nationalist and that
he is against this war. Now the Germans don’t care any¬
thing about Ireland and will only make a fool of Sir Roger;
they may promise him all sorts of things, but they will do

1 See Christensen’s sworn statement: Diaries of Sir Roger Casement,

p. 60.
2 The British Government were already aware of Casement’s purpose
in going to Germany. They knew of the proposals he had made to
the German Embassy in Washington. They had also intercepted a
despatch (among others) dated September 27th, 1914, from the German
Embassy, Washington, to the Foreign Office, Berlin. Part of the
despatch was as follows: ‘ The decisive point seems to me to lie in
the question whether any prospect of an understanding with England
is now in view, or must we prepare ourselves for a life and death struggle?
If so, I recommend falling in with Irish wishes, provided that there are
really Irishmen who are prepared to help us. The formation of an
Irish Legion from Irish prisoners of war would be a grand idea if only
it could be carried out.’ (Documents relative to the Sinn Fein Movement:
Cmd. 1108 of 1921, p. 3.)
 THE FINDLAY AFFAIR 159

nothing. All they want is to make trouble for England. I

have no means of stopping Sir Roger if he is going to
Germany because we have no power to interfere, but if he
gets there he may cause my Government a great deal of
trouble.’
Christensen replied that he had no knowledge of Case¬
ment’s future movements. Mr. Findlay then said that the
British Government would very much like to prevent
Casement from reaching Germany, and he went on to say,
‘ In any case, nobody but you and I know that this gentleman
is Sir Roger Casement. He is here under an assumed name.
Sir Roger Casement is supposed to be in America. Now, if
the gentleman down at the Grand Hotel under the assumed
name should disappear, no one will know because there is
no one to make any enquiries. It is only an assumed name
that disappears, and it is nobody’s business to institute
enquiries after a person that does not exist. Sir Roger
belongs to us, to the British Government, and there is no
other Government that could interfere or ask any questions.’
‘Yes,’ said Christensen, ‘and what then?’
‘Well,’ said Findlay, ‘it would be worth a good deal to
the man who caused him to disappear.’
‘What do you mean?’ asked Christensen.
‘It is like this,’ explained Findlay. ‘There would not be
any enquiries made, and supposing this gentleman were
knocked on the head it would be a very good thing for him
who did it.’
Christensen objected that it would mean trouble for
whoever did it. Mr. Findlay countered this, ‘No,’ he said,
‘because no one would know and the British Government
would protect the man who carried out its wishes.’ And he
went on to say, ‘I suppose you would not mind having an
easy time of it for the rest of your life? ’
Christensen replied that it would depend. He had not
much fancy for Findlay’s idea, but, he said, money made a
powerful appeal to him. Findlay went on to say that
whoever kidnapped Sir Roger need never work for the rest
i6o ROGER CASEMENT

of his life, and told Christensen to think it over, and to come

back again at 3 o’clock if he felt disposed to go on with the
matter, adding, ‘Here are 25 Kroner for your taxi-cab.’1
Casement listened to Christensen’s account of these hap¬
penings with amazement. And who would not be amazed
at such a tale? It seemed almost unbelievable that a
diplomatic representative should plot with an uneducated
Norwegian sailor for the abduction of a British subject; for
Mr. Findlay knew little or nothing of Christensen, and had
no knowledge of how far he could be trusted. And this, too,
should have given Sir Roger Casement food for thought.
His own knowledge of Adler Christensen was by no means
extensive, but nevertheless he believed implicitly in his
servant’s trustworthiness.
Almost as soon as Christensen had finished telling his story
Count von Oberndorff and Mr. Hilmers were announced,
and a little later there arrived Mr. Richard Meyer, a brother
of Professor Kuno Meyer,2 and for their benefit the whole
story was rehearsed again. Before saying good-bye to his
guests Casement arranged the details of his departure for
Berlin. He was determined that Christensen should return
to the British Legation in order that he might learn the full
details of Mr. Findlay’s plot to capture him. Accordingly
he gave Christensen detailed instructions as to what he was
to do at the Legation, and then sent him off.
‘ I waited in some anxiety, I must admit. I was exposing
this young man, whose life since he was a little boy of twelve
had been one of great hardship, to a very great temptation.
I knew that and told him so. I assured him that the British
Government would indeed pay a big price for me and that
he “could sell me dear.” His role was to pretend that,
having considered the Minister’s offer, he was prepared to
fall in with his schemes and betray me, in return for an

1 For an account of the foregoing interview, see Christensen’s sworn

statement, Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, pp. 60 et seqq.
2 Professor of Celtic Languages in Liverpool University, and formerly
Professor of Celtic at Berlin University.
 THE FINDLAY AFFAIR 161

ample reward. The price was to be a high one, otherwise

the enemy might suspect his compliance was assumed.
‘Adler was to explain to the Minister that I had booked
for Copenhagen in that evening’s train, and that it was my
intention to stay there some days he thought. I was going
to leave him at Moss with his parents; but if he and the
Minister came to terms he would urge me to take him on
with me, and as “I liked and trusted him so much” he was
sure, if he begged me, I would do this. Then he would be
able to carry out whatever plan against me the Minister
proposed.
‘ Such was the instruction given him as he went off to his
third visit to the British Legation.’ 1
When Christensen arrived at the British Legation a little
before 3 o’clock, he was shown up to the same room as
before, where he found Mr. Findlay telephoning. Findlay
explained that he was waiting for a message giving an
address which he needed for his future correspondence with
Christensen. This message arrived a little later. Mr.
Findlay opened the conversation with a remark that Sir
Roger was probably going to Germany and that the British
Legation was powerless openly to prevent him. Christensen
told Findlay that Casement was leaving Christiania that
evening for Copenhagen and he was leaving Christensen at
Moss with his parents. And he added that he could in all
probability persuade Casement to take him with him, when
an opportunity might present itself for doing what the
Minister desired, provided that it was made worth his while.
Findlay agreed to this and urged Christensen to go wherever
Casement went. He would then be enabled to find out to
whom Casement wrote, both in America and Ireland, so
that the British Government could have these people
arrested. To these proposals Christensen pretended to agree,
and then Findlay showed Christensen the method by which
they might correspond in the future. All correspondence
1 Casement’s Memorandum dealing with his arrival and stay in
Christiania: printed in Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, see p. 52.
162 ROGER CASEMENT

was to go through a man whom the Minister named. Taking

a piece of writing-paper from his desk he tore the printed
address off and wrote in capital letters:

HERR SIGVALD WIIG

THORWALD MEYERSGATE, 78*.

This he handed to Christensen, who put it in his pocket. He

adjured Christensen always to write in capital letters so that
the writing could not be traced. There followed a long and
at times acrimonious bargaining over the price that Chris¬
tensen was to be paid for his treachery. Christensen seems
to have behaved like a gutter-snipe; he describes the inter¬
view, in his sworn statement, thus:

‘I became rude and insolent on purpose, so as to mislead

him. He lost his temper once and said, ‘What is there to
prevent me keeping you here and not letting you out? ” to
which I replied with a laugh, ‘ ‘ Well, that would not do you
any good, because I have got nothing on me.” I smoked a
cigarette in his face without asking his leave and I filled
my pipe before him. I used bad language several times and
swore that I was not going to do anything against Sir Roger
for a small sum; that I wanted good money and that I
would not act “for a lousy 5 Dollar note like the one you
gave me this morning. ” He agreed on his “word of honour ’5
to pay me £5000—if I could get Sir Roger into his power.
His words were, “If you get him to any place on the
Skaggerack or North Sea we shall have men-of-war ready
and will take good care of him.” I said that was alright for
the British Government and I quite saw they wanted to
finish Sir Roger, “who is no fool,” but I was not at all sure
what I should make out of it. I said, “I expect you mean
5000 Kroner.” He said, “No, £5000 in gold.” I asked for
some proof or guarantee that the money would be paid to
me. He said, “You must trust me. I promise you on my
word of honour that the day you get him into our hands
you shall get £5000. I will telegraph to my Government and
see if they will not make it more, but I promise you on my
own word £5000.” After more heated arguments, in which
 THE FINDLAY AFFAIR 163

I continued to behave very rudely, I pretended to give in

and to agree. It was then arranged that I should be paid
for any letters or papers of Sir Roger I could steal or copy
and send to the address in Christiania given. He said,
“You will be paid for each according to its value and all
would be properly paid.” I was to write to the address
given and send him my own address in Germany or wherever
I might be with Sir Roger. I told him I must hurry back
because Sir Roger would be leaving for the train very soon
and “I will have to persuade him to take me on with him
and get my ticket for Copenhagen.” He said he agreed,
and pulled out from his pocket a single note for 100 Kroner
and handed it to me saying, “This is all the money I have
got with me at the moment; besides you have given me no
real information yet. You have told me nothing that I
did not know.” ’1

It was not till nearly five o’clock that Christensen returned

to the hotel where Casement was anxiously awaiting him.
The long delay had increased Sir Roger’s nervous tension,
and he feared that Christensen might have succumbed to
the temptation put before him by Findlay, or that he had
been locked up at the British Legation. Christensen’s
belated return was a great relief to him. While Christensen
had been at the British Legation Casement had obtained
his sleeping-car ticket to Copenhagen, and had given to
the manager of the hotel in which he was staying his future
address as ‘Hotel Bristol, Copenhagen.’
When Christensen returned he handed to Casement the
hundred-Kroner note, which Sir Roger called ‘the first
proceeds of his new role of assassin extraordinary to the
British Envoy Extraordinary.’ After he had received a full
account of the happenings at the British Legation, he set
off for the station, his mind at rest. He met Mr. Hilmers in
the hall of the hotel, and at the station he found a number of
people saying good-bye to Mr. Richard Meyer. The train
was divided into two sections, one going to Copenhagen
and the other to Sassnitz, the frontier town. Christensen
1 Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, p. 63.
164 ROGER CASEMENT

booked to Copenhagen and it was arranged that he and

Casement should travel in the Copenhagen section, and
Richard Meyer in the Sassnitz section. When the train
arrived at Engelholm Junction, where it was due at 5.40 a.m.,
Casement was to join Meyer in the Sassnitz section. Follow¬
ing this plan the party left Christiania. Casement believed
that a man from the British Legation left in the same train
in the belief that Casement was going to Copenhagen.
Christensen was to make sure that Casement changed into
the Sassnitz section at Engelholm. However, long before
they were due there, Casement, who found it difficult to
sleep in the train, woke up and found Christensen sound
asleep in his bunk. They reached Engelholm punctually,
and jumping out on the platform, soon had their baggage
in the other section. Five minutes later Casement was
pleased to see his old section of the train move out of the
station. Arrived at Traelleborg they embarked on the
railway steamer for Sassnitz, a journey which took five hours.
At Sassnitz they had some trouble over their passports, but
Richard Meyer managed to overcome all the official diffi¬
culties. ‘Had not Meyer been with me,’ Casement recorded
in his diary of 31st October, 1914, ‘I should have had great
difficulty. As it was they wanted to turn out my pockets
and Adler’s for letters, etc.—and even did this with Meyer.
They were stupid peasant reservists with “42 ” on their caps.
The higher officials at last got us through, after a very close
inspection of “Mr. James-’s ” passport, especially of the
U.S.A. red seal and the lithographed signature “W. J.
Bryan.” At length we got away to the train—and Meyer
and I got into a comfortable first-class carriage while Adler
was put into a second-class compartment in the corridor.’
During the course of his journey to Berlin, Casement
became aware of the hostility of his fellow-passengers, many
of whom glared at him. Meyer explained to him that they
were remarking upon the ‘extraordinary insolence’ of an
Englishman travelling in Germany at such a time. In order
to ease the situation Meyer explained to them that Casement
 THE FINDLAY AFFAIR 165

was an American. Casement, throughout his stay in

Germany, met with similar hostility and hatred of anything
English.
They reached Berlin at about 7.30 o’clock in the evening
of the 31st October. Casement had intended staying at the
Palast Hotel, but finding that it had been closed since the
beginning of the war, he went instead to the Continental
where he got rooms under the name of ‘Mr. Hammond.’
Meyer told him to remain in the hotel, as an English-
speaking man, without papers and unknown to the police,
would probably find himself in serious trouble. Then he
went to the Foreign Office to report Casement’s arrival.
The last entry in Casement’s diary of that day is as
follows:

‘At last in Berlin! The journey done—the effort perhaps

only begun! Shall I succeed?—Will they see the great
cause aright and understand all it may mean to them, no
less than to Ireland? To-morrow will show the beginning.’
 CHAPTER X

GERMANY AND THE IRISH BRIGADE

Casement found his hotel quiet and comfortable, with very

few guests, but at once he found himself an object of suspicion
to the other people staying in the hotel because he spoke
English. But the hotel staff regarded him as an American
millionaire, and in the servants’ hall Christensen fostered
this idea by saying that Casement possessed a fine steam
yacht. Following Meyer’s advice, he remained in the hotel
all day. During the morning Meyer called to see him to
report progress. He told Casement that there was no one
at the Foreign Office: von Bethmann-Hollweg, the Chan¬
cellor, and von Jagow, the Secretary of State, were both at
the Front, at Charieville, with the Emperor, and the only
person at the Foreign Office was Zimmermann, the Under¬
secretary of State, with his staff. In the evening Meyer
came again to see Casement and to tell him that Zimmer¬
mann would receive him at half-past eleven the following
morning. Meyer and Zimmermann had discussed the
incidents at Christiania, and Meyer had shown him the
documents and explained the attempt that had been made
on Casement’s life. Zimmermann expressed a desire to hear
more of the affair. ‘Anyhow,’ wrote Casement in his diary,
‘he showed me plainly I was a welcome guest—and I felt
as easy in mind as it is possible to be in so strange a position.
Here I am in the heart of the enemy’s country—a State
guest and almost a State prisoner.’1
The following morning Meyer arrived at eleven to take
him down to the Foreign Office. They walked down the
Unter den Linden while Meyer pointed out to him the
buildings of interest. Arriving at the German Foreign
1 Diaries of Sir Roger Casement (Sunday, i November), p. 69.
166
 GERMANY AND THE IRISH BRIGADE 167

Office they were shown into a large and well-furnished room,

and Meyer explained to Casement that he was to be received,
first by the Under-Secretary of State, Zimmermann, and
then by Count Georg von Wedel, the ‘head of the English
Department.’ Then Meyer went away for a few moments
and Casement was left to his own reflections. His thoughts
turned once again to the Ireland he had left. In his diary
he tells us of all that passed through his mind during this
period of waiting.

‘ Strange thoughts were mine, as I sat on a big sofa in this

centre of policy of the German Empire. No regrets, no
fears—Well—yes—some regrets, but no fears. I thought
of Ireland, the land I should almost fatally never see again.
Only a miracle could ever bring me to her shores. That I
did not expect—cannot in truth hope for. But, victory or
defeat, it is all for Ireland. And she cannot suffer from
what I do. I may, I must suffer—and even those near and
dear to me—but my country can only gain from my treason.
Whatever comes that must be so. If I win all it is national
resurrection—a free Ireland, a world nation after centuries
of slavery. A people lost in the Middle Ages refound and
returned to Europe. If I fail—if Germany be defeated—
still the blow struck to-day for Ireland must change the
course of British policy towards that country. Things will
never be quite the same. The “Irish Question” will have
been lifted from the mire and mud and petty, false strife
of British domestic politics into an international atmosphere.
That, at least, I shall have achieved. England can never
again play with the “Irish Question.” She will have to
face the issue once for all. With the clear issue thus raised
by me she will have to deal. She must either face a dis¬
contented, conspiring Ireland—or bind it closer by a grant
of far fuller liberties. Coercion she cannot again resume.
Laissez-faire must go for ever. “Home Rule” must
become indeed Home rule—and even if all my hopes are
doomed to rank failure abroad, at least I shall have given
more to Ireland by one bold deed of open treason than
Redmond and Co. after years of talk and spouting treason
have gained from England. England does not mind the
168 ROGER CASEMENT

“treason” of the orthodox Irish “patriot.” She took the

measure of that long ago. She only fears the Irishman who
acts; not him who talks. She recognises only action, and
respects only deeds. Those men have killed England with
their mouth time and again—I am going to hit her with my
clenched hand. It is a blow of sincere enmity, based on
a wholly impersonal disregard of consequences to myself.
Sure alone that it is in truth a blow for Ireland I should be
a traitor did I not act as I am doing. I have often said, and
said it without the slightest concealment, that if ever the
chance came to strike a blow for Ireland Pd do it. Well, the
chance has come. I am not responsible for it. The crime
is not mine. It is England’s own doing. Grey and Asquith
are the real traitors. They have surely betrayed their
country and her true interests to glut the greedy jealousy
of the British commercial mind. Germany’s sin has been
her efficiency. They chose to build up a league of enmity
against the people they feared to assail themselves, and
having triumphed in their tortuous, ignoble secret diplomacy
they joyfully hurried to the encounter when, at last, sure
as they thought of their prey. For them, that so-called
Liberal Administration, I have nothing but unmeasured
contempt. A scorn I cannot express. And for the “govern¬
ing classes ” too of the pirate realm. For the people them¬
selves, and for many individual Englishmen, I have only
deep sorrow, regret, pity and affection. But as Wilfred
Blunt said to me in Sussex at Newbuildings in May when I
lunched with him and that lovely girl (the great-grand¬
daughter of Lord Edward FitzGerald)—the time has come
for the break-up of the British Empire.
‘Even as he said he hoped now to live to see it, so I hope
to be able to do something to bring it about. That Empire
is a monstrosity. The world will be the better, the more
sincere, the less hypocritical for a British defeat, for a
German victory.
‘Many thoughts, like these, were with me as I waited.’1

At length he was shown into Herr Zimmermann’s room.

Casement was greatly attracted by the Under-Secretary,

1 op. cit., p. 70.

 GERMANY AND THE IRISH BRIGADE 169
whom he found warm-hearted and good-natured. Zimmer-
mann congratulated him on his safe arrival and ‘spoke of
the Christiania episode in fitting terms.’ Zimmermann was
intensely interested in this, and asked a great number of
questions. Casement described the whole incident of Mr.
Findlay’s attempt to kidnap him. ‘Dastardly,’ commented
Zimmermann, ‘ but it is what they do and have always done
when their interests are at stake. They stick at nothing.’
That morning, while still in his pyjamas, Casement had
written a hasty memorandum which gave expression to his
own ideas. He hoped that the German Government would
make an official declaration of its attitude towards Ireland,
and with this end in view he had included in his memor¬
andum an outline of a form of declaration which he thought
the German Government might issue. He asked the German
Government to utter a declaration designed ‘to relieve the
anxieties aroused among his compatriots throughout the
world and especially in Ireland and America, by disquieting
representations emanating from responsible British quarters.’
With the memorandum Zimmermann said he agreed
entirely and took the paper from Casement. When he left
Zimmermann’s room he felt considerably cheered, for the
attitude of German goodwill towards Ireland was more than
he had hoped for. On leaving Zimmermann he was taken
by Meyer to see Count von Wedel. He found von Wedel
a very charming man and he explained to him that he had
left his memorandum and the proposed Government declara¬
tion with Zimmermann. Casement talked of the Irish
soldiers in Germany and of what he proposed to do with
them: how he proposed to form an Irish Brigade to fight
for the independence of Ireland. This proposal made some
appeal to the Germans, and in it they saw practical benefit
to themselves. However, they were impatient with the
idealistic nationalism of Casement. The internal constitu¬
tion of Ireland and her relations to Great Britain concerned
them not one whit, but the Irish Brigade showed them a
means whereby they might harry England, and thus gain
170 ROGER CASEMENT

an advantage on the Western Front. As Meyer had said to

Casement the previous day, ‘If you do this it is worth ten
army corps to us! ’ But Casement did not understand the
view that Germany took of his proposals. His one desire
was to aid Ireland, not to render assistance to Germany.
That the method he adopted of assisting Ireland was at
the same time helpful to Germany, did not concern him,
although he was anxious that Germany should win the war.
An English victory, he saw, would mean the extinction of
all Irish hopes. Writing in his diary of his interview with
von Wedel, he said:

‘I made it plain beyond all misconception to Wedel that

my efforts with the soldiers must be strictly defined as an
effort to strike a blow for Ireland—not an attempt merely
to hit England. I described the character of the Irishman
and of the Irish soldier, and pointed out that any Irishman
might commit treason against England for the sake of Ireland,
but that he would not do anything mean or treacherous.
He would put his neck in the noose, as I had done, for love
of Ireland; he would not “desert to an enemy” or forsake
his own colours merely to assail England. In fact he must
have an active cause, not a negative. If, thus, Germany
made the declaration I sought as to the fortunes and future
of Ireland in the event of German victory, I had little or
no doubt scores, perhaps hundreds, of the Irish prisoners
would follow me.’1

At the conclusion of his interview von Wedel took him

back to the Hotel Continental, and later in the day Meyer
returned with a card issued by the Chief of the Political
Police, which said that Mr. Hammond of New York was
not to be molested. It was not considered necessary that
Christensen should have such a pass, as he was a Norwegian
and therefore not an offensive personage. However, both
he and Casement bought little American flags which they
always wore in their button-holes.
The next fortnight Casement spent resting and attending
1 op. cit., p. 73.
 GERMANY AND THE IRISH BRIGADE 171

to his private affairs. He spent a good deal of time thinking

over the Christiania episode, which occupied a prominent
place in his thoughts. He set himself to follow up the affair,
and he wanted irrefutable proof of the plot in the form
of a written statement confirming Findlay’s verbal offer of
£5,000 for his capture. He wished to refute the reports
then circulating over the affair, and to brand Findlay as
a criminal, and he hoped that by so doing he would be
furthering the Irish and the German cause. It will be
remembered that at Christensen’s last interview with Mr.
Findlay they arranged a means of communication for use
when Christensen was in Germany. Casement saw that
this arrangement could be employed to trap Findlay into
providing the proof which he required. He concocted a
letter, using a very simple code, which Christensen sent to
Findlay’s agent, Sigvald, in Christiania, which was to
apprise Findlay that Christensen had stolen a letter of
Casement’s which gave the names of Sir Roger’s accomplices
in Ireland and America. This letter, when decoded, ran as
follows:
‘Have got good letter giving names, sending through
Post Office difficult. Give quickly advice. I am broke,
send plenty money to Adler.’ 1

It had been understood that all letters to Findlay’s agent

should be sent through the Norwegian Consulate at Berlin.
This arrangement was not followed with this letter and this
gave rise to some anxiety on Casement’s part. The answer
arrived some days later:
‘ Letter arrived—I hope that the names and full addresses
will be sent to the same place. We pay 30. If information
reliable the money could be paid upon your return (to
Norway) or as you wish.—Yours, Sigvald.’ 2

Casement had arranged, in the meantime, that Christen¬

sen should pay a visit to Norway. For this purpose he wrote
two faked letters addressed to imaginary people, for Chris-
1 op. cit., p. 77. 3 op. cit., p. 79.
172 ROGER CASEMENT

tensen to take with him and give to Findlay, together with

two pages torn from his diary, also faked. One of these
letters gave a more or less accurate account of his journey to
Germany, and the other gave a highly imaginative account
of his plans. Before Christensen left for Norway, Casement
spent two or three days at the headquarters of the German
General Staff at Charleville. On his return he found that
the German Government’s declaration on Ireland had not
been published. He wondered at the delay, for von Wedel
had told him, before he left for Charleville, that the declara¬
tion had been given to the Press a week previously, but in
the afternoon he bought a copy of the Midday Gazette and
found it there, placed as an ‘inset’ on the front page. He
also found a short eulogistic biography of himself. All the
evening papers, as they came out, printed the declaration,
some with comment and some without. The statement was
as follows:

‘GERMANY AND IRELAND

‘ Official Statement

‘Berlin, November 20th, 1914.

‘The well-known Irish Nationalist, Sir Roger Casement,
who has arrived in Berlin from the United States, has been
received at the Foreign Office. Sir Roger Casement
pointed out that statements were being published in Ireland,
apparently with the authority of the British Government
behind them, to the effect that a German victory would
inflict great loss upon the Irish people, whose homes,
churches, priests, and lands would be at the mercy of an
invading army actuated only by motives of pillage and
conquest. Recent utterances of Mr. Redmond on his
recruiting tour in Ireland and many pronouncements of
the British Press in Ireland to the above effect have been
widely circulated, Sir Roger pointed out, and have caused
natural apprehension among Irishmen as to the German
attitude towards Ireland in the event of a German victory
in the present war.
‘Sir Roger sought a convincing statement of German
 GERMANY AND THE IRISH BRIGADE 173

intentions towards Ireland that might reassure his country¬

men all over the world, and particularly in Ireland and
America, in view of these disquieting statements emanating
from responsible British quarters.
‘In reply to this enquiry, the Acting Secretary of State
at the Foreign Office, by order of the Imperial Chancellor,
has made the following official declaration:

‘ Official Statement
‘The German Government repudiates the evil intentions
attributed to it in the statements referred to by Sir Roger
Casement, and takes this opportunity to give a categoric
assurance that the German Government desires only the
welfare of the Irish people, their country, and their
institutions.
‘The Imperial Government formally declares that under
no circumstances would Germany invade Ireland with a
view to its conquest or the overthrow of any native in¬
stitutions in that country.
‘Should the fortune of this great war, that was not of
Germany’s seeking, ever bring in its course German troops
to the shores of Ireland, they would land there, not
as an army of invaders to pillage and destroy, but as
the forces of a Government that is inspired by goodwill
towards a country and a people for whom Germany de¬
sires only NATIONAL PROSPERITY and NATIONAL
FREEDOM.’1
This statement, besides being circulated to the German
Press, was sent out by wireless telegram. It was printed as
a leaflet in Berlin and America and was sent in large quan¬
tities to the Sinn Fein and German agents in Ireland, and
there distributed extensively. When this statement had
appeared Casement wrote to Eoin MacNeill, through
Mrs. J. R. Green, sending him a copy:

‘Berlin, 28th November, 1914.

‘Please have this official declaration of the German
Government, stating its intentions and declaring the
1 Cmd. 1108 of 1921, p. 4.
174 ROGER CASEMENT

goodwill of the German people towards Ireland and the

desire of both Government and people for Irish national
freedom, published throughout Ireland by every possible
means.
‘You know who writes this. I am in Berlin, and if
Ireland will do her duty, rest assured Germany will do hers
towards us, our cause, and our whole future.
‘The enemy is doing everything to keep the truth out
of Ireland, and are even trying to get the Vatican on their
side, as in the time of Parnell. Once our people, clergy and
volunteers know that Germany, if victorious, will do her
best to aid us in our efforts to achieve an independent
Ireland, every man at home must stand for Germany and
Irish freedom.
‘ I am entirely assured of the goodwill of this Government
towards our country, and beg you to proclaim it far and
wide. They will do all in their power to help us win
national freedom, and it lies with Ireland and Irishmen
themselves to prove that they are worthy to be free.
‘Send to me here in Berlin, by way of Christiania, if
possible, one or two thoroughly patriotic Irish priests—
young men best. Men like Father Murphy 1 of Vinegar
Hill—and for the same purpose.
‘Rifles and ammunition can be found and good officers,
too. First send the priest or priests, as I need them for a
special purpose here, you can guess—for-
‘If the priest or priests can get to Christiania (Norway),
they can get here through the German Legation at
Christiania. Our friends in America will pay all expenses.
Warn all our people, too, of the present intrigue at Rome
to bring pressure of religion to bear on a question wholly
political and national. Our enemy will stick at no crime
to-day against Ireland, as you will soon know. This official
declaration of the German Government has been sent out
to all the German representatives abroad for world-wide
publication. It may be followed by another still more to
the point — but much depends on your staunchness and
courage at home.
‘Tell all to trust the Germans—and to trust me. We shall

1 Took part in the Irish Rebellion of 1798.

 GERMANY AND THE IRISH BRIGADE 175

win everything if you are brave and faithful to the old

cause. Try and send me word here to Berlin by the same
channel as this. Tell me all your needs at home, viz.
rifles, officers, men. Send priest or priests at all costs—
one not afraid to fight and die for Ireland. The enemy are
hiding the truth. The Germans will surely, under God,
defeat both Russia and France and compel a peace that
will leave Germany stronger than before. They already
have 550,000 prisoners of war in Germany, and Austria
150,000, and Russia has been severely defeated in Poland.
‘India and Egypt will probably both be in arms. Even
if Germany cannot reach England to-day, we can only
gain by helping Germany now, as with the understanding
to come to, Ireland will have a strong and enlightened
friend to help to ultimate independence.
‘We may win everything by this war if we are true to
Germany; and if we do not win to-day we ensure inter¬
national recognition of Irish nationality and hand on an
uplifted cause for our sons.
‘ Reply by this route: A letter for me, addressed to Mr.
Hammond, 76, Wilhelmstrasse, Berlin, to be enclosed in
one addressed to Messrs. Wambersin and Son, Rotterdam.’1

Soon after the publication of the German declaration

Casement prepared for the German Government, from
articles which he had already written, a pamphlet entitled
The Crime against Ireland and How the War may Right it. This
pamphlet was an hundred-page tirade and consisted of an
appeal for a ‘ German-American-Irish alliance.’ It was
officially circulated by the German Foreign Office and by
the end of 1914 had reached the hands of a great many
Americans. The pamphlet violently attacked the idea of an
Anglo-American rapprochement and in the closing sentences
there appeared such phrases as these:—‘The Anglo-Saxon
alliance means a compact to ensure slavery and beget war.
The people who fought the greatest war in modern history
to release slaves are not likely to begin the greatest war in
all history to beget slaves.’ ‘The true alliance to aim at for
1 Cmd. 1108 of 1921, p. 5.
 176 ROGER CASEMENT

all who love peace is a friendly union of Germany, America

and Ireland. Ireland, the link between Europe and
America, must be freed by both.51
The Germans, at this time, were also assisting certain
Indians to foment rebellion in India. In October, 1914,
an Indian, Chempakaraman Pillai, was employed by the
German Foreign Office in Berlin, and he established there
the ‘Indian National Party’ which was attached to the
German General Staff.2 Later he became associated with
the German Irish Society.
On the 5th December, the German Embassy at Washing¬
ton telegraphed to the Berlin Foreign Office as follows :
‘For Casement:
‘ Confidential agent arrived in Ireland at end of
November.
‘The declaration of the German Foreign Office has made
an excellent impression.
‘The priest starts as soon as the leave of absence which
he requires has been granted. This is expected soon.
‘Judge Cohalan recommends not publishing statement
about attempt on Casement’s life until actual proofs are
secured.
‘Requests for money have been complied with.
‘There have been purchased for India, eleven thousand
rifles, four million cartridges, two hundred and fifty Mauser
pistols, five hundred revolvers with ammunition. Devoy
does not think it possible to ship them to Ireland.
‘I am trying to buy rifles for Turkey in South America.’3
And a week later there arrived at the Foreign Office at
Berlin another telegram:
‘Please remit a thousand dollars to Sir Roger Casement,
1 These phrases occur in an article, The Elsewhere Empire, written in
December, 1913, and published in Irish Freedom, January, 1914. The
article is reprinted in the pamphlet, The Crime against Europe : A Possible
Outcome of the War of 1914, at p. 83. This pamphlet contained the same
matter as The Crime against Ireland.
2 See Report of the East India Sedition Committee, 1918. Cmd. qioo
Chapter VII. . ’
3 Cmd. 1108 of 1921, p. 6.
 Germany and the irish brigade 177

which have been paid to me by Mr. Devoy, of the Gaelic

American.
‘For Casement:
‘ O’Donnel cannot go.
‘Reverend John T. Nicholson, of Philadelphia, is on sick
leave now and ready to start.
‘First available vessel sails for Netherlands December
18th. Arranged to have pass for Italy and Switzerland.
‘Is in every way qualified. Speaks Irish well. Has
visited Germany and is in full sympathy with the work we
want done. Born in Ireland, but is American citizen.’1

Meanwhile, on November 22nd, Casement saw Christen¬

sen off to Sassnitz, carrying with him the faked letters which
gave hints of an impending invasion of Ireland. Thinking
of the effect they would have on Findlay, he wrote in his
diary, ‘It should make Findlay’s hair—such as remains of
it—rise up and bless him and the day he got hold of Adler
Christensen.’ He instructed Christensen to engage an able
lawyer when he arrived in Christiania and to consult him
in all his dealings with Findlay. A few days later he received
a telephone call from Count Gebhard Bliicher, and he went
off to lunch with him at the Esplanade Hotel. Count
Bliicher was an old friend of Casement’s and they had been
together in Africa, and had seen a good deal of each other
in London. Bliicher promised to arrange a lunch so that
Casement could meet the Secretary of State, von Jagow, and
in his diary he wrote, ‘Countess Bliicher hopes sincerely I
may succeed in raising a good rebellion in Ireland—and so
bring peace by terrifying the British Government.’ Shortly
after leaving the Bluchers’, von Wedel rang Casement up
to tell him that two priests had arrived from Rome and had
been with him at the Foreign Office.
The German War Office had already taken steps to prepare
the way for Casement in the formation of his Irish Brigade,
and had begun to make arrangements for bringing all the
Irish prisoners of war together into one camp. Each prisoner
1 loc. cit., p. 6.
178 ROGER CASEMENT

who was in a British regiment was given a questionnaire

to answer.1 By this means the Germans attempted to sort
out the Irish—a method that does not seem to have been
wholly successful, for not only were a number of Englishmen,
1 The prisoners were again interrogated when they reached Limburg.
Some of the questions put to the prisoners were:
‘ General.—(1) Name and Christian name, (2) Nationality,
(3) Religion, (4) Native place, (5) Age, (6) Married or single, (7) Trade
or profession (where employed, mills, factories, mines, etc.), (8) Educa¬
tion (school or self-tuition), (9) Share in social and political life (party
riots, strikes, revolts, attempts, etc.).
‘Mobilization and War.—(1) What regiment, (2) Active service,
army reserve or territorial, (3) (a) How was the people’s attitude
towards mobilization? (b) What did they talk about? (c) What did
they think of the enemy States? (4) What did you think yourself of
these questions? (5) What did the authorities tell the people and
soldiers about the war and belligerent Powers? (6) Situation and
state of mind in your regiment or battalion, etc., clothing, food, treat¬
ment, etc. (7) What terms were the population of Ireland on with the
Army and vice versa? (8) When were you taken prisoner? ’ The
prisoners were also questioned verbally at Limburg (see The Times,
Oct. 27, 1915). In his diary Casement refers to this. He says: ‘ I had
seen in March or beginning of April the batch of printed questions
Wedel and Co. had sent out to the men at Limburg—without even
consulting me. Indeed it was only by chance that I learned of this
gross act. I called one day on Wedel and found him with a pile of
printed papers before him, which he was looking through. He showed
me these saying—“ It is strange, Sir Roger, how the answers to these
questions seem to be stereotyped,” handing me a batch of the papers.
They consisted of a printed series of questions addressed to the Irish
prisoners of war in Limburg—such as “ What was the political feeling
in Ireland when you left? ” “ What was the sentiment in your Regiment
to the English Government? ” I was staggered—dumbfounded. I
turned to him and said, “ Is it possible you put such questions to the
Irish prisoners? Why, no wonder you got these answers. What could
the German Government have been dreaming of? The men practically
all answer you alike—that it is none of your business and that they don’t
admit your right to put such questions to them. They are perfectly
right—I might, as an Irishman, say such things to them—but you
can’t. You have done more to convince them that I am a German
agent, as the opponents of my movement assert.” Wedel was far too
stupid to understand, I think. I presume he, Meyer, and the great
luminous minds of the G. G. S. or Kriegsministern had decided that
they knew much better than I did the minds of Irishmen and they
would find out for themselves the possibilities of the movement by this
adroit series of questions.’ (From an extended account of the later
activities of the Brigade, dated March 28, 1916.)
 GERMANY AND THE IRISH BRIGADE 179

Scotsmen and Welshmen included among the Irish and who

had to be sent back, but a large number of Irishmen were
not included at all. By mid-December 300 Irishmen were
drafted to Limburg Lahn Camp, in Prussia. These were
soon joined by about 1,600 others, and by the end of the
month there were in the camp about 2,500 men, and all, or
nearly all, of these seem to have been Irishmen.
On the 30th November Casement went to see the two
priests who had recently arrived in Berlin. Father O’Gorman
he found to be a loyal Nationalist, and Father Crotty, who
was a Dominican, a raging Fenian. Both priests promised
not to be ‘agents of the British Government,’ but to confine
themselves strictly to their priestly duties. Blucher told
Casement that he had received a letter from von Jagow, who
was unable to meet Casement as he was leaving with the
Emperor for the Front. Blucher added that von Jagow, in
his letter, had said things about Ireland and Casement’s
mission that were by no means favourable. It does not seem
to have occurred to Casement that he would be viewed with
suspicion by the German officials. But the spectacle of a
British subject coming to Germany with a proposal to spread
disaffection among the Irish prisoners of war, must have
seemed to the Germans a strange one indeed. Ever sus¬
picious, they at once took him to be an English spy and
were by no means anxious to carry forward all his plans
with the utmost despatch. Before giving him all the assist¬
ance he required they wished to learn a little more of his
real purpose. But a factor of great weight in Casement’s
favour was his scheme for seducing Irish prisoners of war
from their allegiance. A British spy, however clever, would
not embark upon such an enterprise, unless determined that
it should not succeed. After Casement’s failure with the
Irish Brigade German official hostility towards him increased
a good deal.
The same day Christensen, who was then in Christiania,
wrote a letter to Casement. In this letter Christensen told
Casement that he had been stopped at Sassnitz on his way
i8o ROGER CASEMENT

to Norway and detained there for two days. The two faked
pages from Casement’s diary were taken from him and not
returned. Christensen went on to report the progress he had
made in his negotiations with Mr. Findlay. He said that
Findlay was becoming very keen, and had given him
500 Kroner on account. He had hinted to Findlay that
there was a German boat laying mines near Trondhjem,
and that Casement had been to Denmark making certain
arrangements. Findlay had said that he thought he knew
what Casement was doing in Denmark, but he wanted to
be sure. Christensen asked Casement to give him a letter
throwing a little more light on the hints that he had let
fall, for the purpose of hoodwinking Findlay. In his poor
English he wrote to Casement:
‘ Now you write me a long letter and do what I ask:
(1) About the German boat laying mines,
(2) and about shippers and stuff in Denmark,
(3) that you wont me to come to Berlin and to give me
certain instructions about your and your stafs
departure,
(4) and casually mention a few names—High sea officers
and also well known land officers, what is going
with you on your journey,
(5) and some more, what you can think off that will
be good.

‘And then I will have proofs—I can get him with that.
And also tell me that everything is ready in America. I
told him that a whole lot off Americans high up is going too
to leave America on a big steam Yaght and that he had no
idea how big this thing was, and then he asked me if you
was going to have troops from America. I said I would not
be surprised, because it is a secret society over there. And
that was coming afterwards; but I said this men are only
waiting for word from you and then they would go on a
cruise to all appearance and I said the English themselves
would believe that and would never doubt or quistion them,
so high up are they. And then I told him I am looking out
quitly here for a couple of men that would not be afraid
 GERMANY AND THE IRISH BRIGADE l8l

to sail out in the Northsea. He asked what that is for and

I said I was not sure, that you had just told me to look
around for some trusty men like that, and you can also tell
me in your letter that you are willing to go as high as between
$30,000-40,000 for a sailing wessel like that, to be held
subjeckt to your orders; just speak a little vaguely about,
you know how. So write me a nice good letter and re¬
member it is for his eyes and if you send me a little note
besides for myselv I would be very glad. I got him good and
worked up. And you send me this letter quick. And we
will get him good and hard allright. I am as ever faith¬
fully your Adler.

‘PS. Dear Sir Roger! Please be quick about this and

this Bastard I will get. I got a good plan and will tell you
all when I see you. And do it good. Your
b Adler.
‘I almost forgot he said he knew you and a very
clever . . . And he used a bad word, and that you
was very dangerous and that they must get you
‘Yours
‘Adler.’ 1

Casement answered this letter at once, telling Christensen

all that had happened since he had left Berlin for Norway.
But Casement was by no means free from anxiety. For some
days there had been circulating in Berlin ugly and disquiet¬
ing rumours about Adler Christensen. Casement realised
that it was vital to him that Christensen should have a good
reputation, for he was to be the chief witness against Findlay,
and on whose testimony the whole charge rested. If
Christensen were discredited, then the whole of Casement’s
plan of branding Findlay as a criminal would fall to the
ground. Moreover there was the curious attitude adopted by
von Jagow, and Casement began to wonder why he would
not meet him. His opinion of von Jagow was, by this time,
not very high, and he recorded in his diary for December 1st :
‘B. [i.e. Bliicher] says that the leading Germans still are
not keen for war a outrance with England—at least the diplo-
1 Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, p. 99. Christensen’s spelling and
grammar have not been altered.
182 ROGER CASEMENT

matic world of Germany, of which von Jagow is the type.

They wanted—and want! — English “friendship.” The
military machine, however (and happily), is under no such
illusions and desires mightily to get at England—and,
as B. truly says, the military mind in Germany dominates
the civil power in every way and also has absorbed far the
ablest minds of the land, so that German intelligence is much
better represented in Army and Navy circles than in the
Foreign Office and governing administration. This is
evident! If the men who have controlled German
“diplomacy” and brought this country to its present state
of colossal isolation in the world had had the war machine
to run, I guess the French and Russian armies would now
be near Potsdam.’1

He was preparing to go down to Limburg and address the

prisoners there in his attempt to form the Irish Brigade. He
was not relishing this part of his mission, and dreaded it as
something of an ordeal. But before he left Berlin he wrote
to his cousin in England, sending the letter over to America.
He wrote:
c2nd Dec. 1914.
‘I wonder if this will ever reach you! You guess where
it comes from! The enclosed2 explains itself; it tells a
tale to all the world. It is for Ireland, first, and then for
America. If our people understood the truth they would
be with me heart and soul. I have risked all (everything
a man has) to get this; my name, my fame, my character,
my life itself. They tried to make away with me en route
and have a price on my head! The villains! But in these
dreadful times no man must think of himself. The Germans
deserve to win. They are making heroic sacrifices without
a word. I never saw greater constancy, courage and dignity.
No one complains; all go out to die for Germany. The
lies of the English Press are colossal. The “atrocities” in
Belgium, etc., are a horrid lie. I’ve been there and seen
with my own eyes, and in France too. Everyone is sorry
for France and Belgium; it is only England, the originator
and plotter of the war, they loathe, and rightly loathe.
1 op. cit., p. 102. 2 The German official statement.
 GERMANY AND THE IRISH BRIGADE 183

If they win we free Ireland for ever, and they will help me
up to the hilt with men, ships and everything needed.
Meantime they declare officially to all the world that they
are friends of the Irish people and desire their freedom.
I know what will be said of me, and for your sake
and for poor old N.’s1 I am wretched. . . . Comfort her
and help. I have no money. When the war is over I
shall have to work hard. ... I gave up everything when I
crossed the sea to get here, and I would not tell anyone
beforehand for fear the letter might be opened and so
betray me, and if the enemy had found me it was all up
with Scodge. They nearly got me! They were just too
late, and then they went mad with rage and tried to procure
my murder! They have put a price on me—£5000 to get
me into their power! . . . Remember all letters to me will
be opened. . . . The name C will now be in the lists for
spying. They are trying to find my friends to arrest in
Ireland. So far I have beaten them, and done a deed they
never dreamt of, and am going to do another. If I die you
know it was all for Ireland, and that my last thoughts shall
be of N. and you two darling girls.
*••••••

‘R. C.5

Another letter that he wrote before he left was to Chris¬

tensen, sending him the faked letter for which he had asked.
The Findlay affair was by now an obsession with Casement.
He could think of little else, and he had an overwhelming
desire to entrap Findlay. The letter which he sent to
Christensen told a fantastic story. He authorised Christensen
to spend as much as $30,000 in chartering a boat and hiring
men to make a ‘shipment,5 and went on to give further
details of a proposed invasion of Ireland. In a covering
letter to Christensen he said how much he disliked practising
such deception and descending to such methods. ‘I hate
what I am doing all the time and feel almost as big a cur as
he is, and were it for my own sake or interest alone, I should
never have put pen to paper in the matter—except to tell
1 Casement’s sister.
184 ROGER CASEMENT

him to his face what a ruffian I think him. However I am

grateful indeed to you for all your faithful efforts in my behalf
and I hope your plan will be successful and that this fake
letter I enclose will help it on.’ 1
Before he left Berlin he was supplied with a German
Imperial passport, issued by the Emperor’s c Special Order.’
This passport, issued to e the Irishman Sir Roger Casement ’
and valid for three months, was for ‘ travelling in Germany.’
By now Casement was beginning to entertain considerable
doubts as to the seriousness of Germany’s intentions towards
Ireland and the Irish Brigade. All his requests were met
with evasions and he was continually being referred to lesser
officials who had not the necessary authority. All this was
beginning to provoke in Casement a sense of frustration and
a feeling of exasperation. His irritation is displayed in the
entry in his diary of December 6th:
‘I have decided, perhaps finally, on one thing. It is
that I shall insist on seeing either von Jagow or the
Chancellor. Both are in Berlin. If I cannot get an inter¬
view with them, I shall take it as a proof that the German
Government is not sufficiently in earnest for me to go on
further.
‘I will not accept the responsibility for putting a couple
of thousand Irish soldiers into the high treason pot, unless
I get very precise and sure promises both in their regard
and for the political future of Ireland.
‘If I learn that neither Bethmann-Hollweg nor von
Jagow can see me, and I care not what the reason assigned
may be, I shall decline to continue our “Conversations”
and shall ask for a passport to enable me to go to Norway or
Sweden.’2

Moreover, he did not like the attitude of the German

Government towards the Findlay affair. He was coming
to the conclusion that from the point of view of the Irish
cause, the case against Findlay was of greater value than the
formation of an Irish Brigade. But it was becoming clear
1 Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, p. 109. op. cit., p. 114.
 GERMANY AND THE IRISH BRIGADE 185
to him that the Germans did not accept his view of the
affair. They were not well disposed towards Adler Chris¬
tensen; the ugly rumours circulating about him made this
inevitable. They were becoming more and more sceptical
about the truth of this diplomatic faux pas, and wished
Casement to drop the whole business, but this he was
determined not to do.
The arrangements were completed for Sir Roger to make
his first address to the men in Limburg Camp. Most of
these men belonged to famous Irish regiments with great
traditions. Some of these regiments had earned tributes to
their valour when they fought for England in the South
African War. So that the prospects of a friendly reception
for Casement were by no means rosy. Indeed, a memorial
had been drawn up on behalf of the Irish Catholic prisoners
of war and signed by the senior non-commissioned officer in
each Irish battalion. It was addressed to the Camp Com¬
mandant and requested that it should be brought to the
notice of the German Emperor. After expressing apprecia¬
tion of the kindness shown to them in bringing all the
Irishmen together in one camp, for the assurances of better
food and for the decrease in fatigue work, the memorial
went on to say that unless these concessions were shared by
all the British troops then prisoners of war, they must
respectfully ask for them to be withdrawn, ‘as, in addition
to being Irish Catholics, we have the honour to be British
soldiers.’1 To such an audience had Casement to make his
appeal. There had been considerable speculation among
the Irish prisoners at Limburg as to what was the real
purpose behind these concessions, and they were not to be
left long in doubt.
Thursday, December 3, found Casement at Frankfurt on
his way to Limburg. It had been arranged that General
de Graaff, the Commander-General for the Frankfurt dis¬
trict, should take him over to Limburg to address the Irish
1 See The Times, Oct. 27, 19x5. The memorial is dated Dec. 1, 1914,
at Sennelager.
 186 ROGER CASEMENT

prisoners of war. Casement called at the General’s office at

11.30 in the morning and found him a very charming man
who knew English well. It was arranged between them that
the General himself would accompany Casement to the
camp, and would leave him there as long as he liked, with
a car and two orderlies at his disposal. They left Frankfurt
by car for Limburg at 8.30 the next morning in beautiful
weather. They arrived at their destination shortly before
ten, and found at the Prussischer Hof General Exner, who
was in charge of the Irish camp, and many other officers,
among whom was a Prince zu Leiningen, who introduced
himself to Casement as ‘an old Harrovian.’
Casement, with the party of German officers, walked on
to the camp, over the Lahn, where he got his first glimpse
of the Irish prisoners. Their appearance gave him a some¬
what rude shock. They appeared to him to be a very
wretched collection of men, miserably clad and seemingly
pinched with cold.
Casement opened his campaign by interviewing about 20
non-commissioned officers in their own room, but he found
them ‘a poor lot.’ He spoke for about ten minutes. He
told them who he was, and that the Home Rule movement
was ‘just a fake.’ He spoke of the Irish in America and told
them he was going to try and get arms and men into Ireland
to join the Volunteers. He went on to say, ‘I don’t think
any of you have enough courage to do what I’ve done.’
Casement found the men outside worse than the non¬
commissioned officers, and they seemed, to him, to be very
unpromising material out of which to build an Irish Brigade.
In his diary he described them as ‘the scum of Ireland’ and
was, in one way, glad of it, as he saw in these poor Irish
soldiers the blow which he felt that he had struck at recruit¬
ing in Ireland. He did not stay long and left them after a
few minutes’ talk, promising to return the next day. He
gave them the picture of the Pope which he had brought
from New York, and also a large quantity of newspapers and
pamphlets which he had brought with him for the purpose.
 GERMANY AND THE IRISH BRIGADE 187

Amongst these papers were The Gaelic American,x The

Continental Times, and the little book entitled The Crime
against Ireland, edited by Sir Roger Casement. Another
work that later made its appearance in the camp was The
King, the Kaiser and Ireland.
Then, with the Generals, he visited the kitchens. These
he found clean and well-built, and the food, which he tasted,
was good. After this inspection the whole party returned
to the hotel for lunch.
The next day, Saturday, at eleven, Casement went again
to the prison camp, with the Camp Commandant, Major
Gemert, and an interpreter. He spoke alone to several of
the men and non-commissioned officers. ‘They seemed
already to guess the end in view,’ he wrote in his diary,2
‘and began saying they’d like to fight for Ireland. I told
them of my plans and several of the non-coms said that
“very little persuasion would be needed”—that practically
all would agree.’ One man came up to Casement and said,
‘How is Father O’Daly?’ and then added, ‘I paraded in
front of you, Sir Roger, at Six Mile Cross.’ 3 Walking among
the men and chatting with them Casement was cheered by
the evidence of Irish dissatisfaction which he saw and heard.
Some of the prisoners even told him that they had sur¬
rendered on purpose, throwing down their rifles at Lille.
He found a good deal of anti-English feeling, but he was
troubled at finding no pro-German feeling.
Before he left he called for volunteers who would enter in
note-books the names of those willing to join the Brigade.
A young man named Timothy Quinlisk, a corporal in the
11 th Royal Irish Regiment, and one, Sergeant MacMurrough
of the Leinsters, responded to this appeal. Casement pro¬
vided them with an exercise book each in which to enter the
1 Edited by John Devoy.
2 Sunday, December 6, 1914.
3 One Sunday, early in June, 1914, Eoin MacNeill, P. MacCarton
and Casement stood on the wall of the Catholic Church at Six Mile
Cross and addressed a large crowd of people before the evening service.
Afterwards they left by car for Dundalk.
188 ROGER CASEMENT

names. After a few more words here and there, saying that
he would come up to the camp for Mass at nine o’clock,
Casement left.
The next morning, at a quarter-past eight, Casement went
up to the camp again, accompanied by two doctors, as he
was rather ill. MacMurrough and Quinlisk gave him a list
of 383 Irish prisoners who were then in the camp. All the
men were gathered into one room and Casement addressed
them. He read out the conditions of service in the Brigade 1
which he was going to propose to the German Government.
He pointed out all the risks and dangers of the Brigade, and
he told them that he wanted them to think the matter over
and he would come again in a week’s time to hear their
answers. His speech was listened to in profound silence.
When he left the camp he called for Fathers O’Gorman
and Crotty and took them up to the camp, where the two
priests saw many of the men. They lunched with him, and
their conversation was of the war and of Ireland.
The next morning, Monday, at about noon, the interpreter
brought MacMurrough and Quinlisk down to Casement’s
hotel. He provided the two men with warm clothing and
strong boots and gave them each a good dinner. Casement
spent a long time talking with them. They told him that it
was very doubtful indeed whether any men would volunteer
for the Brigade. Most of the men were extremely anti-
German, and they believed that the Irish Brigade was merely
a trick to get them to fight for Germany. Casement told
them to do what they could and gave them back the list of
the 383 Irishmen, telling them to put a mark against the
name of anyone favourable to the idea of the Brigade. All
during this interview Casement had been in bed with an
affection of the throat, which caused him considerable pain.
During the afternoon General Exner called to see him and
promised to do all that he was asked and to assist Casement
in every way possible. At about three o’clock Casement
sent the two men back to the camp with the interpreter. In
1 Printed in the Appendix.
 GERMANY AND THE IRISH BRIGADE 189
his diary he recorded: ‘ Neither impresses me very favour¬
ably. Both look rogues—especially MacMurrough.’
As Casement lay in bed after the departure of the two men,
all the doubts, which he had felt so strongly on his first
glimpse of the prisoners, revived. He wrote in his diary,
‘ How could anything truly Irish really survive the free entry
into the British Army ? No. These are not Irishmen but
English soldiers—that is all.’
He returned to Berlin on the 10th, and by the end of the
week he had nearly lost all hope of ever founding the Irish
Brigade. His difficulties had increased and the Irish soldiers
at Limburg did not view his scheme with any favour. His
first visit to Limburg had lasted nearly a week, and he felt
that the whole of this time had been wasted and that his
visit was a failure.1

Soon after Casement’s first visit to the camp, the prisoners

received another visit, this time from Joseph Plunkett.2
Plunkett was actively engaged in working for Sinn Fein in
Ireland and elsewhere, and he had made his way to Germany
through Spain. In order to lessen the chance of recognition
and arrest he had grown a beard, and this gave him quite a
close resemblance to Sir Roger Casement, although Case¬
ment was the taller of the two. The resemblance was
sufficiently marked to cause confusion in the minds of the
prisoners, who mistook Plunkett for Casement. When he
visited the camp he made a speech to the prisoners urging
them to fight for Ireland and exhorting them to remember
Bachelor’s Walk, where so many Irish women and children
were shot. After his visit a number of posters were nailed
up in the prison camp, which were as follows:
‘IRISHMEN!
‘ Here is a chance for you to fight for Ireland!
‘You have fought for England, your country’s hereditary
enemy.
1 Much of the foregoing account of Casement’s first visit to the camp
is derived from his own unpublished diaries.
2 Executed after the Rebellion.
190 ROGER CASEMENT

‘You have fought for Belgium, in England’s interest,

though it was no more to you than the Fiji Islands!
‘Are you willing to fight for your own country?
‘With a view to securing the National Freedom of Ireland,
with the moral and material assistance of the German
Government, an Irish Brigade is being formed.
‘The object of the Irish Brigade shall be to fight solely
the cause of Ireland, and under no circumstances shall it
be directed to any German end.
‘The Irish Brigade shall be formed and shall fight under
the Irish flag alone; the men shall wear a special, dis¬
tinctively Irish uniform and have Irish officers.
‘The Irish Brigade shall be clothed, fed, and efficiently
equipped with arms and ammunition by the German
Government. It will be stationed near Berlin, and be
treated as guests of the German Government.
‘At the end of the war the German Government under¬
takes to send each member of the Brigade, who may so
desire it, to the United States of America, with necessary
means to land. The Irishmen in America are collecting
money for the Brigade. Those men who do not join the
Irish Brigade will be removed from Limburg and dis¬
tributed among other camps.
‘If interested, see your company commanders.
‘Join the Brigade and win Ireland’s independence!
‘Remember Bachelor’s Walk!
‘ God Save Ireland! ’ 1

At his trial this speech and the responsibility for this

document were attributed to Casement. Casement’s ordeal
had, however, not been entirely in vain. The formation of
the Irish Brigade had been begun, even if the response had
not been particularly encouraging; and there was the hope
that when the last and largest contingent arrived at Lim¬
burg, as it would do by the end of the month, the number of
recruits would greatly increase. On his return to Berlin
from Limburg, the news from Ireland which he read in the
papers filled him with anger. He learned that a number of
1 Printed in Trial of Roger Casement, p. 292.
 GERMANY AND THE IRISH BRIGADE igi

Sinn Fein newspapers had been suppressed, and that the

regulations against the importation of arms and ammunition
into Ireland were more stringent than ever. He thought it
a mockery and gross hypocrisy that England, the home of
free speech and free press, should seize the organs of national
opinion in Ireland, and although such an opinion betrays
some ignorance of the principles relating to free speech, it is
understandable. On his return to Berlin von Wedel showed
him a telegram from Bernstorff saying that a messenger
had reached Ireland at the end of November and that the
Declaration of the German Government had ‘ produced an
excellent impression.’ The telegram went on to say that the
messenger advised that nothing should be published about
the Christiania incident until clear proof was forthcoming.
Bliicher, who was by now a considerable nuisance to him
in connection with the Findlay affair, told Casement that
von Jagow had sent for him and that they had discussed
Casement and Ireland. Von Jagow had said that there was
no hope of any full declaration of German policy about
Ireland, and went on to say that the German Government
were not going ‘to make themselves ridiculous’ and say
things which they had no intention of carrying out or
attempting. This only confirmed the rather gloomy view
which Casement had already formed of the intentions of the
German Foreign Office. He wrote in his diary:
‘In my heart I am very sorry I came! I do not think
the German Government has any soul for great enter¬
prises—it lacks the divine spark of imagination that has
ennobled British piracy. The sea may be freed by these
people—but I doubt it. They will do it in their sleep—and
without intending to achieve anything so great. England
enslaved these as of set design and far-seeing purpose and has
held them in subjection with a resolute and unscrupulous
will beyond all praise in themselves. These people, whose
supreme interest it should be to have complete freedom and
equality at sea, will not take the necessary steps in the
direction needed beyond mere ship-building. That is an
essential—but other things, too, are needed to free the seas
 192 ROGER CASEMENT

besides ships—just as other things are needed to hold them.

England supplies all the necessaries—ships and brains—
Germany thinks to do it by ships alone without brains and
resolute, far-seeing purpose. A fixed, unchanging Irish
policy is essential to freedom at sea of every power compet¬
ing with England. That is the first rule to master.’ 1

It will be remembered that Casement had secured the

services of two Irish priests, Fathers O’Gorman and Crotty,
to be chaplains to the Irish prisoners at Limburg. Their
appointment had been made through the German Embassy
at the Vatican. Shortly afterwards there came the news that
the English Foreign Office had appointed Sir H. Howard
to be Minister at the Vatican.2 Casement understood this
appointment to be the direct consequence of his action, and
rejoiced. In his diary for December 13th he wrote, ‘And
where now is the pretence of Irish Loyalty? I have actually
forced them to a step hateful “to every good Englishman”
and to reverse the Reformation! It is an unprecedented
step—and if the German Government had brains they would
see how deep they have already struck.’
In the evening of December 16th Christensen returned
from Norway, and reported that Findlay was in a state of
abnormal excitement over Casement’s supposed activities.
Christensen had his first interview with Findlay at 78 Thor-
wald Meyersgate, a private house, with drawn blinds. He
gave the Minister the two faked letters, which seemed to
pause him some agitation. Christensen then followed up
his initial advantage by giving Findlay some really startling
information. He told Findlay that Casement was receiving
almost unlimited money from America with which he was
chartering two vessels and engaging a number of men. These
vessels were to meet Casement on the coast of Schleswig at
an early date and were to be used for a transhipment of arms
1 Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, p. 121.
2 Sir H. Howard took with him, as Secretary, Mr J. D. Gregory,
who had collaborated with Casement at the Foreign Office to get a
Franciscan Mission sent out by the Vatican to the Putumayo. Their
efforts were ultimately successful.
 Germany and the irish brigade 193

and men at sea, with a view to the invasion of Ireland. He

went on to tell Findlay that Casement’s system of intelligence
was so perfect that he was aware of any event in Ireland only
three hours after it had happened. He also said that
Casement received visits from Indians in Berlin, and that
he was fomenting rebellion with them.
About a fortnight later Christensen telephoned to the
British Legation asking for an interview. He was told to go
to the back door, near the stables, after dark, and he would
be let in. Findlay had been so impressed with Christensen’s
previous farrago that he increased the reward for Casement’s
capture to £10,000. Casement records this advance in his
diary, and adds, delightedly, ‘ I am mounting up in value! ’
Findlay, moreover, gave Christensen the key to the back
entrance of the Legation and told him to come at any time
and he would always be received. Findlay was, by now,
desperately anxious to find out what Casement’s further
plans were, and gave Christensen another 500 Kroner to
pay the expenses of an expert copyist who would return with
Christensen to Germany to copy out Casement’s memoranda,
notes and plans.
In his diary of December 18th Casement wrote, ‘In the
afternoon 1 I had a long talk with Adler about Christiania
and put down the gist of his two interviews with Findlay
on the last visit to Norway and the scheme devised. It
briefly is that I should be represented as putting to sea off
the coast of Schleswig to join ‘ ‘ the American yacht ” and that
Findlay will have British cruisers there to catch me and—
we catch them! I’ll see if the Foreign Office here and Co.
will be men enough to follow it up.’2
On the 18th he received a letter from Richard Meyer
saying that news had been received from America that
Father Nicholson 3 of Philadelphia was sailing that day for
Naples to take up his duties with the Irish Brigade. This

1 i.e. of the previous day. 2 Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, p. 126.

3 See the message of December 15th, from the German Embassy,
P- 177-
13
194 ROGER CASEMENT

news was of some consolation to Casement, since Father

Nicholson, unlike the other two priests, would not be
restricted in his activities, and would be able to perform
active political work among the prisoners.
Earlier in the day von Wedel took him to see the Chan¬
cellor, Bethmann-Hollweg. Casement spoke of Ireland and
of his hopes and dreams for a free Ireland. The Chancellor
agreed that a free Ireland would be an admirable thing both
for Germany and the freedom of the seas, and was a desirable
thing to attempt. Casement went on to say that at the
present time, with the British fleet barring the way, the
dream of a free Ireland was absurd, but he begged the
Chancellor to have an Irish policy in the future, so that in
the next war the cause of Ireland would be the cause of
Germany. ‘ I spoke also of the Irish Brigade and of my hope
that by its formation “at least a hard blow could be struck
at recruiting in Ireland,” to which the Chancellor assented
and said that that would be of great service.’
Then, at Bethmann-Hollweg’s request, Casement related
the story of the Findlay affair, culminating in Findlay’s offer
of ■£ 10,000 for Casement’s capture ‘ anywhere in the North
Sea or Skagerrack.’ The Chancellor was amazed at this
recital. ‘It is incredible,’ he said, ‘a man in Findlay’s posi¬
tion so to act with an unknown, with your servant! ’ ‘Yes,’
Casement replied, ‘ but that is the English character. You
see I know them much better than you. To get me, to crush
an Irish national movement, they would commit any crime
to-day, as in the past. They have no conscience when it
comes to collective dealing—individually the English man is
a gentleman, often and frequently very charming—collect¬
ively they are a most dangerous compound and form a
national type that has no parallel in humanity. Like certain
criminals—apart harmless, brought together you get an
infernal explosive or a deadly poison.’1 On his taking his
leave of the Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg wished him
‘all success in his aims and projects.’
1 See Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, p. 132.
 GERMANY AND THE IRISH BRIGADE 195

Casement returned to von Wedel at the Foreign Office,

where they continued their discussions about Ireland, and
talked of the recent German successes, the bombardment of
Scarborough, Whitby and the Hartlepools, and the great
victory over the Russians at Tannenberg. Von Wedel assured
Casement that, whatever the immediate outcome of the war
and the fate of Ireland might be, he could rely upon the
commercial goodwill of Germany, even if an act of political
assistance was impossible of achievement. Casement then
proposed a plan whereby the Germans might catch not only
Findlay but also some British naval ships. Casement was
to go aboard a Norwegian ship after allowing Findlay to
become aware of his purpose, and then, when the British
ships arrived to effect Casement’s capture, they would fall
victims to German ships lying in wait. Von Wedel promised
to discuss this plan immediately with the Admiralty. This
scheme had originally been proposed by Adler Christensen,
and was not much favoured by Casement, who found it
‘too British.’ Moreover, any plan which he might adopt
to catch Findlay was bound to rest, for its success, upon
Christensen, and he was beginning to have doubts about his
servant. He wrote in his diary, ‘Also I am not sure of Adler!
His air and manner have greatly changed since he came
back—or rather since he went away. He confesses that he
now “admires Findlay” ! Findlay “is a man”—“he sticks
at nothing—he would roll those d..d Germans up.” For
the Germans now, since they held him up at Sassnitz, Adler
has scorn and a sense of outraged pride. They treated him
badly there—stripped him, split his gloves open, took his
gold coin and gave him paper money, extorted 7 Marks per
meal, while he was detained 48 hours their prisoner pending
the order from Berlin to release him, and read aloud to the
crowd my letters to my American friends. This last extra¬
ordinary piece of stupidity it was that chiefly affects Adler.
He says they “are fools”—and trying to fool me and get
advantage of me and Ireland and give nothing in return but
empty words, There is also the recent German action Adler
I96 ROGER CASEMENT

reports from Norway of the condemnation by the Kiel Prize

Court of some Norwegian vessels with cargoes of timber that
had been seized at the beginning of the war. These “prizes
of war” mean much to their Norwegian owners—little to
wealthy Germany, and Adler says public feeling in Norway
is aroused at the decision of the German Prize Court and
for his part he has become “anti-German.”
‘Therefore with myself out of the issue his sympathies
would be against Germany and on the side of “the man”
—Findlay, “who sticks at nothing.”
‘There is also the resentment he feels, the very deep
resentment at the allegations against himself and his conduct
while in Berlin, to which Schiemann referred and which
Bliicher told me had been conveyed in a police report to the
Foreign Office. I told Adler of this report last night—giving
it as the reason why I found it impossible to take him on
with me to Limburg and the Irish Brigade.
‘ It makes him exceedingly bitter against the Germans and
he is vowing vengeance. Knowing now all I do of his char¬
acter, of its extraordinary complexity, I should feel gravely
disposed to mistrust his fidelity in a matter whence German
ships were the issue as against British ships. I should even,
now, be indisposed to trust myself to his schemes! He is
clearly beginning to feel that Findlay is a bolder, more un¬
compromising and reckless rascal than myself—and Adler’s
deepest affection is won by extreme rascaldom. Utter un¬
scrupulousness of action, so long as it succeeds, is his ideal
—he confesses. He was won to my side, he admits, only by
my extreme trust in himself. Seeing how fully I trusted
him on the voyage over, his honour (or what corresponds
to it) came to the top and he determined to be as true as
steel to me.’1
Casement noticed in the newspapers that day somewhat
exaggerated accounts of the increasingly drastic action which
the British Government was taking in Ireland. These re¬
pressive measures he attributed to himself and due to his
1 Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, p, 134,
 GERMANY AND THE IRISH BRIGADE 197

methods of dealing with Findlay. Christensen had told

Findlay some highly imaginative stories of the excellence
of Casement’s secret service agency and had assured him
that there were many men in the British Navy who were
devoted to Casement. Casement supposed therefore that the
Government believed that he had information that there was
no ship available for the defence of the Yorkshire coast towns,
and attributed their bombardment to his influence.
A few days later Casement received a letter from Kuno
Meyer, written towards the end of November, which set out
his own views and those of Judge Cohalan, Joseph McGarrity,
John Devoy and John Quinn about Casement’s proposal
to publish an account of the Christiania incident, and his
further scheme to attract attention to the Irish cause by
sending the Irish Brigade to Egypt. Both of these schemes
were strongly disapproved of. Casement noted, ‘In the
former case \i.e. the Christiania incident] I can do nothing
at present—in the latter idea I am right and they are wrong.’
One may wonder what the Irish Brigade would have done
in Egypt and how much attention they would have attracted.
At 3 o’clock on December 23rd, Casement went to the
Admiralty to discuss his new plan with Captain Isendahl.
The affair was to take the form of a raid into Ireland, and
for this purpose it was settled that ‘ Mr. Hammond ’ should
embark at Gothenburg for Christiania on January 8th.
Christensen was to inform Findlay of this arrangement, and
thereafter Christensen was to remain ignorant of Casement’s
plans, for fear of his betraying them. A real ‘ Mr. Hammond ’
was to embark at Gothenburg, but not the one that Findlay
would be expecting. Two outline maps of Great Britain
with hypothetical mine fields were given to Casement, which
appeared to show that the only place where Casement could
safely be intercepted was between Gothenburg and Chris¬
tiania. Christensen traced these maps for Findlay’s benefit,
and Casement arranged a story which Christensen might
relate at the British Legation in Christiania,
 CHAPTER XI

THE TREATY

Casement was very anxious that the conditions of service in

the Irish Brigade should be regulated by some sort of agree¬
ment between himself and the German Government, and,
indeed, this idea was embodied in the proposed conditions
which he had read to the men at Limburg during his first
visit to the camp. Casement’s idea was to formulate these
conditions in writing and for the German Government to
agree to them in writing, and the two documents would then
form the agreement.
On December 14th, he began to draft his proposals, and,
after many amendments and corrections, he sent them to the
German Government on December 23rd. With them he
sent the following covering letter:
‘Berlin.
‘23 Deer. 1914.
‘Dear Mr. Under-Secretary,
‘Following upon the interview I had the honour to
have with you soon after my arrival in Berlin, the Imperial
German Government issued a Declaration defining its
attitude towards the Irish People which afforded me con¬
vincing proof of the goodwill of Germany towards Ireland.
‘In that Declaration the Imperial Government announced
that it desired for the Irish People only their national
prosperity and national freedom. I now learn that the Irish
soldiers, prisoners of war in Germany, are being quartered
in a separate camp and are being treated with as much
kindness as is possible to show men circumstanced as they
are.
‘Fully aware of the importance to my country of the
Declaration issued by the Imperial Government, and very
sensible as I am of the kind treatment afforded my country-
198
 THE TREATY t99
men now in Germany, I have had under consideration the
possibility of taking active advantage of these manifesta¬
tions of goodwill to Ireland.
‘With the end in view of aiding the cause of Irish
nationality I have now the honour to submit to the Imperial
German Government a proposal for the embodiment of an
Irish Brigade, pledged to fight in that cause alone, to be
formed of such Irishmen, now prisoners of war in Germany,
as may be willing to enroll themselves in such a corps.
‘I venture to transmit herewith a statement covering
the conditions under which, in my opinion, such a Brigade
might possibly be formed and I would beg that this sugges¬
tion have the earnest consideration of the Imperial German
Government.
‘ I have the honour to be,
‘Dear Mr. Under-Secretary,
‘With the highest respect,
‘Your very obedient servant,
‘Roger Casement.
‘The Honble
‘ The Under-Secretary of State,
‘Auswartiges Amt,
‘Berlin.’

On the evening of December 28th, a Monday, a special

Foreign Office messenger brought to Casement at his hotel,
the following documents:

‘Auswartiges Amt. ‘Berlin, December 28th, 1914.

‘Dear Sir Roger,
‘I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 23rd inst. in which you submitted to the Imperial
German Government a proposal for the formation of an
Irish Brigade, pledged to fight in the cause of Irish nation¬
ality alone and to be formed of such Irishmen, now prisoners
of war in Germany, as may be willing to enroll themselves
in such a corps.
‘ In reply I have the honour to inform you that the Imperial
German Government agrees to your proposal and accepts
the conditions under which the Brigade might possibly be
200 ROGER CASEMENT

formed, as laid down in the statement annexed to your

letter of the 23rd instant and enclosed herewith.
‘I have the honour to be,
‘Dear Sir Roger,
‘Your obedient servant
‘ (seal) ‘ ZlMMERMANN.
‘Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
‘ The Honourable
‘Sir Roger Casement,
‘Eden Hotel,
‘ Kurfurstendamm,
‘Berlin.’
Artikel I Article i
Im Hinblickauf die Moglichkeits With a view to securing the
die nationale Befreiung Irlands national freedom of Ireland, with
mit der moralischen und materiel- the moral and material assistance
len Unterstiitzung der Kaiser- of the Imperial German Govern¬
lich Deutschen Regierung zu ment, an Irish Brigade shall be
fordern, soil aus den irischen formed from among the Irish
Soldaten und den anderen Ir- soldiers, or other natives of Ireland,
landern, die augenblicklich in now prisoners of war in Germany.
Deutschland kriegsgefangen sind,
eine Brigade gebildet werden.

Artikel II
Die Irische Brigade wird ledig-
lich fur die Sache Irlands kampfen;
sie darf unter keinen Umstanden
zu einem deutschen Endzweck
Verwendung finden oder beordert
werden.
Artikel III
Die Irische Brigade wird unter
der Irischen Fahne gebildet und
kampft nur unter dieser. Die
Truppe wird eine besondere und
als solche erkennbare Irische Uni¬
form tragen.
Die Brigade wird ausschlieszlich
von Irischen Offizieren gefuhrt
sobald dazu geeignet Irlander
von Irland oder den Vereinigten
Staaten von Amerika beschafft
werden konnen. Bis dahin werden
unter Zustimmung des Sir Roger
Article 2
The object of the Irish Brigade
shall be to fight solely in the cause
of Ireland, and under no circum¬
stances shall it be employed or
directed to any German end.
Article 3
The Irish Brigade shall be
formed and shall fight under the
Irish Flag alone.
The men shall wear a special
distinctively Irish uniform.
As soon as Irishmen can be got
for the purpose, either from Ire¬
land or the United States, the
Brigade shall have only Irish
officers. Until such time as Irish
officers can be secured, German
officers will be appointed with the
 THE TREATY
Casement deutsche Offiziere der
Brigade bestellt werden, die die
Disziplinargewalt iiber die Sol-
daten ausiiben.
Jedoch darf, solange die Brigade
unter der Kontrolle der deutschen
Offiziere steht, keine militarische
Operation angeordnet oder aus-
gefuhrt werden.
Artikel IV
Die Irische Brigade wird von der
Kaiserlich Deutschen Regierung
eingekleidet, verpflegt und aus-
reichend mit Waffen und Muni¬
tion ausgeriistet, unter der aus-
driicklichen Vereinbarung dasz
die Kaiserlich Deutsche Regierung
diese Leistungen freiwillig und
unentgeltlich macht, um die Iri-
schen Unabhangigkeitbestrebun-
gen zu unterstiitzen.
Artikel V
Die vertragschlieszenden Par-
teien sind dariiber einig und
erklaren hiermit in aller Form,
dasz die Irische Brigade sich nur
aus Leuten zusammensetzt, die
freiwillig fur die nationale Un-
abhangigkeit Irlands kampfen
wollen, und dasz somit kein
Zugehoriger der Irischen Brigade
Lohnung oder irgendwelche Geld-
entschadigung von der Kaiserlich
Deutschen Regierung erhalten
wird, solange er bei der Brigade
unter Waffen steht.
Artikel VI
Die Kaiserlich Deutsche Regie-
rung ubernimmt es ‘ unter gewissen
Umstanden ’ die Irische Brigade
mit ausreichenden militarischer
Unterstiitzung und versehen mit
reichlichen Vorrat an Waffen und
Munition nach Irland zu senden,
um dort die Irlander auszuriisten,
201
approval of Sir Roger Casement,
to have disciplinary control of the
men.
But no military operation shall
be ordered or conducted by the
German officers of the Brigade,
during such time as the men are
under their control.
Article 4
The Irish Brigade shall be
clothed, fed and efficiently equip¬
ped with arms and munitions by
the Imperial German Government
on the clear understanding that
these are furnished it as free gifts
to aid the cause of Irish independ¬
ence.
Article 5
It is distinctly understood and
it is hereby formally declared by
the Parties to this agreement that
the Irish Brigade shall consist only
of volunteers in the cause of Irish
national freedom, and as such no
member of the Irish Brigade shall
receive pay or monetary reward
of any kind from the Imperial
German Government during the
period he shall bear arms in the
Brigade.
Article 6
The Imperial German Govern¬
ment undertakes, in certain cir¬
cumstances, to send the Irish
Brigade to Ireland with efficient
military support, and with an
ample supply of arms and ammuni¬
tion to equip the Irish national
Volunteers in Ireland who may be
202 ROGER CASEMENT
die mit ihr gemeinschaftlich den
Versuch machen wollen, die
nationale Freiheit Irlands mit
Waffengewalt wiederherzustellen.
Die hier vorausgesetzten 1 be-
sondern Umstande ’ sind folgende :
In dem Falle eines deutschen
Seesieges, der die Moglichkeit
gewahrt, die Kiiste Irlands zu
erreichen, verpflichtet sich die
Kaiserlich Deutsche Regierung die
Irische Brigade und ein deutsches
Hilfskorps unter der Fiihrung
deutsche Offiziere in deutschen
Transportschiffen auszusenden,
um eine Landung an der Irischen
Kiiste zu versuchen.
Artikel VII
Eine Landung in Irland wird
nur dann in Betracht kommen,
wenn der deutschen Flotte ein Sieg
beschieden ist, der mit begriin-
deter Aussicht auf Erfolg den
Seeweg nach Irland offnet. Sollte
die deutsche Flotte diesen Erfolg
nicht haben, so wird die Irische
Brigade in Deutschland oder an-
derwarts Verwendung finden,
jedoch lediglich zu Aufgaben, die
Sir Roger Casement als in genauer
Ubereinstimmung mit Artikel II
gutheiszt.
In diesem Falle konnte die
Irische Brigade nach Egypten
gesandt werden, um bei der Ver-
treibung der Englander und der
Wiedererlangung der egyptischen
Unabhangigkeit Hilfe zu leisten.
Sollte die Irische Brigade nicht
dazu kommen, fur die Befreiung
Irlands von dem englischen Joch
zu kampfen, so ist doch
ein Schlag, der den britischen
Eindringlingen in Egypten beige-
bracht wird, und den Egyptern zu
ihrer Befreiung verhelfen soil, ein
Schlag, der in einer der Irischen
verwandten Sache gefiihrt wird.
willing to join them in the attempt
to recover Irish national freedom
by force of arms.
The ‘ certain circumstances ’
hereby understood are the follow¬
ing :
In the event of a German naval
victory affording the means of
reaching the coast of Ireland, the
Imperial German Government
pledges itself to despatch the Irish
Brigade and a supporting body
of German officers and men in
German transports, to attempt a
landing on the Irish coast.
Article 7
The opportunity to land in
Ireland can only arise if the
fortune of war should grant the
German Navy a victory that would
open, with reasonable prospect of
success, the sea-route to Ireland.
Should the German Navy not
succeed in this effort the Irish
Brigade shall be employed in
Germany, or elsewhere, solely in
such way as Sir Roger Casement
may approve as being in strict
conformity with Article 2.
In this event it might be possible
to employ the Irish Brigade to
assist the Egyptian People to
recover their freedom by driving
the British out of Egypt. Short
of directly fighting to free Ireland
from British rule, a blow struck at
the British invaders of Egypt to
aid Egyptian national freedom is
a blow struck for a kindred cause
to that of Ireland.
 THE TREATY
Artikel VIII
Im Falle, dasz die Irische
Brigade sich fur den Dienst in
Egypten freiwillig entscheidet,
wird die Kaiserlich Deutsche
Regierung mit der Osterreichisch-
Ungarischen Regierung den Trans¬
port der Brigade durch dieses
Reich nach Konstantinopel verein-
baren. Die Kaiserlich Deutsche
Regierung wird seine Sorge dafur
tragen, dasz die Tiirkische Regie-
rung die Irische Brigade als ein
Freiwilligenkorps anerkennt auf-
nimmt und der tiirkischen Armee
angliedert, um die Englander aus
Egypten vertreiben zu helfen.
Artikel IX
Im Falle, dasz der Krieg beendet
wird, ohne dasz die Irische Brigade
ihren Zweck, ‘ die Landung in
Irland,’ erreicht hatte, so liber-
nimmt es der Kaiserlich Deutsche
Regierung jeden Angehorigen der
Brigade auf seinen Wunsch nach
den Vereinigten Staaten von
Amerika zu senden und ihn mit
den Mitteln zu versehen, die das
Einwanderungsgesetz der Ver¬
einigten Staaten zur Bedingung
macht.
Artikel X
Im Falle, dasz die Irische
Brigade in Irland landet und die
militarischen Operationen dort
zur Niederwerfung der britischen
Oberherrschaft und zur Errich-
tung einer nationalirischen Regie-
rung fiihren, verspricht die Kaiser¬
lich Deutsche Regierung der so
errichteten Irischen Regierung
ihre vollste moralische Unter-
stiitzung. Sie wird in aller Auf-
richtigkeit sowohl durch offent-
liche Anerkennung als durch
allgemeines Wohlwollen zur Auf-
richtung einer unabhangigen
Regierung in Irland beitragen,
203
Article 8
In the event of the Irish Brigade
volunteering for this service the
Imperial German Government
undertakes to make arrangements
with the Austro-Hungarian Gov¬
ernment for its transport through
that Empire to Constantinople,
and to provide with the Turkish
Government for the recognition
and acceptance of the Irish Brig¬
ade as a Volunteer Corps attached
to the Turkish Army in the effort
to expel the British from Egypt.
Article 9
In the event of the war coming
to an end without the object of
the Irish Brigade having been
effected, namely its landing in
Ireland, the Imperial German
Government undertakes to send
each member of the Brigade who
may so desire it, to the United
States of America, with the neces¬
sary means to land in that country
in conformity with the United
States Immigration Laws.
Article 10
In the event of the Irish Brigade
landing in Ireland, and military
operations in that country result¬
ing in the overthrow of British
authority and the erection of a
native Irish Government, the Im¬
perial German Government will
give the Irish Government so
established its full moral support
and both by public recognition
and by general goodwill will con¬
tribute, with all sincerity, to the
establishment of an independent
government in Ireland,
204 ROGER CASEMENT

The conclusion of this agreement1 greatly cheered Case¬

ment, for now it seemed that the German Government was
really in earnest concerning the Irish Brigade. He now had
in his possession a document signed by the Under-Secretary
for Foreign Affairs and sealed with the Foreign Office seal,
which contained a clear acceptance of an independent
Ireland and its recognition by Germany.
On December 30th Casement left Berlin for Limburg by
the 10.30 train, arriving at Frankfurt that evening. On
January 5th he received a letter from Adler Christensen
saying that all was going well. Christensen had seen Findlay,
who appeared very keen to catch Casement on his projected
‘raid ’ into Ireland. That afternoon he went up to the camp
with the two priests. Since his previous visit the camp had
reached its full complement, and there were now nearly
2,500 prisoners there.
But the intervening month had not been wanting in efforts
to stimulate recruiting to the Irish Brigade. Quinlisk, the
first to join, had soon been followed by one, Keogh. About
once a fortnight all the prisoners in the camp were marched,
thirty at a time, to the French prisoners’ lines, in charge
of those who had joined the Irish Brigade and a German
officer. There they were interviewed, usually by Quinlisk
and Keogh, and asked to join the Brigade. Those who
joined were sent away for a time to Berlin, but when they
returned they did not join the Irish lines. They appeared
to have a considerable degree of freedom and were placed
on better rations. But in spite of all the manifest induce¬
ments, very few men joined.
Perhaps the results of the recruiting would have been
better if the propaganda had been carried on in a more
intelligent and sympathetic manner. As it was, its chief
result was to provoke bitter antagonism. The German
officers and interpreters entrusted with the task had no
proper conception of the work they had to do. They had no
1 Photostatic copies of these documents are among Casement’s
papers deposited in the National Library, Dublin,
 THE TREATY 205

notion of the purpose of the Irish Brigade nor of the im¬

portance of its formation. Those who joined the Brigade
were at once ostracised by their fellow-prisoners and were
unmercifully taunted and jeered at. Moreover, Sir Roger
Casement was a complete mystery to the prisoners, who knew
neither who he was nor what he stood for. Some dubbed
him ‘A Boer,’ and others ‘some b-Fenian.’ It is scarcely
to be wondered at, therefore, that Casement made scarcely
any headway in this scheme for forming an Irish Brigade
from among the Irish prisoners of war in Germany. But he
was too far committed with the German Government to
withdraw now: he had arrived in Limburg, suffering from
a severe cold, to carry on his campaign. Apathy was his
chief difficulty, although there was considerable active
opposition.
On this second visit to Limburg Casement very soon saw,
from the manner of the men, that he must abandon all hope
of forming an Irish Brigade from such material. They com¬
plained of ill-treatment and want of food, and were anxious
for tobacco. They were filled with ill-will towards Germany,
and, wrote Casement in his diary, were ‘more English than
the English themselves.’ He made his speech standing on a
table in the Irish part of the camp. Once again he appealed
to them to join the Irish Brigade, and insisted that in so doing
they would not be joining the German Army. He told them
of the offers of assistance which he had received from the
German War Office, offers of uniform and ammunition and
technical assistance. He told them again of the proposal to
land them in Ireland if Germany should win a sea battle,
when, by force of arms, they should set Ireland free, while
England was fighting her war. But if Germany did not win
a battle at sea, then each man in the Irish Brigade would be
given £10 and would be sent to America, where employment
would be found for him.
The audience to which he made his appeal numbered
little more than seventy, and towards the end of his speech
they began to show their displeasure. For about a quarter
206 ROGER CASEMENT

of an hour they listened quietly and then, learning his pur¬

pose, they began to hiss. Casement retorted that those who
hissed him were the followers of Johnnie Redmond, the
recruiting sergeant of the British Army. His audience was
becoming increasingly hostile, and a sergeant-major of
the 4th Dragoon Guards called him a traitor. Casement
attempted to make his way out of the camp, but all the
while he was surrounded by a jeering, enraged mob of men.
A private in the Munster Fusiliers seized his umbrella and
struck him, but the German guards prevented him doing
serious harm to Casement, and he was subsequently removed
from the prison. Casement, however, was forced to swing
his umbrella round him to keep the prisoners away from him
and in this manner he retreated out of the camp. Casement
left the camp at a quarter past six, in dark and rain, and in
a very despondent mood.
Such a failure brought home to him the utter impractica¬
bility of his scheme of forming an Irish Brigade. On the
following Friday, three days later, Casement sent for Quin-
lisk. Quinlisk told him that he was being assaulted in the
camp, but, adopting a truculent attitude, he said he would
‘fight it out.’ The men in the camp had threatened to
inform against him when they returned to England and to
have him hanged as a traitor. In view of this behaviour
Casement began to think that it would be best to break up
the Irish camp at Limburg, there being then no reason
for it.
In a short time the great hopes which he had built upon
the agreement with Zimmermann-^‘the Treaty’ as he
always called it—collapsed. On January 8th, 1915, he
wrote in his diary, ‘It is nearly two weeks since I wrote in
my diary. I have been ill and greatly upset at the failure
of my hopes.’
He had now, with the exception of the Treaty, one
project in which he saw any chance of success: his plan
to entrap Findlay, and he worked with all his might to
bring this to a successful conclusion. On January 8th,
 THE TREATY 207

some days after his unsuccessful speech, he wrote in his

diary:

‘I wrote to Meyer telling him that I thought there was

no hope of getting the soldiers to do anything, and asking
to be kept informed of the new “plot” against me arranged
now. I wonder what Christensen’s “good news” is? I
hope it means that these scoundrels have fallen into their
despicable plot to kidnap me. The daily papers speak of
“English” mines laid off the coast of Norway—and give
some details and the names of steamers—Norwegian—
detained by them. This seems clearly part of the British
“action” to prevent my contemplated Wolfe Tone 1 descent
on the coast of Ireland.’2

He remained at Limburg till January 23rd, when he

returned to Berlin. But before leaving Limburg he paid
several visits to the prison camp. He found in the prison
chaplain, Father Crotty, O.P., who had been sent from
Rome to minister to the prisoners,3 a source of great con¬
solation, and these visits which Casement paid to the camp
had no political significance. He avoided political discussion
and spent most of the time in the company of Father Crotty.
Casement’s mental anguish at this time was considerable:
he was in a foreign country whose language he could not
speak, without friends and with very little money. He was
seeing his hopes of a free Ireland crumbling away and he
was being subjected to great ignominy by German and
Irishman alike. Between Casement and Father Crotty there
sprang up a great and lasting friendship, which did much to
give Casement strength to go on with his plans. During
these few days in Limburg in January he spent many hours
walking round the camp with Father Crotty and attending
the services in the prison chapel.
1 Wolfe Tone was an Irish patriot who, during the Napoleonic Wars,
went to France to enlist active support for an Irish rising.
2 Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, p. 148.
3 Although Casement was responsible for securing the appointment
of Father Crotty, the priest faithfully observed his duty to avoid dis¬
cussing politics with the prisoners.
ao8 ROGER CASEMENT

g$. While he was at Limburg he was anxiously awaiting news

from Christiania about the outcome of his plan to entrap
Mr. Findlay and the British cruisers. He received a telegram
from Christensen announcing his sudden arrival in Berlin
and asking to see Casement. Soon afterwards Meyer tele¬
phoned to say that he would meet Christensen, and a day
or two later Casement received a telegram saying, ‘Your
coming not necessary, Christensen returns to-morrow.’ But
beyond this Casement was told nothing, in spite of his
request to be kept fully informed of all that went on.
His diary of January 15th, written at Limburg, contains
the following entry:

‘I have been waiting here chiefly in the hope that Father

Nicholson of Philadelphia would come. He was to have
sailed on 18 December for Naples. Last night, however,
I got a letter from Mr. Meyer saying they had received a
cable from von Bernstorff saying Father Nicholson had not
sailed on 18th but would probably go on 30th, but they had
not heard since if he had actually sailed.
‘ Meyer said nothing of Christiania, so I am as much in the
dark as ever as to the meaning of Adler’s sudden return and telegram
to me and equally sudden return next day. What was the plot? The
German F.O. are very peculiar people—and one never knows where
one is with them.

‘My own course is not all clear. Now that I have

practically abandoned the idea of the Irish Brigade, there
seems little object in remaining in Germany. The Govern¬
ment will not want me, I am sure. Once the hope of the
Irish Brigade is gone, they will feel little interest in the
other aspects of the Irish Question. Those remain for later
settlement—when, after this war is over, the great question
facing all maritime nations will present itself more acutely
than ever. The control of the seas by one power, and that
power the least tied to European obligations, is a standing
threat to the welfare of all the peoples of Europe. This war
will demonstrate that. It has done so already.’ 1
1 Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, p. 151.
 THE TREATY 209

For some time past he had contemplated writing a letter to

Sir Edward Grey which would set out his attitude towards
Ireland since leaving the service of the Foreign Office and
would then charge Grey and the British Government with
responsibility for his attempted murder in Christiania. He
proposed to send this letter to London by means of the
American Ambassador, and to hand copies to the repre¬
sentatives of the German, Norwegian and Austro-Hungarian
Governments.
On the 18th Casement received a letter from Meyer saying
that Father Nicholson, whose arrival he had been long and
impatiently awaiting, had arrived in Rome and was leaving
for Berlin on the following day. The German authorities,
however, proposed keeping him in Berlin for a few days.
This news was very welcome to Casement, who would
have remained at Limburg for the priest had it not been for
his anxiety over Adler Christensen and the silence of the
Foreign Office over the Christiania plans.
Casement arrived at Berlin in the morning of January 23rd,
and went to the Esplanade Hotel that he might be near
Blucher, and Lay, the American Consul-General. He wished
to consult Lay with regard to his letter to Sir Edward Grey,
and at that time he was considering what steps he could take
to acquire American citizenship.
In answer to a message from Casement Meyer called at his
hotel at once and gave him some startling information. It
appeared that the scheme to entrap the British cruisers
had been frustrated by Mr. Findlay, who feared that when
Casement saw the cruisers he would throw his papers over¬
board. Christensen’s sudden return to Berlin was due to
the fact that Mr. Findlay had given him a written promise,
in the name of the British Government, to pay him £5,000
on the capture of Sir Roger Casement. Meyer told Case¬
ment that this document, so precious to Sir Roger, and
written on official Legation notepaper, was at the Foreign
Office, where it would be shown to him. Casement was very
much angered that he had not been told of this before, and
210 ROGER CASEMENT

the German attitude towards the document irritated him

exceedingly. Christensen gave a very highly coloured
account of the getting of the letter, but Casement’s attitude
of mind was, by now, such that he does not seem to have
concerned himself with how much of it was true.
Now that he had this convincing proof Casement realised
that he would have to make use of it quickly, or else he would
be forestalled by an announcement in Parliament which
reassembled in February. If once the British Parliament
made a pronouncement regarding Sir Roger Casement,
attended as it would be with the sanctity of Parliamentary
publicity, it would be idle for him to attempt a £tu quoque.’
Thereupon he went to the Foreign Office to see von Wedel
and to claim his property. Von Wedel, however, seemed none
too eager to part with the document, and suggested that all
the expenses incurred in obtaining it should be paid by the
German Government. To this Casement refused to assent,
realising that if he accepted such money from the German
authorities they would claim the document as their own.
After some delay Meyer brought into the room several bound
volumes of official papers dealing with Casement’s mission
to Germany, and in one of these volumes was the letter given
to Christensen by Mr. Findlay. The document is as follows :

‘British Legation
‘ Christiania
‘ Norway.
‘ On behalf of the British Government I promise that if,
through information given by Adler Christensen, Sir Roger
Casement be captured either with or without his companions,
the said Adler Christensen is to receive from the British
Government the sum of £5,000 to be paid as he may desire.
‘Adler Christensen is also to enjoy personal immunity
and to be given a passage to the United States should
he desire it. ‘M. de C. Findlay.
‘H.B.M. Minister.’ 1

1 This letter is reproduced in facsimile in Diaries of Sir Roger Casement,

p. 170.
 THE TREATY 2X1

Now that Casement had seen this letter the failure of his
plans to catch the British ships scarcely mattered to him.
On January 24th he wrote in his diary:

‘Adler says a good plan can still be devised to catch

Findlay’s ships. Nous verrons. I have caught more than
that. I have caught the British Government in flagrante
delicto—and with all the difficulties put in my way, too, by
this stupid, pig-headed German Government. And now
these men actually have the audacity to seize my proof and
regard it as a “State paper” of their wretchedly run Foreign
Office!’1

But Casement’s lack of spirits remained. His failure with

the Irish Brigade was too overwhelming for him easily to
recover. Even now that Father Nicholson had arrived he
felt that little could be done to turn failure into success.
He wrote in his diary:

‘I told von Wedel last night that were I sure of getting

over I should return to the U.S.A.; but the risks are too
great. And yet I know not what to do. To stay in Berlin
or in Germany, idle, inactive and with the huge disappoint¬
ment of the Irish Brigade failure staring me in the face, and
with no hope of further action by the German Government
anent Ireland—is a policy of despair. Besides I have not the
means to live here. Life is very expensive and I must stay
at expensive hotels and incur constant outlays. It would
be better to return to Norway—convict Findlay up to the
hilt, get H.M. Government exposed and if necessary return
to Germany, should Father Nicholson succeed with the
soldiers. I shall talk things over with him to-day—and
decide quickly. As I told von Wedel last night, no time
should now be lost. Already three weeks have been de¬
liberately wasted by this wretched crew at the German
Foreign Office in their kidnapping of my Findlay letter. I
feel I can not trust them—and it is useless to rely on such
stupid—and selfish—people.’2

1 Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, p. 161.

2 op. cit., p. 162 (January 24).
 212 ROGER CASEMENT

The next three weeks were, for Casement, full of anxiety

and grave disquiet. On January 24th he went with Meyer
to the General Staff of the Admiralty where, with several
officers, they discussed the Findlay affair. These officers
seem to have been greatly entertained by the recital, and
asked to see the guarantee which Mr. Findlay had given to
Christensen. Meyer replied that ‘it was impossible to take
it out of the F.O. as it is a State document.’ This remark,
although made in German, was understood by Casement.
Casement went to von Wedel and protested that the letter
was his, and the latter, after some demur, agreed, saying
‘Of course, Sir Roger, the letter is yours when you want it.’
The German attitude over the letter was making Casement
more and more uncertain as to how he should act with
regard to Findlay, for with the letter still in the possession
of the Foreign Office, his hands were tied. Two days later
he took Father Nicholson to the Foreign Office to see von
Wedel, who showed the letter to the priest, while Casement
made a copy of it. Von Wedel volunteered the statement,
‘It is yours, Sir Roger; we will keep it for you here for
safety, until you want it,’ which relieved Casement’s mind
somewhat on this score.
At this time Casement began drafting the letter to Sir
Edward Grey, a matter which occupied much of his time.
He proposed to go to Christiania and there challenge
Mr. Findlay to have the whole matter investigated in the
local courts. A Foreign Office typist was employed to make
a number of copies of the letter, to be sent out ‘to various
Legations and public quarters’ as soon as he had posted
the original letter to Grey.
Casement was up early in the morning of January 31st for
his journey to Norway. In the snow and cold, at half-past
nine, he walked alone over the Tiergarten to Stettinbahnhof.
When he arrived there Christensen discovered that the 10.30
train to Sassnitz missed the boat. ‘I returned,’ he wrote in
his diary, ‘but to the Continental Hotel where I spent the
day in grave doubt.’ Towards seven o’clock that evening
 THE TREATY 213

Meyer arrived at the hotel from the German Admiralty with

a warning that an English submarine might stop the mail-
boat in the Baltic and demand Casement’s surrender.
However, Casement decided that he would go. Neverthe¬
less he was uneasy. ‘ Not afraid of the submarine—but of the
action of the British Government in Norway, their influence
there, their power and gold and my own penniless and
defenceless position. To go out, single-handed, to thus
challenge the mightiest Government in the world and to
charge them publicly with infamous criminal conspiracy
through their accredited Representative is a desperate act.
I have no money; no friends; no support; no Government,
save that of the One bent on destroying me, to appeal to.
They are all -potent and will not sacrifice Findlay without a
fight and in that fight they must win. Such were my
reflections through the night.’ 1
Casement was up early the next morning and left for
Sassnitz before seven o’clock, arriving there about two hours
later. While waiting in the Monopol Hotel for the boat
he discussed the whole affair with Christensen and finally
decided to return to Berlin the following day. Writing of
this, he said, ‘I spent a miserable day.’ Most of his German
friends had been opposed to his plan of going to Norway, and
now he saw that the German Foreign Office did not care
whether he was arrested or not. He arrived at Berlin in the
afternoon of the next day, and went immediately to the
Foreign Office where he explained to von Wedel the reasons
for his return, an explanation which, not unnaturally, does
not seem to have been very favourably received. On his
return to Berlin he went to stay at the Continental Hotel
again, where Meyer came to him. Meyer told him that a
pro-Irish Society, Die Deutsche-Irische Gesellschaft, had
been formed in Berlin on the very day of his return. The
Society had subscribed 50,000 Marks as a first contribution
to the Irish cause, and this sum was placed at Casement s
disposal to be used in what he considered to be the best
1 op. cit., p. 178.
214 ROGER CASEMENT

interests of Ireland. His comment on this was, ‘ Generous

indeed—but I cannot accept—at any rate it must be left
to my friends in U.S.A. to decide.’
The following day, February 3rd, he made the final
corrections in the letter to Sir Edward Grey, and took it to
Richard Meyer at the Foreign Office, who undertook to send
it by special messenger to Holland, where it would be posted
at The Hague. This letter is printed in the Appendix. This
accomplished, he went off to dine with Blucher and some
friends whom he had already taken into his confidence con¬
cerning his change of plan and his new method of attacking
Mr. Findlay. But he wrote in his diary, ‘Very wretched
and miserable all night.’ The next day he sent copies of the
letter to the representatives in Berlin of America, Austria-
Hungary, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands,
Denmark, Portugal, Greece, Roumania and Switzerland.
He also gave a copy to Richard Meyer for the official use of
the German Foreign Office. The next few days were anxious
ones for Casement, waiting expectantly to see what re¬
actions his letter would produce. Soon he began to receive
replies from the various foreign Embassies and Legations
in Berlin. The Swedish Minister wrote him a polite note
saying that he had not failed to send the letter on to
Stockholm. The Portuguese Minister’s letter was quite
discourteous, refusing to send on to Lisbon the letter,
which was returned as it ‘exceeded the legal rights of the
Legation.’ Later Casement received from von Wedel a
letter dated March 16th, enclosing the original Findlay
letter, and a receipt of posting of the. letter to Sir Edward
Grey at The Hague.
With so many of his enterprises going astray Casement was
by now an object of suspicion in the eyes of the German
authorities. It was his plan for an Irish Brigade, more than
anything else, which had disarmed suspicion when he first
came to Germany, but the Irish Brigade had not had the
success which Casement had predicted for it. The German
authorities were becoming somewhat sceptical about the
 THE TREATY
215
value and usefulness of the Brigade. Moreover, his tactics
with regard to Mr. Findlay did not find favour in German
eyes. It is not surprising, therefore, that there should be a
recrudescence of the earlier suspicion that he was, in reality,
not a fervent Irish patriot who had no love for England, but
an English spy. The German secret police took an interest
in him which increased daily, and the Foreign Office kept
him at arm’s length. With such a state of affairs it was well-
nigh impossible for him to serve any useful purpose in
Germany. Early in February he went to the Sanatorium at
Grunewald, and he wrote in his diary:

I am in my room at the Sanatorium writing up my

diary and eating my heart out. An agent of the secret
police has just called (11.20 a.m.) to ask for my “military
pass”—I have none. I gave him the old police card of
Mr. Hammond which I happily still have and referred him
to the Auswartiges Amt for further information. It is highly
possible they will bungle things there and I may be haled
off to jail.’ 1

Father Nicholson soon aroused the active hostility of the

prisoners at Limburg when they found he was using his
position as priest to spread propaganda for the Irish Brigade.
Moreover, towards the end of February the prisoners suffered
a reduction in rations, which they interpreted as a punish¬
ment due to the poor recruiting for the Irish Brigade.
It was inevitable, therefore, that the Irish Brigade and
everyone connected with it should become increasingly
unpopular. And in spite of all the manifest inducements
there could only be found 53 men willing to join the
Brigade. It is a great tribute to the loyalty of those
Irishmen that of the 2,500 of them at Limburg, enduring
abominable conditions and exposed continually to tempting
offers, there were only 53 who could not stand the strain
of resistance.
With all his schemes going astray and with the ruin of all
1 op. cit., p. 196 (February n, 1915 ; the last entry in Casement’s
regular diary).
2l6 ROGER CASEMENT

his hopes staring him in the face, Casement felt that his only
hope was the agreement between himself and Zimmermann
—the Treaty. All that he had stayed in Germany for was
based upon this document, and he felt that he might yet be
of great service to Ireland if he could publish it. In his diary
he wrote:
‘My only hope was to have it published. If that could be
done I saw its value to the cause of Irish liberty in the future
and to the inspiration of those holding up our flag to-day.
Moreover, it was the surest means I possessed or could
invoke to keep Irishmen out of the war.
‘Once it was proclaimed urbi et orbi it was clear that the
real nationality of Ireland would have an answer to England
and Redmond that no one had dreamed of. It became,
then, my object to try and get the Treaty published.’
He had been asked by the German Foreign Office to ‘keep
the Treaty quiet,’ but in March, 1915, he sent copies of it
to America. He considered that this step was necessary
because, if Irishmen in America were to be moved, they must
be informed of the basis upon which their hopes rested.
Casement continually urged the Foreign Office to sanction
the publication of the Treaty, but they declined to allow this
until 200 men had enrolled in the Brigade. As regards his
position in Germany, Casement was becoming more isolated.
He no longer trusted the German authorities and believed
nothing that they told him. He desired greatly to leave
Germany, but he realised he was almost a prisoner.
At the end of March Father Nicholson, who had been at
Limburg since January, came to Berlin to see Casement.
Casement was then staying at the house of Baroness von
Nordenflychts with a threatened lung attack. The priest
told Casement that after all there was a ray of hope of
forming the Brigade. He said that quite a number of men
in the camp were listeners, and that in addition to Quinlisk
there were two other useful men. These were Keogh and
Dowling, who had been actively backing up the propaganda
of Father Nicholson. The priest asked Casement to see
 THE TREATY 217

these men and then, if he thought it advisable, to go down to

Limburg, when he might succeed in enrolling the necessary
200 men.
Casement sent for Quinlisk, Keogh and Dowling, and they
were brought to Berlin. But to Casement’s great annoyance
they were kept for nearly a fortnight in Berlin without any¬
one’s knowledge, and when at last they were brought to him,
he had returned to the Eden Hotel. He saw the three
men several times and introduced them to Joseph Plunkett
(as ‘Mr. Petre’) who had arrived in Berlin from Ireland,
through Switzerland, on April 16th. The three men begged
him to go down to Limburg, saying that they felt convinced
that 200 men could be induced to join. Casement explained
the position to them with a good deal of frankness, telling
them he no longer believed that any military help was forth¬
coming for Ireland. He went on to explain the importance
of publishing the Treaty, and again the three men urged
him to do down to Limburg and make a final effort, to
which Casement agreed.
Casement thereupon wrote to the German General Staff
and to the Foreign Office telling them of the hopes expressed
by Father Nicholson and the three young men, and he asked
that Captain Boehm might be placed at his disposal to take
the three men back to Limburg and to make all the arrange¬
ments for a fresh recruiting effort. When this had been
agreed to he asked Plunkett to accompany Boehm to
Limburg. He did this owing to his mistrust of'the German
officials. Moreover, he was hesitating more and more at
the thought of asking a body of Irish soldiers to commit
treason for an ideal.
These overtures on the part of Casement caused some
activity among the Germans. Zimmermann granted him
an interview and he was treated less distantly. Once
again there was the prospect of Casement proving useful
to Germany.
Plunkett brought over from Ireland tales of the revolution
which had been planned there. Casement expressed himself
2l8 ROGER CASEMENT

vigorously and told Plunkett that no rebellion in Ireland

could possibly succeed unaided. He considered that the
sine qua non of a successful rebellion was the military or naval
support of a great continental power. He thought that to
attempt a rising in the streets of Dublin in 1915 was worse
than folly: it was criminal stupidity. But he said to
Plunkett, ‘ If you do it, if you are bent upon this act of idiocy
I will come and join you (if the Germans will send me over)
and stand and fall beside you. Only I deprecate it wholly
and regard it as the wildest form of boyish folly. I am not
responsible for it, and while I strongly disapprove it, if these
boys break out I could not, in honour, refuse to stand beside
them, since however vain and futile their fight might be,
it would be a fight—an act, a deed,—and not talk, talk,
talk. I, who have always stood for action (but not this
action and certainly not in these circumstances) could not
stay in safety in this land while those in Ireland who have
cherished a manly soul were laying down their lives for an
ideal.’1
Following his determination to go to the camp, Casement
went down to Limburg on May 12th, a day or two after
Plunkett and the others had arrived there. Casement’s chief
interest now was the publication of the Treaty, which
depended upon his success in enrolling 200 men. And so
far only 53 had been persuaded to join. Nevertheless
Casement did not feel that he would be justified in doing
more than he had already done to get further recruits, and
he would offer the men no temptation. Plunkett was far less
scrupulous. On one occasion he said to Casement, ‘We’ll
get them, if we have to kidnap them.’ To which Casement
replied that they must appeal only to the patriotism of
the men.
When he arrived at Limburg he was met by Boehm,
Plunkett and the three soldiers who had visited him in
Berlin, and it was arranged that he should address a com¬
pany of men known as ‘B’ Company on May 15th. This
1 From an unpublished diary of Casement’s.
 THE TREATY 219

he did, and in his address1 to the men Casement, speaking

without notes, said:

‘You have been told, I daresay, that I am trying to form

an Irish Brigade to fight for Germany; that I am a German
agent; and that an attempt is being made to suborn you,
or tempt you to do something dishonest and insincere for
the sake of the German Government and not for the welfare
of Ireland.
‘ Well, you may believe me, or disbelieve me, (and nothing
I could say would convince you as to my own motives),
but I can convince you, and I owe it to yourselves as well
as to myself to convince you that the effort to form an Irish
Brigade is based on Irish interests only, and is a sincere and
honest one, so far as my action with the German Govern¬
ment is concerned and so far as their action in the matter
goes.
‘An Irish Brigade, if it be formed to-day, will rest on a
clear and definite agreement wherein the German Govern¬
ment is pledged to aid the cause of Irish independence by
force of arms, and above all, to aid Irishmen to them¬
selves fight for their own freedom.
‘The agreement that is the basis on which an Irish
Brigade can be formed is one now in my hands, and which
I will read to you.
‘It was signed on 28 December last by the duly authorised
representative of the German Government and is an honest
and sincere offer on the part of a great European Govern¬
ment to help Irishmen to fight their own battle for the
freedom of their country.
‘It is the first time in history that such an offer has
been made and embodied in clear, straightforward terms.
Hitherto, in the past, Irish Brigades have existed on the
Continent but they were, in every case, formed to fight the
battles not of Ireland, but of France, or Spain, or of Austria.

1 Casement caused this address to be printed. This was done,

partly verbatim and partly in summary, and entitled ‘ Objects of an
Irish Brigade in the Present War. Text of an address by Sir Roger
Casement delivered on 15 May to B Company of the Irish soldiers
at Limburg.’ This pamphlet of eight pages was distributed among
the men.
220 ROGER CASEMENT

The foreign Governments who took Irishmen, and formed

them into a fighting force, did so, in all those cases, not
for the sake of Ireland but for the sake of those foreign
Governments.
‘When Patrick Sarsfield died at Landen, in Flanders,
in 1691, he said on the field of his death, “Would that this
blood were shed for Ireland.”
‘He was giving his life for France in the battles of France,
not for Ireland. Well, to-day, the case is different, and if
any Irishman in the Irish Brigade to-day loses his life he
can at least say that he is giving his blood for Ireland,—
the agreement leaves no doubt that he is pledged to one
cause only and that the cause not of Germany but of Ireland.’

Casement then read out the Treaty to those present from

the original document, and this original was shown to the
men. Commenting upon it Casement proceeded to show
that whatever else it might be it was not a trick or a decep¬
tion designed in the interests of Germany, but was an honest
offer to help Ireland to fight for her own independence if
Irishmen were ready to risk their lives in that cause.
One of Casement’s chief stumbling-blocks was the oath of
allegiance, and there he said that every man must decide
for himself. With regard to the oath he said:

‘Your oath binds you to serve your king and country.

‘Now a man has only one country, and he cannot have a
divided allegiance. The only country that can claim an
Irishman’s allegiance is Ireland. The King you agreed to
serve is, in law, King of Great Britain and Ireland. There
is no such person as the King of England in law. How
have these Sovereigns discharged their duty to their Irish
subjects? For remember these obligations are mutual.
‘Our Kings, whose sole title to our allegiance is that
they are Kings of Ireland, as well as Kings of Great Britain,
have not once in all these centuries performed their duties to
their Irish people or fulfilled any of the sacred obligations
laid upon them by the title and the allegiance they claim
from their Subjects.
‘I could cite many instances: I will give only two here.
 THE TREATY 221

King George III was as much King of Ireland as he was

King of Great Britain.
£ He drew every year from the pockets of the Irish people
the sum of £145,000 for his own purse. He never performed
one public act for the welfare of his Irish people; he never
set foot in Ireland, but he hired foreign soldiers, and Germans
even, to come to Ireland to cut the throats of his Irish people
and to bum their houses and devastate their country. That
was in 1798, when the grandfathers of some of us were alive
and were fighting for Irish rights. King George III of
Ireland, as much as of Great Britain, paid £2,400,000 to
hire foreign mercenaries to murder his Irish and his American
subjects and the public accounts are on record showing
who received this money—some of which was money from
Ireland.
‘That was one view of a “King of England’s ” duty to his
people in Ireland.
‘ In 1848, the granddaughter of George III, Queen Victoria,
who was also Queen of Ireland as much as of Great Britain,
regretted very much, in a letter to her uncle the King of the
Belgians, that the starving and disarmed Irish people did
not openly rebel so that her ample army in Ireland might
have a good chance of shedding Irish blood and teaching
“the Irish a lesson.” That was her sovereign view of her
duties to the people she called her subjects: she only
regretted that they did not come up to the scratch to give
her well-armed troops a chance of shooting down unarmed
and starving men.
‘I do not know what claim such sovereigns have to the
loyalty of the people they thus treat as enemies and have
never regarded as having any claim upon their consciences.
I am not the only Irishman who holds this view. Others
before us to-day, when it came to the question of fighting
for Ireland, have not hesitated to break the “Oath of
Allegiance ” that bound them to such false kings as these.
‘Lord Edward FitzGerald, in 1798, was an officer in the
British Army and had taken that form of the oath of
allegiance. But he did not hesitate to break it and to lose
his fife fighting for Ireland.
‘So with Smith O’Brien in 1848. He had taken two oaths
222 ROGER CASEMENT

of allegiance to the Crown—first in Parliament as member

for Clare, and also as a magistrate for that county.
‘Those men were not afraid to risk their lives for Ireland :
they were brave enough to know where their duty to their
country lay, and to try at all costs to discharge it.’

Casement went on to mention how the British Govern¬

ment had attempted to secure his own kidnapping, or
‘knocking on the head,’ in Norway, when he had never set
foot in Germany, and how that Government had tempted
an honest servant to betray his master by offering him a
huge bribe of £5,000 to betray him into their hands. He
showed the men the original Findlay guarantee.
Casement then pointed out how the British Government
was trying to tempt the Italian Government to break then-
pledged word and to join in a wanton attack upon Austria
and Germany, the two countries Italy was bound by a
solemn treaty to fight with, not against.

‘There was also,’ Casement continued, ‘the case of

Portugal. This country in 1910, through the Portuguese
Army who were bound by oaths of allegiance to their King,
drove the King into exile and set up a Republic. The
English Government did not denounce this treason and
treachery on the part of the Portuguese Army. They
recognised it. They recognised the Republic and to-day were
doing all in their power to get the Portuguese Army of
■“traitors” also against Germany. England was not a bit
.concerned about the treason that might help her.
f: ‘She would turn scores of armies into traitors if thereby
she could get a fresh sword against Germany. The Czar
of Russia had promised publicly to take all the Austrian
prisoners of war who were of Italian origin and to treat them
differently from the other Austrian soldiers, and send them
at once to Italy so that they might be used against their own
lawful sovereign, the Emperor of Austria. It was only
when it came to Irishmen that the English Government
discovered the sanctity of an oath and then only when the
oath was supposed to bind Irishmen to help England.
* So far as the oath of allegiance went it was an obligation
 THE TREATY 223

to serve one’s country first of all and to Irishmen there

should be only one country. If an Irishman serves another
country then he is not loyally doing his duty to his own. It
is idle to talk of Irish liberty if we are not men enough to
fight for it ourselves.
‘We are told sometimes that Ireland will be made free
by the acts of others: that if Germany were to win the war
there would be a free Ireland. If Irishmen themselves are
not prepared to fight for Ireland and to risk their lives in
that cause then it is idle to talk of Irish liberty, and cowardly
too. To expect Germans or others to free our country when
we are not prepared ourselves to risk anything for it is
cowardly and contemptible in the extreme.
‘ Germany has already publicly declared her goodwill and
good intentions towards Ireland and has given every proof
in her power of her wish to see an independent Ireland.
She declares formally, and in binding terms, that she will
assist Irishmen with arms and military help to secure Irish
independence, and that she will recognise that independence
if gained and do all that she can to secure it.’
Later in his speech Casement said, ‘If the German
Government made peace without the political situation
of Ireland having been changed and with matters practically
as they are to-day, then the German Government would try
to obtain an amnesty for the members of the Irish Brigade
so that they might be allowed to return to Ireland. This
amnesty would be asked for and might, or might not, be
granted. It would certainly be asked for by the German
Government in the peace negotiations.
‘Further, that Ireland itself should not be penalised in
any way for the action of the Irish Brigade. This condition,
also, the German Government would put forward in the
terms of settlement. Finally that, while no man was or
could be paid by Germany to fight for Ireland, there would
be possibly a loss to many who might volunteer for the
Brigade. If the men who were disposed to join the Brigade
on the clear terms stated in the agreement that they were
to be soldiers of Ireland, first, last and all the time, would
show just what sums were due to them from the British
service and which they would forfeit by their action in
224 ROGER CASEMENT

joining the Brigade, I undertake to go into the matter and

to see what could be done from a fund at my disposal to
compensate them.5

Casement pointed out that he was very loth to seem in

any way to suggest monetary reward for doing an Irishman’s
duty, but that he understood quite well that poor men could
not afford to lose money that was theirs by right of services
rendered, and that if a statement were made, in each case he
would see what could be done to meet each individual case.
He said that he believed his fund would allow of a compensa¬
tion allowance up to £10 per man being paid to each volun¬
teer who could show that that sum, at least, was due to him.
This money could be paid over to the men’s credit in a bank
or remitted at the close of the war to their friends or families
in Ireland.
Casement finished his speech by assuring his hearers that
whether they agreed with him or differed from him, they
must admit that the proposals embodied in the Treaty he
had read to them were honest ones in so far as Ireland was
concerned. They might, or might not, join the Brigade;
‘but it was, at any rate, an open and sincere offer to help
Ireland and to help Irishmen to do something for them¬
selves, and they need not refuse the hand thus held out to
them on any ground of suspicion or mistrust.’
But he had no greater success on this occasion than when
he made his speech four months before.
In his great anxiety to enroll the 200 recruits which would
allow him to publish the Treaty, Casement turned his
attention to the internment camp at Ruhleben. In a letter
to Count von Wedel, dated 17 May, 1915, and written from
Limburg, he said:

‘ There might be a possibility of getting a few recruits for

the Brigade from among the younger Irishmen at Ruhleben,
if they could be got at quietly and apart from the pre¬
ponderant English element with which they are mixed
up. Mr. P. knows my views on this point.’
 THE TREATY 225

The Irish prisoners at Ruhleben had been in his mind for

some time, and in January, 1915, he had written to von
Wedel to ask him to release the Irishmen there.
But it soon became apparent that no more men would
join the Brigade, and Boehm decided to take the 53 recruits
to Berlin. Casement was promised that they should be
immediately put into uniform, armed, and treated in all
respects according to the clauses of the Treaty'. He asked
Plunkett and Quinlisk, Keogh and Dowling to remain at
Limburg and do all they could to stimulate recruiting.
‘I told P. that this was to me a test case. If the G. G. S.
agreed to treat the 53 as “soldiers” and carry out the
provisions of the Treaty strictly and honourably I’d feel
justified in going on with the attempt to get 200 men. But
if not, then I should not feel justified in trying to persuade
another man.’1
From Limburg Casement went to Munich to see T. St.
John Gaffney 2 with regard to an offer to get him back to
America. He was again becoming doubtful of the utility
of his remaining in Germany, and would have liked to leave.
But this suggestion came to nothing. Returning to Limburg
after about a week in Munich he found that two more
recruits had joined the Brigade. Plunkett was anxious to
get to Berlin, so Casement remained at the camp for a day
or two, writing more than once to von Wedel to urge that
the Treaty be sent to Bernstorff with instructions to publish
it on the receipt of a cable.
Early in June Casement returned to Berlin and immedi¬
ately called on von Wedel. Wedel agreed to all Casement’s
proposals, and said that the desired instructions had already
been sent to Bernstorff. His next visit was to the German
General Staff, accompanied by Plunkett. He was received
by Nadolny and Frey, both of whom did not conceal the
anger that they felt at the poor result of the recruiting for
the Irish Brigade.
1 An extract from Casement’s diary (unpublished).
2 See note 2, p. 228.
*5
226 ROGER CASEMENT

Soon afterwards, at the end of June, Plunkett left Berlin

for Switzerland, with a photograph of the Treaty concealed
in a hollow stick. Casement saw him off, and with him
Casement felt that his last hope was departing. He saw
himself face to face with an utter failure, and embarked on
a course which could only end in death.
The men of the Irish Brigade had been transferred to
Zossen, where they were confined in extremely cramped
quarters euphemistically termed a ‘barracks’ by the
Germans. They were now clothed in the uniform of the
Irish Brigade, a greyish green affair, with emerald green
facings, cut somewhat after the style of the German military
uniform, and with golden harps and shamrocks upon it.
Casement, meanwhile, bombarded von Wedel, by telephone
and by letter, with requests that the promises contained in
the Treaty should be kept. But at the very end of June he
received a letter from von Wedel which he regarded as ‘a
sort of severance of diplomatic relations.’ By now Casement
was utterly disillusioned, and was convinced that the welfare
of Ireland meant nothing to the German Government who,
now that Casement was no longer useful to them, were
turning their attention elsewhere.
Casement was now having cause for serious anxiety over
Christensen, although he still reposed implicit faith in the
man’s loyalty and honesty in spite of the many fantastic tales
that Christensen had told him. Christensen was becoming
very extravagant and dissolute and acquiring all manner of
undesirable habits. Casement, feeling that what he wanted
was regular employment, took steps to have him sent to
America, where work would be procured for him. Eventu¬
ally Christensen sailed for the United States. While he was
in America he attempted to go to England to reveal Case¬
ment’s secrets to the British Government, but he was pre¬
vented by the Irish-Americans from doing so.
In the latter half of May, after his last speech at Limburg,
Casement had stayed in Munich at the Hotel Bayerischer
Hof. An Egyptian friend, Prince Mohammed Ali Hassan,
 THE TREATY 227

introduced him to an American gentleman, Dr. Edward

Curry, who later became his great friend. It was to Dr.
Curry that Casement entrusted all his papers before setting
out on his last journey to Ireland. Dr. Curry made himself
very agreeable to Casement and did much to make his stay
in Munich pleasant. At the end of May Dr. Curry went to
the Ammersee, there to take his summer holiday, and Case¬
ment asked him to engage rooms for him. There, during
July and August, Casement remained, at Riederau, on the
shores of the lake. In this peaceful spot his health and
nerves improved and his days there were quite happy.
At the end of September Keogh wrote to Casement,
begging him to go and see the men at Zossen. Casement did
so. Just before he left Berlin for Zossen some money arrived
from America, which enabled him to make some financial
provisions for the men. But the chief difficulty with this
handful of men was that there was nothing for them to do.
When he arrived at Zossen Casement told them of his desire
to go East with them, as provided in two of the clauses
of the Treaty, and he began urging this course upon the
German authorities.
In October, while Casement was in Munich, there arrived
in Germany one, Robert Monteith, an Irish Volunteer
organiser. He was not a prepossessing person, although an
efficient soldier, and was a dismissed ordnance store con¬
ductor who had been sent from America by the Executive
of the Irish revolutionary body in Ireland to assist Casement.
Sir Roger at once sent Monteith to Limburg in the hope that
he might be able to secure more recruits, but this hope was
not fulfilled.
The Irish Brigade, which was a somewhat ruffianly
collection of men, was becoming extremely disorderly, and
they were getting increasingly out of hand. After Monteith
had been about a fortnight at Limburg Casement sent for
him to maintain discipline at Zossen, as, wrote Casement
in his diary, ‘ things were getting warm there.’ Accordingly,
in November, 1915, Monteith took over the command of
228 ROGER CASEMENT

the Brigade at Zossen, and he soon set to work to train

selected men for active service in Ireland.
In December Casement again reverted to his plan of
sending the Irish Brigade to Egypt and wrote to John Devoy
suggesting this. But Devoy, who saw the utter futility of
the suggestion, was not encouraging. On December 8,
Casement saw Nadolny and Frey, who told him they were
doing all in their power to get the Brigade sent to Turkey.
At the beginning of 1916 Casement’s health, already
seriously impaired by the strain of his work in Germany,
gave way and he collapsed completely. He was at Zossen
at this time, and in the diary which he kept during his last
month in Germany he wrote:

‘I had gone to Zossen on 4th December, 1915, to be near

him [i.e. Monteith] and the men, to encourage and cheer
them in their bitter disappointment, and always in the
hope that our long-urged journey to the East to get into
action might be sanctioned.’1

For some time past he had been negotiating with the

authorities to send the Brigade to Turkey, a course to which
Enver Pasha had agreed. At the beginning of January he
had been assured that the Brigade would be sent and that
‘they would at once be trained in the use of machine-guns,’
but this assurance was not a prelude to any action on the
part of the authorities.
When he finally broke down in health, acting on medical
I advice, he went into a nursing-home in Munich towards the
end of January. While Casement was in Munich, T. St. John
Gaffney,2 who had been American Consul at Munich,
1 Irish Independent, April 12, 1922. Among Casement’s papers there
is a memorandum on the reasons for his Turkish expedition. This
document is dated 9 December, 1915, at Zossen, and is entitled ‘ Memo¬
randum stating some of the reasons for active service of the Irish soldiers
now at Zossen.’
2 Early in 1916 there was formed in America an association called
‘ The Friends of Irish Freedom.’ In March, 1916, an Irish Race
Convention was held in New York which was organised by Judge
Cohalan, St. John Gaffney and Jeremiah O’Leary. The Convention
 THE TREATY 229

returned to Berlin. Gaffney wrote to him a number of

letters urging him to go to Berlin to discuss a matter of great
importance. Yielding to Gaffney’s importunity Casement
went to Berlin in the middle of February. Gaffney had a
new proposal for getting Casement over to America. A
Mr. Schirmer, a Norwegian of German descent, was in the
habit of travelling from Berlin upon business of the German
Foreign Office, and he was leaving Berlin in a few days’
time for Bergen, whence he was sailing for America. Gaffney
proposed that Casement should leave Germany in the
company of the Norwegian, but Schirmer deprecated any
such plan, saying that the best course was for him to en¬
deavour to arrange matters with the captain for the next
voyage. To this Casement and Gaffney agreed. At the
same time Gaffney told Casement of the Irish Race Con¬
vention which was due to be held in New York on March
4th and 5th. He urged Casement to send the original
Findlay letter, together with all the necessary papers, over
to America, and Mr. Schirmer promised to deliver them
personally to Judge Cohalan with a covering letter from
Casement. It was arranged between Casement and
Schirmer that if it was agreed that Casement should go
to America Schirmer would send a cable which included
the word ‘sold.’ This cable was to arrive by March 17th.
Casement remained in Berlin till the end of February and
then returned with Gaffney to Munich. While in Munich
Casement contributed an article to the Miinchener fitting
about his ‘services to Ireland.’ In this article he said that
his object in going to Germany was to obtain for the Irish
an assurance of Germany’s goodwill towards Ireland in
order that he might ‘preserve his people from participation

formed a permanent, organisation, and St. John Gaffney was appointed

the representative in Europe of ‘ The Friends of Irish Freedom.’ He
established a bureau at Stockholm and from there and Berlin, in
association with George Chatterton-Hill, he maintained close contact
with the German Government and the Irish-American and Sinn Fein
organisations. Other participators were Eamon De Valera, Monteith
and Mellowes who had fled to America after the Rebellion.
230 ROGER CASEMENT

in a great crime.’ The article concluded with the following

sentence: ‘The fact that England has not succeeded in
extending compulsory recruiting to Ireland and the admis¬
sion that Ireland is exempt from doing military service for
Great Britain or the British Empire are the best justification
for my visit to Germany.’
 CHAPTER XII

LAST DAYS IN GERMANY

Meanwhile, in Ireland, events had been moving rapidly.

At the outbreak of the war Mr. Redmond and the leaders of
the Irish Parliamentary Party rendered loyal and generous
support to the Government. Mr. Redmond undertook
recruiting tours in Ireland, during which he urged every
Irishman to join the colours. But his efforts were largely
offset by the rapid growth of Sinn Fein, which had estab¬
lished a firm hold upon the country.
On September 14th, 1914, the Royal Assent was given to
the Home Rule Bill. But its provisions were suspended
until after the war, and there was a promise of an amending
Act excepting Ulster from the provisions of the Bill. There¬
upon came a storm of protest from all parties. The Unionist
Party complained of the Bill, while the Irish nationalists
complained of its postponement and the exclusion of Ulster.
However, Mr. Redmond’s recruiting speeches were having
some success in Southern Ireland. But his success received
a severe check in the unimaginative refusal of the War Office
to allow Irish regiments to be accompanied by priests or to
carry their national colours. But there were developments
in the situation of which Casement was unaware. Eoin
MacNeill, the head of the Volunteers, and Bulmer Hobson,
the organising secretary, had ceased to have any real voice
in the policy of the organisation. This was not due to any
wish of their own or with their knowledge. The Irish
Republican Brotherhood,1 which permeated Sinn Fein and
the Irish Volunteers, was the principal factor behind the
scenes. By no means all the I.R.B. were in favour of an
armed insurrection, but by the autumn of 1915 a small
1 See note, p. 259.
231
232 ROGER CASEMENT

clique inside the I.R.B. were making active preparations

for a rebellion. This clique, whose chief in Ireland was
Thomas J. Clarke, was really a coalition of two groups,
Connolly and the Citizen Army, who represented the
Labour left wing, and P. H. Pearse, Clarke and MacDermott,
who represented the left wing of the I.R.B. They were in
constant touch with John Devoy in America. Thus the
Irish Republican Brotherhood were the real directors of the
revolutionary movement in Ireland, and they pursued a
policy which was utterly opposed to that advocated by the
apparent leaders of the Volunteers. Eoin MacNeill and
Bulmer Hobson did not want a rebellion. Their object was
to train the Volunteers, acquiring all the arms they could
obtain, until they were in a position to make government
impossible in Ireland. By these means they hoped to gain
all their demands.
The American agent of the left wing of the I.R.B. was
John Devoy, and he entered into direct negotiations with
the German Government. Casement had undertaken his
journey to Germany on his own account, and Devoy, at
times, found his activities there somewhat embarrassing.
It was by means of the German Embassy at Washington
that the Irish were able to maintain communication with
Germany and Sir Roger Casement. Early in the war it was
a matter of common knowledge in Ireland that the Irish
Volunteers were in communication with Germany, and at
the beginning of November, 1914, Eoin MacNeill stated
this publicly.1
At the beginning of 1915 military orders were promulgated
under the Defence of the Realm Act to afford guidance to
the inhabitants of Ireland in the event of an invasion.
Among other things those who lived in outlying places near
the sea were ordered to burn their houses and retreat inland.
Almost at once there appeared a series of counter-notices
which called upon all Irishmen to disobey the military
1 See Report of the Royal Commission on the Rebellion in Ireland, 1916,
Cmd. 8279, p. 6.
 LAST DAYS IN GERMANY 233

orders and to welcome the Germans, should they land. One

such notice was as follows:

‘PEOPLE OF WEXFORD
‘Take no notice of the public order to destroy your own
property and leave your homes if a German army lands in
Ireland. When the Germans come they will come as
friends and to put an end to English rule in Ireland. There-
’ fore, stay in your homes and assist as far as possible the
German troops. Any stores, hay, corn, or forage taken by
the Germans will be paid for by them.’

In February, 1915, the house of Laurence de Lacey at

Enniscorthy was raided. De Lacey1 escaped and made his
way to America, but there was found in his house large
quantities of printed copies of the notice reproduced above,
together with copies of the German Official Statement
relating to Ireland which had been printed in Ireland.
Other raids made in different parts of Ireland showed how
widespread was the organisation of Sinn Fein. Great
quantities of seditious literature and arms were everywhere
in Ireland, and the responsible leaders of the I.R.B. left
wing were making steady preparations for a rebellion and
for ending the British connection. The assistance of the
Irish-Americans and the Clan-na-Gael was of the utmost
use to them, for in America they were supported by many
wealthy and influential people who furnished funds for the
assistance of those in Ireland. For some time rebellion had
been the object of the I.R.B. and their preparations were
steadily continuing. Feeling in the country was becoming
increasingly tense and political controversy was exceedingly
bitter.
When Casement first went to Germany he was unaware of
the change in the inner circle of the Volunteers and the
I.R.B., and considered himself the link between the Irish
1 When in America de Lacey remained in touch with the leaders of
Sinn Fein in Ireland. Later he was arrested and imprisoned in San
Francisco for plotting with German agents there.
a
234 ROGER CASEMENT

and the Germans. Early in 1915 the Germans became

weary of his unpractical methods of dealing with the matters
in hand. The Germans, with their solid efficiency and
severely practical outlook, were quite unable to appreciate
Casement’s idealistic viewpoint, so that they ceased consult¬
ing Casement in questions relating to Ireland and dealt
directly with John Devoy and his associates. This was one
of the reasons for the change in the manner of the Foreign
Office of which Casement complained so bitterly in his diary
and which made him accuse them of double dealing and
dishonesty in their actions towards the Irish Brigade. In
the early days of Casement’s sojourn in Germany he had
asked the Foreign Office to supply him with a shipload of
arms and ammunition for transport to Ireland with the
Irish Brigade. To this request the Foreign Office had
tentatively acceded although the arrangement was in a most
indefinite form. But the matter was put on a much more
definite footing in 1916 by John Devoy. Then the German
Government agreed to send arms and ammunition to Ireland
to assist in a rebellion whenever that should take place. In
Ireland, at the end of 1915, James Connolly and P. H.
Pearse, who saw Ireland’s salvation in armed rebellion, were
making preparations for the rising. The Volunteers were
being drilled up and down the country by their leaders,
many of whom were members of the I.R.B., and hatred
of England was increasing, and pro-German propaganda
was being pursued. However, at the beginning of 1916,
the rebel leaders realised that if a rebellion was to be
effective it must not be long delayed, and it was decided
that the rising should take place on Easter Saturday.1 In
1 No one in Ireland seriously believed that an armed rising could
effectively separate Ireland from England. There were, however, two
opposing schools of thought: those, represented by Connolly’ and
Pearse, who believed that an armed insurrection, which could be
nothing more than an armed demonstration, would be of the utmost
service to the cause of Irish Nationalism \ and the others, represented
by MacNeill and Hobson, who considered that any sort of armed
rebellion would be utter folly at that time. Hut both groups were
agreed that no rebellion, unaided, could succeed.
 LAST DAYS IN GERMANY 235
February the following message was sent from America to
Germany:

CJ. Nr. 109/16

,,, ‘New York, February 10, 1016.
Most Secret. ^
‘Extract from Report of Confidential Agent, John
Devoy, on the position in Ireland, which has been de¬
livered to the Imperial Embassy for telegraphic transmission:
“ Unanimous opinion that action cannot be postponed
much longer. Delay disadvantageous to us. We can now
put up an effective fight. Our enemies cannot allow us
much more time. The arrest of our leaders would hamper
us severely. Initiative on our part is necessary. The
Irish regiments which are in sympathy with us are being
gradually replaced by English regiments.
“ We have therefore decided to begin action on Easter
Saturday. Unless entirely new circumstances arise we
must have your arms and munitions in Limerick between
Good Friday and Easter Saturday. We expect German
help immediately after beginning action. We might be
compelled to begin earlier.”
‘The Confidential Agent will advise (the Irish) if at all
possible to wait, and will point out the difficulties in the
way of (our) giving help, but nevertheless believes that
circumstances make delay impossible. The Committee
here will come to a decision independently.
‘War Intelligence Centre, «gKAL > 1

This message was sent from New York in an envelope

addressed to Rotterdam. A week later the following
message was sent to Germany. It was surreptitiously
attached by the German Ambassador to a message relating
to the ‘Lusitania’ negotiations, which had been sanctioned
and passed through the State Department of the American
Government.
‘The Irish leader, John Devoy, informs me that rising
is to begin in Ireland on Easter Saturday. Please send arms
1 Cmd. 1108 of 1921, p. 9.
236 ROGER CASEMENT

to (arrive at) Limerick, West Coast of Ireland, between

Good Friday and Easter Saturday.
£To put it off longer is impossible. Let me know if help
may be expected from Germany.
‘Bernstorff.’ 1

While Casement was at Munich, on March 6th, he received

a letter from Monteith telling him that there was a ‘ move ’
on, and the following day Monteith arrived in Munich to
tell Casement what the move was. On March 1st Monteith
had been sent for by the German General Staff. Monteith
saw Lieutenant Frey, who said that a telegram had been
received from John Devoy. Devoy had asked for arms and
ammunition to be sent to Ireland as ‘something of great
importance’ was about to happen there. Frey had told
Monteith that the German Government were willing to send
200,000 rifles, together with ammunition, and land them in
Ireland on a given date. Monteith’s visit to Munich was to
seek Casement’s advice as to what he should do with regard
to this offer. Casement said, ‘My difficulty is that I don’t
trust these people in anything they promise. They lie
always. They may or may not keep faith to-day; but I have
no reason to believe that in anything they do they ever think
of us, or of others, but only of themselves. If they promise
to give us 200,000 rifles, etc., it is not to help us—rest
assured of that. They have shown me repeatedly that they
cannot keep faith and have no feeling about Ireland at all,
that in anything they promise now, I seek only what ends
of their own they are after. However, as they offer us this
large armament we should be fools not to take it if we can
get it. Let us get what we can.’2 Monteith went on to say
that he understood that the ‘something’ in Ireland would
happen in April and that it was essential that the arms were
delivered in good time. John Devoy’s telegram had said
that an explanatory letter had been sent, and this was due
to arrive in the course of the week, March 13-18. Monteith
asked Casement to be in Berlin when this letter arrived and
1 loc. cit., p. 10. 2 Irish Independent, April 12th, 1922.
 LAST DAYS IN GERMANY 237
Casement agreed. Before Monteith left Munich for Berlin
Casement drew up a memorandum which Monteith would
hand to the German authorities in Berlin. This memoran¬
dum pointed out the necessity of sending certain information
to Ireland before the arms were shipped, so that the landing
place, time and date might be finally fixed and both sides
be enabled to work in concert. Casement suggested that
this might be accomplished by sending him and two Irish
soldiers in a submarine to Ireland. The submarine would
wait for the messenger whom Casement would send back.
At the same time John Devoy should be informed of the
arrangement.
In a few days Casement followed Monteith to Berlin.
He was in very poor health and had to spend a few days in
bed at the Saxonia Hotel. He was anxiously awaiting the
news from John Devoy in America. Moreover, he had not
heard news of Schirmer’s safe arrival in New York with the
Findlay letter. It was a considerable relief to him when he
received a cable to say that Schirmer had duly delivered
the letter.1
There followed a time of great activity and worry for
Casement. He made frequent visits to the Foreign Office,
the Admiralty and the War Office, in connection with the
projected events in Ireland. It was not long before he
discovered that the Germans were proposing to send, not
200,000 rifles, but only 20,000. Casement urged the War
Office to make the affair a reality by sending German
officers and instructors to Ireland, for without these the
rebel forces would be little more than a rabble. But the
Germans refused to do this, and remained adamant, refusing
even to send machine-guns.
During a visit to the Admiralty Casement had a long
conversation with three naval captains, including Captain

1 Whether the letter was not delivered, or whether it was returned

to Germany, the present writer is unable to say; but so far as his informa¬
tion goes, the letter is still in the possession of the German Foreign
Office.
238 ROGER CASEMENT

Hey dell. Casement renewed his request for a submarine to

take him and two companions ahead to make the arrange¬
ments for landing the arms. The Admiralty, however, were
opposed to such a plan and refused to place a submarine at
Casement’s disposal. Faced with this refusal Casement told
them that he would rely on their trying to get a messenger
sent to Ireland and asked them to arrange for the passage
of John M‘Goey 1 over the frontier. Captain Isendahl was
sent for, and agreed to make the necessary arrangements
whenever Casement brought M‘Goey to the Admiralty.
Producing an English Admiralty chart of the Kerry coast
they pointed out to Casement where the arms were to be
landed. The place selected was at Fenit Pier in Tralee Bay.
Between April 20th and 23rd the ship with the cargo of
rifles would arrive at the rendezvous, which was Innish-
tooskert, the north-west of the Seven Hags Rocks. There she
was to show two green lights for a short time after dark.
Casement was told that this information had been cabled
to John Devoy, who had replied ‘All right.’ It was also
arranged that Casement and his two companions should
travel to Ireland in this ship, which was to sail under the
Norwegian flag and with false papers. Casement had
understood that the final arrangements would be made only
when he arrived in Berlin, but in the course of the interview
at the Admiralty it became very plain to Casement that all
the arrangements had been made long before his arrival
and without consulting him.
Casement left the Admiralty to return to his hotel in a very
despondent mood, as he thought over his failure to secure
what he considered was essential to the success of the enter-

1 John M‘Goey had come from America to assist Sir Roger Casement,
and he brought with him strong recommendations from Joseph
M‘Garrity. Casement sent him to Zossen on an undertaking which
provided for his immediate release whenever Casement required his
services, an undertaking not always observed by the German
authorities. (In February Casement wished to send him to America
to warn John Devoy of the inadequacy of the German support;
M'Goey was not released.)
 LAST DAYS IN GERMANY 239
prise. He saw clearly that no rising in Ireland could succeed
unless it received powerful backing from the Germans.
And this backing was not forthcoming. Casement felt that
it was imperative that the Clan-na-Gael in America and the
revolutionaries in Ireland should be told that the support
which they were expecting would not be sent.
The next day, the 18th, at half-past eleven in the morning,
Casement and M‘Goey went to the Admiralty and saw the
three captains again. Before they left the Saxonia Hotel
Casement had explained to M‘Goey that the real message
he was to take to Ireland was an urgent request to cancel the
rising, although while at the Admiralty he must keep silent
as to this. M‘Goey, as well as Monteith, agreed wholeheart¬
edly with Casement in his view that the rising, without proper
German support, was utter folly. Nevertheless, Casement
considered that every effort ought to be made to land the
arms and ammunition in Ireland. When Casement and
M‘Goey arrived at the Admiralty, everything relating to
the shipment of arms was explained to M‘Goey. Captain
Isendahl told Casement that a police agent would call at
his hotel that evening to identify M‘Goey. The following
morning he would go via Warnenmunde, with no papers or
passport, and be put over into Denmark. The police agent
arrived at seven in the evening, and left to return at half-past
seven the next morning. After the police agent had gone
Casement gave M‘Goey his final instructions. Casement
wrote in his diary:
‘ The chief satisfaction I have is to think that I am success¬
fully getting John M‘Goey out of the country. If he gets
safely through to Dublin he is to seek out Tom Clarke 1
and through him Bulmer Hobson, and try to “call off” the
rising. £

On the 19th, early in the morning, John M‘Goey left with

the police agent, carrying with him Casement’s earnest
1 Thomas J. Clarke was executed in May, 1916, for his share in the
Easter Rebellion.
2 Irish Independent, April 17th, 1922.
240 ROGER CASEMENT

prayers for his success. c I saw him off,’ wrote Casement,

‘ on the stairs of the hotel with a last blessing and a greeting
in Irish.’ But M‘Goey’s chances of getting to Ireland were
not good. Since the exploits of the Moewe, English ships
patrolled the seas from Norway to the Orkneys and were
keeping a vigilant look-out.
Casement was told by Herr Nadolny that as soon as he
and his two companions had left on their journey the Irish
Brigade was to be locked up until it was known that Case¬
ment was safely across. Casement reminded him of the
promise of the German Government to send the Irish
Brigade to America, to which Nadolny replied, ‘Of course,
of course.’
The attitude of the German Government, their evasions
and refusals, made Casement think that they were endeavour¬
ing to get rid of their obligations without letting the Irish,
either in America or Ireland, know of their purpose. He
felt that Ireland was b'eing duped and betrayed by Germany,
and the knowledge made him bitter. He saw failure and
disaster staring him in the face and no way to avoid it.
He wrote in his diary:

‘How can I go on with it? What am I to do? Whatever

way I turn misery, failure, degradation, and no way out.
I know not what to do. I have told Monteith the actual
fear I have—not physical or for myself, but for Ireland and
our national cause. We are being put in an abject position
—and this by the great almighty power.’1

Casement was waiting anxiously for news of M‘Goey’s

safe arrival in Ireland.2 When the General Staff realised
what M‘Goey’s opinions were they suspected that Casement
had sent him to stop the rising, and an angry interview took
place at the Admiralty. But Casement’s chief concern was
the ultimate fate of the men of the Irish Brigade at Zossen.

1 Irish Independent, April 17th, 1922.

2 M‘Goey was to send a card to ‘ Mr Hammond ’ at Auswartiges Amt
when he was sure of getting over to England from Denmark.
 LAST DAYS IN GERMANY 241

Returning to his hotel after this interview, Casement met

Gaffney, and together they went to see Casement’s friend,
J. C. Noeggerath.1 There Casement told them all his
misgivings and his fears for his countrymen, in order that
Noeggerath’s help might be enlisted by bringing pressure
to bear on the Foreign Office to save the men at Zossen from
what seemed to be Casement’s certain fate; for the German
Government were anxious to send this handful of men to
Ireland. Noeggerath immediately telephoned to Zimmer-
mann and arranged an interview at noon the following day.
Early the next morning there came a telephone call from
Nadolny asking Casement to see him, and a meeting was
arranged for half-past ten. After a hurried visit to Noegger¬
ath, Casement went to keep his appointment at the General
Staff. Nadolny, who was alone, indulged in some plain
speaking, and said, ‘The plan of aiding your countrymen in
Ireland was proposed to us from your friends in America.
We had, and have, no responsibility in it beyond trying to
the best of our ability to comply with their request. It is
not our plan. Your countrymen in Ireland are determined,
your friends assert, to rise on a given day. Your friends in
the U.S.A. appeal to us for help. We knew nothing of it
before Mr. Devoy’s telegram came, and all our subsequent
action has been based on that. You know our proposals
and we have sent them to Mr. Devoy. He agrees. You
oppose the project, or you are hindering it. The soldiers
are an essential part of its success. The naval men say so.
The machine-guns must be ready to come into action as soon
as the steamer arrives. We have no other men to send. If
they don’t go, the whole thing may collapse. I shall cable
to Mr. Devoy and say that, owing to your action, we are
compelled to withdraw from the matter at the eleventh hour,
and leave your countrymen in the lurch in Ireland. All the
responsibility falls on your shoulders. We have no idealistic
interest in Ireland. No revolution, no rifles. If it were not
that we hope for a military diversion there we should not
1 Noeggerath was Confidential Agent to the German Foreign Office.
16
242 ROGER CASEMENT

give the rifles.’1 Casement retorted that they were not

complying with Devoy’s request at all. They were sending
a much smaller consignment of arms than he had asked for,
and none of the officers. ‘I had to go,’ he wrote, ‘to stand
beside my friends in their resistance whatever it might be,
and take the consequences since I was largely responsible for
the whole situation although not for this wholly unexpected
development.’ Casement told Nadolny that he had a
peculiar responsibility for the men at Zossen, and he was
anxious that they should not be captured by the British
Government. But Nadolny insisted that the men should
go to Ireland as well as Casement.
To prevent the German Government sending the men of
the Irish Brigade to Ireland became Casement’s chief con¬
cern. He knew that such a small band of men was utterly
useless, and that he would merely be putting nooses round
their necks. And to save them from such a fate he worked
unceasingly. He refused absolutely to allow the men to go,
and he paid a number of visits to the German Departments
of State to persuade the authorities not to attempt to send
them. Moreover, realising how, at the last moment, what
meagre support was forthcoming from Germany for the
rising in Ireland, he was convinced that it would be a
complete failure. He redoubled his efforts to persuade the
German Admiralty to place a submarine at his disposal, so
that he might go to Ireland and warn the leaders of the
rebellion that the help which they were expecting would
not arrive. He wrote in his diary :
‘At 1 or 2 a.m. I began a rough draft of a long letter to
Wedel; lay down about 5 a.m. and was awake again at
6.30 (March 31). I finished my letter as well as I could,
emphasising the importance of my request for the submarine.
‘If I could get that, and land in Ireland before this
damned ship and her guns arrive, I might stop the whole
dreadful thing. It is for this I still pray, but I am so sick
and utterly wretched. I was ill in bed all day. The doctor
1 Irish Independent, April 18, 1922.
 LAST DAYS IN GERMANY 243

told me congestion of the lungs and prescribed the usual

stuff.51
After much wrangling the General Staff agreed that only
Casement, Monteith and one other should accompany the
shipment of arms, and on April 4th the final arrangements
were made for their departure, which was tentatively fixed
for the following Friday. It was arranged that the men at
Zossen should continue with their machine-gun practice in
order that their suspicions should not be aroused. They
were taking with them £100 in gold which was to be
obtained for Casement on his cheque. On the Friday night
they were to go to the General Staff where Casement would
shave off his beard. After a change of clothes they were to
leave the building by a back entrance and then take the
train to Hamburg.
The next day Casement went to Zossen. His immediate
purpose was to accompany Father Crotty, who confessed the
men, but the real object of his visit was to say good-bye to
them. He made a short speech telling them he and Mon¬
teith were going away for a short time and asking them ‘to
go on with everything just the same.5 Writing in his diary
he said:
‘It was dreadful. I could not tell them the truth, and
I had a vision all the time of the deception being practised
upon them, and of the callous treatment they would have
once we were gone and all pretence of an “Irish Brigade55
finished. God forgive me. And God protect these poor
boys!51
In his diary he wrote bitterly of the whole attempt, which
appalled him as ‘ a piece of the most ghastly folly—or, rather,
as one of the most criminal attempts ever perpetrated.5
He was at last brought fully to realise that Germany had no
other motive in assisting the rising in Ireland than to make
trouble for England, an object which Nadolny frankly
admitted to him. He considered that the little that Germany
was doing towards implementing her undertakings towards
1 Irish Independent, April 19, 1922.
244 ROGER CASEMENT

Ireland would, in all probability, do irreparable damage to

the Irish cause which was so dear to him. The more he
considered the question the more did he believe that he had
been exploited and fooled by the German Government. He
said in his diary :
‘I, traitor of to-day, will become the “sacrifice dupe”
of to-morrow. No one will seriously assert for a moment
that the German Government really believed that by
sending us on a ship to Ireland, with no support, no possible
means of escape even, they were doing a chivalrous thing.
‘The English are quite capable of shutting me up in a
lunatic asylum and asking the world what it thinks of the
Germans who handled a lunatic thus?
‘And my madness may be pardoned, but the cowardice
of those who first took advantage of it, and then flung the
madman to destruction when they had no longer any use
for him, will echo through the world as a crowning example
of “Hun” methods.
‘ This aspect of the affair does not concern me personally.
My honour cannot be questioned, however my intelligence
may be assailed. I have not shirked the ordeal. And
when, if ever, the facts become public of how I have been
forced to act against my judgment in the matter, then most
men will forgive me, while they despise those who put me
in the fire.’1
On April 6th von Wedel sent Casement a letter which had
recently arrived from Berne, from the agent of the Irish
Revolutionary Committee. It was marked with the sign
upon which Casement and Joseph Plunkett had agreed in
the previous June. Casement never knew for certain who
had sent this letter, but he believed it to be Plunkett. The
letter was as follows:
‘Berne, 5th April, 1916.
‘Ashling.
‘Dear Roger Casement,
‘ I am sent here as delegate by the president and supreme
council of the Irish Volunteers and through the courtesy of
1 Irish Independent, April 21, 1922.
 LAST DAYS IN GERMANY 245
his Excellency the German Ambassador am enabled to
give you this urgent message from Ireland:
‘i- The rising is fixed for the evening of next Easter
Sunday.
‘2. The large consignment of arms to be brought into
Tralee Bay must arrive there not later than the dawn of
Easter Monday.
‘3. German officers will be necessary for the Volunteer
forces. This imperative.
‘4. A German submarine will be required in Dublin
harbour.
‘The time is very short, but is necessarily so, for we must
act of our own choice, and delays are dangerous.
‘Yours very sincerely,
‘A Friend of James Malcolm.5 1

The effect of this letter was to renew Casement’s fears for

the outcome of the rising, and to increase his anger at the
1 Irish Independent, April 22. 1922. With regard to the word
‘ Ashling ’ the following message from the German Embassy,
Washington, to the Foreign Office, Berlin, dated March 21, 1916,
is of interest: ‘ In case the trawlers are fitted with wireless they are
to make the following signals in the Limerick expedition:—As a sign
that ships are coming, FINN. As a sign that something untoward has
occurred, BRAN. If the trawler is not fitted with wireless, then send
wireless from Germany. There are numerous private receiving stations
in Ireland. BRAN sent from Germany is to have the meaning that
something has gone wrong. The addition of a date means the date to
which the expedition has been postponed. FINN means that the cargo
has left at the right time. If submarines proceed into Dublin Bay in
connection with the landing of war material or officers, then the signal
is ASHLING. If only submarines come, no signal is necessary. They
are then to go straight up to the Pigeon-house, where they can proceed
in and out at any time. No nets have been set.’ And the following
passage from a message dated March 13th: ‘In case a submarine
should come into Dublin Bay in connection with landing of anything,
either material or officers, the signals “ Ashling ” would ensure im¬
mediate recognition.5 (Cmd. 1108 of 1921, p. 11.) In a memorandum
(unpublished) dated 24 August, 1915, at Munich, and sent to Captain
Nadolny, Casement wrote: ‘ M. P. left a password to introduce
any possible messenger from Ireland—“ Ashling.55 (Spelt in the Irish
language “ Aisling,55 but pronounced “ Ashling.55) 5
246 ROGER CASEMENT

way in which Germany treated the whole question. It was

plain from the letter that the leaders of the rising in Ireland
were expecting help from Germany far in excess of what they
were to receive. In Casement’s opinion it was becoming
more imperative than ever to stop the rising. Immediately
on receiving the letter he went to the Admiralty to renew
his demand for a submarine to take him to Ireland, and
during the next few days he made repeated requests for the
submarine. At the Admiralty he gave his frank opinion of
the German failure to furnish proper support. Finally he
sent a telegram from the General Staff to the agent in Berne
telling him the amount of ammunition and arms which was
being sent, and also that no German officers or men were
going. The last part of this message reads, ‘No submarine
can be sent. Can you reach Dublin before Easter Sunday?
A letter with fuller information follows.’
There was a certain body of opinion in Germany which
questioned the morality of Germany’s attempt to foster the
Irish Brigade and which strongly disapproved of the seduc¬
tion of prisoners of war from their allegiance. On April 7th,
during a debate in the Reichstag, Dr. Liebknecht en¬
deavoured to raise a discussion on this matter. On a vote
on the Army Estimates for the construction of a magazine
building at Ludwigslust, Dr. Liebknecht said, ‘The quarters
for prisoners for which supplies are demanded in this vote
serve also as quarters for English prisoners, who for traitorous
service against their own country are systematically . . .’
His speech was drowned in an uproar and he was prevented
by the Vice-President from continuing further. On a later
vote Dr. Liebknecht again rose and said, ‘I repeat that I
have documents in my possession which show that an agree¬
ment has been concluded between the Under-Secretary
Zimmermann and the English traitor, Sir Roger Casement,
according to which English prisoners of war shall be trained
in such places for military service against England.5 He was
again loudly interrupted and was called to order. But before
he sat down he added, ‘ Mohammedan prisoners of war also
 LAST DAYS IN GERMANY 247

are systematically pressed in the prison camps into service

against their own country.’1
At length Casement’s efforts to secure a submarine were
successful. On April 8th Heydell brought him the news that
the Admiralty had agreed to allow Casement to go to Ireland
ahead of the munition-carrying ship and were ready to place
a submarine at his disposal. He was told to go to the
Admiralty next day, with Monteith and Daniel Bailey 2 of
the Irish Brigade, who were to accompany him, to receive
their final instructions. Noeggerath called to say good-bye,
and after he had left, Casement, Monteith and Bailey went
to the Admiralty. The Admiralty were not then in a position
to tell them anything, but they learned that Heydell was at
Wilhelmshaven making the arrangements for the submarine.
However, in the afternoon the instructions came. A sub¬
marine would be ready for Casement at Emden on April 12 th.
On the 10th he was to receive final instructions from the
Admiralty, and on the nth he would leave Berlin with his
two companions.
Before they left they sent the following letter to the men
at Zossen :

‘To the N.C.O.s and men of the Irish Brigade, Zossen.

Comrades of the Irish Brigade,
‘We are going away on a very perilous journey and have
been forced to leave you without a word of farewell or
explanation.
‘It was not possible to tell you anything, or to explain
then, or even now, fully why we did not bring you with us.
One reason, perhaps the chief reason, why you are not
accompanying us to-day is to keep you out of the very grave
dangers we have to face. We are sure that many of you,
perhaps all of you, would have gladly faced those dangers
too, seeing that it is in the cause of Ireland we go, but we
have decided it was unfair to you to appeal to your courage
1 See The Times, April 26, 1916.
2 Bailey was a sergeant in the Irish Brigade, and was chosen by
Monteith to accompany Casement because he could handle a machine-
gun. His real name appears to have been Beverley.
248 ROGER CASEMENT

in a matter where all the elements of danger are very

apparent and those of hope entirely wanting.
‘You must therefore forgive us for going in silence from you
and leaving you to this continued idleness and inactivity
that have already been so harmful to you and contrary tc
your hopes when you volunteered for the service of Ireland.
‘Should we live you will know and understand all; il
we do not return or you hear no more of us you will know
we have gone to do our part in our country’s cause according
to what we felt was right.
‘Mr. T. St. John Gaffney is being commissioned b)
Sir Roger Casement to do all in his power to help yoi
during the rest of your stay in Germany.
‘When the war is over your many friends in America
will certainly have you in their care and affection.
‘Meantime you may have many hard and unhappy day:
to face; many trials and temptations too—and perhap:
harsh things to bear. Bear all with brave, stout, Irish hearts
thinking that in what you did you sought to serve you:
country and that no man could give to that cause more thar
you gave. You gave yourselves. Having given yourselve;
so freely, keep yourselves bravely.
‘Be obedient, disciplined and patient, and rest assure*
that whatever happens to us, you will find many friends
in the world and your names will be honoured still in the
story of Ireland.
‘Roger Casement
‘R. E. Monteith, Lt.
‘Julian Beverley, Sgt.
‘Berlin, nth April, 1916. ‘ Irish Brigade.’
 CHAPTER XIII

GOOD FRIDAY, 1916 1

The Kerry coast is wild and bleak and the inhabitants are
few. They eke out a hard living mostly by fishing and their
life is placid and uneventful. That part of the coast which
is near Curraghane is flat, deserted country, covered with
sand dunes. A happening which was in any way out of
the ordinary would excite considerable interest and com¬
ment, and the finding of a boat, some ammunition, three
strange men, and a red light at sea was certainly out of the
ordinary.
At half-past nine on Thursday, April 20th, a labourer,
Michael Hussey, who lived at Curraghane, was returning
home from visiting a friend. When he was nearly home, on
looking seawards he was surprised to see a red light shining
out at sea for about two seconds. In his astonishment he
remained looking towards the light for some little time. He
estimated that the light was about half a mile from the shore.
The following morning, Good Friday, John M'Carthy, a
farmer of Curraghane, left his house at two o’clock in the
morning, while it was still dark, to walk along the shore to a
holy well over a mile away. He was going there to say some
prayers, because of the season of the year.2 Returning about
two hours later, when the tide was coming in, he noticed a
boat on the shore, about twenty or thirty yards from the
1 For many of the facts here set forth, see the evidence for the prosecu¬
tion, set out in Trial of Roger Casement, ed. by G. H. Knott.
2 Such was the story he told at the trial. A more probable explana¬
tion of his being abroad at so early an hour is that he was paid by the
British Government to watch for the expected submarine, as were
many other peasants living on the coast. The employment of these
men in this manner was well known in Kerry.
249
250 ROGER CASEMENT

high-water mark. He found four oars 1 floating in the sea,

which he collected. The boat was a flat-bottomed, four-
oared boat, with hoods at the stem and stern, about 11 inches
high. Running along either side for a distance of about
11 feet were two air tanks. The boat itself was of timber,
and the hoods of canvas. Finding that he was unable to
move the boat by himself, McCarthy went to his house and
sent his little boy to obtain help from his neighbour, Pat
Driscoll. But even with the aid of Pat Driscoll, the boat,
which was full of water, was too heavy for them and they
could only move it a little way out of the water. They found
a dagger in the boat, and hastily buried in the sand and
barely covered, was a tin box. They also saw three sets of
footprints going in the direction of M‘Carthy’s house.
On returning to his house with Driscoll, McCarthy found
his little girl playing with three Mauser pistols and a bag
containing ammunition. Rather alarmed at the nature of
her playthings he took them from her and took them into the
house with him, and sent Driscoll to the police barracks at
Ardfert. When the police arrived a further search was made
on the shore and several more finds were made. All these
things were put on to M'Carthy’s cart and driven to Ardfert
police barracks.
Thereupon, a sergeant and a constable of the Royal Irish
Constabulary, taking with them their carbines, set out to
search the country. Not far from Ardfert is a place known
locally as M‘Kenna’s Fort. It is a circular mound covered
with brushwood and with a deep trench all round. This
mound is, perhaps, a thousand years old. At about half-past
one on the Good Friday afternoon they came upon this ruin,
which is about a hundred yards from the road. In the
furthest part of the fort they found Sir Roger Casement.
The sergeant spoke to him and asked him what he was doing
there. Casement replied, ‘ By what authority do you ask me

1 See his evidence. Monteith, in his book, says that there were only
three oars: two for rowing and one for steering. Four oars are shown
in the photograph printed in Trial of Roger Casement.
 GOOD FRIDAY, igi6 251

the question, and am I bound to answer you? ’ The sergeant

retorted that he would ask him any question he wished and
that Casement was bound to answer him, and that if he did
not answer he would arrest him under the Defence of the
Realm Regulations. On being asked his name, Casement
replied, ‘Richard Morten, Denham, Bucks,’ and he gave
his occupation as that of author, and said he had written a
book on the life of St. Brendon. He said he arrived in
Ireland at Dublin; he came to County Kerry and then to
Mount Brandon. From Mount Brandon he came to the
fort where he was found. He said he arrived at the fort
at eight o’clock in the morning, and intended to go on to
Tralee. The sergeant noticed that the bottoms of Case¬
ment’s trousers were wet and that there was sand on his
boots.
Casement was taken into custody and the constable took
him to the house of John Allman at Rathoneen, where a girl
called Mary Gorman was employed as a servant. The
purpose of this was that Mary Gorman might identify Case¬
ment as one of the men who had passed the gate of the house
at about half-past four that morning. From Rathoneen they
returned on foot to the fort, and then Casement was taken
to the police station at Ardfert. The constable and Case¬
ment were driven to John Allman’s house at Rathoneen by
a small boy, Martin Collins. As Casement emerged from
the fort to get into the trap, Martin Collins saw him drop
some papers from behind his back. These papers were
picked up and handed to the police, and they appeared to be
some sort of code. Part of this code was as follows1:

Sentences
00611 cease communications with
00621 await further instructions
1 Photographic copies of this code are to be found in Trial of Roger
Casement. This code was given to Monteith at the German General
Staff before leaving Berlin. It was left with Casement at M‘Kenna’s
Fort for greater safety. The pencilled sentences on the back were
written by Casement.
252 ROGER CASEMENT

00631 agent has started for

00645 agent start for
.
00841 railway communications have been stopped
00843 enquiries must be made about
00844 our men are at
00845 further ammunition is needed
00846 further rifles are needed
00848 how many rifles will you send us
00856 how much ammunition will you send us
00857 will send plan about landing of
«••••••

00935 cannons with plenty of ammunition are needed

send them to
00946 send more explosives
00957 send vessel if possible
The sentences were typewritten and the numbers were
written by hand. It was noticeable that the figures were
written in a continental way—the figure 7 was written with
a horizontal stroke through it. On the back of one of these
sheets of paper was some writing in pencil, as follows: ‘ If
any message sent, use Clifton wire; friends ready to receive
our messages at 2 a.m. middle Greenwich time. Begin
always “Sectpol” and the rest in our cipher. This holds
good from 22nd April till 20th May. If by then no news, the
friend’s station will be closed for good; after that only by
cable to Mr. Hehlin, Davos Village, Switzerland. Signed,
James Kingsley.’
In a small black bag the sergeant found a large green and
yellow flag, a pair of field-glasses, a flash-lamp, 40 rounds of
ammunition and some wearing apparel. There was also a
number of maps of foreign origin. Perhaps the most inter¬
esting find in the bag was what seemed to be a diary, written
in a cash book; it commenced as follows: 1
‘Feb. 16 Left Cork—arr. Dublin 12 p.m.
Feb. 19 Mary MacF. left Dublin.
1 A photograph of part of this diary is published in Trial of Roger
Casement.
 GOOD FRIDAY, igi6 253
Feb. 23 She went to Cork.
— — Murray to Castle—referred H. J.S.

Feb. 24-26 Ill in bed.

— 26 Left Dublin.
Feb. 27 Ill there.

April 11 Left Dublin for Wicklow.

— 12 Left Wicklow in Willie’s Yacht.

/
It is interesting to note that, according to the statement made
by Daniel Bailey, Casement left Berlin for Wilhelmshaven
on April nth, and on the 12th left Wilhelmshaven by
submarine. This book contained Casement’s rough notes
from which he wrote his diary. The names are fictitious;
Dublin stands for Berlin, Wicklow for Wilhelmshaven,
Murray for Monteith, and ‘Willie’s Yacht’ was the German
submarine. /
After Casement had been searched the constable returned
to M‘Kenna’s Fort and found there three top-coats. In the
pocket of one of these coats was a railway/ticket from Berlin
to Wilhelmshaven, dated April 12th, igfi6. This was the
ticket used by Casement.
Casement spent the night at Ardfert Barracks and the
following day, April 22nd, he was taken, in the charge of a
sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary, to Dublin by train.
When the train arrived at Killarney, the head constable of
Killarney came up to the carriage to talk to the sergeant.
He said, ‘Did you hear what happened to the two lads at
Puck? ’ and on the sergeant saying that he had not, the head
constable replied, ‘ They ran into the tide and were drowned.’
Puck is a small town about 30 miles from Curraghane, and
whose proper name is Killorglin. There is a slip at Kill-
orglin where the road runs down to the water and a motor
254 ROGER CASEMENT

car had run off the slip into the tide. This conversation was
overheard by Casement, and when the train left the station
he became somewhat hysterical and appeared to be sobbing.
Then he turned to the sergeant and enquired where was
Puck. He wanted to know if it was near Castlemaine Bay,
and the sergeant told him that it was. After a pause Case¬
ment said, ‘ I am very sorry for those two men; they were
good Irishmen. It was on my account they came over here.’
Casement thought that the two men referred to were
Monteith and Bailey who were to have set out in a car for
Dublin.
From Dublin Casement was taken to London, and
at Euston he was given into the custody of Inspector
Sandercock of Scotland Yard.1 When he arrived at
Scodand Yard he was cautioned and told that a charge
would be brought against him later. He said, ‘Do you
know who I am?’ The Inspector said ‘Yes,’ and Case¬
ment added, ‘I am Sir Roger Casement, and the only
person to whom I have disclosed my identity is a priest
at Tralee in Ireland.’ Later he was taken to Brixton
Prison, and on the 25th he was removed to the Tower
of London.2
The news of Casement’s arrest was not made public until
April 24th, when it caused considerable excitement. From
time to time there had appeared in the Press accounts of his
activities in Germany which had evoked great indignation.
His mission to Germany had also been the subject of a
number of questions in Parliament, so that the news of
his arrest was heard with great satisfaction. The official
1 The following official announcement was issued on April 25th:
‘ Sir Roger Casement, whose arrest in connexion with the abortive
attempt to land arms in Ireland from a German vessel was announced
yesterday, was brought to London on Sunday morning. He was met
at Euston by officers from Scotland Yard, and is now detained in
military custody.’
2 It is interesting to note that a Reuter message from Copenhagen,
issued on April 15th, stated that according to a Danish newspaper
Casement had been arrested somewhere in Germany on an unnamed
charge: see The Times, April 25, 1916.
 GOOD FRIDAY, 1916 255

announcement, made by the Secretary of the Admiralty,

was as follows:
‘During the period between p.m. April 20 and p.m.
April 21 an attempt to land arms and ammunition in
Ireland was made by a vessel under the guise of a neutral
merchant ship, but in reality a German auxiliary, in con¬
junction with a German submarine.
The auxiliary sank and a number of prisoners were
made, amongst whom was Sir Roger Casement.’

We are not entirely without information as to how Case¬

ment came to be in M'Kenna’s Fort on that Good Friday
morning. One of Casement’s companions in his desperate
adventure was Daniel Julian Bailey who was charged along
with Casement at Bow Street Police Station. Soon after his
arrest Bailey turned King’s evidence and made a long state¬
ment near Tralee, which gives some account of Casement’s
journey from Germany to Ireland. Casement’s other com¬
panion, Robert Monteith, has lately published an account
of the journey.
On the evening of April nth Casement, Monteith and
Bailey were driven to the German General Staff, where they
were given tickets and had a last conference. From the
General Staff they went to the Zoological Gardens Station
and thence by train to Wilhelmshaven, where they arrived
the following morning. A small steam cutter took them to
the submarine, U-20, which was lying about half a mile out
to sea.
Casement, who was in poor health and had, indeed, left
a sick-bed to make the journey, was almost overcome by
sea-sickness, and the periods of submergence were very
welcome to him. The U-20 had not gone far when, after
36 hours, she had to put into Heligoland for repairs. The
repairs were of a character which would take a long time to
do, for the crank actuating the diving fins was broken, and
so Casement and his companions were transferred to another
submarine, the U-19. This submarine came round the
Shetlands and the West Coast of Ireland, and shortly before
256 ROGER CASEMENT

they landed Casement wrote the following letter 1 to Captain

Heydell:
‘Nearing Shannon Mouth
‘20 April, 1916.
‘6 p.m.
‘Dear Captain Heydell,
‘A few lines to thank you and your chief for the kindly
hospitality of “U-19.” We were very sorry to lose “U-20”
and her charming Captain and officers—but Oberleut.
Walter has been very kind and helpful on board this boat.
I am hopeful of landing to-night in darkness, near Ardfert
and meeting friends in Tralee in the morning.
‘I have written Graf von Haugwitz of the Gr. Garl. Stab,
about further help if possible by a submarine later on, if
we can hold out.
‘I think by submarine will be the only way to send us
further supplies of guns, etc. after this landing, and if you
hear we are holding out then any machine-guns and a few
more men may be a help.
‘The next few days will settle a good deal and if we
succeed in the S.W. of Ireland we shall try to keep Tralee
Bay as a port of call for submarines to bring us guns, etc.
‘It will be our only chance of communication and if we
hold that part of the country for any time your boats would
be sure of friends in all the fishing-boats they might meet in
the shore waters there.
‘Again thanking you for your help,
‘Yours sincerely,
‘Roger Casement.

‘P.S. Much better than Tralee Bay would be the

Shannon if we were fortunate enough to get Limerick and
hold it. Then you could send submarines up the Shannon
without great risk if we were in force in the city and
neighbourhood.
‘But the whole thing is a problem of which I can say
nothing certain until I learn more on shore. ‘R C ’

1 Printed in The Mystery of the Casement Ship, at p. 276, and also re¬
produced in facsimile at the end of the same book.
 GOOD FRIDAY, 1916 257

When the submarine U-19 arrived off Innishtooskert, the

commander expected to see the pilot-boat and the two green
signal-lights which had been arranged. The submarine
cruised about for nearly two hours in the hope of picking up
the pilot-boat, and then the commander decided that to
remain off the Irish coast any longer would be to risk the
loss of the submarine. The submarine headed for Tralee
Bay, and when she was as near inshore as she could get, a
boat was lowered and Casement, Monteith and Bailey got
into it, taking their kit with them. Monteith and Bailey
rowed the boat while Casement, because of the state of his
health, sat in the stern. After a while, finding that he and
Bailey did not pull well together, Monteith took both oars,
which were muffled. When they were about two hundred
yards from the shore a large wave overturned the boat, and
they were only saved from drowning by the lifebelts which
they wore. They managed to right the boat and get into it
again. The oars, being tied to the boat, were easily re¬
covered. After a severe struggle in the rough sea the boat
ran ashore on Banna Strand, and the three men waded
ashore soaked to the skin. For some time they lay on the
beach scarcely able to move, and then, after a short dis¬
cussion, they decided to bury all their kit and arms and
go towards Tralee. Casement was left at M‘Kenna’s Fort
owing to his weak condition. The code, with which Mon¬
teith had been supplied in Berlin, was left with Casement for
greater safety, as it was felt that Monteith and Bailey were
running the greater risk. It was decided that if any one of
them was not captured he should send word to the Pro¬
visional Committee of the Volunteers of the exact position
with regard to the arms and men which were expected from
Germany.
Monteith and Bailey went as quickly as they could to
Tralee. They entered the town at about seven o’clock in the
morning. Their object was to get in touch with the local
branch of the Volunteers, but, being Good Friday, the town
seemed deserted. Their aim now was to find a newsagent’s
17
258 ROGER CASEMENT

shop where revolutionary newspapers were displayed, and,

through the proprietor, get into touch with the Volunteers.
Eventually they found such a shop and went in. They were
treated with a certain amount of suspicion, being thought to
be police spies, but Monteith managed to overcome this.
They were taken in and warmed, clothed and fed, while a
messenger was sent for Austen Stack, the commander of the
Volunteers.1
Casement himself gave an account of his landing in a
letter which he wrote to his sister, Mrs. Nina Newman, in the
condemned cell in Pentonville Gaol, on July 25th, not long
before his execution:

‘When I landed in Ireland that morning (about 3 a.m.)

swamped and swimming ashore on an unknown strand, I
was happy for the first time for over a year. Although I
knew that this fate waited on me, I was for one brief spell
happy and smiling once more. I cannot tell you what I felt.
The sandhills were full of skylarks, rising in the dawn, the
first I had heard for years—the first sound I heard through
the surf was their song as I waded in through the breakers,
and they kept rising all the time up to the old rath at
Currshone, where I stayed and sent the others on, and all
round were primroses and wild violets and the singing of
the skylarks in the air, and I was back in Ireland again.
As the day grew brighter I was quite happy, for I felt all
the time that it was God’s will that I was there. The only
person alive—if he be alive—who knows the whole story
of my coming, and why I came, with what aim and hope, is
Monteith. I hope he is alive and that you may see him and
he will tell you everything, and then you will know that the
very thing I am blamed for, and am dying for, was quite
what you would have wished me to do. It is a cruel thing
to die with all men misunderstanding—misapprehending
—and to be silent for ever.’2

1 For more detailed accounts of the movements of Monteith and

Bailey see Mnnteith s book Casement s Last Adventure, and the statement
of Bailey which is printed as an appendix in Trial of Roger Casement.
2 Last Changes, Last Chances, p. 103.
 GOOD FRIDAY, igi6 259

It may be added that Monteith managed to evade arrest

and eventually made his way to America, where he subse¬
quently engaged in work on behalf of Sinn Fein and the
Irish Republican Brotherhood.1 Austen Stack, who was a
solicitor’s clerk and a captain in the Volunteers, was arrested
on Friday night together with a man named Collins. The
following morning they were charged before a magistrate in
the Tralee Police Barracks with having conspired to land
arms in Ireland. Later, Stack became Minister for Home
Affairs in the Dublin Cabinet. When Bailey was arrested
four sheets of notepaper were found in his pockets, on one
of which was written: ‘ Castle near Tralee is quite a quaint
old Irish structure of stone.’

1 The Irish Republican Brotherhood (I.R.B.) was a secret revolu¬

tionary organisation which carried on the traditions of the Fenian
Brotherhood. From 1861 to 1865 it was in the process of formation
in America as an Irish Revolutionary Society. It was subsequently
extended through the Clan-na-Gael. The Clan-na-Gael was composed
of a federation of clubs which were divided into districts, and had
extensive ramifications in America. It maintained close relations with
Ireland through the I.R.B. See the second paragraph of the proclama¬
tion of the Provisional Government, printed in the Appendix.
 CHAPTER XIV

THE ‘AUD’

We must now return to Ireland, to the Kerry coast, near

Curraghane, in order that we may have a complete picture
of the events of that momentous Holy Week in 1916.
It will be remembered that on the Thursday night, round
ten o’clock, a labourer, Hussey, saw a red light flashing out
at sea, about a mile off Curraghane. The British authorities
had become aware 1 that a hostile scheme was to be at¬
tempted, and accordingly H.M.S. Bluebell was patrolling the
Irish coast near to Tralee. On Good Friday evening at
about six o’clock she sighted a vessel flying the Norwegian
colours and with four Norwegian ensigns painted fore and
aft on each side of her. The captain of the Bluebell became
suspicious of this ship and made a signal to her demanding
her name and destination. She replied that she was the
Aud of Bergen and that her destination was Genoa. Appar¬
ently the captain of the Bluebell was dissatisfied, for he
ordered the Aud to follow him into Queenstown Harbour.
The Bluebell proceeded ahead, but the Aud made no move
to follow, whereupon a shot was fired across her bows. She
asked, ‘What am I to do? ’ and was again ordered to follow,
which she did. All went well until the two ships were about
3^ miles from Queenstown, off the Daunt Rock Lightship.
The Aud made a signal to the Bluebell: ‘Where am I to
anchor upon arriving in harbour? ’ She was told to await
orders but meanwhile to follow. Near to the Lightship,
when the British ship had headed for harbour, the Aud
1 The British Government had intercepted a very large number of
messages passing between the German Foreign Office and the German
Embassy in Washington, the means of communication between the
American Sinn Feiners and Germany. A number of these messages
were subsequently published as a White Paper, entitled Documents
relating to the Sinn Fein Movement (Cmd. 1108 of 1921).
260
 THE ‘aUD* 26i

stopped her engines. The Bluebell returned to her, and when

about a cable’s length away, a cloud of white smoke issued
from the after-hold of the Aud on the starboard side. Im¬
mediately she broke two German ensigns at her masthead,
and she lowered two boats, men got into them and they
pulled towards the Bluebell. Again a round was fired across
the bows of the Aud, whereupon the men in the boats put up
their hands and hoisted a flag of truce. They were taken
on board the Bluebell and placed under armed guard. These
men were all German sailors, 20 ratings and 3 officers.
Almost immediately afterwards the Aud sank, about a mile
and a quarter south-south-east from the Daunt Lightship.
On May 10th an Admiralty diver was sent from Queens¬
town to inspect the wreck. He found a large hole, about
14 feet in diameter, in her starboard quarter, and strewn
about the bottom of the sea was a quantity of ammunition
and rifles. He estimated that there were some thousands
of cartridges lying on the bottom of the sea. He brought up
with him a rifle, a bayonet scabbard, a cartridge in a clip
and a number of broken rifle butts. A further descent had
to be abandoned on account of rough weather. It was dis¬
covered that the rifle and clip were of Russian manufacture.
This is interesting in view of the fact that at this time the
shortage of arms and ammunition among the Russian troops
was becoming acute.
At Casement’s trial it was never positively proved that this
incident of the Aud was directly connected with Sir Roger,
but the evidence was such that the inference was irresistible
that the Aud’s attempt to land arms in Ireland was to further
the designs of Casement. Some support was lent to this view
by the concluding remarks of Bailey’s statement.1

1 ‘ When on the submarine I overheard conversation from time to

time that a small Wilson liner was to be piloted from Fenit Pier. It
had 20,000 rifles, with 5 rifles in each case, and over 1,000,000 rounds
of ammunition. It was disguised as a timber ship. From what I
heard there were 10 machine-guns, 2 ready for action, and bombs
and fire-bombs.’ These statements are corroborated by Spindler and
Monteith in their books.
262 ROGER CASEMENT

A picturesque and highly coloured account of the adven¬

tures of the Aud was published in translation in this country
in 1921 -1 The author tells us that he was chosen to command
the Aud, which name was substituted for Libau. It appears
that she had formerly belonged to the Wilson Line of Hull,
under the name Castro, and had been captured in the early
days of the war. She left Hamburg for Wilhelmshaven,
where she completed her refitting, and took on board a large
cargo of rifles and ammunition. The author tells us that
she carried machine-guns, but the diver who visited the Aud
after she sank made no mention of these in his evidence given
at Casement’s trial. Herr Spindler states that this cargo of
arms was to be landed in Ireland to aid in the proposed
rebellion, and was part of the plan which Casement had
concerted with the High Command in Germany. It does
not appear from this book that the Germans were aware that
the English had wind of the expedition or knew that the
rebellion was to take place. It should be made clear that the
Aud and the U-19 sailed from Germany independently of
each other.
Herr Spindler says that when he arrived at Tralee Bay
on Thursday night, he displayed the prearranged signal, a
green light. That this was the signal is borne out by the
following message from the Foreign Office in Berlin to the
German Embassy in Washington, the usual channel of
communication between the Irish and Germany:

‘March 4, 1916, 2009.

‘No. 572 of 1st March.
‘In reply to telegram 675 of 17th February.
‘Between 20th and 23rd April, in the evening, two or
three steam-trawlers could land 20,000 rifles and 10 machine-
guns, with ammunition and explosives at Fenit Pier in
Tralee Bay.
‘ Irish pilot-boat to await the trawlers at dusk, due north

1 Gun-Running for Casement, by Reserve-Lieutenant Karl Spindler,

of the German Navy. See also The Mystery of the Casement Ship, by
Captain Karl Spindler.
 THE ‘aUD* 263

of the Island of Innishtooskert, at the entrance of Tralee

Bay, and show two green lights close to each other at short
intervals. Please wire whether the necessary arrangements
in Ireland can be made secretly through Devoy. Success
can only be assured by the most vigorous efforts.’1

This being so, one wonders what was the red light that
Hussey saw for so short a time at ten o’clock that night. It
seems that the Aud had put into Tralee Bay, for her rendez¬
vous off Innishtooskert, on Thursday evening, but not
finding anyone to whom to deliver her cargo, had put to sea
again. On her return the next day she was stopped by the
Bluebell. We are told by Herr Spindler that the preparation
for blowing up the Aud, which had been fitted with a secret
hold, had been made many days before.

The news of the sinking of the Aud and of the arrest of

Casement caused something like consternation among the
Sinn Feiners in America. The British Ambassador in Wash¬
ington, Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, received an anonymous com¬
munication which declared that if Sir Roger Casement was
not treated as a prisoner of war it would mean sentence of
death upon Sir Cecil and other English servants in America.
In South Africa,2 where he was well known, the news of
Casement’s capture caused great interest. The Cape Times
devoted some space to the matter, and after reviewing the
growth of Sinn Fein, expressed the view that Casement’s
capture, while trying to land arms, might ‘force the British
Government to take more vigorous and drastic action.’ In
1 Printed in Cmd. 1108 of 1921, p. 10. See also Casement’s diaries:
‘ It [the landing] was to be at Tralee Bay, at Fenit Pier. The steamer
with the rifles would come to “ Innishtooskert ” (the N.W. of the
“ Seven Hags ” Rocks, north of Royal Point), between April 20 and 23.
The Irish were to have a pilot there to bring her to Fenit. The pilot
boat was to show two green lights (after dark, only for a short time).
This information, they said, had been cabled over to John Devoy,
and his reply “ all right,” dated March 14, was shown to me ! ’ (pubd.
in the Irish Independent, April 15, 1922).
2 Casement’s brother, Tom, was then serving with the Union Force
in German East Africa.
264 ROGER CASEMENT

Germany, however, the matter was treated with considerable

reticence, and it was noticeable that the German Press
treated Ireland with a studied indifference. The Frankfurter
£eitung, at the end of an article on the Military Service Bill,
said:
‘In other respects also the heavens are by no means
cloudless for Herr Asquith. The Dublin revolt will not,
indeed, seriously shake England, and in London there will
be rejoicing that Sir Roger Casement has at last been
captured. The Government cannot, however, look across
St. George’s Channel without anxiety—especially when it
thinks of the time after the war, and remembers the events
which happened in the streets of Dublin shortly before the
beginning of the war. The Government, also, cannot look
without anxiety towards Mesopotamia and other parts of
the East, nor think without anxiety of the possible state of
the relations a year hence between England and her present
Allies. Did Asquith and Grey and their submissive Parlia¬
ment before August 4, 1914, expect things like this ? ’1
The Hamburger Fremdenblatt was more picturesque:
‘This, then, is the tragic fate of the bold Irish leader,
Sir Roger Casement, who tried to assist in the liberation of
his Fatherland from the century-long oppression by English
rule. He has fallen into the hands of his mortal enemies.
It seems that he is an example of the fundamental charac¬
teristics traditionally attributed to the Irish people—bold¬
ness combined with a lack of prudence. For Casement
should have been the last to venture into a war zone which
made his capture by the English not impossible.’ 2
In America the Fatherland made its meaning quite plain.
This notorious paper was strongly pro-German and was
managed by and for those Germans and those Americans of
German descent who were resident in America. As an
inducement to subscribers it offered a free picture of the
Emperor William II, which it described as ‘the best likeness
of the Kaiser ever drawn,’ an opinion which, its readers were
1 Frankfurter feitung, April 27, 1916.
2 Hamburger Fremdenblatt, April 27, 1916.
 THE £AUD* 265

told, was held by ‘famous connoisseurs.’ In this newspaper

a leading article appeared, headed ‘War’s Great Irish Hero,’
which dealt with Casement’s adventure, and in the course
of which it said, ‘ While they were carrying Sir Roger Case¬
ment as a prisoner to the Tower of London, the pioneers of
the Irish Republic captured the City of Dublin. ... Sir
Roger Casement may pay with his life for his heroic efforts,
but his work has not been futile. Official obloquy cannot
dim his fame.’ 1 A short time before the same newspaper
had made a remarkable suggestion; it had said: *Mr.
Woodrow Wilson recognised Carranza in Mexico although
Carranza did not even have possession of Mexico City. If
the Irish revolutionists can maintain their hold on Dublin,
the United States, instead of sneering at the attempt of
Ireland to free herself from the same power against which our
forefathers rebelled in 1776, should forthwith recognise the
Irish Republic.’ 2

On May 15th Casement was brought from the Tower to

Bow Street Police Station on a warrant, to hear the charge
which was to be brought against him. The formal charge
was that ‘on the first day of November, 1914, and on divers
days thereafter, and between that day and the 21st day of
April, 1916, he unlawfully, maliciously and traitorously did
commit high treason without the realm of England in con¬
tempt of our Sovereign Lord the King and his laws, to the
evil example of all others in like case offending, contrary to
the duty of the allegiance of the said Sir Roger Casement to
our said Sovereign Lord the King, and against the form of
the Statute in such cases made and provided.’
The reason why Casement, who was arrested in Ireland,
was brought to England for trial, is not far to seek. It must
be remembered that Casement was a British subject, however
much he may have disliked the application of that term to
himself. In the case of a treason committed within the realm,
the traitor would be tried in that part of the realm where the
1 Fatherland, May 18, 1916. 2 Fatherland, May 3, 1916.
266 ROGER CASEMENT

treason was committed, and the realm, in 1916, was the

realm of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
But with a treason committed outside the realm, as was
Casement’s, the case is different. Indeed, for some time
there was a procedural difficulty with regard to such
treasons, and there were considerable doubts as to whether
they could be brought to trial at all. Accordingly there was
passed a statute which enacted:

‘For as much as some doubts and questions have been

moved that certain kinds of treasons, misprisions, and con¬
cealments of treasons done, perpetrated, or committed out
of the King’s Majestie’s realm of England, and other his
Grace’s dominions, cannot by the common laws of this
realm be enquired of, heard, and determined within this
his said realm of England, for a plain remedy, order, and
declaration therein to be had and made, be it enacted by
authority of this present Parliament, that all manner of
offences being already made or declared or hereafter to be
made or declared by any of the laws and statutes of this
realm to be treasons, misprisions of treasons, or conceal¬
ments of treasons done, perpetrated or committed, by any
person or persons out of this realm of England, shall be
from henceforth enquired of, heard, and determined before
the King’s Justices of his Bench for pleas to be holden before
himself by good and lawful men of the same shire where the
said Bench shall sit and be kept, or else be before such
Commissioners, and in such shire of the realm as shall be
assigned by the King’s Majestie’s Commission and by good
and lawful men of the same shire, in like manner and to
all intents and purposes as if such treasons, misprisions of
treasons, or concealments of treasons had been done, per¬
petrated, and committed within the same shire whereof
they shall be so enquired of, heard, and determined as is
aforesaid.’1

Thus it came about that Casement stood his trial in the

King’s Bench Division 2 of the High Court of Justice in

1 35 Henry VIII, c. 6.
2 The modern counterpart and successor of the Court of King’s Bench.
 THE ‘aUD’ 267

England. It is interesting to remember in this connection

that in 1903 Dr. Lynch stood his trial and suffered conviction
in the King’s Bench Division for treason committed in South
Africa during the South African War.
It will be seen that at his trial Casement made a protest
against the jurisdiction of the court which tried him. He
claimed that as he was an Irishman he had a right to be
tried in Ireland by an Irish court and an Irish jury, but
considered as a serious legal objection to the jurisdiction,
this protest has no substance.
When he was brought to Bow Street from the Tower and
was charged together with Daniel Bailey, who turned against
him, he said, ‘Am I allowed to say anything now? ’ He was
cautioned, and then, pointing at Bailey, he said, ‘Well, that
man is innocent. I think the indictment is wrongly drawn
up against him. If it is within my power to provide defence
for the man I wish him to be in every way as well defended
as myself, and if he has no means to obtain his defence, I am
prepared to obtain them for him.’
The preliminary magisterial enquiry opened on the same
day. The magistrate was Sir John Dickinson, and a large
crowd had assembled to hear what it could of the case.
Among those present on the Bench were Lord Desart, Sir
Charles Mathews and Sir Horace Plunkett. Major Hall,
from the War Office, was near the witness-box, and an Irish
M.P. was among the audience. There was an impressive
array of counsel, including the Attorney-General, Sir Fred¬
erick Smith. Sitting on the benches were a number of Irish
peasants and shopkeepers whose appearance made a strange
contrast to the normal Bow Street crowd.
It was generally expected that Casement would be the
only prisoner charged that day, and considerable surprise
was caused when Casement appeared in the dock accom¬
panied by Bailey, of whose existence scarcely any of the
public were aware. Casement was showing evident signs
of the strain to which his German adventure had subjected
him. He was more gaunt and thin than ever and was very
268 ROGER CASEMENT

restless, seeming ill at ease both in mind and in body. His

beard, which had been shaved for the expedition, had been
allowed to grow again, but it still looked short and scrubby.
Throughout the proceedings he took copious notes.
It was in an atmosphere of tenseness that the Attorney-
General rose to open the case for the prosecution. He dealt
in rapid outline with the consular career of Sir Roger Case¬
ment, and then he passed on to an account of his activities
in Germany, finally coming to the incidents at Tralee.
There followed the evidence for the prosecution. Most of
the witnesses were prisoners of war from Limburg who had
been exchanged, and they gave their accounts of what they
had heard Sir Roger say during his visits to Limburg. On
the third day both prisoners were committed to stand their
trial ‘at such place and time appointed.’ From Bow Street
Casement was taken to Brixton Prison, and later he went to
Pentonville.
The next issue of The Graphic contained a number of
illustrations, portraits and letterpress which related to the
preliminary enquiry into the charge against Sir Roger Case¬
ment. The statements contained in The Graphic were of such
a nature that Casement’s solicitor, Mr. Gavan Duffy, in¬
structed Mr. Artemus Jones to make an application to the
Court. Accordingly, on May 23rd, Mr. Artemus Jones,
before Mr. Justice Rowlatt and Mr. Justice Sankey,1 moved
for a rule nisi directed to the publishers, proprietors and
editor of The Graphic calling upon them to show cause why a
writ of attachment should not issue against them for con¬
tempt of court. Mr. Artemus Jones argued that the matter
contained in The Graphic would prejudice the fair hearing
of the trial. The rule was granted. The headings in The
Graphic were, ‘ The Case against Casement ’; ‘ The Irish
Lohengrin’s “coup de theatre.” ’ The letterpress complained
of was as follows:
‘The Traitor in the Dock.
‘The Treachery: High Treason without the realm of
1 Later, Lord High Chancellor.
 THE c AUD ’ 269

England. Casement at the order of his German masters

attempting to seduce Irish soldiers from their allegiance at
Limburg Prison Camp.
‘ The Trip: Casement’s cruise in the German submarine.
The route followed by the renegade and traitor on his crazy
enterprise which began at Wilhelmshaven and ended near
Tralee.’1

Such comments, surprising though they are, are remin¬

iscent of the present-day attitude of American newspapers to
cases which are sub judice. In October, over two months
after Casement’s execution, when the case was again before
the Court for argument, the Lord Chief Justice said that an
undoubted contempt had been committed, but that as the
respondents apologised and no one appeared to support the
rule, the rule would be discharged with no order as to costs.

1 The Graphic, May 20, 1916.

 CHAPTER XV

THE EASTER REBELLION

Some time before Easter Sunday, 1916, Eoin MacNeill had

ordered a general mobilisation of the Volunteers for that day.
This was public knowledge and aroused little public com¬
ment, it being considered part of the training to which the
country was by now accustomed. But the leaders of the left
wing of the I.R.B. saw in this parade their opportunity. It
was arranged that the Easter mobilisation should be the
signal for rebellion, and that those members of the I.R.B.
who were Volunteer officers should lead their men into an
insurrection. But neither Eoin MacNeill nor Casement was
made aware of this decision or of any of the plans made by
the I.R.B. The I.R.B. kept its own counsels, and never told
MacNeill or Hobson that a shipload of arms was being
sent from Germany. However, at the beginning of 1916
both Eoin MacNeill and Bulmer Hobson were becoming
thoroughly alarmed at the warlike preparations which the
Volunteers were making. It was, however, only a few days
before the outbreak of the rebellion that they had definite
information of what was to take place. They were opposed
to any such plan, but owing to their lack of information they
were not in a position to do very much.
It was known to the authorities, both at Dublin Castle and
in Whitehall, that a rebellion would break out at Easter, and
they knew that a shipment of arms was coming from Ger¬
many, as well as Casement himself. But they took no steps
whatever to prevent the disorder and bloodshed that would
arise. The Chief Secretary and the Commander-in-Chief
were not in Ireland, but it was not considered necessary to
recall them. The extraordinary inactivity of the authorities
370
 THE EASTER REBELLION 271

was strongly commented upon in the Report of the Hardinge

Committee which sat to enquire into the causes of the
rebellion.
But to Casement, when he landed in Tralee Bay, none of
these arrangements was known. He still believed that Eoin
MacNeill was the actual, as well as the nominal head, and
he was concerned to get word to him in time for the rebellion
to be cancelled. When he was arrested his chances of doing
this seemed remote. While he was waiting at Tralee Police
Barracks he asked to be allowed to see a priest. Father
Ryan, O.P., was sent for, and after a short conversation
Casement begged him to do what he could to prevent the
rebellion taking place. A few days later the Dublin Evening
Mail published what was supposed to be an interview with
the priest:

‘ “ I was sent for and allowed to speak privately with the

prisoner. He told me his name, and after some conversa¬
tion of a purely spiritual nature, he said, ‘I want you to tell
the Volunteers in the town and elsewhere to keep perfectly
quiet. Tell them I am a prisoner and that the rebellion
will be a dismal, hopeless failure, as the help they expect
will not arrive.’ ”
* Father Ryan reminded the prisoner that he had come as
a chaplain at his request, and not a political ambassador,
and that he would not feel justified in interfering in any way
having regard to the circumstances under which he was
allowed to speak to him.
/ “ Do what I ask of you,” pleaded Sir Roger, ££ and you
will bring God’s blessing on the country and on everyone
concerned.”
£ ££ The logic of this reasoning appealed to me,” Father
Ryan told me,££ but I said I would promise nothing beyond
saying I would think the matter over. I did think it over,
and I came to the conclusion after deep and mature re¬
flection that it would be the best thing, not alone for the
police, but also for the Volunteers, and thereby be the means
through which bloodshed and suffering might be avoided.
I saw the leader of the Volunteers in Tralee and gave him
272 ROGER CASEMENT

the message. He assured me he would do his best to keep

the Volunteers quiet, and they did keep quiet. I also told
the Head-Constable of the steps I had taken, and of my
reason for it, and he agreed with me that it was perhaps the
wisest course to follow.” ’
The next day, however, the Dublin Evening Mail printed the
following:
‘Last evening we received the following telegram from
Father Ryan:
‘ “Editor, Evening Mail, Dublin.
‘ ‘ ‘ Have seen alleged interview with your representative
in last evening’s issue. I gave no interview to any pressman
anywhere. Please contradict emphatically in next issue, and
publish this telegram.—Father Ryan, Tralee.”
‘The article in question was sent us by an accredited
provincial correspondent of this paper.
‘Apparently Father Ryan was unaware that he was
talking to a Press representative, and though he does not
specifically contradict any particular statements, we willingly
publish his telegram and accept his refutation, while express¬
ing our regret at any misapprehension on which our corre¬
spondent’s story was based.’1
However, Eoin MacNeill independently arrived at the
same conclusion and determined to stop the rebellion. He
had never countenanced the idea of armed rebellion in
1 The two extracts from the Dublin Evening Mail are printed in Sir
Roger Casement, by L. G. Redmond-Howard, pp. 50 et seqq.
Before Casement’s appeal was heard his solicitor received the follow¬
ing letter from Father Ryan: {
Jt\.oscre3.j
* Co. Tipperary.
_ ‘ July 12, iqi6.
* Dear Mr. Gavan Duffy,
‘ Sir Roger Casement saw me in Tralee on April 21, and told me he
had come to Ireland to stop the rebellion then impending.
‘ He asked me to conceal his identity as well as his object in coming,
until he should have left Tralee, lest any attempt should be made to
rescue him. On the other hand, he was very anxious that I should
spread the news broadcast after he had left.
‘ Sincerely yours,
* F. M. Ryan, O.P.’
 THE EASTER REBELLION 273

Ireland at that time. On Maundy Thursday he received

definite information of what was planned. At this late hour
he learned that his great parade was to be turned into a
rebellion, that communications and buildings were to be
blown up, and the whole country plunged into the agony of
civil war. The next day, very early, MacNeill issued orders
countermanding the parade and the insurrection. He with¬
drew these orders later in the day and finally issued his orders
for publication in the Press on the evening of Saturday.
MacNeill’s orders stopped the rising which was to have
begun on Easter Sunday. But that inner circle, led by
P. H. Pearse and James Connolly, who had worked hard in
preparing for a rebellion, were loth to forego their oppor¬
tunity. They held a meeting on Easter Sunday and ordered
another mobilisation for the following day, when an insurrec¬
tion was to break out.
In spite of the fact that the Government was aware that a
rebellion was impending and even of the date of its outbreak,
they allowed the situation to develop and took no steps until
the actual rising had begun.
The rebellion broke out in Dublin on Easter Monday, a
day after the scheduled time. On that day, following the
arrangement made between Germany and the Sinn Fein
leaders, a Zeppelin raid was made on East Anglia, and on
the following day a naval raid was made on Lowestoft and
Yarmouth while Zeppelins bombed Essex and Kent. On
Easter Monday a proclamation declaring the Irish Republic,
signed by the rebel leaders, was read from the foot of
Nelson’s Pillar in Dublin.1
But the Easter Rebellion was not a general rising, and for
this reason was easier to suppress than otherwise it would
have been. The result of Eoin MacNeill’s famous cancella¬
tion of the parade was that only a few hundred men in
Dublin and a few other counties rebelled. But all during
Easter Week there was fierce fighting in Dublin and it was
not until May 1st that the rebellion was finally suppressed,
1 This proclamation is printed in the Appendix.
18
274 ROGER CASEMENT

Seeing that the rising was hopeless, the rebel leaders decided
to surrender and an order was issued, signed by P. H.
Pearse, James Connolly and Thomas MacDonagh, calling
upon the Republican forces to lay down their arms, sur¬
rendering unconditionally. There followed a number of
executions, and all those who had signed the proclamation of
the Provisional Government were executed. Field General
Courts Martial were immediately constituted to try the
prisoners taken during the rebellion. There had been
arrested 3,430 men and 79 women, and of these 1,424 men
and 73 women were released after enquiry. 170 men and
one woman were tried by Courts Martial, with the result
that 11 men were acquitted. The remainder of the prisoners
were sent to England and interned there. In all, the Courts
Martial sentenced 90 persons to death, but only 15 of these
sentences were actually carried out. In the other cases the
sentences were commuted to various terms of penal servitude.
In a letter written by P. H. Pearse on the night before his
execution there is the following postscript, ‘The help I
expected from Germany failed; the British sunk the ships.’
The long drawn out executions which followed the re¬
bellion induced in the minds of the Irish a sense of martyr¬
dom and the wholesale imprisonments fostered the bitter
hatred of England already felt. The Sinn Fein movement was
declared illegal and suppressed; but because of its suppres¬
sion it was forced underground and spread the more rapidly.
Some interesting opinions are expressed in a letter from
John Devoy to Laurence de Lacey. It may be mentioned
that from the time when Casement went to America im¬
mediately before the outbreak of the war, Devoy conceived
a great jealousy of him. This letter. was seized when
de Lacey’s rooms in San Francisco were raided. It is as
follows: (J . .
July 20th, 1916.
‘Dear Friend,
‘I avail myself of the chance of our friend returning to
S.F. send [y*V] you the letter by hand. Nothing is safe in
the mails in this free country.
 THE EASTER REBELLION 275
‘Our information as to what occurred at home, on the
inside, was very meagre up to a couple of weeks ago, though
we had enough to enable us to guess the truth pretty
accurately. One is a young lady from your country, ‘ ‘ Miss
R.” She was in the thick of it all, and saw Sean McD. the
night before he was shot. She went to London first and got
a permit there to come out. She was sent by the women.
So far as the leaders are concerned they are all either dead,
in prison, or “on their keeping,” but there are twenty men
ready for work now for one there was before the fight. The
same thing is told us by everybody, including priests with
knowledge of the whole country.
‘We got a long letter from Cork containing a lot of in¬
formation from there. It was sad as concerned the losses of
leaders, but buoyant and most hopeful. It was written by
a woman on behalf of the men.
‘Then came a man who had been in prison and was
released. He is from Kilkenny, and very accurate informa¬
tion about what occurred immediately before the fight.
Two men from there had attended the meeting in Dublin on
Easter Sunday, where after the mix-up about the counter¬
mand, it was decided to fight.
‘Then a young fellow from Liverpool, a Waterford chap,
who does not belong to anything, but is all right, brought
me a message verbally, from the son of a Dublin friend now
dead. He was in the post office and his brother was with
Ashe at Ashbourne. He said the S.C. had been reorganised.
He will likely get here himself. He is a very well educated
young man and his father was all right. The other brother
is in prison. Three days ago a Limerick man got here, after
a lot of trouble, and brought verbal messages from the
commandant there, which covered a lot of ground. It
included messages received from Monteith after he landed
and the plans they had to dispose of the cargo if it landed.
He also had the story of the countermand of the Easter
Sunday mobilisation (which reached them by automobile
from Dublin), and the subsequent order from Pearse to turn
out on Monday. They could not then.
‘A very long letter has come from Kerry, of which I have
as yet only a verbal synopsis, but the document itself will
'276 ROGER CASEMENT

be in my hands in a few days. And yesterday I received by

a trustworthy messenger to Mike O’R. the stories of four
eye-witnesses and participants for publication. They came
from London. They will make about seven or eight columns
in next week’s paper.
‘ The substance of it all is that the betrayal of the informa¬
tion about the shipload of arms by Wilson’s men enabled the
English to catch the vessel. There is no doubt at all about
this. They got in the raid on von Igel’s office a note of mine
—the transcript of a message received in cypher from Dublin
and wirelessed to Berlin the day before—17th April-—a request not
to land the arms “ before the night of Sunday 23rd” That was its
meaning but it used the words “Goods.” It was at once
given to the English and they sent out their patrol boats and
caught the ship. Then they sent troops to Tralee and re¬
inforced Limerick.
‘That would not have spoilt the rising, because if they
were in the field other shiploads would have been sent.
Casement did the rest. He landed on Friday and sent a
message to MacNeill to stop it; that it was hopeless, &c.
MacNeill got it on Saturday and issued his countermand.
He got one message up by Monteith, who, of course, was
obeying orders, and sent another by a priest, for whom he
sent after his arrest. MacNeill had only been told of the
decision on Good Friday—which was a great mistake. He
was at first shocked, but on hearing of the shipload of arms
consented. Then the Limerick and Kerry men got word to
him of the sinking of the ship, and that, with the request
from Roger, decided him and he issued the fatal order and
took care that it reached everybody. From our experience
of a year of his utter impracticability—he had been assuring,
till we were sick, that “there was no hope for the poor old
woman” until the next war—we sent with the first note
from home that we transmitted to Berlin a request that R. be
asked to remain there, “to take care of Irish interests.” We
knew he would meddle in his honest but visionary way to
such an extent as to spoil things, but we did not dream that
he would ruin everything as he has done. He took no
notice whatever of decisions or instructions, but without
quarrelling, pursued his own dreams. The last letter I got
 THE EASTER REBELLION 2yj
from him, written last December, said the only hope now of
making' a demonstration that would impress the world was
to send the Brigade” to Egypt. To impress the world by
sending sixty men to a place where they could do nothing. We told
him nearly a year before that we would not consent to this
but he took no notice. He was obsessed with the idea that
he was a wonderful leader and that nothing could be done
without him. His letters always kept me awake on the night
of the day I got them. Miss R. says he told Duffy that the
Germans treated us shamefully and that he had hard work
to get the few arms that were on that ship; that they were
no good, &c. Well, they were good enough for the Russians
to overrun East Prussia with and to drive the Austrians
across the Carpathians, and if our fellows had got them they’d
be able to shoot a good many Englishmen with them. It is
not true that the Germans treated us badly; they did every¬
thing we asked, but they were weary of his impracticable
dreams and told us to deal directly with them here. He had
no more to do with getting that shipload than the man in
the moon. The request was made from Dublin and we
transmitted it from here. They replied in nine days and the
message was sent to Dublin by a girl who had brought out
the request.
‘He told Duffy that he wanted to be landed in Galway,
to go to Dublin and lay the situation before them—that is,
to tell them that Germany was not sincere, &c., and that if
they decided to fight that he would go out and die with them.
Every note he struck was one of despair. And he told every
thing to every fellow who called on him. Christensen who
“saved ” him, is one of the worst crooks I have ever met and
was in the pay of the English all along. He, Casement, was
warned of that from Ireland and the first thing he did was
Vto tell the fellow himself and give him the name of the man
who had warned him. Christensen was going over from here
to testify against him—and incidentally give away all our
\j secrets that he had got from Roger, but we kept him here.
41 don’t want you to tell any of this—I mean about Roger
—to anyone except Father Yorke, but the rest you can use
your judgment about.
4 If that countermand had not been issued they could have
278 ROGER CASEMENT

taken Dublin and the big force that was concentrated on

Dublin would have had to be divided up. They would not
have known where to send it for a while and a lot of soldiers
would have joined.
‘Only 1,500 men fought in Dublin and they held up an
army of 20,000 or 25,000 Britishers for a whole week. Only
800 turned out at first; the rest came later, but after Tues¬
day those who wanted could not get near them and were
half crazy. Our fellows had only 103 killed and wounded.
The English had 2,700.
‘The turn over of the people to our side, according to
everybody, is astonishing, partly because of the splendid
fight and partly because of the atrocities, which were very
extensive. The Dublin priests are collecting evidence about
them and will publish the record. The conversions to our
side among the priests is the most remarkable thing of all.
‘We have a good sum of money for our work and it is
already there. We expect to be in direct communication
with a reorganised S.C., or a partly reorganised one, very
soon.
‘Of course a lot of the future will depend on the course
of the war which is now going somewhat against us, but
whatever comes, the old Ireland is gone.
‘The most encouraging thing of all is that there was not
one informer. Hundreds of the men knew the date, but the
Government was in the dark until the blow was struck.
There is no doubt at all about this. Sean told the girls that
he was astonished at the utter absence of anything but the
results of their shadowing in the testimony of the Dublin
detectives. Not a word of inside information. And he said
their testimony was stupid.
‘I have struck this ofF on the typewriter in a desperate
hurry, without any regard to style or sequence, because if
I don’t do it this evening I can’t do it all, and I tore one of
the pages in taking it out and had to paste it. Reidy has
been laid up for the past six weeks from eating bad crabs and
I have been in a frightful mess in consequence. I nearly
broke down two or three times. I have had Peter Golden
helping me for the past three days, and I am easier now.
But it was the hardest ordeal I ever put in because I had to
 THE EASTER REBELLION 279
go out to see the messengers and attend committee meetings
so often and then resume work, not knowing “where I
was at.”
‘With the few facts I have given you in your mind you will
understand the situation better.
‘Kind regards to Mrs. de L. and to Father Yorke.
‘ Yours truly,
‘John Devoy.’ 1

1 Cmd. 1108 of 1921, p. 19. With regard to John Devoy’s figures

for the casualties, the official figures for the total casualties (i.e. Irish
and English) arising out of the rebellion are as follows: 450 killed;
2,614 wounded; 9 missing.
It is interesting to compare the above letter from John Devoy with
the following note for the German Government which was handed
to Captain von Papen in the early days of November, 1915, who
promised to forward it (it is now among Casement’s papers):

‘ New York, Nov. 12, 1915.

‘ Sir Roger Casement, in a letter to Mr. Joseph M'Garrity, written
on Aug. 15, and received Nov. 6, through the courtesy of the German
Foreign Office, complains that Mr. George Freeman, in a letter to Dr.
Schiemann, dated July 12, makes the assertion that “ everyone regrets
that Casement was sent over.” Dr. Schiemann had sent Mr. Freeman’s
letter to Sir Roger Casement.
‘ On account of the high standing of Dr. Schiemann and the possi¬
bility that Mr. Freeman’s statement may be accepted by the German
Government as representing the views of the Irish Nationalist leaders
in America who sent Sir Roger Casement to Germany, and of whom
he is still the duly accredited Envoy, my colleagues have requested me
to give an emphatic and categorical contradiction to the said state¬
ment. We have the fullest confidence in Sir Roger Casement; there
has never been since he went to Germany any lack of confidence in
him on our part, and we fully appreciate and feel grateful for the
splendid service he has rendered to the Irish Cause by obtaining from
the German Government a declaration of its friendship for Ireland and
its recognition of Ireland’s right to National Independence. We also
fully appreciate the service he rendered to both Germany and Ireland
by the publication of his work “ Ireland, Germany and the Freedom
of the Seas.”
‘ Through the courtesy and goodwill of the German Embassy in
America, we have, since the outbreak of the war, been able to keep up
unrestricted communication with Sir Roger Casement, though the
process is necessarily and regrettably very slow, and I have during all
that time been able to hand to Captain von Papen, the Military Attache,
such communications and suggestions as we wished to reach the German
Government. These were always in writing and were the only com-
28o ROGER CASEMENT

munications which represented the views of the Irish Nationalist

leaders in America.
‘ Mr. George Freeman, whose work for Germany we fully appreciate,
is not a member of our organisation, and has no authority to speak for
it, or for any of its members, and his statement that “ everyone regrets
that Casement was sent over ” has no foundation whatever.
‘ While Mr. Freeman has a wide acquaintance, we know our own
people in all parts of the United States much better than he, and we
can safely say that Sir Roger Casement’s work in Germany is recognised
by all Irish Nationalists as of the first importance.
c We hereby certify to the German Government that Sir Roger
Casement has authority to speak for and represent the Irish Revolu¬
tionary Party in Ireland and America.
‘ Very respectfully,
‘John Devoy,
c Secretary.’

Casement received this letter at Zossen on December io, 1915.

 CHAPTER XVI

THE TRIAL IN THE KING’S BENCH

On Monday, June 26th, 1916, the trial of Sir Roger

Casement for treason opened in London. The trial was
in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court, so that
it took place at the Law Courts in the Strand and not
at the Old Bailey. The trial was at bar. That is to say,
by a fiction it is supposed that the trial actually takes
place before the Court of King’s Bench: that is, before
all the judges of the Division. In former days this actually
happened and all the judges sat to hear the case, but in
recent times pressure of business prevents such prodigality
in the employment of judges, and only a few form the
Court. A trial at bar takes place whenever the Court in its
discretion so allows, but this mode of trial is reserved for
cases of sufficient importance. However, if the Attorney-
General is prosecuting he may demand trial at bar as
of right. . e
The judges who composed the Court were the Lord Chiet
Justice (Viscount Reading), Mr. Justice Avory and Mr. Jus¬
tice Horridge, and they sat with a jury. A strong team
appeared for the Crown, consisting of the Attorney-General
(Sir Frederick Smith), the Solicitor-General (Sir George
Cave), Mr. A. H. Bodkin, Mr. Travers Humphreys and Mr.
G. A. H. Branson.1 For the prisoner, Sir Roger Casement,
there appeared Mr. A. M. Sullivan, K.C., Second Serjeant

1 Of these, Sir F. E. Smith became Lord Chancellor, as the Earl of

Birkenhead; Sir G. Cave also occupied the Woolsack; Mr. Humphreys
and Mr. Branson became Judges of the High Court and Mr Bodkin
Hater Sir Archibald Bodkin) held the post of Director of Public
Prosecutions. All three counsel for the defence have since taken si! .
202 ROGER CASEMENT

of the Irish Bar,1 Mr. Artemus Jones and Mr. J. H. Morgan.

As the statute permits of only two counsel being assigned,
Mr. Morgan had no locus standi in the case, but when he
wished to address the Court he was allowed to do so as
amicus curiae, thus obviating the technical difficulty. Mr.
M. F. Doyle, of the American Bar, was also in court. He
came over to England to assist in the defence, although he
rendered none.2
A man on trial for his life always excites considerable
interest, and that interest is not lessened if his crime is
treason, for this is a crime not against an individual but
1 Mr. Serjeant Sullivan was also a barrister of the English Bar, which
enabled him to appear, although he did not hold the rank of King’s
Counsel there. The Order of the coif (the Serjeants-at-law) is extremely
ancient, and although it has become extinct in England, it lingers in
Ireland. In England, until Victorian days, there were many Serjeants,
until the King’s (or Queen’s) Counsel became more common. In
Ireland there were very few, and for centuries there was only one, the
King’s Serjeant. In 1627 a second Serjeant was appointed and the
King’s Serjeant became the Prime Serjeant. In 1682 a third Serjeant
was appointed and the Prime Serjeant became the First Serjeant.
Mr. Serjeant Sullivan was the second of these.
2 As regards Mr. Doyle, see the following despatch from Count Bern-
storff, the German Ambassador in Washington. It was addressed to Mr.
Z. N. G. Olifiers, 121 Keizergracht 121, Sloterdyk, Nr. Amsterdam :

‘ The Irish leaders write me as follows:

“ 12th June, 1916.
“ We are completely cut off from all communication with our friends
in Ireland. All we can get just now is that information brought by
returning American citizens who had passed before the rebellion, and
they only bring stories about the fighting. None of them have seen any
man who could give them inside information. All such men have either
been shot or imprisoned, except a few who are in hiding. It is said that
some of these have escaped and are on their way to America. Two of
those named could give us valuable information if they get here.
“ The British casualties in Dublin were 2,700 men. It is very
improbable that any vessel was able to land a cargo. But the amount
of ammunition the Dublin rebels had astonished us, whether they got
it from a submarine or any other source we cannot say, but they had
an ample supply. It was the artillery and machine-guns that beat
them. The Inspector-General of Constabulary said before the Irish
Commission that the troops and police captured 350,000 round of
ammunition all over Ireland. They were able to manufacture a lot
with machinery we sent them, and that they were able to duplicate by
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING’S BENCH 283
against a vast community. In any society there are always
morbid people who derive considerable pleasure from watch¬
ing an unfortunate fellow-being fighting for his life. But the
sense of history, which is latent in us all, is stirred by the
solemn sensations and historical memories evoked by a trial
for treason. And so it is scarcely surprising that a vast
crowd assembled outside the court with an overwhelming
desire for admission. The Judges’ Gallery was filled with
ladies, but their privileged position did not permit them to
see the prisoner immediately below, in the dock. The public
galleries were crowded and many counsel were present.
When Casement was brought into court between two warders
every eye was upon him, a scrutiny which was pardonable,
perhaps, in the circumstances. But this scrutiny did not
seem to disconcert Casement. Throughout the trial his
bearing was easy and a trifle languorous, and he seemed
quite uninterested in the elaborate ceremonial of his trial.
During the reading of the indictment he seemed weary, but
at times, when he caught the eye of a friend, his face would
light up and he smiled. On one occasion he waved his hand
to a friend whom he recognised in the well of the court. By
now he had recovered from his illness and his face was
bronzed. He appeared as vigorous as a man of his tall, lithe
build and nervous constitution could be.
After the Court had taken their places the King’s Coroner,
that quantity seems too much. The sending of Sir Roger Casement
to Ireland was very unfortunate. His arrest with that of Bailey enabled
the Government to frustrate the Kerry rising and put them on their
guard even without the betrayal from here. .
“ We have sent 1,0001. to defend Casement by Doyle, the American
lawyer. Our information is, that instead of the harsh measures cowing
the people, we have ten friends now for every one we had before the
rebellion. It is the same here. But it will take us a little time to open
communication with the right people. No one can get either in or
out of Ireland now. “ Bernstorff.” ’
(Pubd. in Cmd. 1108, p. 15.)
The £ 1,000 mentioned above were never at the disposal of the
defence, who were so handicapped for funds that Mr. Morgan declined
to accept a fee. Mr. Doyle was not admitted to any of the consulta¬
tions, nor was the line of defence disclosed to him.
284 ROGER CASEMENT

Mr. (now Sir) Leonard Kershaw, rose and addressed the

prisoner thus:

‘Sir Roger Casement, you stand indicted and charged

upon the presentment of the Grand Jury with the following
offence: High treason, by adhering to the King s enemies
elsewhere than in the King’s realm—to wit, in the Empire of
Germany—contrary to the Treason Act, 1351, 25 Edward
III, statute 5, chapter 2. The particulars of offence alleged
in the indictment are that you, Sir Roger David Casement,
otherwise known as Sir Roger Casement, knight, on the
1st day of December, 19145 on divers other days there¬
after, and between that day and the 21st April, 19 *6, being
then—to wit, on the said several days—a British subject, and
whilst on the said several days an open and public war was
being prosecuted and carried on by the German Emperor
and his subjects against our Lord the King and his subjects,
did traitorously adhere to and aid and comfort the said
enemies in parts beyond the seas without this realm of
England—to wit, in the Empire of Germany.
‘ The overt acts of the said treason are as follows:

‘ (1) On or about the 31st December, 1914, soliciting and

inciting and endeavouring to persuade certain persons, being
British subjects and members of the military forces of our
Lord the King, and being prisoners of war then imprisoned
at Limburg Lahn Camp, in the Empire of Germany—to wit,
Michael O’Connor and others whose names are unknown—
to forsake their duty and allegiance to our Lord the King,
and to join the armed forces of his said enemies, and to fight
against our Lord the King and his subjects in the said war.
‘ (2) On or about the 6th day of January, 1915, soliciting
and inciting and endeavouring to persuade certain persons,
being British subjects and members of the military forces of
our Lord the King, and being prisoners of war then im¬
prisoned at Limburg Lahn Camp, in the Empire of Germany
—to wit, John Robinson and John Cronin and others whose
names are unknown—to forsake their duty and allegiance
to our Lord the King, and to join the armed forces of his
said enemies and to fight against our Lord the King and his
subjects in the said war.
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING’S BENCH 285

£ (3) On or about the 19th February, 1915, soliciting and

inciting and endeavouring to persuade certain persons, being
British subjects and members of the military forces of our
Lord the King, and being prisoners of war then imprisoned
at Limburg Lahn Camp, in the Empire of Germany—to wit,
John Robinson, William Egan, Daniel O’Brien, and James
Wilson, and others whose names are unknown—to forsake
their duty and allegiance to our Lord the King and his
subjects in the said war.
‘(4) In or about the months of January and February,
1915, at Limburg Lahn Camp, in the Empire of Germany,
circulating and distributing and causing and procuring to
be circulated and distributed to and amongst certain persons,
being British subjects and members of the military forces of
our Lord the King, and being prisoners of war imprisoned at
Limburg Lahn Camp aforesaid—to wit, Michael O’Connor,
John Robinson, John Cronin, William Egan, Daniel O’Brien,
James Wilson, and divers others whose names are unknown
—a certain leaflet to the tenor and effect following, that is
to say: “Irishmen, here is a chance for you to fight for
Ireland. You have fought for England, your country’s
hereditary enemy. You have fought for Belgium in
England’s interest, though it was no more to you than the
Fiji Islands. Are you willing to fight for your own country
with a view to securing the national freedom of Ireland?
With the moral and material assistance of the German
Government an Irish Brigade is being formed. The object
of the Irish Brigade shall be to fight solely the. cause of
Ireland, and under no circumstances shall it be directed to
any German end. The Irish Brigade shall be formed, and
shall fight under the Irish flag alone; the men.shall wear
a special distinctively Irish uniform and have Irish officers.
The Irish Brigade shall be clothed, fed, and efficiently
equipped with arms and ammunition by the German
Government. It will be stationed near Berlin, and be treated
as guests of the German Government. At the end of the war
the German Government undertakes to send each member
of the Brigade who may so desire it to the United States of
America with necessary means to land.. The Irishmen in
America are collecting money for the Brigade. Those men
286 ROGER CASEMENT

who do not join the Irish Brigade will be removed from

Limburg and distributed among other camps. If interested,
see your company commanders. Join the Irish Brigade and
win Ireland’s independence! Remember Bachelor’s Walk!
God Save Ireland! ’’—with intent to solicit, incite,. and per¬
suade the said last-mentioned British subjects, being Irish¬
men, to forsake their duty and allegiance to our Lord the
King, and to aid and assist his enemies in the prosecution of
the said war against our Lord the King and his subjects.
‘ (5) On or about the 31st December, i9T4> an<^ on divers
days thereafter in the months of January and February, 1915,
persuading and procuring certain persons being members of
the military forces of our Lord the King—to wit, Daniel
Julian Bailey, one Quinless, one O’Callaghan, one Keogh,
one Cavanagh, one Greer, and one Scanlan, and divers
others whose names are unknown—to the number of about
fifty, the said persons being prisoners of war then imprisoned
in Limburg Lahn Camp, in the Empire of Germany, to
forsake their allegiance to our Lord the King, and to join the
armed forces of his said enemies with a view to fight against
our Lord the King and his subjects in the said war.
‘ (6) On or about the 12 th day of April, 1916, setting forth
from the Empire of Germany as a member of a warlike and
hostile expedition undertaken and equipped by the said
enemies of our Lord the King, having for its object the in¬
troduction into and landing on the coast of Ireland of arms
and ammunition intended for use in the prosecution of the
said war by the said enemies against our Lord the King and
his subjects.
‘ Sir Roger David Casement, how saith you, do you plead
guilty or not guilty to the charge of high treason? ’1

Immediately Mr. Serjeant Sullivan rose and intimated

that he would move to quash the indictment on the ground
that no offence known to the law was disclosed in it as
drawn. The Lord Chief Justice, however, said that it would
be more convenient and in accordance with precedent if he
made his submission at the end of the case for the prosecu¬
tion, and, Casement having pleaded Not Guilty, the trial
1 Trial of Roger Casement, p. 2.
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING’S BENCH 287

proceeded. The King’s Coroner asked the prisoner if he

had received, at least ten days previously, a copy of the
indictment, a list of the witnesses and copies of the panel of
the jury; and he replied that he had. This question was to
ensure that compliance had been made with the provisions
of the Treason Act, 1695.1 Then the jurors were called to
the jury-box. A large number were either challenged by
Mr. Sullivan on behalf of the prisoner, or were ordered to
‘ stand by for the Crown ’ before the necessary twelve were
obtained. The jurors were then sworn, each in turn being
directed to Took upon the prisoner’ before he took the oath.
The Attorney-General then rose to make the opening speech
for the prosecution. Using unusually copious notes, he gave
a very brief outline of Casement’s early career in the Con¬
sular Service, mentioning the honours he had received and
reading the letter which Casement had written to Sir Edward
Grey when he received his knighthood. Of this letter the
Attorney-General went on to say, c Gentlemen, I read that
letter because you ought to remember that those were the
feelings on the 19th June, 1911, towards the country which
he had served for so long, and towards the Sovereign of that
country, of a man of mature years—he was, I think, forty-
seven years old at the time that letter was written—a man
who had had nineteen years’ experience of the methods of
government of this country, in which indeed he had, and
not without credit, borne a part. Such a man writes in terms
of gratitude, a little unusual, perhaps, in their warmth, and
in the language almost of a courtier, to express his pleasure
at the title with which his Sovereign had rewarded his career.
And he presents his humble duty to the King, and he begs
that his deep appreciation of the gracious honour may be
expressed to His Majesty. And this was in 1911. The
history of the relations of England and Ireland up to that
date were as well known then as they are to-day.. The con¬
troversies, bitter and protracted, often tragic, springing from
those relations were either the commonplaces of contem-
1 7 & 8 William IV, c. 3.
288 ROGER CASEMENT

porary politics, or they filled the better known pages of our

elementary histories. And well understanding these con¬
troversies, fully versed in the wrongs of which Irishmen were
fruitful in complaint, knowing England’s ideals of govern¬
ment well—for at the outposts of Empire he had carried
them out—he sends his humble duty to his Sovereign.
What occurred between 1911 and 1914 to affect and corrupt
the prisoner’s mind I cannot tell you, for I do not know. I
only know of one difference. The Sovereign of the country
to whom his humble duty was sent in 1911 was in that year
the ruler of a great and wealthy nation, unequalled in
resources, living at peace, unassailed, and it almost seemed
unassailable. In 1914 this same nation was struggling for
its possessions, for its honour, for its very existence in the
most prodigious war which has ever tested human fortitude.
To the Sovereign of that country in the hour of its un¬
challenged greatness he sends his humble duty. It will be
my task now to acquaint you with the method in which he
carried out his humble duty in times dark enough to test the
value of the unsolicited professions he was so forward in
making.’ 1
From this he passed on to speak of the events directly
relevant to the trial. He described at some length Case¬
ment’s endeavours to form an Irish Brigade in Germany;
he described the capture and the sinking of the Aud\ he
described the arrest of Casement at M'Kenna’s Fort and the
finding of the boat and other articles, and he read extracts
from the code. ‘Such, gentlemen,’ he concluded, ‘in a
general outline is the case which the Crown undertakes to
prove and upon which the Crown relies. I have, I hope,
outlined these facts without heat and without feeling.
Neither in my position would be proper, and fortunately
neither is required. Rhetoric would be misplaced, for the
proved facts are more eloquent than words. The prisoner,
blinded by a hatred of this country, as malignant in quality
as it was sudden in origin, has played a desperate hazard.
1 Trial of Roger Casement, p. 9.
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING’S BENCH 289

He has played it and he has lost it. To-day the forfeit is

claimed.’1
Then followed the evidence for the prosecution. Witness
after witness went into the box and described the events in
the camp at Limburg Lahn. These witnesses were repatri¬
ated Irish prisoners of war and their evidence, given in a
strong brogue, was not always understood by the Court.
First came John Cronin who had been at Limburg Camp
since December, 1914. He described the first speech which
Casement made at Limburg, and the distribution of the
newspapers, The Continental Times and The Gaelic American,
together with the pamphlet Crimes against Ireland written by
Casement. He also described the poster headed ‘ Irishmen ’
and a copy was shown to him, and he spoke of the speech
which was made at the time of the appearance of the poster.
He attributed this incident to Casement. It will be remem¬
bered that the real author was Joseph Plunkett, but the
mistake is pardonable in the circumstances, when it is
realised that none of the men, with the exception of Cronin
who had seen him once at the Cork meeting, had ever seen
Casement before. Casement did not attempt to have this
mistake corrected. He realised that there was sufficient
evidence to convict him without this incident. Furthermore,
any attempt to correct the error would bring to light a great
deal of information of which Casement desired that the
British should remain ignorant. After Cronin came Daniel
O’Brien, John Robinson,2 and others. The evidence of these
men was much the same, although they spoke of different
incidents, and it was mostly concerned with the speeches
which Casement had made and the literature which he had

1 op. cit., p. 15. . ~.

2 The following appeared in The Times, May 30, 1910:
‘ Patrick Lindsay was remanded at Belfast yesterday on a charge o
threatening John Robinson, who was a Crown witness in the Casemen
trial in London. Robinson said the prisoner told him that he was a
Sinn Feiner and that the witness was going to be shot for giving evidence
against Sir Roger Casement. For the defence it was stated that Lindsay
was not a Sinn Feiner, and that the threat was mere drunken bravado.

19
290 ROGER CASEMENT

distributed. Many of them mentioned the address headed

‘Irishmen.’
None of these witnesses was shaken in his evidence under
cross-examination, except one, John Neill. This witness
said that at the end of December, 1914, Casement left Lim¬
burg for a month. On his return, in a speech to the prisoners,
Casement said that the Irish Brigade was going to be used,
first to help the Turks against the Russians, then to help the
Germans against the British, and finally they would go and
shed their blood for their native country, Ireland. This
suggestion, that the Irish Brigade was to be used otherwise
than for purely Irish purposes, was strenuously denied by
Casement, who maintained that the Irish Brigade was to be
used in Ireland only. But Neill was an unsatisfactory wit¬
ness and his evidence on this point was not relied upon by
the Crown. Under cross-examination he displayed a dis¬
tressingly bad memory and ‘ disremembered ’ many things.
From the evidence of these men one is left with the impression
that Casement spent a great deal of time at Limburg, but
the fact is that he only visited the camp three times. Some
of these witnesses said that towards the end of February,
1915, following a visit to the camp by Sir Roger, the
prisoners’ rations were reduced. Instead of receiving 750
grammes of bread, they only received 300, while in April
mangolds were substituted for potatoes. They noticed that
those who joined the Irish Brigade did not suffer any diminu¬
tion in their rations. It was natural that these witnesses
should think that this reduction in rations was a punishment
inflicted on them for not joining the Irish Brigade. This
suggestion was indignantly denied by Casement as ‘a hor¬
rible insinuation’ and ‘an abominable falsehood.’ It should
be remembered in this connection that Germany was in a
state of blockade, and that food throughout the country was
becoming scarce. Moreover, Casement was not a man of a
mean or petty nature; it would be foreign to him to.per¬
secute his own countrymen out of pique. If the reduction
in rations was the result of the poor recruitment for the Irish
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING’S BENCH 291

Brigade, it was done by the German authorities without

Casement’s knowledge.
A number of witnesses told of the events in Ireland, near
Curraghane; and evidence was given of his arrest and
journey to England. The incident of the Aud was also
related by a sailor who was on board the Bluebell. A Colonel
of the Imperial Russian Guard, Colonel Nicholas Belaiew,
gave evidence as to the Russian manufacture and origin of
the rifles found in the sunken Aud. Then a gentleman from
the War Office gave evidence as to the nature and origin of
the maps found at Curraghane. These maps were in four¬
teen sections which could be fitted together to make two
complete maps of Ireland. These maps closely resembled
the maps of middle Europe prepared by the German Govern¬
ment. They were on the same scale, and the meridians were
numbered from Ferro instead of from Greenwich, and they
were coloured in a somewhat mysterious way. This closed
the case for the prosecution.
Then Mr. Sullivan rose to move to quash the indictment.
Mr. Sullivan’s argument was a long one, and was based
upon elaborate notes made by Mr. Morgan. It dealt with
an exceedingly interesting part of English law and history,
the history of the law of treason from early times, and some
attempt must be made to summarise it here. For the motion
to quash the indictment was the real defence put forward on
behalf of Sir Roger Casement; no attempt was made, nor
could have been made, to challenge the story put forward by
the Crown, and so the defence set themselves the task to show
that what had occurred in Germany and in Ireland did not
amount to any crime known to the law. If the defence suc¬
ceeded on the motion, then that would be an end of the trial.
It must be remembered that Sir Roger Casement was
indicted under the statute of Edward III, of 1351, for adher¬
ing to the King’s enemies without the realm, and Serjeant
Sullivan contended that under this statute there was no
offence of adhering outside the realm unless the person so
adhering was at the time within the realm. By this statu e
292 ROGER CASEMENT

treason is committed ‘when a man doth compass or imagine

the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen, or
of their eldest son and heir; or if a man do violate the King’s
companion, or the King’s eldest daughter unmarried, or the
wife of the King’s eldest son and heir; or if a man do levy
war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent
to the King’s enemies in his realm giving to them aid or
comfort in the realm or elsewhere and thereof be probably
(or provably, “probablement”) attainted of open deed by
people of their condition.’1 This is a translation from the
Norman French. The Treason Act of 1351 is still law.
The crucial words are, of course, ‘or be adherent to the
King’s enemies in his realm giving to them aid and comfort
in the realm or elsewhere,’ and the words of which this is a
translation are, ‘Ou soit adherant as enemys nostre seignur
le Roi en le roialme donnant a eux eid ou confort en son
roialme ou par aillours.’ The construction for which
Serjeant Sullivan had to contend was that the words ‘or
elsewhere ’ were governed by and part of the phrase ‘ giving
to them aid and comfort in the realm,’ and not of the phrase
‘or be adherent to the King’s enemies in the realm.’ That
is to say, that if the adhering, as opposed to the giving of aid
and comfort, was done outside the realm, then no offence of
treason had been committed. Serjeant Sullivan argued
that between 1351 and 1903, when the case of Rex v. Lynch
was decided, there was no decision on the statute relating to
adhering without the realm. And the decision in Rex v.
Lynch was based upon a misapprehension of the case of
Rex v. Vaughan, this latter case not being a decision upon
the statute. Accordingly he invited the Court to construe
the statute as res Integra. But certain text-writers and ex¬
positors of the common law, Sir Edward Coke, Sir Mathew
Hale and Mr. Serjeant Hawkins, whose opinions are of the
highest authority, took a view diametrically opposed to that
for which Serjeant Sullivan contended, and so it became
\ Statute of Treasons, 25 Edw. Ill, st. 5, c. 2. This statute was
written in Norman French,
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING’S BENCH 293

vitally important that this welter of authority should be

disposed of, and to this end the defence applied themselves.
Serjeant Sullivan attacked the great expounders of the
common law unmercifully, and so vigorous was his attack
upon the greatest of them all, Coke, that it drew from
Mr. Justice Darling, in the Court of Criminal Appeal, an
apt quotation from Milton.
Serjeant Sullivan invited the Court to construe the statute
without reference to all the commentaries of text-writers, and
to read it in the light of the law and custom prevailing when
the statute was passed. This is in accord with the principle
expressed in Maxwell, where it is said: ‘ The language of a
statute must be understood in the sense in which it was
understood when it was passed, and those who lived at or
near the time when it was passed may reasonably be sup¬
posed to be better acquainted than their descendants with
the circumstances to which it had relation, as well as with
the sense then attached to legislative expressions.’ 1 Serjeant
Sullivan’s argument rests upon what he contended was the
historical fact that in early times there was no court which
could try the offence of adhering without the realm. If there^
was no such court it would be folly to suppose that there was
such a crime. Accordingly the question was, was there such
a court? The early rule of the common law was that a crime
must be tried where it was committed; this is the question
of venue. There is the old difficulty of a man being shot in
one county and dying in another, and until the Act of
Edward I, it is probable that the murderer could not be
tried at all: it was impossible to say which county was the
proper venue. The Act of Edward I provided for the diffi¬
culty. There were analogous difficulties with the Courts of
the Marshal and Constable, and the Court of the Admiral,
and in each case a statute was necessary, the common law
being powerless. Now the King’s Court had jurisdiction
only within the realm, and so it would seem that a treason
committed without the realm was not triable at common
1 Maxwell on the Interpretation of statutes, 5th Ed., Ch. II.
294 ROGER CASEMENT

law, unless the King’s Court was endowed by some statute

with this special jurisdiction. Now the statute of 1351 did
not do this. It merely created certain offences, but it created
no court nor did it lay down any rules of procedure. Accord¬
ingly, it would seem that as regards procedure the position
was still what it was at common law. It should be clearly
borne in mind that the real difficulty relating to the treason
of adhering without the realm was a procedural one.
But it was possible that there was an inherent power in the
King of issuing commissions to try such offences, without the
necessity of there being any enabling statute. If this was so
there was a court capable of trying the treason of adhering
without the realm, and this would be fatal to Serjeant
Sullivan’s argument, and the learned Serjeant had to address
himself to this point.
Serjeant Sullivan argued that the King could not issue
such commissions unless he was enabled to do so by a special
statute. He referred to the analogous cases of the Courts of
the Marshal and the Constable, and the like, to which refer¬
ence has already been made. In order to show that the
King, of his own motion, could not issue such commissions
he argued that if such commissions were issued they would
be found and they were not found. This argument gained
weight from the fact that the statute 26 Henry VIII created
a court and formulated rules of procedure for trying, amongst
others, the treason of adhering without the realm. This
court was a statutory court and required a special commis¬
sion from the King. The statute 35 Henry VIII, an extract
from which is reproduced in an earlier chapter, was, he
argued, the first statute to apply the common law to treasons
committed without the realm. The conclusion which
Serjeant Sullivan drew was that, prior to those statutes,
treasons committed abroad were dispunishable, and there¬
fore were not crimes. The second statute merely amended
the procedure created by the first, bringing these treasons
within the scope of the common law. The 26 Henry VIII,
which made new treasons, was repealed by an Act of Mary.
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING$S BENCH 295

Subsequently there were passed several statutes creating new

treasons and all dealing carefully with the question of venue,
but later they were all repealed. Thus the law relating to
treason returned to what it was in the reign of Edward III,
subject to a few substantive additions made later.
Serjeant Sullivan then turned to consider the actual word¬
ing of the statute, and it must be remembered that against
his contention was the weight of the authority of Coke, Hale
and Hawkins. The earliest of these writers was Coke, the
greatest of all common lawyers and whose opinions are
regarded with reverence by lawyers.1 He did not comment
upon the Treason Act, 1351, until long after the 26 Henry
VIII, which considerably altered the law, especially as
regards procedure.2 This Act was passed in 1535. Applying,
therefore, the principle in Maxwell, Serjeant Sullivan sought
to diminish the authority of Coke’s opinion. He analysed
very minutely Coke’s writings and endeavoured to show, and
in great part succeeded in showing, that the authorities upon
which Coke relied did not support his propositions. When
he came to present this part of his argument to the Court of
Criminal Appeal, Mr. Justice Darling observed, in the judg¬
ment of the Court, referring to those who criticised Lord
Coke, ‘ If Lord Coke were in a position to answer them it
may be they would regret that they had entered into argu¬
ment with him; but although Stephen and others have
perhaps flouted the authority of Lord Coke, he has been
recognised as a great authority in these Courts for centuries,
1 But latterly Coke’s law has been severely criticised by Sir James
Stephen, Sir William Holdsworth, and others.
2 The real point was this : the treason of ‘ conspiring and imagining ’
was not triable at common law before 26 Henry VIII, because of the
doctrine of venue, but the definition of this head of treason is not re¬
stricted by any technical words as to ‘ within the realm, whereas the
treason of adhering is so restricted. And the territorial restriction of
adhering was in all probability deliberately inserted by the barons in
x 251} who were largely responsible for the statute, because many of
them owed a double allegiance, to the King of England in respect of
their lands in the realm, and to the King of France in respect of their
lands in France. But Serjeant Sullivan, owing to his poor state of
health, failed to bring this point out clearly.
296 ROGER CASEMENT

and nowhere more than perhaps in the passage I am now

about to read, which I owe to my brother Atkin, in the case
of Garland v. Jekyll, reported in 2 Bingham’s Reports, page
296, in the year 1824—“I know it has been said that Lord
Coke in this case must be mistaken, for in the margin is a
reference to Lord Coke’s Reports, and upon referring to the
page you find nothing to warrant his opinion. I have looked
into the report, and the observation is correct; but it will
be found that the same observation will apply to cases that
are relied on on the other side; it appears to me that the
reference was not made by Lord Coke, but that it has been
introduced by some ignorant editor, who fancied something
confirmatory of the opinion in Coke. The fact is, Lord Coke
had no authority for what he states, but I am afraid we
should get rid of a good deal of what is considered law in
Westminster Hall if what Lord Coke says, without authority,
is not law. He was one of the most eminent lawyers that
ever presided as a judge in any court of justice, and what is
said by such a person is good evidence of what the law is,
particularly when it is in conformity with justice and common
sense.” Those are the words of Chief Justice Best.’ 1
Serjeant Sullivan dealt in a similar way with Hale and
Hawkins. That left him free to argue that the only decision
upon the statute was that of Rex v. Lynch, decided in 1903,
and he strenuously argued that this case was wrongly decided.
It should be remembered that in 1903 there was no Court of
Criminal Appeal, which only came into existence in 1907.
This, in rough outline, is the argument advanced by Serjeant
Sullivan on the motion to quash the indictment.2
On the third day of the trial, because Serjeant Sullivan
was too ill to conclude his observations, Mr. Morgan rose
to elaborate one or two points which Serjeant Sullivan had
barely touched upon. The Lord Chief Justice said, ‘There

1 Trial of Roger Casement, p. 285.

2 If the reader is sufficiently interested in this matter to wish to read
the judgments in full he will find the case of Rex v. Casement reported
in [1917] 1 K.B. 98.
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING*S BENCH 297

is a difficulty about this; by the statute there are two

counsel assigned; if it is merely to call attention to that part
of the argument which had already been dealt with by you,
merely to the case in 2 Dyer, we will hear you, Mr. Morgan,
as amicus curiae in the matter.’ 1 In this way Mr. Morgan
was allowed to address the Court. He was followed by the
Attorney-General, on behalf of the Crown, and Mr. Artemus
Jones replied. Separate judgments were delivered by all
three judges forming the Court, and the effect of their judg¬
ments was to reject Serjeant Sullivan’s argument, and to
hold that the offence of adhering to the King’s enemies
without the realm was a treason triable in the King’s Courts.
This meant that the only real defence upon which Casement
relied was of no avail. After Mr. Justice Horridge had de¬
livered his very short judgment, the trial proceeded towards
what was now its inevitable end. Sir Roger Casement then
made a statement, and it was obvious both from his voice
and his manner that he was suffering from nervous tension.
As he did not make this statement on oath, he was not cross-
examined upon it, and in view of this the jury were warned as
to the nature of the statement. This statement is of sufficient
interest to merit its being reproduced in full. It is as follows:
£My Lords and gentlemen of the jury, I desire to say a few
words only with reference to some of the statements made by
the prosecution. As to my pension and the honour of
knighthood conferred upon me I will say one word^ only.
The pension I had earned by services rendered, and it was
assigned by law. The knighthood it was not in my power to
refuse.
‘But, gentlemen, there are especially four misstatements
given in the evidence against me which I wish to refute.
First, I never at any time advised Irishmen to fight with
Turks against Russians, nor to fight with Germans on the
Western Front. Secondly, I never asked an Irishman to
fiadit for Germany. I have always claimed that he has no
right to fight for any land but Ireland. Thirdly, the horrible
insinuation that I got my own people s rations reduce to
1 Trial of Roger Casement, p. 93.
298 ROGER CASEMENT

starvation point because they did not join the Irish Brigade
is an abominable falsehood. The rations were necessarily
reduced throughout Germany owing to the blockade, and
they were reduced for Irish prisoners at exactly the same
time and to the same extent as for the German soldiers and
the entire population of Germany. The other suggestion
that men were sent to punishment camps at my instance for
not joining the Irish Brigade is one that I need hardly pause
to refute. It is devoid of all foundation. Fourthly, there is a
widespread imputation of German gold. I owe it to those in
Ireland who are assailed with me on this very ground to nail
the lie once and for all. It was published by newspapers in
America, and originally, I think, in this country; and I
cabled to America and instructed my American lawyer, Mr.
Counsellor Doyle, to proceed against those newspapers for
libel. Those who know me know the incredibility of this
malicious invention, for they know from all my past record
that I have never sold myself to any man or to any Govern¬
ment, and I have never allowed any Government to use me.
From the first moment I landed on the Continent until I
came home again to Ireland I never asked for nor accepted
a single penny of foreign money, neither for myself nor for
any Irish cause nor for any purpose whatsoever, but only
the money of Irishmen. I refute so obvious a slander,
because it was so often made until I came back. Money was
offered to me in Germany more than once, and offered
liberally and unconditionally, but I rejected every sugges¬
tion of the kind, and I left Germany a poorer man than I
entered it. Money I could always obtain from my own
countrymen, and I am not ashamed here to acknowledge
the debt of gratitude I owe to many Irish friends and
sympathisers who did freely and gladly help me when I was
on the Continent; and I take the opportunity here of
stating how deeply I have been touched by the generosity
and loyalty of those English friends of mine who have given
me proof of their abiding friendship during these last dark
weeks of strain and trial.
‘ I trust, gentlemen of the jury, I have made that state¬
ment clearly and emphatically enough for all men, even my
most bitter enemies, to comprehend that a man who, in the
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING’S BENCH 299
newspapers is said to be just another Irish traitor, may be a
gentleman.
‘There is another matter I wish to touch upon. The
Attorney-General of England thought it consistent with
tradition of which he is the public representative to make a
veiled allusion in his opening address to the rising in Ireland,
of which he has brought forward no evidence in this case
from first to last, and to which, therefore, you and I, gentle¬
men, as laymen, would have supposed that he would have
scrupulously refrained from referring to. Since the rising
has been mentioned, however, I must state categorically
that the rebellion was not made in Germany, and that not
one penny of German gold went to finance it.
‘ Gentlemen of the jury, I have touched on these personal
matters alone because, intended as they were to reflect on
my honour, they were calculated to tarnish the cause that
I hold dear. That is all, my lords.’1
At the conclusion of this short and dignified speech,
Serjeant Sullivan rose to make his final speech on behalf of
the prisoner. He outlined the charges against Casement and
took the jury through the evidence, commenting adversely
upon the evidence of John Neill, and asking the jury not to
believe it. He showed that Neill’s evidence was the only
evidence which mentioned that the Irish Brigade was to
fight for anyone but the Irish. He emphasised that the Irish
Brigade was recruited, not to fight for Germany, but merely
to secure Home Rule in Ireland. And he did this out of
the mouths of the Crown witnesses, for, with the exception of
Neill, every one of them had stated that Casement had said that
the Brigade was to be used only in Ireland. He passed from
the evidence to give an explanation of Casement s actions,
1 op. cit., p. 133. With regard to the suggestion that Casement
received money from Germany: Towards the end of Casement s stay
in Germany Count von Wedel discovered that Casement, owing to
his financial position, was in want. As Casement absolutely refuse
to receive a penny of German money, von Wedel organised a private
subscription among his friends, and persuaded Casement to allow him
to pay the money into the bank, to be drawn upon when necessary.
When Casement left Germany, the money subscribed, some £200,
>vas returned intact, never having been used.
300 ROGER CASEMENT

and he asked the jury to understand Ireland’s position within

the Empire. ‘I think the Attorney-General,’ he said, ‘spoke
of Sir Roger Casement’s services to England. Sir Roger
Casement was not in the service of England; he was in the
service of His Majesty in respect of the whole Empire of
His Majesty’s Dominion. In Ireland you have not only a
separate people, you have a separate country. An Irish¬
man’s loyalty is loyalty to Ireland, and it would be a very
sorry day for the Empire when loyalty to one’s own native
land should be deemed to be treason in a sister country.
There is no English authority in Ireland, however improperly
for the sake of political factions the name of your country may
be invoked. No English official exercises the smallest auth¬
ority when he crosses the Channel. Those who hold high
offices here have no position or no official position in Ireland.
His Majesty, under the Act of Union, in fact, exercises the
right preserved by the articles of the Treaty, and he appoints
his Irish officers under the great seal of Ireland. No person
has any constitutional right in Ireland to seek to bully or
dictate to any Irishman in the name of any other section of
His Majesty’s United Kingdom. We are your fellow-citizens,
but by no means your inferiors or your slaves. You respect
our rights in Ireland as we should respect yours, but when you
step inside that part of His Majesty’s Kingdom, His Majesty
rules there not by any title of King of your land, but in respect
of his title as King and ruler of the United Kingdom.’1
He went on to speak of the political situation in Ireland,
of the arming and counterarming, of the gun-running and
all the rest that went to make up Ireland’s unhappy lot.
4 What are you to do when, after years of labour, your repre¬
sentatives may have won something that you yearn for, for
many a long day, won it under the constitution, had it
guaranteed by the King and the Commons, and you are
informed that you should not possess it because those that
disliked it were arming to resist the King and Commons and
to blow the statute off the book with powder? The civil
1 op. cit., p. 150.
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING’S BENCH 301

police could not protect you, and the military force would
perhaps prove inadequate for your support. You may lie
down under it, but if you are men, to arms; when all else
fails, defend yourself. If the civil government will not protect
you, if the constabulary cannot secure your rights, if you
cannot rely upon brigades, the ultimate resort for any man
in the protection of his constitutional freedom is to stand
with arms in his hands, and if a civil government can be
terrorised into obtaining his rights, try if his attitude will not
inspire them with sufficient respect to do what is right with¬
out fear, favour, or affection.’ 1 This part of his speech so
carried him away that he was making statements for which
there was not a shred of evidence, and he was eventually
stopped by the Lord Chief Justice. He had not long resumed
his speech when it became apparent that he was suffering
from extreme nervous exhaustion. Pauses of increasing dura¬
tion punctuated his speech and at length, looking towards
the Bench, he said brokenly, ‘ I regret, my lord, that I have
completely broken down.’ At once the Court adjourned.
When the Court sat the next day, Serjeant Sullivan was
not well enough to continue his speech, and Mr. Artemus
Jones concluded the speech for the prisoner. Then the
Attorney-General rose to make the closing speech for the
Crown. Cool and quite unimpassioned, he delivered his
speech with a deadly intensity. The first part of his speech
was occupied with quoting from and commenting upon the
speech of Serjeant Sullivan. Then he dealt with the evid¬
ence. With regard to Neill’s evidence he said, I do not ask
you to place any reliance at all upon the isolated and un¬
supported evidence of Neill as to these observations about
the Russians and Turks.’ 2 He laid particular stress upon
the code, which, as the Attorney-General pointed out, was a
very damning piece of evidence. His entire speech never
went beyond a description and commentary of the salient
points of the evidence; he did not deal with the political
situation in Ireland as Serjeant Sullivan did.
1 op. cit., p. 151. 2 °P- cit-5 I?2r
302 ROGER CASEMENT

The Lord Chief Justice summed up on the afternoon of the

fourth day of the trial, the 29th June. While the jury were
deliberating their verdict Casement had been visited outside
the Court by his American lawyer, Mr. Doyle, and when he
returned to the dock he looked round with a smile. He held
out his hand in gratitude to his solicitor who was standing
near, and nodded to some of his friends. Like everyone else,
Casement had anticipated the result, yet he remained calm and
dignified. When the jury returned after an absence of nearly
an hour, in answer to the question of the King’s Coroner,
they returned a verdict of guilty of high treason. Upon
being asked what he had to say why sentence should not be
passed upon him, Casement made a long speech. He said:
‘My Lord Chief Justice, as I wish to reach a much wider
audience than I see before me here, I intended to read all
that I propose to say. What I shall read now is something
I wrote more than twenty days ago. I may say, my lord, at
once, that I protest against the jurisdiction of this Court in
my case on this charge, and the argument that I am now
going to read is addressed not to this Court, but to my own
countrymen.
‘There is an objection, possibly not good in law, but
surely good on moral grounds, against the application to
me here of this old English statute, 565 years old, that seeks
to deprive an Irishman to-day of life and honour, not for
“adhering to the King’s enemies” but for adhering to his
own people.
‘When this statute was passed, in 1351, what was the
state of men’s minds on the question of a far higher allegiance
—that of man to God and His Kingdom? The law of that
day did not permit a man to forsake his Church or deny his
God save with his life. The “heretic” then had the same
doom as the “traitor.”
‘To-day a man may forswear God and His heavenly
kingdom without fear or penalty, all earlier statutes having
gone the way of Nero’s Edicts against the Christians, but that
Constitutional phantom, “The King,” can still dig up from
the dungeons and torture chambers of the Dark Ages a law
that takes a man’s life and limb for an exercise of conscience.
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING’S BENCH 303
‘If true religion rests on love, it is equally true that
loyalty rests on love. The law I am charged under has no
parentage in love and claims the allegiance of to-day on the
ignorance and blindness of the past.
‘ I am tried, in truth, not by my peers of the live present-,7
but the peers of the dead past; nor by the civilisation of the
twentieth century, but by the brutality of the fourteenth; not
even by a statute framed in the language of an enemy land
—so antiquated is the law that must be sought to-day to slay
an Irishman, whose offence is that he puts Ireland first.
‘Loyalty is a sentiment, not a law. It rests on love, not
on restraint. The Government of Ireland by England rests
on restraint and not on law; since it demands no love it can
evoke no loyalty.
‘ But this statute is more absurd even than it is antiquated;
and if it is potent to hang one Irishman, it is still more
potent to gibbet all Englishmen.
‘Edward III was King not only of the realm of England,
but also of the realm of France, and he was not King of
Ireland. Yet his dead hand to-day may pull the noose
around the Irishman’s neck whose Sovereign he was not,
but it can strain no strand around the Frenchman’s throat
whose Sovereign he was. For centuries the successors of
Edward III claimed to be Kings of France, and quartered
the arms of France on their royal shield down to the Union
with Ireland on 1st January, 1801. Throughout these
hundreds of years these “Kings of France” were con¬
stantly at war with their realm of France and their French
subjects, who should have gone from birth to death with an
obvious fear of treason before their eyes. But did they? Did
the “Kings of France” resident here at Windsor or in the
Tower of London, hang, draw and quarter every Frenchman
for 400 years who fell into their hands with arms in his
hand? On the contrary, they received embassies of these
traitors, presents from these traitors, even knighthood itself
at the hands of these traitors, feasted with them, tilted with
them, fought with them—but did not assassinate them by
law. Judicial assassination to-day is reserved only for one
race of the King’s subjects, for Irishmen; for those who
cannot forget their allegiance to the realm of Ireland.
304 ROGER CASEMENT

‘The Kings of England as such had no rights in Ireland

up to the time of Henry VIII, save such as rested on compact
and mutual obligation entered between them and certain
princes, chiefs, and lords of Ireland. This form of legal
right, such as it was, gave no King of England lawful power
to impeach an Irishman for high treason under this statute
of King Edward III of England until an Irish Act, known as
Poyning’s Law, the ioth of Henry VII, was passed in 1494 at
Drogheda, by the Parliament of the Pale in Ireland, and
enacted as law in that part of Ireland. But if by Poyning’s
Law an Irishman of the Pale could be indicted for high
treason under this Act, he could be indicted only in one way
and before one tribunal—by the laws of the realm of Ireland
and in Ireland. The very law of Poyning’s, which, I believe,
applied this statute of Edward III to Ireland, enacted also
for the Irishman’s defence, “All those laws by which
England claims her liberty.” And what is the fundamental
charter of an Englishman’s liberty? That he shall be tried
by his peers. With all respect I assert this Court is to me, an
Irishman, not a jury of my peers to try me in this vital issue,
for it is patent to every man of conscience that I have a right,
an indefeasible right, if tried at all, under this statute of high
treason, to be tried in Ireland, before an Irish Court and by
an Irish jury. This Court, this jury, the public opinion of
this country, England, cannot but be prejudiced in varying
degree against me, most of all in time of war. I did not land
in England; I landed in Ireland. It was to Ireland I
came; to Ireland I wanted to come; and the last place I
desired to land in was England. But for the Attorney-
General of England there is only “England”—there is no
Ireland, there is only the law of England—no right of
Ireland; the liberty of Ireland and of Irishmen is to be
judged by the power of England. Yet for me, the Irish
outlaw, there is a land of Ireland, a right of Ireland, and a
charter for all Irishmen to appeal to, in the last resort, a
charter that even the very statutes of England itself cannot
deprive us of—nay, more, a charter that Englishmen them¬
selves assert as the fundamental bond of law that connects
the two kingdoms. This charge of high treason involves a
moral responsibility, as the very terms of the indictment
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING’S BENCH 305

against myself recite, inasmuch as I committed the acts I

am charged with, to the “evil example of others in the like
case.” What was this “evil example” I set to others in
“the like case,” and who were these others? The “evil
example ” charged is that I asserted the rights of my own
country, and the “ others ” I appealed to to aid my endeavour
were my own countrymen. The example was given not to
Englishmen, but to Irishmen, and the “like case ” can never
arise in England, but only in Ireland. To Englishmen I set
no evil example, for I made no appeal to them. I asked no
Englishman to help me. I asked Irishmen to fight for their
rights. The ‘ ‘ evil example ” was only to other Irishmen who
might come after me, and “in like case ” seek to do as I did.
How, then, since neither my example nor my appeal was
addressed to Englishmen, can I be rightfully tried by them?
‘If I did wrong in making that appeal to Irishmen to join
with me in an effort to fight for Ireland, it is by Irishmen,
and by them alone, I can be rightfully judged. From this
Court and its jurisdiction I appeal to those I am alleged to
have wronged, and to those I am alleged to have injured by
my “evil example,” and claim that they alone are competent
to decide my guilt or my innocence. If they find me guilty,
the statute may affix the penalty, but the statute does not
override or annul my right to seek judgment at their hands.
‘This is so fundamental a right, so natural a right, so
obvious a right, that it is clear the Crown were aware of it
when they brought me by force and by stealth from Ireland
to this country. It was not I who landed in England, but the
Crown who dragged me here, away from my own country
to which I had turned with a price upon my head, away
from my own countrymen whose loyalty is not in doubt, and
safe from the judgment of my peers whose judgment I do not
shrink from. I admit no other judgment but theirs. I accept
no verdict save at their hands. I assert from this dock that
I am being tried here, not because it is just, but because it
is unjust. Place me before a jury of my own countrymen,
be it Protestant or Catholic, Unionist or Nationalist, Sinn
Feineach or Orangemen, and I shall accept the verdict and
bow to the statute and all its penalties. But I shall accept
no meaner finding against me than that of those whose loyalty
20
306 ROGER CASEMENT

I endanger by my example and to whom alone I made ap¬

peal. If they adjudge me guilty, then guilty I am. It is not I
who am afraid of their verdict; it is the Crown. If this be not
so, why fear the test? I fear it not. I demand it as my right.
‘That, my lord, is the condemnation of English rule, of
English-made law, of English Government in Ireland, that
it dare not rest on the will of the Irish people, but it exists in
defiance of their will—that it is a rule derived not from
right, but from conquest. Conquest, my lord, gives no title,
and if it exists over the body, it fails over the mind. It can
exert no empire over men’s reason and judgment and
affections; and it is from this law of conquest without title
to the reason, judgment, and affection of my own country¬
men that I appeal.
‘My lord, I beg to say a few more words. As I say, that
was my opinion arrived at many days ago while I was a
prisoner. I have no hesitation in re-affirming it here, and I
hope that the gentlemen of the Press who did not hear me
yesterday may have heard me distinctly to-day. I wish my
words to go much beyond this Court.
‘I would add that the generous expressions of sympathy
extended me from many quarters, particularly from America,
have touched me very much. In that country, as in my own,
I am suie my motives are understood and not misjudged—
for the achievement of their liberties has been an abiding
inspiration to Irishmen and to all men elsewhere rightly
struggling to be free in like cause.
‘My Lord Chief Justice, if I may continue, I am not
called upon, I conceive, to say anything in answer to the
enquiry your lordship has addressed to me why sentence
should not be passed upon me. Since I do not admit any
verdict in this Court, I cannot, my lord, admit the fitness of
the sentence that of necessity must follow it from this Court.
I hope I shall be acquitted of presumption if I say that Court
I see before me now is not this High Court of Justice of
England, but a far greater, a far higher, a far older
assemblage of justices—that of the people of Ireland. Since
in the acts which have led to this trial it was the people of
Ireland I sought to serve—and them alone—I leave my
judgment and my sentence in their hands.
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING’S BENCH 307

c Let me pass from myself and my own fate to a far more

pressing, as it is a far more urgent theme—not the fate of
the individual Irishman who may have tried and failed, but
the claims and fate of the country that has not fane .
Ireland has outlived the failure of all her hopes—and yet
she still hopes. Ireland has seen her sons—aye, and her
daughters too—suffer from generation to generation always
for the same cause, meeting always the same fate, an
always at the hands of the same power; and always a fresh
generation has passed on to withstand the same oppression.
For if English authority be omnipotent—a power, as Mr.
Gladstone phrased it, that reaches to the very ends of the
earth—Irish hope exceeds the dimensions of that power,
excels its authority, and renews with each generation t e
claims of the last. The cause that begets this indomitable
persistency, the faculty of preserving through centuries of
Misery the remembrance of lost liberty, this surely is the
“Et cause men ever strove for, ever lived for ever died
for If this be the case I stand here to-day indicted for, and
convicted of sustaining, then I stand in a goodly company
and a right noble succession.
■My counsel has referred to the Ulster Volunteer move¬
ment, and I will not touch at length upon“rf‘the

Irish VoUmtcssrs who wire founded hnDublin in November,

-"if
of the men of the north of Ir^“d-yEtte'rs, even while

Ireland. We aimed at uniting all ir ,f_rp„n„ct Our

national bond ofcoheslon ^Seif ^^ourselves, not hard to
acTompUshnaif external influences of disintegration would
308 ROGER CASEMENT

but leave us alone, we were sure that Nature itself must

bring us together. It was not we, the Irish Volunteers, who
broke the law, but a British party. The Government had
permitted the Ulster Volunteers to be armed by Englishmen,
to threaten not merely an English party in its hold on office,
but to threaten that party through the lives and blood of
Irishmen. The battle was to be fought in Ireland in order
that the political “outs” of to-day should be the “ins” of
to-morrow in Great Britain. A law designed for the benefit
of Ireland was to be met, not on the floor of Parliament,
where the fight had indeed been won, but on the field of
battle much nearer home, where the armies would be
composed of Irishmen slaying each other for some English
party gain; and the British Navy would be the chartered
transports” that were to bring to our shores a numerous
assemblage of military and ex-military experts in the
congenial and profitable business of holding down subject
populations abroad. Our choice lay in submitting to foreign
lawlessness or resisting it, and we did not hesitate to choose.
But while the law-breakers had armed their would-be agents
openly, and had been permitted to arm them openly, we
were met within a few days of the founding of our movement,
that aimed at united Ireland from within, by Government
action from without direct against our obtaining any arms
at all. The manifesto of the Irish Volunteers, promulgated
at a public meeting in Dublin on 25th November, 1913,
stated with sincerity the aims of the organisation as I have
outlined them. If the aims contained in that manifesto were
a threat to the unity of the British Empire, then so much the
worse for the Empire. An Empire that can only be held
together by one section of its governing population per¬
petually holding down and sowing dissension among a
smaller but none the less governing section, must have some
canker at its heart, some ruin at its root. The Government
that permitted the arming of those whose leaders declared
that Irish national.unity was a thing that should be opposed
by force of arms, within nine days of the issue of our manifesto
of goodwill to Irishmen of every creed and class, took steps
to nullify our efforts by prohibiting the import of all arms
into Ireland as if it had been a hostile and blockaded coast
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING’S BENCH 309

And this proclamation of the 4th December, 1913, known as

the Arms Proclamation, was itself based on an illegal inter¬
pretation of the law, as the Chief Secretary has now publicly
confessed. The proclamation was met by the loyalists of
Great Britain with an act of still more lawless defiance—an
act of widespread gun-running into Ulster that was de¬
nounced by the Lord Chancellor of England as “grossly
illegal and utterly unconstitutional.” How did the Irish
Volunteers meet the incitements of civil war that were
uttered by the party of law and order in England when they
saw the prospect of deriving political profit to themselves
from bloodshed among Irishmen?
‘I can answer for my own acts and speeches. While one
English party was responsible for preaching a doctrine of
hatred designed to bring about civil war in Ireland, the
other, and that the party in power, took no active steps to
restrain a propaganda that found its advocates in the Army,
Navy, and Privy Council—in the Houses of Parliament and
in the State Church—a propaganda the methods of whose
expression were so “grossly illegal and utterly unconstitu¬
tional” that even the Lord Chancellor of England could
find only words and no repressive action to apply to them.
Since lawlessness sat in high places in England and laughed
at the law as at the custodians of the law, what wonder was
it that Irishmen should refuse to accept the verbal pro¬
testations of an English Lord Chancellor as a sufficient safe¬
guard for their lives and their liberties ? I know not how all
my colleagues on the Volunteer Committee in Dublin
reviewed the growing menace, but those with whom I was
in closest co-operation redoubled, in face of these threats
from without, our efforts to unite all Irishmen from within.
Our appeals were made to Protestant and Unionist as much
almost as to Catholic and Nationalist Irishmen. We hoped
that by the exhibition of affection and goodwill on our part
towards our political opponents in Ireland we should yet
succeed in winning them from the side of an English party
whose sole interest in our country lay in its oppression in the
past, and in the present in its degradation to the mean and
narrow needs of their political animosities. It is true that
they based their actions, so they averred, on “fears for the
 ROGER CASEMENT
310
Empire,” and on a very diffuse loyalty that took in all the
peoples of the Empire, save only the Irish. That blessed
word “Empire” that bears so paradoxical a resemblance to
charity! For if charity begins at home, ‘ ‘ Empire ” begins in
other men’s homes, and both may cover a multitude of sins.
I for one was determined that Ireland was much more to me
than “Empire,” and that if charity begins at home so must
loyalty. Since arms were so necessary to make our organisa¬
tion a reality, and to give to the minds of Irishmen menaced
with the most outrageous threats a sense of security, it was
our bounden duty to get arms before all else. I decided with
this end in view to go to America, with surely a better right
to appeal to Irishmen there for help in an hour of great
national trial than those envoys of “Empire” could assert
for their week-end descents upon Ireland, or their appeals
to Germany. If, as the right honourable gentleman, the
present Attorney-General, asserted in a speech at Man¬
chester, Nationalists would neither fight for Home Rule nor
pay for it, it was our duty to show him that we knew how
to do both. Within a few weeks of my arrival in the States
the fund that had been opened to secure arms for the Volun¬
teers in Ireland amounted to many thousands of pounds. In
every case the money subscribed, whether it came from the
purse of the wealthy man or the still readier pocket of the
poor man, was Irish gold.
‘Then came the war. As Mr. Birrell said in his evidence
recently laid before the Commission of Inquiry into the
causes of the late rebellion in Ireland, “the war upset all
our calculations.” It upset mine no less than Mr. Birrell’s,
and put an end to my mission of peaceful effort in America.
War between Great Britain and Germany meant, as I
believed, ruin for all the hopes we had founded on the enrol¬
ment of the Irish Volunteers. A constitutional movement
in Ireland is never very far from a breach of the constitution,
as the Loyalists of Ulster had been so eager to show us. The
cause is not far to seek. A constitution to be maintained
intact must be the achievement and the pride of the people
themselves; must rest on their own free will and on their
own determination to sustain it, instead of being something
resident in another land whose chief representative is an
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING’S BENCH 311

armed force—armed not to protect the population, but to

hold it down. We had seen the working of the Irish con¬
stitution in the refusal of the army of occupation at the
Curragh to obey the orders of the Crown. And now that we
were told the first duty of an Irishman was to enter that
army, in return for a promissory note, payable after death—
a scrap of paper that might or might not be redeemed, I
felt over there in America that my first duty was to keep
Irishmen at home in the only army that could safeguard our
national existence. If small nationalities were to be the
pawns in this game of embattled giants, I saw no reason why
Ireland should shed her blood in any cause but her own, and
if that be treason beyond the seas I am not ashamed to avow
it or to answer for it here with my life. And when we had
the doctrine of Unionist loyalty at last—“Mausers and
Kaisers and any King you like,” and I have heard that at
Hamburg, not far from Limburg on the Lahn—I felt I need
no other warrant than that these words conveyed—to go
forth and do likewise. The difference between us was that
the Unionist champions chose a path they felt would lead to
the woolsack; while I went a road I knew must lead to the
dock. And the event proves we were both right. The
difference between us was that my “treason ” was based on a
ruthless sincerity that forced me to attempt in time and
season to carry out in action what I said in word—whereas
their treason lay in verbal incitements that they knew need
never be made good in their bodies. And so, I am prouder
to stand here to-day in the traitor’s dock to answer this im¬
peachment than to fill the place of my right honourable
accusers.
‘ We have been told, we have been asked to hope, that
after this war Ireland will get Home Rule, as a reward for
the life blood shed in a cause which whoever else its success
may benefit can surely not benefit Ireland. And what will
Home Rule be in return for what its vague promise has taken
and still hopes to take away from Ireland ? It is not necessary
to tread the painful stairs of Irish history—that treadmill of a
nation whose labours are as vain for her own uplifting as the
convict’s exertions are for his redemption—to review the long
list of British promises made only to be broken of Irish
 ROGER CASEMENT
312
hopes raised only to be dashed to the ground. Home Rule
when it comes, if come it does, will find an Ireland drained
of all that is vital to its very existence—unless it be that un¬
quenchable hope we build on the graves of the dead. We
are told that if Irishmen go by the thousand to die, not for
Ireland, but for Flanders, for Belgium, for a patch of sand on
the deserts of Mesopotamia, or a rocky trench on the heights
of Gallipoli, they are winning self-government for Ireland.
But if they dare to lay down their lives on their native soil, if
they dare to dream even that freedom can be won only at
home by men resolved to fight for it there, then they are
traitors to their country, and their dream and their deaths
alike are phases of a dishonourable phantasy. But history is
not so recorded in other lands. In Ireland alone in this
twentieth century is loyalty held to be a crime. If loyalty be
something less than love and more than law, then we have
had enough of such loyalty for Ireland or Irishmen. If we
are to be indicted as criminals, to be shot as murderers, to
be imprisoned as convicts because our offence is that we love
Ireland more than we value our lives, then I know not what
virtue resides in any offer of self-government held out to
brave men on such terms. Self-government is our right, a
thing born in us at birth; a thing no more to be doled out to
us or withheld from us by another people than the right to
life itself—than the right to feel the sun or smell the flowers,
or to love our kind. It is only from the convict these things
are withheld for crime committed and proven—and Ireland
that has wronged no man, that has injured no land, that has
sought no dominion over others—Ireland is treated to-day
among the nations of the world as if she was a convicted
criminal. If it be treason to fight against such an un¬
natural fate as this, then I am proud to be a rebel, and shall
cling to my “rebellion” with the last drop of my blood. If
there be no right of rebellion against a state of things that no
savage tribe would endure without resistance, then I am sure
that it is better for men to fight and die without right than to
live in such a state of right as this. Where all your rights
become only an accumulated wrong; where men must beg
with bated breath for leave to subsist in their own land, to
think their own thoughts, to sing their own songs, to garner
 THE TRIAL IN THE KING’S BENCH 313

the fruits of their own labours—and even while they beg, to

see things inexorably withdrawn from them—then surely it
is braver, a saner and a truer thing, to be a rebel in act and
deed against such circumstances as these than tamely to
accept it as the natural lot of men.
‘My lord, I have done. Gentlemen of the jury, I wish to
thank you for your verdict. I hope you will not take amiss
what I said, or think that I made any imputation upon your
truthfulness or your integrity when I spoke and said that this
was not a trial by my peers. I maintain that I have a
natural right to be tried in that natural jurisdiction,
Ireland, my own country, and I would put it to you, how
would you feel in the converse case, or rather how would all
men here feel in the converse case, if an Englishman had
landed here in England and the Crown or the Government,
for its own purposes, had conveyed him secretly from
England to Ireland under a false name, committed him to
prison under a false name, and brought him before a tribunal
in Ireland under a statute which they knew involved a trial
before an Irish jury? How would you feel yourselves as
Englishmen if that man was to be submitted to trial by jury
in a land inflamed against him and believing him to be a
criminal, when his only crime was that he had cared for
England more than for Ireland? ’1

And then the Lord Chief Justice passed sentence of death.

Sir Roger Casement turned and left the dock with a smile
upon his face. The Manchester Guardian 2 described the scene
thus: ‘Sir Roger Casement heard these words and smiled
wanly, looking down, one thought, as if to reassure his
friends who were near the dock. Then erect and quite
self-possessed he turned and disappeared behind the green
curtain. He had kept his dignity, his almost incredible
detachment, to the last.5 3

1 op. cit., pp. 197 et seqq.

2 Manchester Guardian, June 30, 1916.
3 Bailey was then placed in the dock, but no evidence against him
was offered, and the jury, at the direction of the Lord Chief Justice,
returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
 CHAPTER XVII

APPEAL AND EXECUTION

The day after he had been found guilty Casement was

degraded from his knighthood and deprived of his honours.1
On the evening of June 30th the following announcements
were made:

‘Home Office,
‘Whitehall, S.W.
‘June 30, 1916.

‘ The King has been pleased to direct the issue of Letters

Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom de¬
grading Sir Roger Casement, C.M.G., from the degree of
Knight Bachelor.’

‘ Chancery of the Order of St. Michael and St. George.

‘Downing Street.
‘June 30, 1916.

‘The King has been pleased to direct that Sir Roger

Casement, Knight, shall cease to be a Member of the Most
Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, of
which Order he was appointed a Companion in 1905, and
that his name shall be erased from the Register of the Order.’

Thereafter Casement was detained in Pentonville Prison,

pending the hearing of his appeal. While there he saw his

1 The degradation of a knight is extremely rare. There are only

three analogous instances known to the authorities, and these are: Sir
Andrew Horsley, Earl of Carlisle, a.d. 1322; Sir Ralph Grey, a.d. 1468;
and Sir Frances Michell or Mitchell, a.d. 1621. In mediaeval days
degradation was an act of considerable ceremony. The features of this
degradation seen! to have been, the degradation after verdict but before
punishment, and the ceremonial removal of the emblems and insignia
of knighthood. See Selden, Titles of Honour, Part 2, Chap. V., cap.
xxxviii.
314
 APPEAL AND EXECUTION 315

friends and wrote numerous letters, many of which are still

in existence. A good deal of his time was occupied in
religious speculation and the careful examination of the
dogmas and beliefs of the Catholic Church. During the
whole of this time he seems to have been possessed of a calm¬
ness and serenity that was truly remarkable, while his air
of detachment from those events which were of supreme
importance to him, remained.
While the appeal was pending there began to appear
rumours which have persisted to the present day. These
rumours took the form of imputations against Casement’s
moral character, although for a long time they were never
openly made. They made their way through the smoking-
rooms of clubs into ordinary conversation, and have latterly
found their way into print.
' The story that was put about was that Casement for many
years led a life of gross moral perversion, and it was said that
there was in existence a diary, in the possession of Scotland
Yard, which was nothing more than a record of indecencies
committed in London, Paris and Putumayo. Eventually
there appeared photographic copies of pages of this diary
which emanated, unofficially, from Scotland Yard. Those
of Casement’s friends who saw these reproductions had no
doubt but that the diary was in Casement’s handwriting.
These photographic copies had a considerable circulation
and even found their way to America. This propaganda to
blacken Casement’s moral character had considerable effect
and alienated a large amount of sympathy from him.
It appears to be fairly clear that this document existed at
one time, and it may be presumed that it still exists. But the
nature of the document remains a mystery. It is possible
that it formed part of the evidence which Casement collected
during his enquiry on the Putumayo, and was carefully
copied by Casement, but never published owing to its
indecent character. At the time of the Putumayo investiga¬
tion, Casement mentioned to several friends, who are still
living, that among the documents he was sending to the
3l6
ROGER CASEMENT

Foreign Office, together with his report, was an indecent

diary.1
This document, which was of a very indecent character,
was the diary of one of the worst of the Putumayo criminals,
and was written in Spanish. Casement translated it and
sent it to the Foreign Office, together with the other evidence.
A great part of this evidence, because of its indecent nature,
was never published. It is possible that this indecent diary
was the one which was said to be a record of Casement’s own
experiences. It may be that a rough copy was seized by
Scotland Yard officers in their London raid. It may be
added that several people were shown this diary, but that
not one of these had ever known Casement at all well.
Some years afterwards the papers which Casement had sent
to the Foreign Office were returned to one of his relatives,
but the indecent diary was missing from these.
From prison Casement wrote to his friend, Richard
Morten, the following letter:

‘No. 1270. R. D. Casement.

‘Pentonville Prison.
‘8 July, 1916.
‘My dear old D.,

‘ I have often thought of you and am glad that you did not
come to the trial. It was a “trial ” in more senses than one.
“J- M. ” did very well, and I thought of you and in¬
numerable lunches at S . . . and J-M. at some of them.
I saw the letter you wrote me when I was in the other place
—it was read to me—and I was very much touched at it, and
at the message J-M. gave me at the High Courts. There
isn’t much use writing, my dear old D., to anyone in the
situation I am in, because I can’t say what I want to say, and
so to write at all is more or less useless. If I had seen more of
you that day you came I might have convinced you of more

1 The present writer wrote to the Home Secretary to ask whether

the document which was said to be Casement’s diary was still in
existence and, if so, what was its nature. He also applied for permission
to see it. The Home Office, however, replied that they were ‘ unable
to supply you with any information on the matter to which you refer.’
 APPEAL AND EXECUTION 317

than perhaps I did. If we were in peace time things would

be very different—and it was not I that broke the peace or
wanted it broken either. Since I came here I have done
nothing but sleep. I sleep day and night, to make up for
much lost time in that direction! I did not think I could
sleep so much as I have got through in the last week.
‘You see there is nothing to say. I can't tell you what I
want to—and all else seems and is so petty and childish to
talk about. To tell you I am in a cell and eat and sleep—
that is all and read books and say prayers, in which I some¬
times pray for you—that is my daily round. I wonder how
the prisoner of Chillon got on for 16 years—poor soul, on his
chain. To-day chains are not laid on our bodies, and the
physical lot of a prisoner is easier, but the mental death must
be the same. Indeed, in some ways it was perhaps better, as
the body didn’t last so long to bear the troubled spirit in its
pain.

‘. . . Don't mind what anyone says about me, D. It is

easy to pelt the man who can’t reply, or who is gone, but
remember no story is told till we’ve heard all of it, and no
one knows anything about mine, including those who think
they know all. Even I don’t know all! But I know most,
and I know the reasons for everything in my own actions,
and many of the reasons for much in the actions of my
friends. I have not attempted to tell my side; there is no
use, to begin with, in trying to do what I have not liberty to
do, so I must just let it be, and bear the fate that came.

‘Anyhow, dear old D., it is not I who have changed a

little bit. I am just the same; it is only that I am not mad,
and don’t believe in lies and hatred any more than I did, say,
when “the Turk ” was the enemy. You remember I didn’t
accept the popular verdict then that Ferdinand of Sofia was
a Crusader, any more than I accept him as one now. If he
is a villain now, what was he then? The truth is men and
nations and kings and kinglets fight always for one thing
only, self-interest. If they have that right, so have others,
and the only thing that should concern a gentleman is that
 318 ROGER CASEMENT

he should do as Betsy Prig adjured Sairy Gamp to do—

“Drink fair, Sairy,” and fight fair too. That can be done
without lying and falsehood and blackening your opponent’s
character, and without giving way to intolerable hatred. If
the cause is worth fighting for, and can bear inspection, then
the hatred is altogether out of place.
‘ Get Wilfred Blunt’s books. They are charmingly written,
and full of interest. Do get them. Get the books on Egypt
and Ireland—several volumes—and you’ll find an English¬
man pur sang as big a febel as any Irishman. Of course the
truth is there is nobody who isn’t, only the rest haven’t got
Wilfred Blunt s catholic breadth of view. Talk about tyrannies
of the Church, D.,—there never was any Church tyrant
equal to some of the tyrannies of your modern Devil God
“Democracy.” I loathe the horrid term. “Democracy ”
is to me often a very fat man I once saw at your table, oozing
port wine at every pore, denouncing “England” as “rotten
to the core, ready for destruction,” etc., etc., etc., whose
facile brother is about the biggest bounder and cad even
such a rotten land as that could produce! You know the
Democrats I mean. God deliver your country from such
champions.

‘Yours always the same,

‘Roddie.’

On July 17th the Court of Criminal Appeal sat to deter¬

mine Casement’s appeal, which lasted for two days. The
Court was presided over by Mr. Justice Darling, and the
other members of the Court were Justices Bray, A. T.
Lawrence, Scrutton and Atkin. The only point that was
argued was whether the indictment disclosed any offence
known to the law, the same point that Mr. Serjeant Sullivan
had argued at such length on the motion to quash the indict¬
ment. His argument in the Court of Criminal Appeal was
much the same as in the Court of first instance, and he
repeated his vigorous criticisms of Lord Coke. When
Serjeant Sullivan had concluded his argument the Court
 APPEAL AND EXECUTION 319
intimated that they would not call upon the Crown to reply,
and so it at once became obvious that the conviction would
be affirmed. The judgment was delivered by Mr. Justice
Darling. The Court adopted the opinions of Coke, Hale and
Hawkins, expressed in their textbooks; but they also con¬
strued the statute independently of all authority, as Serjeant
Sullivan had asked, and in the result they rejected Serjeant
Sullivan’s contention and accepted that of the Crown.
Referring to Mr. Serjeant Sullivan’s attacks upon Lord Coke,
Mr. Justice Darling embellished his judgment with a very
apt quotation from Milton. He said: ‘ If one wanted an
opinion of a person who was not a lawyer, one with whom I
dare say Serjeant Sullivan, at all events, is perfectly familiar,
it is where this same Lord Coke is alluded to by John Milton
as one who

“ On the Royal Bench

Of British Themis, with no mean applause,
Pronounced, and in his volumes taught our laws,
Which others at their bar too often wrench.” ’

Casement’s appeal being dismissed, he had but one hope

of saving his life and that was an appeal to the House of
Lords. But before an appeal in a criminal case can go before
the House, the Attorney-General must give his certificate 1
that the case is a fit one for appeal and embodies a question
of law of great public importance and therefore desirable in
the public interest. Accordingly, those responsible for the
defence of Roger Casement applied to the Attorney-General
for his certificate. But the Attorney-General, who has a
discretion in such cases, refused the application. It should
be remembered that no fewer than eight judges had agreed
that the indictment was good, and it was only by showing
that the indictment was bad that Casement could succeed
in an appeal.
After the Attorney-General had refused his certificate

1 This certificate is granted under section 1 (6) of the Criminal

Appeal Act, 1907.
 320 ROGER CASEMENT

Casement had nothing to do but prepare for his end. He f

was in Pentonville Prison and occupied himself in much the
same manner as he had been accustomed to since his con¬
viction. He was at peace with his God and bore no sort of /
ill-will towards those who had placed him in his desperate
predicament. During all this time there were not wanting^
many who derived the greatest pleasure in distributing
broadcast stories of Roger Casement which were extremely
offensive and whose only object could have been vilification.
Many of these stories had only the merest suspicion of truth
l| to support them, others were utterly false. All these came :
if to the ears of Casement, but he merely invited his friends to
ignore his traducers, for their calumnies were so obviously
absurd. When a nation, whose nerves are strained by a great
war, is near to hysteria there will be few who will give credit
and honour where they are due, and at this time no one was
found who would remember with gratitude the great and
humanitarian work that Roger Casement had done on the
Putumayo and the Congo.
But if Roger Casement could do nothing in his own behalf,
his friends could and did ©ake great efforts to save him from
the gallows. A number of petitions for his reprieve were
presented to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister,
and many of the signatures subscribed to these were those
of eminent and respected men. These petitions will be found
set out in the Appendix. But none of them was successful
in its object. On the evening of August 2nd, the day before
that fixed for Casement s execution, a small deputation went
to Buckingham Palace to beg the King personally to exercise
the prerogative of mercy. This deputation consisted of
- Eva^Gore-Booth, Mrs. J. R. Green, Philip Morel, H. W.
Nevinson ancf Casement’s cousin, Mrs. Gertrude Parry.
These people were ignorant of the constitutional usage that
the prerogative of mercy is exercised by the King’s Minister,
the Home Secretary, and their visit was fruitless. But it is
believed that the King did tell the Home Secretary that an
appeal had been made to him.
 APPEAL AND EXECUTION 321

On August 2nd, Casement wrote on a postcard to his

cousin:

‘To-morrow, St. Stephen’s Day, I die the death I sought,

and may God forgive the mistakes and receive the intent—
Ireland’s freedom.’1

The execution was fixed for nine o’clock on the next day,
the 3rd, and Casement met his end bravely and calmly. He
was executed in Pentonville.2 He had no trace of fear and
was proud to die for Ireland. He walked resolutely to the
scaffold, and the dignity of his death was a source of much
edification to those who were present. ‘What a beautiful
morning,’ he said as he stepped on to the scaffold, and at the
last moment he said, ‘ I die for my country.’1 By eight
o’clock a crowd began to assemble in Caledonian Road
which runs in front of the prison, but it never became
very large. About 150 people, chiefly women and children
from the neighbourhood, stood on the pavement and stared
at the walls of the prison. About another 100 spectators
arrived at the breakfast hour from the local works. Many
of these were ammunition workers.” The crowd was only
made aware that the execution had taken place by the
striking of the minute bell, but the noise in the street
was so loud that its first note was not heard. Suddenly
a group of women munition workers heard it, for they
rushed off to work. Near to where they had stood was a
group of workmen who, on hearing the bell, raised a cheer.
Five minutes afterwards the street had resumed its normal
appearance.

1 Last Changes, Last Chances, p.117.

2 The Act (31 & 32 Viet., c. 24, s. 2.) for executing sentences of death
within gaols does not apply to cases of treason. Indeed, ss. 2 and 16
together appear to exclude its operation in such cases.. An execution
for treason would, therefore, it would seem, have to be in public. But
the King has a prerogative in such matters, and may alter the details
of a sentence of death; cf. the case of Lady Lisle, sentenced by Jeffreys,
C.J., to be burned to death, the penalty inflicted on women for treason.
The King altered this sentence to beheading.
322 ROGER CASEMENT

On the following day the Government issued the following

statement:
‘All the circumstances in the case of Roger Casement were
carefully and repeatedly considered by the Government
before the decision was reached not to interfere with the
sentence of the law. He was convicted and punished for
treachery of the worst kind to the Empire he had served, and
as a willing agent of Germany.
‘The Irish rebellion resulted in much loss of life, both
among soldiers and civilians. Casement invoked and organ¬
ised German assistance to the insurrection. In addition,
though himself for many years a British official, he under¬
took the task of trying to induce soldiers of the British
Army, prisoners in the hands of Germany, to forswear
their oath of allegiance and join their country’s enemies.
Conclusive evidence has come into the hands of the Govern¬
ment since the trial that he had entered into an agreement
with the German Government, which explicitly provided
that the Brigade which he was trying to raise from among the
Irish soldier prisoners might be employed in Egypt against
the British Crown. Those among the Irish soldier prisoners
in Germany who resisted Casement’s solicitations of dis¬
loyalty were subjected to treatment of exceptional severity
by the Germans; some of them have since been exchanged
as invalids, and have died in this country, regarding
Casement as their murderer.
‘The suggestion that Casement left Germany for the
purpose of trying to stop the Irish rising was not raised at
the trial, and is conclusively disproved, not only by the facts
there disclosed, but by further evidence which has since
become available.
‘Another suggestion, that Casement was out of his mind,
is equally without foundation. Materials bearing on his
mental condition were placed at the disposal of his counsel,
who did not raise the plea of insanity. Casement’s de¬
meanour since his arrest, and throughout and since the trial,
gave no ground for any such defence, and indeed was
sufficient to disprove it.’1

1 Printed in Trial of Roger Casement, p. xxxviii.

 APPEAL AND EXECUTION 323

Mr. Gavan Duffy applied to the Home Secretary that

Casement’s body might be delivered to his relatives, a
request which was refused.1

It is interesting to note the German reaction to the

execution. One newspaper made some rather surprising
remarks:

‘Casement was not a traitor because he was not an

Englishman. He made a mistake in his selection of the
moment for action in Ireland. We recall him as a friend of
Germany, as an ally in these difficult and momentous times,
who was worthy of our love.’ 2

The German Press followed this up by printing a number

of apocryphal telegrams which gave graphic accounts of riots
in London and Dublin consequent upon Casement’s execu¬
tion. Thus, the Berliner Tageblatt published a ‘ telegram from
Christiania ’ which said, among other things:

‘On the very day of Casement’s execution there were

serious disorders in London and Dublin, and especially in
Dublin they were extraordinarily grave. The labouring
classes gave unequivocal expression to their indignation.
Some of the munition works had to close down because on
the day of the execution the workmen went out on strike as
a protest against the Government. Public opinion in London
does not know the real appearance of Ireland. The strictest
blockade of Irish waters has been established, and passports
are granted to English subjects extremely seldom and only

1 This refusal was based upon s. 6 of the Capital Punishment Amend¬

ment Act, 1868, which enacted that ‘ the body of every offender
executed shall be buried within the walls of the prison within which
judgment of death is executed on him.’ However, s. a of the statute,
which directs execution to take place within the walls of the prison
(see note 2, p. 321), is expressly confined to executions for.m^rd^’^n
the following sections have always been regarded as applicable only <
such cases. It is questionable, therefore, whether the Home Secretary s
action was strictly correct. It may be, though, that it finds its justifica¬
tion in its wisdom.
2 Cologne Gazette, August 4, 1916.
324 ROGER CASEMENT

on proof of the most urgent necessity. The Irish newspapers

are not allowed to report one word about the state of things
in Ireland. Casement’s execution was announced in
Ireland 24 hours afterwards by the posting of a military
proclamation in public places and by the beating of drums.’1

1 Berliner Tageblatt, August 10, 19x6.

 CHAPTER XVIII

CONCLUSION

The Attorney-General, in his opening speech for the prosecu¬

tion, said, ‘What occurred between 1911 and 1914 to affect
and corrupt the prisoner’s mind I cannot tell you, for I do
not know.’ Such a statement epitomises the attitude of mind
adopted by so many when talking of Roger Casement. Such
an attitude is wholly wrong, for it presupposes that until the
outbreak of the war Casement was a loyal son of England,
as well as of Ireland, imbued with the Imperialism which
Mr. Joseph Chamberlain first made a living force. But such
a view of Casement’s political opinions is wholly unwarranted.
From his earliest youth he had the Irishman’s traditional
hostility to England and only for a very short time, at the
beginning of the Boer War, did he ever harbour Imperialist
thoughts. ( He felt very clearly that the Englishman and the
Irishman belonged to different races, one Saxon and the
other Gael, and he was supremely conscious of his race.
Writing in December, 1913, he said, ‘Every man born in
Ireland holds a “hereditary brief” for the opponents of
English sway, wherever they may be. The tribunal of history
in his own land is closed to him; he must appeal to another
court; he must seek the ear of those who make history else¬
where. The Irishman is denied the right of having a history,
as he is denied the right of having a country. He must
recover both. For him there is to be no past, any more than
a future. And if he seeks the record of his race in the only
schools or books open to him he will find that hope has been
shut out of the school and fame taken out of the story. 1 He
was widely read in the history of Ireland, which he read with
1 The Elsewhere Empire, published in Irish Freedom, January, 1914,
and reprinted in The Crime against Europe, p. 83.
325
326 ROGER CASEMENT

a very national outlook. He saw the relationship between

England and Ireland as one of master and slave, which had
endured for hundreds of years and which had resulted in
nothing but misery and destitution for Ireland, and the
gradual death and decay of all that was once Ireland’s glory.
While yet some traces of Ireland’s ancient culture remained
Casement actively assisted any attempt which was made to
revive them. Accordingly, we find him encouraging the
dancers at a Ceilidh or offering prizes for the study of the
Irish language.
But such matters were secondary ones to Casement. His
desire was to free Ireland from what he believed to be a
bondage which was sapping her very life. He did not
acknowledge that any advantage could accrue to Ireland
from her association with England, and believed, until it
became his political gospel, that England kept Ireland in
thraldom to suit her own strategic and commercial ends.
To Casement, Ireland had suffered at the hands of England
for centuries, and it was time that an end was put to her
sufferings. A letter which he wrote to his cousin in February,
1911, from South America, is of interest:

‘The £5,000,000 per annum is one of the silliest of all the

lies. You may tell your friends, the Enemy, that when the
books are produced the shoe will be very much on the other
foot. I have knowledge by the month and I know what I am
saying. Ireland can, and does, more than pay her way
to-day, and half her revenue under the existing Treaty
between the two Kingdoms is absorbed by England! That
is to say, out of the £12,000,000 she raises, £6,000,000 is
spent in Great Britain. Great Britain herself raises roughly
£140,000,000 per annum. Does she permit Germany, say,
or France, to collar £70,000,000 of that for their factories?
But that’s what she does with the Irish Revenue. She appro¬
priates a full half of it to support British industries in what
she terms the supply of the Irish public departments, i.e.
clothing, booting, helmeting, gunning, cartridging, buttoning,
shirting, and underclothing our police: entirely supplying
our Post Office, our Light House, our Admiralty, and our
 CONCLUSION 327

Military departments, as well as lifting the entire rental of

the country, formerly paid to landlords and now paid to
“the Treasury,” in other words to John Bull. The greatest
lie of all is this one of John Bull transferring money to
Ireland; of his “gift” of £100,000,000 to the Irish tenant
farmers. Why, the thing is just the other way. In order to
permit Irish farmers to buy their farms from Irish landlords
John Bull has appropriated the rentals of Ireland to English
financial uses. Not a £ of the so-called purchase money goes
from England to Ireland; it is a question of stock and scrip on
the London market, and the landlord’s purchase money is
invested in England, not in Ireland, but the refund of the
“purchase” money by Ireland does go from Ireland straight
to England.
‘ If Ireland had had an internal government the settlement
of her land question would have been an internal one, and
the exchange of money and the transfer of deed would have
contributed to the national wealth, instead of, as now,
impoverishing it. If the English give Ireland £5,000,000 or
one shilling, why don’t they produce the books? There is
the case in a nutshell. They’ve kept the accounts for 100
years but they will not produce them to public audit. Why?
Because they dare not.
‘The robbery of Ireland since the Union has been so
colossal, carried on on such a scale, that if the true account
current between the two countries were ever submitted to
any important tribunal England would be clapped in jail;
and of course civilisation would be ruined, and the Anglo-
Saxon with a shaved head would not be a pretty picture.’

Casement was a man with a large heart and a tender

nature and to him suffering humanity made a strong appeal,
so strong, at times, that it was almost impossible for him to
resist it. This love of humanity, this affection for the under¬
dog, transcended all considerations of race and creed.
Wherever he saw what he thought to be a wrong he strove
with all his might to set it right. What else is the explanation
of his great success on the Congo and the Putumayo? There
he did work which has put humanity for ever in his debt.
But he was an Irishman, and to Ireland his thoughts con-
328 ROGER CASEMENT

stantly turned. He performed his duties on the Congo and

the Putumayo, not in the name of England, but in the name
of Ireland.
It was, therefore, a pleasure to him when he was able to
relinquish his work for the Foreign Office and devote him¬
self to his native land. It was only after his retirement that
he had sufficient opportunity to become actively engaged in
Irish politics. He threw himself into his new work with all
his ceaseless energy, and when the war broke out the duty
of every Irishman was clear to him. It was England’s
quarrel, not Ireland’s, and no Irishman ought to fight for
the Empire’s cause.
His mission to Germany was undertaken spontaneously, in
an endeavour to promote the well-being of Ireland after the
war. The blow which he wished to strike was to be a blow
for Ireland, not against England. That a blow struck for
Ireland at such a time must of necessity be a blow struck
against England did not concern him at all. He realised
that England was unable to pay a great deal of attention to
events in Ireland, fighting, as she was, a desperate war in
Europe, and that the chances of success in furthering Irish
interests were greater than they had ever been. Following
the example of Wolfe Tone, he went to Germany to enlist
German support for his enterprises, not so much with an
anti-English, as with a pro-Irish intention. It cannot be
denied, however, that whatever his motives, the success of
his schemes would have precisely that result which the
Germans desired. Nevertheless, he had no love of England
and wished to see Germany win the war. In December,
1913, when he saw that war was inevitable, he wrote:

‘ Sedition, the natural garment for an Irishman to wear,

has been for a hundred years a bloodless sedition. It is this
fiery shirt of Nessus that has driven our strong men mad.
How to shed our blood with honour, how to give our lives
for Ireland—that has been, that is the problem of Irish
nationality.
‘ The day the first German comrade lands in Ireland, the
 ^ CONCLUSION 329

day the first German warship is seen proudly breasting the

waves of the Irish Sea with the flag of Ireland at her fore,
that day many Irishmen must die, but they shall die in the
sure peace of God that Ireland may live.’1
It was at this period of his life that his dominating char¬
acteristics showed themselves most clearly. His fanatical
idealism was a thing which no German could understand or
appreciate, and this German failure to understand produced
an attitude of distrust and suspicion which Casement,
because of his fanaticism, could not comprehend. Like
every fanatic he had no sure judgment and like every Irish¬
man he was, unconsciously, prone to self-dramatisation, at
the same time wishing to be accepted as a practical man of
affairs. That he was a practical man of affairs there can be
no question, unless the matter he was dealing with lay too
close to his own heart. Then he became the victim of his
fanaticism.
We can wonder at a man who went to Germany at such a
time and for such a purpose without the thought entering his
head that he would be believed to be an English spy. One
may wonder also at a man who engaged as a servant to be
employed on intimate and important tasks, someone of
whom he knew nothing. His employment of Adler Christen¬
sen was a grave mistake and one which he afterwards re¬
gretted. Christensen was never wholly reliable, although
Casement trusted him implicitly. Moreover, the ugly
rumours to which Christensen gave rise in Berlin did Case¬
ment a great deal of harm with the German authorities, who
had no wish to be too closely associated with a man who
employed a servant with such an unsavoury reputation.
Casement went to Germany as an Irish patriot whose
thoughts centred only on Ireland. He did not go to aid
Germany, although he would have preferred a German to an
English victory. But the Germans were in no way concerned
with his patriotic aspirations. They saw in him an instru¬
ment which they might use to serve their own ends, a purpose
1 The Duty of Christendom, printed in The Crime against Europe, p. 62.
330 ROGER CASEMENT

which they frankly admitted. By the beginning of the Great

War Germany was a master of the art of fomenting trouble
abroad for her own purposes. With Sir Roger Casement she
failed; but even after the failure of the Easter Rebellion in
Ireland she was in communication with the Sinn Fein
leaders with a view to assisting them; and later, in 1917?
she was eminently successful with such schemes when she
gave shelter to Lenin and sent him into Russia to accomplish
the communist revolution, which eased the pressure on her
Eastern Front. Small wonder is it, therefore, that the Ger¬
mans became increasingly impatient of Casement’s im¬
practical idealism; for they wished to see the seeds of
disaffection sown in Ireland.
He returned to Ireland well knowing what fate awaited
him there. He had no illusions as to what was the nature
of his activities in Germany, and to the way in which he
would be regarded in England. He was not concerned with
his own fate: the fate of Ireland was what concerned him,
and he hoped that his own end might be an inspiration to
those that came after him.
It is sometimes said of Casement, anent his Consular
service, that he accepted the money of England and then,
in her hour of need, stabbed her in the back. But Casement’s
views were definite upon this. He considered that he was the
servant of the Union, and the Union was of Great Britain
and Ireland. He had seen many men in the public service,
in the service of the Union, give strong expression to anti-
Irish feeling, and he had seen these men applauded and
advanced. But he realised that once a man showed a pro-
Irish feeling he was doomed. Casement, himself, felt that
he was only doing for his side of the Union what many
Englishmen had done for theirs.
His last days were spent in religious exercises. For a long
time he had been attracted towards the Catholic Church, and
the hours that he had spent with Father Crotty in Limburg
had increased his interest. But he had no desire to be con¬
verted unless he could accept the Catholic religion with his
 CONCLUSION
331
head as well as his heart. Father Carey, the prison chaplain,
spent many hours with him, and Casement was much
attracted and impressed by the piety and learning of this
Irish priest, whose sympathy he so much appreciated. A
few days before his execution Casement was received into
the Church and received the Sacraments.
While he was in Pentonville his mind often went back to
his early days in Ireland when he walked on Fair Head and
at Murlough Bay, and he often spoke of Murlough. Once
he said, ‘ When they have done with me, don’t let my bones
lie in this dreadful place—take me back to Murlough and
let me lie there.’
There is printed in the Appendix an account of Casement
written by Miss Eva Gore-Booth. She was the person to
whom Casement waved when on his trial, and until that
moment they had never met. Nevertheless Miss Gore-Booth
seemed completely to understand Casement, and after they
had met she said, ‘ I feel as if I had known him all my life.’
This extraordinary sympathy of character gives her account
an added interest.
Sir Roger Casement died, condemned as a traitor and
execrated by almost every Englishman. His name has come
to be synonymous with traitor. But the judgment of pos¬
terity is not the judgment of a court of law, and in considering
the career of Roger Casement it is right to take account of
the ideals and principles which led him to the scaffold.
And so we must remember the humanity and love which
moulded his life while we may admire the simple dignity of
his death.
 APPENDIX I

Chronological Table

1864 1 September Roger Casement born in County Dublin.

1892 31 July Enters service of Niger Coast (Oil
Rivers) Protectorate.
i895 27 June Appointed H.M. Consul at Lourengo
Marques to reside at Lourengo Marques.
i898 29 July Appointed H.M. Consul for Portuguese
Possessions in West Africa, south of the
Gulf of Guinea, to reside at Loanda;
Consul in the Gaboon; and Consul to
the Independent State of the Congo.
1899-1900 Employed on special service at Cape
Town, and received the Queen’s South
African Medal.
1900 20 August Transferred to Kinchasa in the Congo
State.
1901 6 August Appointed (in addition) Consul for part
of the French Congo Colony.
1904 31 December Seconded for one year.
1905 31 December Seconded for six months.
1905 3° June Made a C.M.G.
1906 13 August Appointed Consul for States of San
Paulo and Panama, to reside at Santos.
1907 2 December Transferred to Para.
1908 1 December Promoted to be Consul-General at Rio
de Janeiro.
1911 20 June Received the honour of knighthood.
1911 Received the Coronation Medal.
1912 2 December The State of Goyaz was added to the
district of the Consulate-General at Rio
de Janeiro, and a new commission issued
to Sir R. Casement.
1909-1912 (V Employed while titular Consul-General
at Rio de Janeiro in making certain
enquiries relative to the rubber industry
(Putumayo).
1913 i August Retired on a pension.
1914 4 August Declaration of war between the United
Kingdom and Germany.
333
334 ROGER CASEMENT

1914 7 October Makes the last demand for his pension.

1914 December Irish prisoners of war collected into a
German camp at Limburg Lahn.
At this time Casement was in Germany
moving with freedom about the country.
From this time until 19th February
Casement addressed meetings of Irish
prisoners urging them to join the Irish
Brigade.
1915 19 February Casement reported to have made a
speech in which he said, * Now is the
time for Irishmen to fight against
England.’
1916 12 April Railway ticket taken from Berlin to
Wilhelmshaven (found at Tralee on
April 21).
1916 20 April Red light seen flashing about a mile
away at sea off Curraghane at 9.30 p.m.
1916 21 April H.M.S. Bluebell meets the Aud in the
neighbourhood of Tralee.
1916 22 April Aud blown up and sunk near the Daunt
Rock Lightship.
1916 2i April Casement, Bailey and Monteith land
near Tralee. Casement seen on road to
Ardfert at 5.15 a.m. Casement dis¬
covered by police in M'Kenna’s Fort
and taken to Ardfert Barracks.
1916 22 April Casement taken to England in custody
and handed over to Metropolitan Police.
Afterwards, until May 15, kept in
military custody in Tower of London.
1916 23 April Irish rising planned to take place.
1916 24 April Easter Rebellion broke out.
I916 15, 16, 17 May Magisterial enquiry at Bow Street
Police Court, and committal for trial.
1916 26-29 June Trial in the High Court of Justice,
London. Verdict of Guilty and sentence
of death.
1916 30 June Casement de-knighted.
1916 17-18 July Proceedings in Court of Criminal
Appeal. Appeal dismissed.
1916 3 August Casement executed in Pentonville Prison.
I9I6 4 August Statement issued by the Government
after Casement’s execution.
 APPENDIX II

Sir Roger Casement’s Letter to Sir Edward Grey

RELATING TO THE FlNDLAY AFFAIR 1

The Right Honourable

Sir E. Grey, Bart., K.G., M.P.
London.
Berlin, ist February, 1915.
Sir,

I observe that some discussion has taken place in the House

of Lords on the subject of the pension I voluntarily ceased to
draw when I set out to learn what might be the intentions of the
German Government in regard to Ireland.
In the course of that discussion I understand Lord Crewe
observed that ‘ Sir Roger Casement’s action merited a sensible
punishment.’
The question thus raised as to my action and your publicly
suggested punishment of it I propose discussing here and now,
since the final proof of the actual punishment you sought in
secret to inflict upon me is, at length, in my possession.
It is true I was aware of your intentions from the first day I
set foot in Norway three months ago; but it has taken time to
compel your agent there to furnish the written proof of the
conspiracy then set on foot against me by His Majesty’s Govern¬
ment.
Let me briefly define my action before proceeding to contrast
it with your own.
The question between the British Government and myself has
never been, as you are fully aware, a matter of a pension, of a
reward, a decoration.
I served the British Government faithfully and loyally as long
as it was possible for me to do so, and when it became impossible,
I resigned. When later, it became impossible for me to use the
pension assigned me by law, I voluntarily abandoned that income
as I had previously resigned the post from which it was derived,
and as I now proceed to divest myself of the honours and dis-

1 Printed in Diaries of Sir Roger Casement, pp. 184 et seqq.

335
336 ROGER CASEMENT

tinctions that at various times have been conferred upon me by

His Majesty’s Government.
I came to Europe from the United States last October in order
to make sure that whatever might be the course of this war,
my own country, Ireland, should suffer from it the minimum
of harm.
The view I held was made sufficiently clear in an open letter
I wrote on the 17th September last in New York, and sent to
Ireland for public distribution among my countrymen. I append
a printed copy of that letter. It defines my personal standpoint
clearly enough and expresses the views I held, and hold, on an
Irishman’s duty to his country in this crisis of world affairs.
Soon after writing that letter I set out for Europe.
To save Ireland from some of the calamities of war was worth
the loss to myself of pension and honours, and was even worth
the commission of an act of technical ‘ treason.’
I decided to take all the risks and to accept all the penalties
the Law might attach to my action. I did not, however, bargain
for risks and penalties that lay outside the law as far as my own
action lay outside the field of moral turpitude.
In other words, while I reckoned with British law and legal
penalties and accepted the sacrifice of income, position and
reputation as prices I must pay, I did not reckon with the
British Government.
I was prepared to face charges in a Court of Law; I was not
prepared to meet waylaying, kidnapping, suborning of depend¬
ents or ‘ knocking on the head ’—in fine, all the expedients your
representative in a neutral country invoked when he became
aware of my presence there.
For the criminal conspiracy that Mr. M. de C. Findlay,
H.B.M. Minister to the Court of Norway, entered into on the
30th October last, in the British Legation at Christiania, with
the Norwegian subject, my dependent, Eivind Adler Christensen,
involved all these things and more. It involved not merely a
lawless attack upon myself for which the British Minister prom¬
ised my follower the sum of £5,000, but it involved a breach
of international law as well as of common law, for which the
British Minister in Norway promised this Norwegian subject
full immunity.
On the 29th October last year I landed at Christiania, coming
from America.
Within a few hours of my landing the man I had engaged and
in whom I reposed trust was accosted by one of the secret service
agents of the British Minister and carried off, in a private motor
 APPENDIX 337
car, to the British Legation, where the first attempt was made
on his honour to induce him to be false to me.
Your agent in the Legation that afternoon professed ignorance
of who I was and sought, as he put it, merely to find out my
identity and movements.
Failing in this first attempt to obtain satisfaction, Adler
Christensen was assailed the next day, the 30th October, by a
fresh agent and received an invitation to again visit the British
Legation, ‘ where he would hear something good.’
This, the second interview, held in the early forenoon, was
with the Minister himself.
Mr. Findlay came quickly to the point. The ignorance,
assumed or actual, of the previous day, as to my identity, was
now discarded. He confessed that he knew me, but that he did
not know where I was going to, what I intended doing, or what
might be the specific end I had in view.
It was enough for him that I was an Irish nationalist.
He admitted that the British Government had no evidence of
anything wrong done or contemplated by me that empowered
them either morally or lawfully to interfere with my movements.
But he was bent on doing so. Therefore he boldly invoked lawless
methods, and suggested to my dependent that were I to ‘ dis¬
appear ’ it would be ‘ a very good thing for whoever brought it
about.’
He was careful to point out that nothing could happen to the
perpetrator of the crime, since my presence in Christiania was
known only to the British Government, and that Government
would screen and provide for those responsible for my ‘ dis¬
appearance.’
He indicated, quite plainly, the methods to be employed, by
assuring Adler Christensen, that whoever ‘ knocked him on the
head need not do any work for the rest of his life,’ and proceeded
to apply the moral by asking Christensen, ‘ I suppose you would
not mind having an easy time of it for the rest of your days? ’
My faithful follower concealed the anger he felt at this sugges¬
tion and continued the conversation in order to become more
fully aware of the plot that might be devised against my safety.
He pointed out that I had not only been very kind to him but
that I ‘ trusted him implicitly.’
It was on this ‘ implicit trust ’ Mr. Findlay then proceeded to
build the whole framework of his conspiracy against my life, my
liberty, the public law of Norway and the happiness of the young
man he sought to tempt by monstrous bribes to the commission
of a dastardly crime against his admitted benefactor.
22
338 ROGER CASEMENT

If I could be intercepted, cut off, ‘ disappear,’ no one would

know and no question could be asked, since there was no Govern¬
ment save the British Government knew of my presence in
Norway and there was no authority I could appeal to for help,
while the Government would shield the individual implicated
and provide handsomely for his future. Such, in Mr. Findlay’s
words (recorded by me), was the proposition put by His Majesty’s
Minister before the young man who had been enticed for this
purpose into the British Legation.
That this man was faithful to me and the law of his country
was a triumph of Norwegian integrity over the ignoble induce¬
ment, proffered him by the richest and most powerful Govern¬
ment in the world, to be false to both.
Having thus outlined his project, Mr. Findlay invited Chris¬
tensen to
* think the matter over and return at 3 o’clock if you are
disposed to go on with it.’
He handed him in Norwegian paper money twenty-five
Kroner ‘just to pay your taxi-cab fares,’ and dismissed him.
Feeling a not unnatural interest in these proposals as to how
I should be disposed of, I instructed the man it was thus sought
to bribe to return to the British Legation at 3 o’clock and to
seemingly fall in with the wishes of your Envoy Extraordinary.
I advised him, however, for the sake of appearances to ‘ sell
me dear ’ and to secure the promise of a very respectable sum
for so very disreputable an act.
Christensen, who has been a sailor and naturally has seen some
strange company, assured me he was perfectly at home with His
Majesty’s Representative.
He returned to the Legation at 3 o’clock and remained
closeted with Mr. Findlay until nearly 5 p.m. The full record
of their conversation will be laid before you, and others, in
due course.
My follower pretended to fall in with the British Minister’s
project, only stipulating for a good sum to be paid in return for
his treachery. Mr. Findlay promised on his ‘ word of honour ’
(such was the quaint phraseology employed to guarantee this
transaction) that Christensen should receive £5,000 sterling
whenever he could deliver me into the hands of the British
authorities.
If in the course of this kidnapping process I should come to
harm or personal injury be done me, then no question would be
asked and full immunity guaranteed the kidnapper.
 APPENDIX 339
My follower pointed out that as I was leaving that evening
for Copenhagen, having already booked my compartment in the
mail train, he would not have any immediate chance of executing
the commission.
Mr. Findlay agreed that it would be necessary to defer the
attempt until some favourable opportunity offered of decoying
me down to the coast ‘ anywhere on the Skagerrack or North
Sea,’ where British war-ships might be in waiting to seize me.
He entrusted my dependent with the further commission of
purloining my correspondence with my supposed associates in
America and Ireland, particularly in Ireland, so that they, too,
might participate in the ‘ sensible punishment ’ devised for me.
He ordained a system of secret correspondence with himself
Christensen should employ, and wrote out the confidential
address in Christiania to which he was to communicate the
results of his efforts to purloin my papers and to report on my
plans.
The address in Christiania was written down by Mr. Findlay
on a half sheet of Legation notepaper in printed characters.
This precaution was adopted, he said, so as to prevent the
handwriting being traced.’
This document, along with one hundred crowns in Norwegian
paper money given by Mr. Findlay as an earnest of more to follow,
was at once brought to me with an account of the proceedings.
As I was clearly in a position of some danger, I changed my
plans and, instead of proceeding to Copenhagen as I had intended
doing, I decided to alter my procedure and route.
It was, then, with this secret knowledge of the full extent of
the crime plotted by your Representative in Norway against
me that I left Christiania on the 30th October.
The rest of the story need not take so long in the telling.
You are fully aware of most of the details, as you were in
constant touch with your agent both by cable and despatch
You are also aware of the declaration of the Imperial German
Government, issued on 20th November last in reply to the

enTheyBritishrGovernment, both by Press reports and by direct

agents had charged Germany, throughout the length and breadth
of Ireland, with the commission of atrocious crimes m Belgium
and had warned the Irish people that their fate would be the

Sa Your Government souglutofrighten Irishmen into a predatory

raid upon a people who had never injured them and to persuade
them by false charges that this was their duty.
340 ROGER CASEMENT

I sought not only a guarantee of German goodwill to Ireland,

but to relieve my countrymen from the apprehensions this
campaign of calumny was designed to provoke and, so far as was
possible, to dissuade them from embarking on an immoral con¬
flict against a people who had never wronged Ireland. That
Declaration of the German Government, issued as I know in all
sincerity, is the justification for my ‘ treason.’ The justification
of the conspiracy of the British Government and its Minister at
Christiania, begun before I had set foot on German soil, in a
country where I had a perfect right to be, and conducted by
means of the lowest forms of attempted bribery and corruption,
I leave you, Sir, to discover.
You will not discover it in the many interviews Mr. Findlay
had, during the months of November and December last, at his
own seeking, with my faithful follower.
The correspondence between them in the cypher the Minister
had arranged tells its own story.
These interviews furnished the matter that in due course I
shall make public. What passed between your agent and mine
on those occasions you are fully aware of, for you were the
directing power throughout the whole proceeding.
Your object, as Mr. Findlay frankly avowed to the man he
thought he had bought, was to take my life with public indignity
—mine was to expose your design, and to do so through the very
agent you had yourselves singled out for the purpose and sought
to corrupt to an act of singular infamy.
On one occasion, in response to my follower’s pretended dis¬
satisfaction with the amount offered for betraying me, you
authorised your agent to increase the sum to £10,000. I have a
full record of the conversations held and of the pledges proffered
in your name.
On two occasions, during these prolonged bargainings, your
Minister gave Adler Christensen gifts of ‘ earnest money.’ Once
it was five hundred crowns in Norwegian currency; the next
time a similar sum, partly in Norwegian money and partly in
English gold. On one of these occasions, to be precise on the
7th December last, Mr. Findlay handed Adler Christensen the
key of the back entrance of the British Legation, so that he might
go and come unobserved and at all hours.
.1 propose returning this key in person to the donor, and along
with it the various sums so. anxiously bestowed upon my follower.
The stories told Mr. Findlay at these interviews should not
have deceived a schoolboy. All the pretended evidence of my
plans and intentions Adler Christensen produced, the bogus
 APPENDIX
341
letters, fictitious maps and charts, and other incitements to
Mr. Findlay’s appetite for the incredible were part of my neces¬
sary plan of self-defence to lay bare the conspiracy you were
engaged in and to secure that convincing proof of it I now hold.
It was not until the 3rd ultimo that Mr. Findlay committed
himself to give my protector the duly signed and formal pledge
of reward and immunity, in the name of the British Government,
for the crime he was being instigated to commit that is now in
my possession.
I transmit you herewith a photograph of this document.
At a date compatible with my own security against the clan¬
destine guarantees and immunities of the British Minister in
Norway, I shall proceed to lay before the legitimate authorities
in that country the original document and the evidence in my
possession that throws light on the proceedings of His Majesty’s
Government.
To that Government, through you, Sir, I now beg to return
the insignia of the Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and
St. George, the Coronation Medal of His Majesty King George V,
and any other medal, honour or distinction conferred upon me
by His Majesty’s Government, of which it is possible for me to
divest myself.
I am, Sir,
Your most obedient humble servant,
Roger Casement.
 APPENDIX III

The Proclamation of the Provisional Government 1

Poblacht na h-Eireann,
The Provisional Government of the
Irish Republic.
To the people of Ireland,
Irishmen and Irishwomen: In the name of God and of the
dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of
nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her
flag and strikes for her freedom.
Having organised and trained her manhood through her
secret revolutionary organisations, the Irish Republican Brother¬
hood, and through her open military organisation, the Irish
Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army, having patiently per¬
fected her discipline, having resolutely waited for the right
moment to reveal itself, she now seizes that moment and,
supported by her exiled children in America and by gallant
allies in Europe, but relying first on her own strength, she
strikes in full confidence of victory.
We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership
of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to
be sovereign and indefeasible.
The long usurpation of that right by foreign people and
Government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be
extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. In
every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to
national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the past three
hundred years they have asserted it in arms. Standing on that
fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in face of the
world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic, as a Sovereign
Independent State, and we pledge our lives, and the lives of our
comrades in arms, to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and
of its exaltation among the nations.
The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the
allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic
guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal
1 Printed in Cmd. 1108, p. 23.
842
 APPENDIX
343
°iPP(ftUni-tieS t0 a11 its citizens> and declares its resolve to pursue
the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation, and of all
its parts, cherishing all children of the nation equally, and
oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien Govern¬
ment, which have divided a minority from a majority in the past.
Until our arms have brought the opportune moment for the
establishment of a permanent National Government, repre-
sentative of the whole people of Ireland and elected by the
suffrages of all her men and women, the Provisional Govern-
ment, hereby constituted, will administer the civil and military
affairs of the Republic in trust for the people.
We place the case of the Irish Republic under the protection
of the Most High God, Whose blessing we invoke upon our arms,
and we pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it
by cowardice, inhumanity or rapine. In this supreme hour the
Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline, and by the
readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common
good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is
called.

Signed on behalf of the Provisional Government:

Patrick H. Pearse. Thomas J. Clarke.

Sean Macdiarmada. Thomas Macdonagh.

James Connolly. Eamonn Ceannt.

Joseph Plunkett.
 APPENDIX IV

Warrant 1

In the Metropolitan Police District

To each and all of the Constables of the Metropolitan Police

Force—
Information on oath has been laid by the Director of Public
Prosecutions that SIR ROGER CASEMENT and DANIEL
JULIAN BAILEY (hereinafter called the defendants) on the
ist day of November, 1914, and on divers other days thereafter,
and between that day and the 21st day of April, 1916, unlaw¬
fully, maliciously and traitorously did commit high treason
within and without the Realm of England in contempt of our
Sovereign Lord the King and his laws, to the evil example of all
others in the like case offending contrary to the duty of the
allegiance of them the said Sir Roger Casement and Daniel
Julian Bailey to our said Sovereign Lord the King and against
the form of the statute in such case made and provided.
You are Therefore Hereby Commanded to bring the
Defendants before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction sitting
at the Bow Street Police Court forthwith to answer to the
said Information.
Dated the 13th day of May, 1916.
John Dickinson.

(Seal)
One of the Magistrates of the Police
Courts of the Metropolis.
(On back.)
Inspector Parker is to execute this warrant.
P. Quinn
Superintendent.
(Perforation.)
13.5.16.

1 Printed in Trial of Roger Casement, p. 290.

344
 APPENDIX V

Petitions on Behalf of Roger Casement 1

A Petition to the Prime Minister on Behalf of Roger Casement.

By Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

To Hon. H. H.
the Right Asquith,
Prime Minister.
Sir,—We, the undersigned, while entirely admitting the
guilt of the prisoner Roger Casement, and the justice of his
sentence, would desire to lay before you some reasons why the
extreme sentence of the law should not be inflicted—
(1) We would call attention to the violent change which
appears to have taken place in the prisoner’s previous senti¬
ments towards Great Britain (as shown, for example, in his
letter to the King at the time of knighthood) from those
which he has exhibited during the war. Without going so far
as to urge complete mental irresponsibility, we should desire
to point out that the prisoner had for many years been exposed
to severe strain during his honourable career of public service,
that he had endured several tropical fevers, and that he had
experienced the worry of two investigations which were of
a particularly nerve-trying character. For these reasons it
appears to us that some allowance may be made in his case for
an abnormal physical and mental state.
(2) We would urge that his execution would be helpful to
German policy, by accentuating the differences between us
and some of our fellow subjects in Ireland. It would be used,
however unjustly, as a weapon against us in the United States
and other neutral countries. On the other hand, magnanimity
upon the part of the British Government would soothe the
bitter feelings in Ireland, and make a most favourable im¬
pression throughout the Empire and abroad.
(0) We would respectfully remind you of the object Wesson
afforded by the United States at the conclusion of their Civil
War. The leaders of the South were entirely in the power ol

1 These petitions are printed in Trial of Roger Casement, pp. 298 et seqq.
345
346 ROGER CASEMENT

the North. Many of them were officers and officials who had
sworn allegiance to the laws of the United States and had
afterwards taken up arms and inflicted enormous losses upon
her. None the less not one of these men was executed, and
this policy of mercy was attended by such happy results that
a breach which seemed to be irreparable has now been happily
healed over.
Being ourselves deeply convinced of the wisdom of such a
policy, we feel constrained to approach you with this petition,
hoping that you may find yourself in agreement with the con¬
siderations which we advance.
We are, Sir,
Your obedient servants,
Sir T. Clifford Allbutt, K.C.B., Regius Professor of
Physics at the University of Cambridge.
William Archer.
Sir Thomas Barlow, Bart., K.C.V.O., President of the
Royal College of Physicians, London.
Harold Begbie.
Arnold Bennett.
Robert Blatchford.
Muirhead Bone.
Hall Caine.
The Rev. R. J. Campbell.
G. K. Chesterton.
The Rev. John Clifford.
Edward Clodd.
William Crooks.
Sir Francis Darwin (2 and 3).
W. Boyd Dawkins.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
John Drinkwater.
Sir James G. Frazer.
The Right Hon. Sir Edward Fry, G.C.B.
John Galsworthy.
A. G. Gardiner.
Alice B. Gomme.
G. P. Gooch.
Maurice Hewlett.
SilasK. Hocking.
The Rev. Robert F. Horton.
Jerome K. Jerome.
John Masefield.
 APPENDIX
347
H. W. Massingham.
Sir William Robertson Nicoll.
Sir Sydney Olivier.
The Rev. Thomas Phillips, President of the Baptist Union.
C. P. Scott, Editor, The Manchester Guardian,
Clement Shorter.
Ben Tillett.
Beatrice Webb.
Sidney Webb.
The Right Rev. the Bishop of Winchester.
Israel Zangwill.

Buswell’s Hotel,
Dublin, 15th July, 1916.
Dear ,—Some Irish men and women who are deeply
grieved at the events of the last few months propose to petition
the Government to show mercy to Roger Casement. They are
not influenced by any sympathy for his acts, but believe that any
further shedding of blood will not tend to improve the relations
between the two islands, or to smooth the irritation which
unfortunately exists.
It is not proposed to prepare any monster petition at present;
in this matter we must be guided by circumstances as they arise,
and at present such a course does not seem advisable. The time
available does not permit much delay for consultation, but we
hope you will approve of the form of petition now drawn up.
We propose that the present petition should go forward with only
a limited number of signatures—those of people of note or. in¬
fluence in literature, art, etc. This will give it a separate distinct
character and prevent the names being connected with those
having strong political associations.
If you approve we shall be glad if you will return the petition
signed so that it can be attached to others of the same nature.
Yours faithfully,
Maurice Moore.
Agnes O’Farrelly.

Committee
Rt. Rev. Monsignor A. Ryan. Mrs. Hutton.
Dr. Hyde, LL.D. Mrs. O’Nolan.
Rev. Matthew MacGuire. Miss O’Farrelly.
Colonel Moore. Miss Young.
F. Allen, Esq.- pJUA v.
...
Larcan Sherlock, Esq., late Lord Mayor, Dublin.
348 ROGER CASEMENT

The humble petition of the undersigned showeth—

1. The signers of this petition have no sympathy with the
actions of Roger Casement in Germany, but they hope the
Government will deeply consider not alone the legal aspect of
the case, and the anger caused by acts hostile to the Empire in
time of war, but also the larger and deeper considerations of
policy which may result from the carrying out of the full measure
of punishment which the legal tribunal has exacted. The
relations of the Irish people to the Empire are of more importance
than the personality of the man who has been arraigned for
treason.
2. The capital city of Ireland has suffered severely as the
result of the late disturbances; large areas of the city have been
laid in ruins, and the material damage has produced widespread
unemployment and distress. This distress has roused public
feeling to a state of tense excitement, and a general feeling of
unrest has spread to classes not previously affected.
3. In addition to the sufferings caused by the destruction of
property in Dublin, a great number of people have been arrested
both in Dublin and the Provinces, and deported to England.
Their relatives and friends are uncertain as to their treatment,
and in many cases their families have no means of support, so that
the effects of the Rebellion, which was confined to Dublin and
two small districts, have been spread into every corner of Ireland.
4. The actual leaders of the Rebellion in Ireland were executed
immediately after its suppression, and a general feeling pervaded
this country and abroad that enough blood had been shed. It
is true that the special circumstances of Roger Casement’s case
make it impossible to differentiate in his favour; but time has
elapsed since the acts of rebellion, and this, though not con¬
sidered in law, makes a great human difference. The reaction
in public sentiment, which was undoubtedly caused by the
punishments inflicted, ought to be allowed to settle. Your
petitioners feel that another execution so long after will arouse
popular feeling and prevent the quiet acceptance of the new
measure for the government of Ireland. Whatever gratitude this
measure might evoke will be countered by another act of severity,
and the new Government will have new difficulties to face for
which it is in no way responsible.
5. Inexcusable as Roger Casement’s actions in this matter
may be, it must be remembered that he has performed great
services to the Empire and humanity by his work in the Congo
and Putumayo. His life has been spent serving the country in
fever-stricken regions in West Africa and Brazil, where his health
 APPENDIX
349
was permanently impaired. Returning to Ireland sick and
broken with disease after long years of exile, he found a state of
affairs existing two or three years ago which might easily distract
his mind and upset his judgment.
6. Your petitioners do not wish to draw any comparisons
which might seem invidious, but they venture to express the
belief that if clemency were shown it could be justified by
abundant precedent.
7. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the extreme
penalty of death may not be inflicted upon Roger Casement.

To the Right Honourable H. H. Asquith, K.C., M.P.,

Prime Minister.

Sir,—We, the undersigned, beg leave to place before you

certain considerations affecting the case of Roger David Case¬
ment, now under sentence of death for high treason. Our object
is to show reason why the sentence of the Court should not be
executed.
We will not occupy your time with matters as well known to
you as to ourselves, and on which your judgment cannot be
challenged, such, for example, as the conspicuous public services
of the condemned man and so forth. We address ourselves solely
to points on which you may desire information as to the state of
public opinion.
We assume that the penalty for high treason is peculiar in
criminal law inasmuch as it depends for its sanction not on the
general principle of the sacredness of law, but on its effect on
the public peace. The conclusion is arrived at in every case by
balancing the deterrent effect of carrying out the sentence against
the conciliatory effect of remitting it. Recent events in South
Africa have accustomed the public to this view. We therefore
need trouble you with no apology for treating the decision as one
of expediency only. _ .
In our opinion, Casement had not, up to the time of his trial,
any serious hold on the Irish people. His Nationalist writings
were circulated in America, not in Ireland. His political projects^
being those of an educated diplomatist, were too technical to be
understood by such groups as the Republican Brotherhood and
the irreconcilable section of Sinn Fein. We are confident that, if
during your recent visit to Ireland you inquired what Casement
 ROGER CASEMENT
350
was driving at, you did not receive a single well-informed reply.
You certainly did not find him a national hero; and we venture
to assume that you do not wish him to become a national hero.
There is, however, one infallible way in which that can be
done; and that way is to hang him. His trial and sentence have
already raised his status in Nationalist Ireland; but it lacks the
final consecration of death. We urge you very strongly not to
effect that consecration. In the position of Mr. Arthur Lynch
and General de Wet, Casement will be harmless, disabled by his
own failure. On a British scaffold he will do endless mischief.
The contrast between ruthless severity in his case, and con¬
spicuous leniency—not to mention impunity in others, will
provide an overwhelming argument and illustration to the
propagandists of hatred and revenge, whilst the halo which
surrounds the national martyr will make a national faith of his
beliefs and a gospel of his writings.
As against this nothing can be claimed except that other rebels
may be intimidated. But the likelihood is all the other way.
The Irish movement is not a solid phalanx of irreconcilables.
The Casementites and Fenians were a negligible minority of it
until the Rebellion. If, though still a minority, they are no
longer negligible, it is precisely because of the policy of intimida¬
tion, of ‘ giving Ireland a lesson,’ attempted by General Maxwell.
The swing of the pendulum, not only in Ireland but in the
neutral countries which are interested in Ireland, was immediate
and unmistakable. But it has not been decisive. The Nation¬
alist movement is still reasonable; and a friendly settlement is
easy, provided no more executions take place. Even the crude
notion that England owes Ireland a life for Mr. Skeffington’s had
better be respected.
You will observe that in thus putting the case before you, we
have deprived ourselves of the support of those who see in the
specific proposals of Casement a real hope for Irish independence,
and who must therefore, within the limits imposed by common
humanity, desire the strenuous impulse which would be given to
his authority and influence by his death in an English prison as
an Irish patriot. But you will hardly attach the less weight on
that account to our urgent representation, which is prompted by
a sincere desire for an unembittered settlement of the question
which has occupied so large a share of the labours of your
administration.

We are, Sir,

Your obedient Servants,

 APPENDIX
351
To the Right Honourable Herbert Louis Samuel, M.P.,
Secretary of State for the Home Department.
SiR, We, the undersigned, have reason to believe that certain
petitions are being presented to His Majesty the King praying
for the remission of the capital sentence recently passed upon
Roger Casement on the charge of high treason. We desire in
this petition to ask that his work on behalf of subject races in the
tropical regions of South America and Central Africa may also
be taken into consideration. We beg to recall to you the tribute
paid to this work by Lord Fitzmaurice and Lord Lansdowne in
the House of Lords on the 3rd July, i_9°6- Lord Fitzmaurice
(then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) said—
‘ . . . Mr. Casement had an exceedingly difficult task, and
was subject to all those perils of flood and field which a man
who has work to do in the interior of Africa has to encounter.
He had, moreover, to carry on an enquiry which could not fail
to be more or less disagreeable to those concerned, and to make
him an object of suspicion and dislike to them. . . . That
gentleman (Roger Casement) has been the object of many
unjust attacks, and I am sure that I am giving utterance to the
feelings of all here when I express the hope that Mr. Casement,
whom reasons of health have compelled to retire from an
appointment which he held at Lisbon, will have an opportunity
of adding further services to those with which his name is
already associated.’

The Marquess of Lansdowne supported this tribute in the

following words:
‘ . . . Then came the mission of Mr. Consul Casement, to
whom my noble friend referred in terms of commendation
which were thoroughly well deserved. Mr. Casement’s report
certainly had the effect of raising a corner of the curtain behind
which was shrouded the iniquities that had been going on
for many years.’
These expressions referred, it is true, to his work in Central
Africa, but they applied in every respect to a similar task,
equally difficult and even more dangerous, which he accom¬
plished in South America in a manner highly satisfactory to
His Majesty’s Government.
Those of us who laboured to counteract the evils exposed in
both these charges found the investigations of Roger Casement
of great assistance, and they helped more than anything else in
securing for several millions of the child races of the world a
 ROGER CASEMENT
352
large mitigation of the sufferings inflicted upon them by an
unscrupulous exploitation. We desire also to emphasise that the
questions submitted to Roger Casement for investigation were
ultimately subjected to a searching scrutiny by impartial Com¬
mittees, and in no case was the evidence secured by Roger
Casement shaken in any way whatever.
We believe it will not be contested that the reports issued by
Roger Casement during the period he served His Majesty’s
Government are regarded as displaying unusual skill and forming
a valuable historical account of the treatment of native races.

We have the honour to be, Sir,

Your most obedient humble Servants,

The Right Honourable H. H. Asquith, K.C., M.P.,

Prime Minister.
The Right Honourable H. L. Samuel, M.P.,
Home Secretary.

Sirs,—We beg respectfully to urge that the sentence passed on

Roger Casement should, not be carried out.
We do not ask this for his sake, for he himself has not asked it.
We plead for clemency because of the grave effects which it is
to be feared his execution would have on the relations between
England and Ireland.
There are multitudes who feel that the knight-errant in the
cause of suffering humanity in the Congo and the Putumayo
cannot be treated as if he were on the moral level of a common
murderer. Those who saw and heard him at his trial realise
that his transgression of the law, however grave, left his own
conscience clear. However much he may have outraged the
instincts and principles which happily prevail where loyalty to
one’s own people and national aspirations is the same thing as
loyalty to the State, he would walk to his death upright and
unashamed.
Whatever may be said as to the necessity for swift, sharp
measures in the heat of an armed insurrection, it might not be
wise, when blood is cold, to press the utmost rigour of the
criminal law against such a man, even if he stood alone and moral
sentiment were strongly on the side of the law.
But the danger is infinitely greater when there is a risk of a
general divorce of moral sentiment from the law, especially in
 APPENDIX
353
a case where the deepest and most sacred feelings of many
people are concerned, as in the long struggle to preserve and
uphold Irish Nationalism.
A large and growing number of Irish men and women would
regard his execution not as a just and necessary punishment of
crime, but as a cruel act of vengeance.
The legal execution of persons who, however mistakenly, have
broken the law and appealed to force in furtherance of a high
cause has proved again and again to be the strongest stimulant
to others to adopt similar aims and methods. Old John Brown’s
body troubled the slave-owners all the more when they had
nailed his coffin down.
In Ireland, when devotion to country has paid the price of
death, respect for the law is swept away by an intensity of sym¬
pathy which has never been generally understood in England.
At this moment that divorce of feeling from the established
order has grown in Ireland with alarming rapidity. After years
of hope, which seemed on the point of realisation, of friendship
between England and Ireland, the estrangement of the two
peoples is now in danger of becoming deeper and more bitter and
more complete than before. Education has made it possible for
disaffection to grow and spread in ways that were impossible
fifty years ago. At this moment the one great hope in both
countries has been of pacification and reconciliation between
parties in Ireland and between England and Ireland. The
possibility of this being brought about is now trembling in the
balance, and we believe that the execution of Roger Casement
would turn the scale in the direction of lawlessness and bitter¬
ness to such an extent that recovery could not take place in our
generation.
For the sake of both England and Ireland we pray that that
execution may not take place.

We have the honour to be, Sirs,

Your most obedient humble Servants,

23
 APPENDIX VI

* For God and Kathleen ni Houlihan 51

BY

Eva Gore-Booth.

The two years now closing have been to many years of death
and exaction. Tragedy after tragedy has overwhelmed our
world with pity and terror. But to Irish people especially that
pity and terror has come mixed with a strange exultation. And
to the little band of lovers and friends who watched in breathless
suspense and agonised hope that supreme and long drawn out
agony, that dragged slowly on through three terrible months to
its inevitable end, there were sudden flashes of intense realisa¬
tion, moments when the heart’s tragic defeat was merged in the
mysterious victory of the soul. In some silent compelling way,
sorrow itself seemed to be drawn up at times into that calm
atmosphere of beauty and peace that wrapped round in a strange
smiling security the untroubled spirit of Roger Casement, as he
moved serenely through tempests of reviling and torture and the
scorn of men, without fear and without hatred. ‘ He sent grateful
messages to all who prayed for him and loved him—that I was
to tell all that he died for Ireland, and that he wished them to
know that he had no bitterness in his heart for anyone. . . . He
was wonderful, the peace, the tranquillity, the courage with
which he faced death and talked of it. . . . My heart is divided
between joy and sorrow.’ Such was the witness of one who was
with him a day or two before the end. But the simple and
spiritual beauty of his nature expresses itself most clearly,
perhaps, in the letter to a friend, an old Irish peasant woman,
dated 14th July; a letter so poignant in its pathos, so selfless in
its detachment, that the darkness of certain death that hangs
over its simple and gay friendliness seems only like one of those
cloud shadows, that at twilight so often deepen the beauty of
the sunlit hills of Ireland, with the sudden wistfulness of an unseen
and secret presence.

1 This article was published in The Catholic Bulletin, a Dublin monthly

paper, two years after Casement’s death. It has lately been reprinted
in Prison Letters of Countess Markiewicz, edited by Miss Esther Roper.
354
 APPENDIX 355
My dear Brigid,

I am writing to you through a friend, asking her to send this

letter on to you, as she will be able to find out where you are.
Your letter came to me yesterday, here in this prison cell, and
it was like a glimpse of the garden, with the wallflowers and the
Japanese cherry, to get your message.
First, I want to tell you that your Crucifix, the medals and
the scapular came to me three weeks ago, but the letter only
yesterday. They are always with me, and please God will be
as long as I am here.
Remember me to so many, and thank those friends who
pray for me—and don’t pay any attention to the lies. They are
compliments really, and we need not mind compliments, you
and I, Biddy dear.
Do you remember the ‘ Cradle Song ’ I liked so much?
Get Cathal to sing it for me, and give him my love and thanks
from my heart, also to Colm, if he is near you, and Dinny
and Seaghan Dhu, whenever they come back to you and the
old room again. I dreamt last night I was lying before the fire
in it, and the boys were telling stories, and you standing at
the door with the pipes. ... I have thought of you often,
and of the garden, and of the last time I saw you, and the
message I gave you. Do you remember? I know you carried
it out, dear Brigid, because I heard you did. And so farewell—
and may God’s blessing rest on you and yours and be with you
in your work—and may the heartfelt thanks of one in much
sorrow and affliction of soul be part of your reward for your
affection.
Always your friend,
Roger Casement.

The Manchester Guardian, describing the passing of the death

sentence on Roger Casement, comments thus on the prisoner s
attitude: ‘ Sir Roger Casement heard these words and smiled
wanly, looking down, one thought, as if to reassure his friends
who were near the dock. Then erect and quite self-possessed he
turned and disappeared behind the green curtain. He had kept
flis dignity, his almost incredible detachment, to the last.
That ‘ incredible detachment ’ was a constant source of wonder
and inspiration to his friends. History holds up for our admira¬
tion the figure of Sir Thomas More apologising to his executioners
br having to ask them to help him to climb the .scaffold, an
adding with smiling politeness, that ‘ for his coming down he
356 ROGER CASEMENT

would shift for himself.’ That story might have been written of
Roger Casement at any moment during those long months
through which he faced a certain and horrible death, with some¬
thing more than courage, a supreme gentle courtesy so selfless
that it had forgotten the very meaning of fear. ‘ I was going to
read it out in Court,’ he said in one of his last letters of a certain
document, but he explained that the print was very small, ‘ and
besides I felt sorry for the jury. They had had enough, and their
kindly faces deserved a change of scene from that dreadful
Court.’ It is not often that a prisoner just about to be condemned
to death concerns himself about the discomfort and boredom of
the jury, and one cannot help wondering what rare secret of
character was hidden behind those simple words. There are
many degrees of selfishness in human beings and there are many
unselfish people. But the certainty of a lonely and horrible
death would find out the weak point in most of us, and it would
seem natural and pardonable in most people, if, at the supreme
and tragic moment of their destiny, their minds were concen¬
trated on their own agony, to the exclusion of other people’s
petty discomforts. But Roger Casement was not like most people.
There was something in him that made it impossible for him to
be self-absorbed, however strange and desperate his circumstances
might be. Perhaps the keynote of his nature is to be found in
that sentence with which he explained his loyalty to Ireland, and
the reason he felt no loyalty to the Empire that governs her by
force. ‘ Loyalty,’ he said, ‘ is a sentiment, not a law. It rests
on love, not on restraint.’ The same might be said of the shining
qualities of his own character. They were not founded on mere
laws or external restraints, but on a great universal love of human
beings, and goodwill to all men. It was his nature to consider
and feel for other people’s difficulties, sufferings and hopes with
no careful and forced unselfishness, but with an enthusiastic and
eager affection that no private sufferings of his own could dull,
and that made him lose entirely the limited personal point of
view common to most people. It would be easy in defence of this
view to quote the known facts of his noble and self-sacrificing
cause—to say that he threw away health and ordinary human
happiness through years of hard and terrible work, in unhealthy
climates, trying to bring to light atrocities and cruelties in
Putumayo and the Congo, and saving thousands of innocent
victims from outrage, mutilation and death. Indeed, it might
be said of him that the desolate and oppressed never appealed
to him in vain. The loyalty that is founded on love had a very
different effect on his life to that of the more common form of
 APPENDIX 357
loyalty founded on mutual hate, self-interest and fear. Instead
of making him bitter against others, it deepened his sympathies
with all oppressed nations, and made him, besides being the
champion of Ireland, a fighter in the cause of enslaved nation¬
alities and individuals all over the world. And let no one
imagine that his international activities and sympathies did not
react for good on the cause of his own country, by accentuating
her position in the eyes of the world (as all his work tended to do)
as one of the oppressed small nationalities of Europe, a comrade
of Poland, Finland and the rest, in her struggle for freedom, and
not merely as a rather rebellious and troublesome province in a
corner of the British Empire.
Roger Casement was one of the world’s great champions of the
weak against the strong, of goodwill and freedom against militar¬
ism and empire, of life against death, and thus he takes his place
with the seers and prophets of all ages. But if Roger Casement
was in a sense international and had room in his heart for all the
oppressed and defeated, yet to him had come more especially the
call of Kathleen ni Houlihan in her great need. And it was for
the sake of her he loved with all the passion of his idealistic and
romantic nature that he left his safe asylum and, in full know¬
ledge of what must be the result of his action, made his way to
Ireland to be ready with help and advice in the hour of danger
and difficulty. ‘ We salute you as we would salute Wolfe Tone,’
wrote ‘ three obscure citizens of Ireland ’ to the condemned
prisoner of Pentonville, in one of those many touching tributes
of love, admiration and gratitude from his own people, that were
indeed his due, who had given up for their sake everything that
most men hold precious. For truly never was there a man who
more deliberately threw away his life and liberty in a cause that
was dearer to him than life or liberty. ‘ I am going with a halter
round my neck,’ he told a friend before he left Germany. And
from that day onward, I do not think he ever faltered in the
certainty that he was one of those who are (as Thomas Mac-
Donagh put it in his speech before the court-martial) ‘ predestined
to die in this generation for the cause of Irish freedom.’ He was
never of those whose courage has to be bolstered up with illusions.

To-morrow [he wrote] I go to the Appeal Court to hear my

counsel against the Indictment. And I shall return here.
That is the one thing I am sure of. However interesting from
the point of view of treason law in this country, I anticipate
no other interest than that of listening to the arguments for
and against and coming to the place I started from in the
358 ROGER CASEMENT

morning. If I had Solon for an advocate the result, I fancy,

would be the same.
Up to the last his sympathy for suffering in all countries never
failed. On the 16th July he wrote:
I am glad, indeed, to hear the news from Putumayo and the
Fathers there. The Franciscans were loved in Peru from of
old. It is a good thing to think of them there now in that
dreary region, and I am glad for their sake. Once I grieved
at it, and thought I was sending them, or asking for them to
be sent out to bitter trial and disappointment, but it is not so,
and they will see the fruit of their privations and of their
self-sacrifice in the lives they save, and in the increase of life
and happiness around them, to replace the old dreadful and
mortal misery.

But in those last weeks of cruel loneliness it was to Ireland

that his heart turned:
To-day [he wrote] my mind is far away down by O’Sullivan
Beare Land and over there where I shall never be again, not
even in dreams, by Clare and Aran and Garumna. I wonder
how it will all be a hundred years hence, and whether any of
the old speech and thought that sprang from it and prayers
that grew from it will survive. Goodbye, my dear friend, and
I hope all your young ones will grow up in that Gosepl and no
other and that it may be well with them hereafter. ... I shall
not forget you wherever memory goes with me.

The growth of Roger Casement’s religious convictions in the

isolation of prison life could be surprising to no one who under¬
stood the character and ideals that had been his through years
of active work. If it be a fact, as he said, that true religion rests
on love, it is easy to see how the long years of selfless devotion
and affectionate friendships had brought him into harmony
with the unseen purposes of the universe, and very near to the
Divine meaning of human life. ‘ I can only accept in my soul
from love,’ he said, and indeed, to one who had such a great
heart and such a universal love for the brother whom he had
seen, it could have been no great step to that other mysterious
love. In religious matters, as in all things, he was very honest
with himself, would not let himself be hurried by emotion into
taking any step without the consent of his mind as well as his
heart.
And then [he wrote] I don’t want to jump or rush—or
do anything hastily—just because time is short. It must be
 APPENDIX
359
my deliberate act, unwavering and confirmed by all my in¬
telligence. And alas! to-day it is not so. It is still, I find,
only my heart that prompts, from love, from affection for
others, from association of ideas and ideals, and not yet my full
intellect. For if it were thus the doubts could not beset me as
vigorously as they do. I am not on a rock but on a bed of
thorns. ... You must continue to help me as you have done
in the way you wot of, and in the way you say so many more
are doing.

His was no facile death-bed conversion, prompted by fear or

sentiment, but a gradual adjustment of the whole mind and soul
into relation with the unseen, an adjustment that began with
pain and struggle and uncertainty, and ended in the peace of a
personality in harmony with itself and with God, exalted above
fear, trouble or bitterness.
We cannot know much of the working of his inner mind during
the long and lonely hours of his imprisonment, nor of those
mental processes that led up with growing and gathering con¬
viction to the unfaltering certainty of that confession of faith
which was perhaps the last voluntary action of his life. But we
can find traces in his last message to his friends of that religious
exultation and other-world peace that was a marvel to those
who were privileged to see him. ‘ Give my love to all my friends,
and to all who have worked for me. My last message to every
one is “ Sursum Corda,” and for the rest, my goodwill to those
who have taken my life, equally to all those who tried to save it.
All are my brethren now.’
Roger Casement was ready and willing to die, as he said, for
the cause of Irish freedom. And indeed it might be said of him,
that while many have died for their countries and for great causes
in all ages, no man has ever in the annals of history done more
than he did, by the manner of his dying, to exalt and glorify the
country of his love. ‘ He died,’ said one who was with him at the
last, ‘ with all the faith of an Irish peasant woman. . . . He
marched to the scaffold with the dignity of a prince and towered
straight as an arrow over all of us on the scaffold. He feared not
death and prayed with me to the last. I have no doubt that he
has gone to Heaven.’
Eva Gore-Booth.
 APPENDIX VII

Proposed Conditions of Service in the Irish Brigade

The following Irish prisoners of war, captured by the German

Army and now detained in the camp at Limburg, province of
Hesse, Germany, voluntarily agree to enter the Irish Brigade on
the following conditions:

1. That the purpose of the Irish Brigade now being formed in

Germany shall be solely to achieve the independence of Ireland.
2. That the members of the Irish Brigade are enrolled in it
solely to serve Ireland and to fight in the behalf of the complete
freedom of Ireland.
3. That no man entering the Irish Brigade does so for any pay,
monetary reward or promise of such hereafter, but solely as a
volunteer in the service of Ireland with entire willingness to give
his life and all he stands for freely and without reserve in his
country’s cause.
4. That the Irish Brigade, once constituted, while it shall be
devoted solely to the purposes stated, with a view to securing the
independence of Ireland by force of arms, shall during its stay in
Germany be subject to the military discipline and control of the
German War Office, and all members of the Irish Brigade shall
be bound to obey all orders given to them by the competent
German military authorities, whether officers of the Irish
Brigade or not, and shall, in all respects, behave themselves with
the same obedience and respect for German military authority
as if they were German soldiers.
5. That the Irish Brigade shall be equipped by the German
Government with a special uniform, having a special Irish badge
and that the Brigade colours shall be the Irish Flag—the national
ensign as carried in 1798.
6. That as far as possible the officers of the Irish Brigade shall
be Irish, or Irish-Americans, but until such time as it may be
possible to obtain the services of Irishmen with the necessary
military training the members of the Brigade will obey whatever
officers the German authorities may place over them, with the
consent of Sir Roger Casement.
7. That Sir Roger Casement shall be in supreme command of
the movements of the Irish Brigade, shall be responsible for its
360
 APPENDIX 361

active employment in the field and shall accompany it in its

active operations.
8. That a formal undertaking in writing, embodying these
conditions in the name of the German Government and providing
for the despatch of the Irish Brigade to Ireland with officers and
military equipment to arm the Irish Volunteers, at the first
opportunity, when it might be possible to despatch a body of men
to Ireland, shall be drawn up and signed by the proper German
authority in the name of the German Government, and by Sir
Roger Casement for the Irish Brigade and the Irish Volunteers.
9. That in the event of it being possible to send the Irish
Brigade to Ireland whether after a German naval victory or from
other cause, the German Government will aid to the best of its
ability to make the movement successful and will do all in its
power to assist the Irish People, the Irish Volunteers and the
Irish Brigade to establish a national Government in Ireland.
10. That in the event of the Irish Brigade failing to reach
Ireland, or in the event of peace being restored between Germany
and Great Britain with Ireland still in its present relation to
Great Britain, then the German Government will send every
member of the Irish Brigade to the United States of America at
its own expense and enable him to land in that country.
 APPENDIX VIII

Address of the Irish Brigade

(Once the Irish Brigade had been formed this address was to
have been issued to the Irish race. It was drafted by Count
Joseph Mary Plunkett and Sir Roger Casement. The paragraph
in inverted commas is from a speech by John Redmond to the
Irish in Buffalo, N.Y., in 1908.)

We, the members of the Irish Brigade now being formed in

Germany, late prisoners of war but now enrolled to fight for the
freedom of our country, hereby declare:

That, as we entered upon this war as members of the British

Army in the belief that we were fighting in the cause of Liberty
and Justice, and thereby advancing the cause of our Country,
Ireland, to secure the rights and liberties of her people; and as
we have assured ourselves and are now certain that in this belief
we were misled by those we had trusted and that to-day, as
always, the British State is the implacable enemy of our Country
and of all its national rights and liberties, and, moreover, that
in this war, which has been forced on the world by England and
her allies, the cause of national right, of justice and truth is the
cause of the Germanic nations:
Now, therefore, after full deliberation and with full sense of
our responsibility, we have taken the open course of severing,
by our own act, all connection with the British State and Army
and of giving ourselves to the service of our Country to fight
for Irish Independence.
‘ If it were in the power of any Irishman to bring that result
about to-morrow by honourable and brave means, he would be
indeed a coward and a traitor to the traditions of his race did
he not do so.’
The Imperial German Government has generously undertaken
to arm and equip us as soldiers of Ireland to fight in her cause
alone and under the Flag of our Country.
With the help of our countrymen in Ireland and throughout
the world, we hope either to win the independence of our
Country or to die fighting for the glory of God and the honour
of Ireland.
362
 APPENDIX IX

Bibliography

* Despatch to certain of His Majesty’s Representatives abroad

in regard to alleged cases of ill-treatment of natives and to the
existence of trade monopolies in the Independent State of the
Congo.’ Cmd. 1809 of 1903.
‘ Correspondence and Report from His Majesty’s Consul at
Boma respecting the Administration of the Independent State
of the Congo.’ Cmd. 1933 of 1904.
‘ Correspondence respecting the treatment of British Colonial
Subjects and Native Indians employed in the collection of rubber
in the Putumayo district.’ Cmd. 6266 of 1912.
‘ Correspondence relating to recent events in the Irish Com¬
mand.’ Cmd. 7318, 7329 and 7730 of 1914.
‘ Documents relative to the Sinn Fein Movement.’ Cmd.
1108 of 1921.
‘ Report of the Royal Commission on the Rebellion in Ireland.’
Cmd. 8277 of 1916. ‘ Minutes of Evidence.’ Cmd. 8311 of 1916.

‘ The Crime against Europe. A possible outcome of the War

of 1914’ by Sir Roger Casement. 1915. (The Celtic Press,
Philadelphia, U.S.A.) A collection of articles written before
the war.
‘ The Crime against Ireland and How the War may Right it ’
by Sir Roger Casement. (This is the pamphlet published by the
German Foreign Office. It is the same as the American pamph¬
let, above, save that there are no titles to the articles.)
* Ireland, Germany and the Freedom of the Seas. A possible
outcome of the War of 1914 ’ by Sir Roger Casement. 1914.
(Irish Press Bureau, New York and Philadelphia. Sept. 1, 1914.)
It was this pamphlet, with ‘ The Elsewhere Empire ’ added, that
formed ‘ The Crime against Ireland.’
363
364 ROGER CASEMENT

e The Causes of the War and the Foundations of Peace. The

Keeper of the Seas ’ by Sir Roger Casement. (Jos. C. Hubers
Verlag, Diessen vor Miinchen, 1915.)
e Diaries of Sir Roger Casement: His Mission to Germany and
the Findlay Affair ’ edited by Dr. Charles E. Curry. 1922.
(Arche Publishing Co., Munich, Germany.)
‘ Some Poems of Roger Casement ’ with an introduction by
Gertrude Parry. 1918. (Talbot Press, Dublin.)
‘ Irland, Deutschland und die Freiheit der Meere, und andere
Aufsatze 5 by Sir Roger Casement. (Jos. C. Hubers Verlag,
Diessen vor Miinchen).
‘ Casement in Deutschland * by Dr. Franz Rothenfelder.
(Augsburg, 1917. Verlag Gebruder Reichel.)
‘ The Life and Death of Roger Casement ’ by Denis Gwynn.
1931. (Jonathan Cape, London.)
‘ Sir Roger Casement ’ by L. G. Redmond-Howard. 1916.
(Hodges, Figgis & Co., Dublin.)
‘ Vindication of Roger Casement ’ by Padraic Colum. (‘ Cur¬
rent History,’ September, 1931.)
‘ Casement ’ by F. Swinnerton.
‘Casement’s Last Adventure’ by Robert Monteith. 1932.
(Privately printed in America.)
‘ Gun-Running for Casement ’ by Karl Spindler. 1921.
(English translation: W. Collins, Sons & Co., London.)
‘ The Mystery of the Casement Ship, with authentic docu¬
ments ’ by Karl Spindler. (Kribe Verlag, Berlin.)
‘Trial of Roger Casement’ edited by G. H. Knott. 1917.
(Notable British Trials Series: William Hodge & Co., London.)

‘ History of the Irish Volunteers ’ by Bulmer Hobson.

‘ Secret History of the Irish Volunteers ’ by The O’Rahilly.
‘John Redmond’s Last Years ’ by Stephen Gwynn.
‘ Recollections of the Irish War ’ by Darrell Figgis.
 APPENDIX 365

‘ From Three Yachts 5 by Conor O’Brien.

‘ Last Changes, Last Chances ’ by H. W. Nevinson.
‘ Annals of an Active Life ’ by Sir Nevil Macready.
‘ Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson: his Life and Diaries ’ by
Major-General C. E. Callwell.

‘ Irish Independent5 April 12-24, 1922- (Casement’s diary.)

‘ Catholic Bulletin,’ Jan.-Dee., 1928 (Keogh’s account of
his experiences); September, 1916 (Account of Casement’s
death).
‘ Land and Water,’ November, 1919.
 INDEX
Aberdeen, Lord, 133
A.B.I.R. Company, 36, 39, 41-2
Abisinia, 69, 72, 74
Admiralty Chart, English, German
use of, 238
Africa, the partition of, 12-13
Africa, Central, 4. See Congo
Africa, South, and the Boer republics,
5-7 5 92
Africa, West, 4; Casement’s appoint¬
ments at, 5
Agiiero, Abelardo, 70
Allbutt, Sir T. Clifford, 346
Allen, F., 347
Allman, John, 251
Alsace-Lorraine, 101-2
America, Casement lectures in, 4,
214; and the Berlin Conference,
13; Irish Nationalists in, 279 n-80.
See U.S.A. and Irish-Americans
Anderson, Sir Robert, 47
Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Pro¬
tection Society, 91
Arana Brothers, 56, 62
Archer, William, 346
Ardfert, 250, 251, 253, 256
Arms Proclamation in Ireland, 309
Asquith, H. H., Prime Minister, 96,
124, 135, 137, 143, 146, 168, 264,
345. 349, 352
Atkin, Lord, 296, 318
Aud, the sinking of the, 260-3
Austria, 44, 214
Avory, Mr. Justice, 281
Bachelor’s Walk, the affair of, 136,
143-5, i89, i9°> 286
Bailey, Daniel Julian, 247, 248, 253-5,
257, 267, 273 and n, 2830, 286,
313 n 3, 344
Ballycastle, 1, 47, 48
Ballymena Academy, 2-3, 93, 94
Ballymoney, 108-9
Bannisters, Casement’s cousins, 2-4
Barbados, the men of, and the Putu¬
mayo, 58, 59, 62-3, 65, 69, 82
Barlow, Sir Thomas, 346
Barnes, L. H., 57
366
Barrington, Sir Eric, 51
Begbie, Harold, 346
Belaiew, Col. Nicholas, 291
Belgium, 13; her officials on the
Congo, 17, 18-43; Casement’s
Congo report, 44, 45; the World
War, 146-7, 182
Bell, E. S., 57
Bennett, Arnold, 346
Beresford, Lord Charles, no, 141
Berlin, the Conference at, 13-15; the
Act of, 21; Casement’s mission in,
165-248. See Germany
Bernhardi, General von, 107 n
Bernstorff, Count von, 150, 191, 208,
225, 236, 282 n 2-283
Bertie, Col. the Hon. R. H., 57, 58
Best, Chief Justice, 296
Bethmann-Hollweg, Count von, 166,
184, 194
Beverley, Julian, 247, 248. See
Bailey, Daniel Julian
Birkenhead, Earl of, 281 n. See
Smith, Sir F. E.
Birrell, Augustine, Chief Secretary,
.52, 133, 309, 3io
Bishop, Frederick, 65-6
Blatchford, Robert, 346
Blondel, Armando, 70
Bliicher, Count Gebhard, 177, 179,
181, 191, 196, 209, 214; Countess,
177
Bluebell, H.M.S., 260-3
Blunt, Wilfred, 168, 318
Bodkin, Sir A. H., 281
Boehm, Captain, 217, 218, 225
Boer republics, the question of the,
5; and supremacy in South Africa,
6-7
Boer War, Casement on the, 5-7, g;
and Irish prisoners in the Trans¬
vaal, 149-50
Bolobo, 22, 23-4, 27
Bone, Muirhead, 346
Bongandanga, 39-42
Botha, General, 9
Bow Street Police Station, 255, 265,
267, 268
 INDEX
Branson, G. A. H., 281
Bray, Mr. Justice, 318
Brazil, Casement’s sojourn in, 53-5
Britain. See Great Britain
British Empire, Casement on the, 308,
310
Brixton Prison, 254, 268
Brussels, the Conference at, 12
Bryan, W. J., 164
Bryce, James (Lord), 90
Cadogan, Lady, 48
Caine, Hall, 346
Callwell, Major-Gen. C. E., 365
Campbell, Rev. R. J., 346
Cape Times, and Casement’s arrest, 263
Carey, Father, 331
Carson, Sir Edward, and Home Rule,
97, 108, no, 117; King of Ireland,
129-30, 136, 137
Casement, N., 117, 183. See New¬
man, Mrs. Nina
Casement, Capt. Roger, 1
Casement, Roger David, ix; his ap¬
pearance, io-ii, 267-8, 283; a
criticism of, 274, 276-80, 349-50;
an appreciation, 354-9
birth, parentage, and ancestry, 1,
10, no
character, 2, 9-10; his love of
Ireland, 2-3, 11; anti-Boer to
pro-Boer, 5-7, 8 n; nearly an
Englishman, 7 n; his fanatical
intensity and simplicity, 9-11,
329; his views on his open treason,
167-8; change in his outlook,
287-8; his moral character tra¬
duced,315-16,320; was there any
change of mind between 1911
and 1914?, 288, 325-6, 328-30;
his extreme Nationalism, 325-7;
his affection for the under dog,
327
early life, 2; his love affair, 3-4;
a violent end foretold, 8
his career : Elder Dempster Ship¬
ping Company, 3, 4; explores
West and Central Africa and
lectures in America, 4; with
Niger Coast Protectorate, 4-5;
his special mission at Cape
Town, 8
Consular Service: his appoint¬
ments as Consul in Africa, 4-5;
Congo, 8 (see under Congo); San
Paulo and Panama, 52 ; Consul-
367
General at Rio de Janeiro, 53, 56;
Haiti and San Domingo, 55; his
dispute with the Foreign Office,
and generous action, 55; on his
consular work, 55 ; the Consular
Service a fraud, 56; the Putu¬
mayo scandals, 57-92 (see under
Putumayo) ; the Bayard of the
English Consular Service, 92;
retires on a pension and travels,
92; resigns, 134; his honours, 8,
44, 46, 83-6, 287; pro-Irish
servant of the Union, 330
America: his lectures on Africa,
4; his Putumayo conferences, 90;
his appeal for the Irish Volunteers,
142-9; funds from, 141, 224, 227,
283 n, 298 and n, 310
Britain: his dislike of her attitude
towards Ireland, 48-9; Ireland
should not assist her in World
War, 145-9 i her imagination and
far-seeing purpose, 191-2; on
the oath of allegiance to, 220-2;
his indictment of the Unionist
party, 308, 311. See Great Britain
Christiania: his voyage from
America to, 151 -3; the Findlay
affair, 154-64, 171, 179-81, 183-5,
192-4, 197, 206, 208-11; his
letter to Sir Edward Grey, 214,
335-41 . ...
Germany, his mission in, 165
{see under Irish Brigade); his pass¬
ports, 170, 184; on what people
will say of him, 182-3,246; begins
to doubt and regrets coming to
Germany, 184, 189, 191; on
Germany’s lack of vision, 191-2;
Bethmann-Hollweg, 194; Ger-
man-Irish Society, 213-14; eat¬
ing his heart out, 214-15; his
Treaty with Germany, 216,
225-6; utterly disillusioned, 226;
Gaffney’s plans for getting him
to America, 229; his justification
for visit to Germany, 229-30; on
German Hun methods, 244;
secures a submarine, 247; every¬
one regrets that he was sent,
276-7, 279 n, 280; his mission a
blow for Ireland, not against
England, 328-9
Ireland: his love of, 2-3,11; his
Sinn Fein activities, 47-52; the
British Army, 50, 51; the Union
368 ROGER CASEMENT
Casement, R. D.—continued
Jack, 52; wants Responsibility
and dislikes Devolution Scheme,
53; Irishisms of his own, 53, 54,
93; an Irish Nationalist, 96; on
education in Ireland, 93-6;
‘ Ireland, Germany and the Next
War,’ 98-107; an Ulster Nation¬
alist, 108-11; on the Curragh
incident, 124-6; the Queens¬
town route to America, 127-9,
132; Sir Edward Carson, 129-
130; the Home Rule Bill, 131-4;
the duty of Irishmen in the
European conflict, 146-8; The
Crime against Ireland, etc., 175-6 ;
revolution in Ireland worse than
folly, 217-18; outside inner circle,
233-4, 271; self-government
Ireland’s right, 312; loyalty a
crime in Ireland, 312. See Irish
Volunteers and Easter Rebellion
voyage in submarine and landing,
255-9, 261 > the code, 251-2,
257 ; the diary, 252-3
arrest and arrival at Tower of
London, 250-5, 263-4; the war¬
rant, 344
high treason charge, 265
preliminary enquiry at Bow Street,
267-9; contempt of court, 268-9
trial in King’s Bench, 266, 281-
313; reason for, 265-9; his state¬
ment, 297-9; his speech when
declared guilty of high treason,
302-13; on his right to be tried by
his peers in Ireland, 303-6, 313;
a comparison of his and Unionist
treason, 311; proud to be a
rebel, 312-13
Pentonville Gaol, 314, 320, 321,
33L 354-9
appeal dismissed, 315, 318-19
deprived of his honours, 314;
returns insignia of knighthood,
341 . , .
Catholic Church, received into the,
3i5> 330-1, 358-9 >
petitions for his reprieve, 320, 345-
353; deputation to the King, 320
execution, 321, 359; a clear con¬
science, 352 ; application for his
body refused, 323 ; ‘ War’s Great
Irish Hero,’ 265, 349-50
Casement, Thomas, 92, 263 n 2
Cavanagh, 286
Cave, Sir George, Solicitor-General,
281
Ceannt, Eamon, 343
Central Irish Representative Council,
the, 52
Chamberlain, Joseph, 6
Chase, James, 6g*74
Chatterton-Hill, George, 229 n
Chesterton, G. K., 346
Childers, Erskine, 136
Christensen, Eivind Adler, 142, 151-
164, 170, 177, 179-81, 183, 185,
192-7, 204, 207-9, 212, 213, 226;
a crook, 277, 329, 335-41
Christiania : the Findlay affair, 154-
163, 197- See Findlay
Citizen Army, the Irish, 115, 232
Clan-na-Gael, 233, 239, 259 n
Clark, James, 66
Clarke, Thomas J., 232, 239, 343
Clifford, Rev. John, 346
Clodd, Edward, 346
Cockran, Bourke, 142
Cohalan, Judge, 176, 197, 228 n 2,
229
Coif, Order of the, 282 n 1
Coke, Sir Edward (Lord), 292-3, 296,
318-19
Collins, 259; Martin, 251
Colombia, and the Putumayo, 56, 60
Colum, Padraic, 364
Commission of Inquiry in Ireland,
310. See Hardinge Committee
Congo, expedition to, 4; Casement
appointed Consul in, 5, 8; Inde¬
pendent State of, 13-14; agitation
over the treatment of the natives,
14-17, 22; Casement’s report on the
atrocities, 18-45, 351 j Casement’s
later interest, 54
Congo Reform Association, 44-5
Connaught, and the grandees of old
Spain, 10
Connolly, James, 232, 234, 273, 274,
343
Conservatives, and Ireland, 51. See
Unionists
Coquilhatville, 35, 36, 43
Cork, Casement’s meeting in the City
Hall, 117; the Queenstown route,
117, 128-9, 132; and the Easter
Rebellion, 275
Court of the Admiral, 293; of Criminal
Appeal, 295, 296, 318-19; of the
Marshal and Constable, 293-4
Covenanters in Ulster, 97, 108
 INDEX
Crewe, Lord, 146, 335
Crichlow, Edward, 76
Cromer, Earl of, 17
Cronin, John, 284, 285, 289
Crooks, William, 346
Crotty, Father, 179, 188, 192, 204,
207, 243, 330
Culverwell, Prof., 94, 95
Cunard Company, the, 127-9
Cunninghame Graham, R. B., 10
Curragh Mutiny, the, 118-24; Case¬
ment’s comments, 124-6; its effect
in Ireland, 135, 311
Curraghane, 249, 253, 260, 291
Curry, Dr. Charles E., 227, 364
Cuvelier, M. de, 16, 44
Daily News, 138
Dale, Mr., 95
Darling, Mr. Justice, 293, 295-6,
318-19
Darwin, Sir Francis, 346
Daunt Rock Lightship, 260-1
Dawkins, W. Boyd, 346
Degradation of a knight, 314 n
Denmark, 44; and Casement, 180,
2i4> 239
Desart, Lord, 267
Deutsche-Irische Gesellschaft, Die,
213-14
De Valera, Eamon, 229 n
Devoy, John, 141-4, 150, 176, 177,
197, 228, 232-8 and n, 241-2, 263
and n 1 ; his jealousy and criticism
of Casement, 274-80
De Wet, General, 9, 350
Dickinson, Sir John, 267, 344
Donegal Training College, 93
Dowling, 216, 217, 218, 225
Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan, 98, 346
Doyle, M. F., 282, 283 n, 298, 302
Drinkwater, John, 346
Driscoll, Pat, 250
Dublin, 253, 254; St. Enda’s School,
93-4; meeting in the Rotunda,
115-16; the Easter Rebellion, 273-
274; the Irish Volunteers, 308
Dublin Bay, 245 and n
Dublin Castle, 52, 125; and the
Easter Rebellion, 270, 273
Dublin Evening Mail, 271-2
Duffy, Gavan, 268-9, 272 n, 277, 323
Dungannon, a ‘ storm centre,’ 139
Dunsany, Lord, 140
Dyall, Joshua, a Barbadian, 63-5, 75
24
369
Eady, Mr. Justice Swinfen, 91
Easter Rebellion in Ireland, plans for,
233-7, 241-3; Ireland duped and
betrayed by Germany, 240, 243-4,
246 ; the abortive landing at Kerry,
249-59; *e Rising, 270-80, 299;
casualties, 278, 279 n, 282 n 2;
ammunition, 282 n 2
Education in Ireland, Casement on,
93-6
Edward III, his statute anent treason,
303
Egan, Patrick, 142
Egan, William, 285
Egypt, and the Great War, 175; and
the Irish Brigade, 228
Elder Dempster Shipping Company,
3> 4
England, 13; the Congo agitation in,
15-17. See Great Britain
Entre Rios, 72, 76-80
Enver Pasha, 228
Europe, and the Dutch question in
South Africa, 7; and the partition
of Africa, 12-13
Exner, General, 186, 188
Ewart, General, 124
F., Miss, 48
Fatherland, the, 264-5
Fenit Pier, 238, 261 n, 262, 263 n 1
Ferdinand of Bulgaria, 317
Figgis, Darrell, 136, 364
Findlay, M. de C., his affair with
Casement, 154-63, 171, 177, 180-4,
192-7,204,206,208,209-13; Case¬
ment’s letter to Sir Edward Grey,
335-41
Fingall, Lord, 140
FitzGerald, Lord Edward, 168, 221
FitzMaurice, Lord, 47, 351
Fonseca, Jose Innocente, 66, 67, 72;
his unspeakable methods, 73-4,87-8
Foreign Office, appeals to Casement’s
generosity, 55; its interest in Putu¬
mayo, 57, 83; and Ireland, 132;
and Casement’s letter advising
Irishmen not to join the British
Army, 149; and Casement’s papers,
316
Fox, Walter, 57, 79
France, a sucking dove, 7; and the
partition of Africa, 13; and the
Congo report, 44; and Kings of
England, 303
Frankfurt, 185, 204
370 ROGER CASEMENT
Frazer, Sir James G., 346
Freeman, George, 279 n, 280
French, Sir John, 121, 124
Frey, Lieut., 225, 228, 236
Friend, Major-General, 120, 121-3
Friends of Irish Freedom, 228 n 2
Fry, Sir Edward, 346
Fullerton, W. A., 93
Gaelic American, 134,142,150, 187,289
Gaelic League, 112
Gaffney, T. St.John, 225, 228-9, 241,
248
Galsworthy, John, 346
Galway, Irish school in, 93
Gardiner, A. G., 346
Gemert, Major, 187
George III, and Ireland, 221
George V, and Home Rule Bill, 137;
and Ireland, 300; and Casement,
320
German .Admiralty, 195, 197; and
the Findlay affair, 212 ; and Case¬
ment, 237-9, 242, 246, 247; the
code, 251-2, 257
German-American-Irish alliance, an
appeal for, 175
German Foreign Office, and Case¬
ment, 165, 182, 191, 279 n; very
peculiar people, 208, 211; and
Findlay’s written document, 209-
12; keep Casement at arm’s length,
213-15, 234; the Treaty—keep it
quiet, 216; and Casement’s third
attempt at Limburg, 217; their
Mr. Schirmer, 229; Britain’s inter¬
ception of messages from, 245 n,
260 n; the signal (green lights),
262-3
German Irish Society, 176, 213-14
German War Office, and the forma¬
tion of the Irish Brigade, 177-9
Germany, a sucking pig, 7, 13, 92;
and the Congo report, 44; views
Casement with suspicion, 179, 214-
215, 234, 277, 329-30; and Ireland
if Britain were defeated, 98-111,
172-6; and the Irish Brigade, 150,
169, 177-9, 198-204; her real
enemy England, 150-1; her sin her
efficiency, 168; and war a. outrance
with Britain, 181-2; and the
Findlay affair, 184-5; the articles
of the Treaty with Casement, 198-
204; and the I.R.B., 232, 234,
235-6; and the Easter rising in
Ireland, 239-45, 273, 298-9; ad¬
verse public opinion in, 246-7; and
the arrest of Casement, 264; raids
west coast of England, 273; and the
Sinn Fein, 273, 330; and the Irish-
Americans, 277; and the landing
of arms, 277; their maps, 291;
and Lenin, 330. See German Ad¬
miralty, German Foreign Office,
and Washington
Gielgud, H. L., 57
Gladstone, W. E., 52, 102, 307
Glens Feis, 50
Golden, Peter, 278
Gomez, Marcial, 66-7
Gomme, Alice B., 346
Gooch, G. P., 346
Gore-Booth, Eva, ix, 320, 331, 354-9
Gorman, Mary, 251
Gough, Brig.-Gen. H. De la P., 122-3
Graaff, General de, 185
Graphic, and Casement’s trial, 268-9
Graz, Mr. des, 82
Great Britain, and Putumayo, 83; if
defeated by Germany, 98-107; and
Ireland, separation unthinkable,
98-107; and the Curragh affair,
118-26; and the Queenstown route
to U.S.A., 128-9, 132; and the
Home Rule Bill, 130-4, 137-8; and
Ireland in the World War, 146-7;
the naval blockade: Casement gets
through, 152-3 ; the Findlay affair,
158-60; aware of Casement’s mis¬
sion to Germany, 158 n 2, 254-5;
and the Vatican, 192; her repres¬
sive measures in Ireland, 196; and
Portugal, 222; and Italy, 222; the
oath of allegiance, 222 ; recruiting
in Ireland, 230; her knowledge of
the intended landing of arms in
Ireland, 249 n 2, 260, 276; and the
Easter Rebellion, 270, 273, 278;
statement after Gasement's execu¬
tion, 322 ; Irish revenues, 326-7;
and relations with Ireland, 353.
See Foreign Office, Home Office,
and War Office
Green, Mrs. J. R., 7 n, 51, 53, 85-6,
hi, 131, 136, 144, 149, 173, 320
Greer, 286
Gregory, J. D., 192 n 2
Grey, Sir Edward, 51; sends Case¬
ment to the Putumayo, 57, 82-6,
90, 91, 168, 209, 214, 264, 287;
Casement’s letter to, 335-41
 INDEX
Gum-copal, its collection on the
Congo, 29-30
Gwynn, Denis, 44, 364
Gwynn, Stephen, 364
Hague Tribunal, The, 15, 16; the
Congo report, 44, 214
Hale, Sir Mathew, 292, 295, 296, 319
Hall, Major, 267
Hamburg, 243, 262
Hamburg-Amerika Line, negotia¬
tions with, 117-18, 127-9, 132
Hammond of New York, Mr., 165,
170,175, 197. See Casement, R. D.
Hardenburg, W. E., 66, 91 n
Hardinge Committee, 270-1, 282 n 2
Haugwitz, Graf von, 256
Hawkins, Mr. Serjeant, 292, 295, 296,
319
Hehlin, Mr., 252
Henriques, a Boras Indian, 71
Hewlett, Maurice, 346
Heydell, Captain, 237-9, 247, 256
Hibernia, H.M.S., 152-3
Hibernians, Ancient Order of, 142
Hilmers, Mr., 157, 160, 163
Hobson, Bulmer, in, 150, 231, 232,
234 n, 239, 270, 364
Hocking, Silas K., 346
Holdsworth. Sir William, 295 n 1
Home Office, and Casement’s diary,
316 n; legality of refusal of Case¬
ment’s bodv, 323 n 1
Home Rule Bill, 52, 96; Casement
on, 131-4; royal assent, 231; when
Home Rule comes in Ireland,
311-12
Horridge, Mr. Justice, 281, 296-7
Horton, Rev. Robert F., 346
Howard, Sir H., 192
Howth, gun-running at, 143, 144-5
Humphreys, Travers, 281
Hussey, Michael, 249, 260, 263
Hutton, Mrs., 347
Hyde, Dr., 347
Igel, von, 276
India, and the Great War, 175, 176
Indian National Party, 176
Innishtooskert, 238, 257, 263
Insurance Act, a worthless, 133
International African Association,
Iquitos^ 58, 60, 62, 64, 82, 86, 88, 90
371
Ireland, Spain’s legacy to, 10; the
growth of the Sinn Fein move¬
ment in, 47-52; Casement’s love
and work for, 53, 54; Casement
on education in, 93-6; Home
Rule Bill, 96, 131-4, I37-8) 300-t;
if Britain were defeated, 98-107;
a European island and not English,
106; ‘ Manifesto of the Irish
Volunteers,’ 112-15; and the
Queenstown route to U.S.A., 127-
129, 132; and the Great War,
145-8; no quarrel with Germany,
147; Germany’s declaration on,
172-6; repressive measures in, 196;
funds from a pro-Irish Society
in Germany, 213-14; revolution
planned, 217-18, 232; the oath of
allegiance, 220-2; Irishmen ex¬
empt in Great War, 230; recruit¬
ing in, 231; and a German in¬
vasion, 232-3; D.O.R.A., 232-3;
the Easter rising, 233-7, 244-5,
270-8, 348; the abortive landing at
Kerry, 249-59, 260-3; the Pro¬
visional Government proclaimed,
273, 342-3; her position in the
Empire, 299-300, 353; no English
authority in, 300; and Kings of
England, 303-4; the cause of a
united, 307; and Casement’s exe¬
cution, 323-4, 349-5°> 353 i her
revenues absorbed by England,
326-7
‘ Ireland, Germany and the Next
War,’ 98-107; ‘ Ireland, Germany
and the Freedom of the Seas,’ 279 n
Irish - Americans, and Casement’s
appeal, 142-5, 147 5 and his mission
to Germany, 151, 279-80; the
Findlay affair, 197; ‘ Friends of
Irish Freedom,’ 228 n 2; the
I.R.B., 232, 233, 259 and n; the
Easter Saturday rising, 235; and
help from Germany, 235, 241; the
arrest of Casement, 263, and his
defence, 283 n, 310; scarcity of
information from Ireland, 282 n 2;
the Irish Brigade, 360, 362
Irish Brigade in Germany: birth of
the idea, 149-50, 169-70, 177,
240-2 ; the German questionnaire,
178; the loyal British, 185; Case¬
ment addresses in Limburg Camp,
185-9; the scum of Ireland, 186,
227; the papers and pamphlets,
372 ROGER CASEMENT
Irish Brigade—continued
186-7; Plunkett’s address, 189-90;
Casement loses all hope of founding,
189, 208, 211; Casement’s Treaty
with Germany, embodying con¬
ditions of service in, 198-204,
360-1; recruiting for, 204-6,
216-25; uniform of, 226; Egypt
or Turkey, 227-8, 277, but not
Ireland, 241-2 ; Casement’s fare¬
well, 243-4, 247-8; and Casement’s
trial, 280, 284-6, 289-90, 297, 299;
address to the Irish race, 362. See
Limburg Lahn Camp
Irish Citizen Army, formation of, 115
Irish Independent, 124, 129, 146, 245,
263 n 1
Irishmen, and treason, 302-4; may
die for Empire but not for Ireland,
312; their ‘hereditary brief,’ 325
Irish National Army, no politics, 135.
See Irish Volunteers
Irish Nationalists, and Home Rule, 52,
310; and the exclusion of Ulster,
231; and Casement’s mission to
Germany, 279-80
Irish Parliamentary Party, and the
Irish Volunteers, 112, 231
Irish Race Convention, 228 n 2, 229
Irish Republican Brotherhood, 231-2,
233; 244-5, 259 and n; and Case¬
ment, 233-4, 349; and the Easter
Rebellion, 235-7, 270
Irish Review, 98-107
Irish Revolutionary Party, and Case¬
ment, 280
Irish Times, 128, 131
Irish Volunteers, birth and organisa¬
tion, m-15, 126, 129, 130, 134,
i38-4i, 231-2, 234, 307-10; the
Rotunda meeting, 115-16; the
arms prohibition, 116; the Cork
City Hall meeting, 117-18; arming,
136; the landing of arms at Howth,
13^5 1431 and John Redmond,
136-7; based on love of Ireland,
138-41 ; and Protestants, 139-40;
Casement sails for America to raise
funds, 141,149,31 o; and Germany,
232; the Easter rising, 244-5, 270,
271; and Casement’s landing at
Kerry, 255-8
Isendahl, Capt., 197, 238, 239
Italy, and the partition of Africa,
I3> 44> 214; and the Great War,
222
Jagow, Count von, 166, 177, 179,
181-2, 184
Jephson, Annie, 1
Jerome, Jerome K., 346
Jimenez, Augusto, 74-5, 80
Jones, Artemus, 268-9, 282, 297, 301
Katenere, a Boras Indian, 70
Kathleen ni Houlihan,’ ‘ For God
and, 11, 354-9
Keogh, Pte., 204, 216, 217, 218, 225,
227, 286, 365
Kerry, 238, 249, 260, 275-6
Kershaw, Sir Lionel, King’s Coroner,
284, 287, 302
Kiel Prize Court, and Norway, 196
Killorglin, 253-4
King, Rev. Robert, 2
King’s Bench, Court of: Casement’s
trial in the, 266, 281-313
Kingsley, James, 252
Knight, degradation of a, 314 n
Knott, G. H., 249 n 1, 364
Kruger, President, 5, 7
Labour Party in Ireland, 232
Lacey, Laurence de, 233, 274
La Chorrera, barbarities at, 59, 63,
67> 69, 73= 78, 80, 82
Lake Mantumba, 28-31, 33-4
La Lulanga Society, 37-8
Lamplier, Rev. Somervel, 3; Eva, 3-4
Lane, James, 76
Lansdowne, Marquess of, 15-17, 21,
43-4; 46; 125, 351
Larne, the gun-running at, 135-6
Las Palmas, 92
Law, Andrew Bonar, 137, 138
Lawrence, Mr. Justice A. T., 318
Lay, Consul-General, 209
Leavine, Westerman, a Barbadian, 77
Leiningen, Prince zu, 186
Lenin, and Germany, 330
Leopold II, 12, 13; his trusteeship in
the Congo, 13-14; his ‘hell on
earth,’ 27, 44
Leopoldville, 18, 19, 21, 23
Lewis, Stanley S., 66, 67, 73
Liberals, and Ireland, 51-2, 116, 133,
3°9; their Devolution Scheme, 53;
their Home Rule Bill, 96-7, 131-4,
i37_8, 146; the Curragh affair,
124-6
Liebknecht, Dr., 246
Li Hung Chang, 102
 INDEX
Limburg Lahn Camp, the Irish
prisoners in, 178 n, 179, 185-9;
the memorial of the loyal Irish-
Catholics, 185, 215; Plunkett’s
visit, 189-90; hostility towards
Casement, 204-7, 216-25; Mon-
teith at, 227; at Casement’s trial,
268, 269, 284-6, 289-91, 360
Limerick, 139, 235, 236, 245 n, 256,
275, 276
Lindsay, Patrick, 289 n 2
Loyalty, not treason, 299-300; not a
law, 303
Lulongo River, 36, 38
Lusitania, the, 235
Lynch, Dr. Arthur, 267, 292, 296, 350
M'Bride, Major, 149-50
M‘Carthy, John, 249-50
MacCarton, P., 187 n 3
MacDermott, 232
Macdiarmada, Sean, 343
MacDonagh, Thomas, 274, 275, 343,
357
MacF., Mary, 252-3
M'Garrity, Joseph, 142, 143, 197,
238 n, 279 n
M‘Goey, John, 238-40
MacGuire, Rev. Matthew, 347
M'Kenna’s Fort, 250-3, 257
MacMurrough, Sergeant, 187-9
MacNeill, Prof. Eoin, 111-12, 117,
126, 173, 187 n 3, 231, 232, 234 n,
270-3= 276
M‘Quilland, Louis, 10
Macready, Sir Nevil, 12x, 123, 365
M-, J., 316
Magherintemple, 1-3
Malcolm, James, 245
Manchester Guardian, 313
Manifesto of the Irish Volunteers,
112-15
Mantumba, Lake, 28-31, 33-4
Mapp, James, 8c
Masefield, John, 346
Massingham, H. W., 347
Matanzas, 63, 76-9
Mathews, Sir Charles, 267
Maxwell, General Sir John, 350
Maxwell, on Treason Act of 1351,
293= 295
Mellowes, 229 n
Meyer, Prof. Kuno, 160, 197
Meyer, Richard, 160, 163-7, 169-70,
193= 207-9, 212-14
Milner, Lord, 5
373
Milton, John, 319
Mitchell, John, 134
Mohammed Ali Hassan, Prince, 226
‘ Molly Maguires,’ 142 n 2
Monroe Doctrine, the, 107
Montana, the Indians of, 89-90, 91
Monteith, Robert, 227-8, 229 n,
236-7. 239-40, 243, 247, 248, 250 n,
251 n, 253-9, 261 n, 275-6, 364
Montreal, 141
Montt, Alfredo, 64, 87-8
Moore, Col. Maurice, 139, 347
Morel, E. D., 44, 45, 54
Morel, Philip, 320
Morelia, 66, 71, 72
Morgan, J. H., 282, 283^ 291, 297
Morning Post, 138-40
Morten, Richard, letters to, 5, 9, 46-7,
84, 250, 316
Muir, Prof. Ramsay, 12
Munich, 226-9, 236
Murlough Bay, 3, 331
Nadolny, Captain, 225, 228, 240-2,
245 n .
National Convention, 96
National Volunteer Force. See Irish
Volunteers
Nationalists, and Home Rule Bill, 96.
See Irish Nationalists
Negrete, Adan, 78-9
Neill, John, 290, 299, 301
Nelson’s Pillar, Irish republic de¬
clared at, 273
Nevinson, H. W., 320, 365
Newman, Mrs. Nina, 258. See Case¬
ment, N.
New York, 90, 141, 228 n 2; and the
I.R.B., 235
Nicholson, Rev. John T., 177, I93'4,
208-12, 215-16
Nicoll, Sir William Robertson, 347
Niger Coast (Oil Rivers) Protector¬
ate, 4
Noeggerath, J. C., 241, 247
Nordenflychts, Baroness von, 216
Norfolk, Virginia, 142, 144
Normand, Armando, 63, 75, 76-7,
78-80, 82
Norway, and German Prize Court,
196, 214. See Christiania
Oath of allegiance, Casement’s view
of, 220-2
Oberndorff, Count von, 154, 155,
156, 1.57, 160
374 ROGER CASEMENT
O’Brien, Conor, 365
O’Brien, Daniel, 285, 289
O’Brien, Smith, 221-2
O’Callaghan, 286
Ocampo, Esias, 70
Occidente, 76; substitutes for flog¬
ging at, 81
O’Connor, Michael, 284, 285
O’Daly, Father, 187
O’Donnel, Father, 177
O’Donnell, Senor, 72-3, 79, 80
O’Farrelly, Agnes, 347
O’Gorman, Father, 179, 188, 192,
204
Old Age Pensions Act, far too ex¬
pensive, 133
O’Leary, Jeremiah, 228 n 2
Olifiers, Z. N. G., 282 n 2
Olivier, Sir Sydney, 347
O’Nolan, Mrs., 347
O’R., Mike, 276
O’Rahilly, The, hi, 364
Oskar II, 151-3
P., Mr., 224, 225
Paget, General Sir A., 119-24
Papen, Captain von, 279 n, 280
Para, 51, 53, 33, 82
Paredes, Dr., 83, 86, 88
Parker, Sir Gilbert, 45
Parker, Inspector, 344
Parnell, Charles S., 10
Parry, Mrs. Gertrude, 2, 11, 49, 52,
55, 320
Parry, Mrs. Sydney, xvi
Passfield, Lord, 347
Pearse, Patrick H., 232, 234, 273-5,
343
Pentonville Gaol, 258, 268, 314, 331
Peru, and the Putumayo atrocities,
56, 59-60, 82; her reluctance to
take proceedings, 83, 87
Peruvian Amazon Rubber Company,
56-7; sends commission to Putu¬
mayo, 58-92; their system of
‘ wives ’ and debt, 63; Casement’s
report on, 82; a scathing judg¬
ment, 91
Philadelphia, 142-4
Phillips, Rev. Thomas, 347
Phipps, Sir Constantine, 16
Pillai, Chempakaraman, 176
Plunkett, Sir Horace, 267
Plunkett, Joseph, 189-90, 343; ‘ Mr.
Petre,’ 217-18, 225, 226, 244, 289
Plunkett, Count Joseph Mary, 362
Poland, a comparison with Ireland,
IOO-I
Portugal, 5, 214; and the partition of
Africa, 13, 44; her republic, 222
Poyning’s Law, 304
Protestants, and the Irish Volunteers,
139-40
Provisional Government, the Pro¬
clamation of, 273-4, 342-3
Prussia, a comparison of her methods,
100-2
Puck, 253, 254
Puerto Peruano, 78-80
Putumayo, the Indians of the, 51, 60,
89-90; ugly rumours, 56; methods
of collecting rubber, 56-7, 61; the
Commission of Enquiry, 57; Case¬
ment’s report on the scandals, 58-
92; frightful barbarities in, 61-2,
70-5, 81; the stocks, 64; flogging,
68-9; the double ‘ cepo,’ 76; de¬
scription of a caravan rubber
journey, 77-80 ; the indecent diary,
3i5-i6
Queenstown, and the route to
America, 117-18, 127-9, L32, 260-1
Quinlisk, Cpl. Timothy, 187-9, 204,
206, 216-18, 225, 286
Quinn, John, 142, 197
Quinn, P., 344
R., Miss, 275, 277
Rathfarnham, St. Enda’s School, 94
Rathoneen, 251
Reading, Viscount, Lord Chief Jus¬
tice, 281, 286, 296, 302, 313
Redmond, John, 131, 134-7, 146, 206,
231, 362
Redmond-Howard, L. G., 272 n 1,
364
Reichstag, and the Irish Brigade,
246-7
Reidy, 278
Richardson, Lieut.-Gen., no
Rio de Janeiro, 51, 53
Roberts, Lord, 9, 125
Robinson, John, 284, 285, 289
Rodriguez, Aurelio, 76, 83, 87
Rothenfelder, Dr. Franz, 364
Rotunda, the meeting at the, 115-16
Rowlatt, Mr. Justice, 268
Royal Irish Constabulary, 96, 250,
253
Rubber: the Congo atrocities, 12-45 >
the Putumayo scandals, 56-92
 INDEX
Ruhleben, internment camp at, 224,
225
Russia, quiescent, 7; and the Congo
report, 44; and Italian prisoners,
222; and the rifles for Ireland,
273, 291; and Lenin, 330
Ryan, Desmond, xvi
Ryan, Father, 271, 272, 276
Ryan, Rt. Rev. Monsignor A., 347
S. A. B. Company, 37
St. Enda’s School, Dublin, 93-4
Samuel, H. L., Home Secretary, 351,
352
Sandercock, Inspector, 254
Sandford, General Henry, 4
San Francisco, 233 n, 274
Sankey, Mr. Justice, 268
Santos, 51-3; a Consul’s life at, 53-5
Sarsfield, Patrick, 220
Sassnitz, 164, 165, 179, 195, 212, 213
Scanlan, 286
Schiemann, Dr., 196, 279
Schirmer, Mr., 229, 237
Scotland Yard, 254
Scott, C. P., 347
Scott, Admiral Percy, 141
Scrutton, Mr. Justice, 318
Sealey, Stanley, a Barbadian, 74
Seely, Colonel, Minister for War,
119-24, 134
Serjeants-at-law, 282 n 1
Sherlock, Larcan, 347
Shorter, Clement, 347
Sigvald, Herr, 162, 171
Simon, Sir John, 132
Simona, an Indian victim, 66
Sinn Fein, growth of, 47, 97, 229 n;
its suppression and spread, 191,
231, 233, 274; Britain’s knowledge
of the movement, 260 n; and
Germany, 330; and Casement,
Six Mile Cross, 187
Smith, Sir F. E., ‘ Galloper,’ 97, no;
Attorney-General, 267, 268, 281,
287-9, 296, 297, 299, 300, 301, 310,
Societe Anonyme Beige du Haut-
Congo, 20
South Africa, and the Boer republics,
5-7; and Casement, 92, 263
South African War, Casement on,
5-7, 9, 267
Spain, her descendants in Ireland, 10;
and the Congo, 44j 214
375
Spindler, Captain Karl, 261 n, 262 n,
263, 364
Spring-Rice, Sir Cecil, 263
Stack, Austen, 258, 259
Stanley, H. M., 13
Stanley Pool, 18, 27, 43
Stephen, Sir James, 295 and n 1
Stocks, or ‘ cepo,’ 64-5
Strassburg, under Prussia, 102
Sullivan, Mr. Serjeant A. M., 281-2,
286-7, 291-7, 299-301, 318-19
Sweden, and the Congo report, 44;
and Casement, 214
Swinnerton, F., 364
50
Taft, President, 90
Tillett, Ben, 347
Times, The, 108-11, 146-7
Tizon, Senor, 59, 67, 69, 70, 74, 79,
80, 82
Tone, Wolfe, 207, 328, 357
Torres, Aquileo, 74, 76
Tower of London, 254, 265, 267
Tralee, 251-9, 271-2, 276
Tralee Bay, the landing of arms at,
238, 245, 256-7, 260, 262; the
code, 245 n
Transvaal, 6-7; the Irish prisoners in
the, 149-50
Treason, the statute on, 266; loyalty
not deemed, 299-300; and Irish¬
men, 302-4; execution for within
gaols, 321 n 2; must the body be
buried within the walls, 323 n 1
Treason Act, of 1695, 287; of 1351,
291-6, 302-4
Truth, on the Putumayo barbarities,
57, 66, 77 .
Turkey, 44, 176; and the Irish
Brigade, 228, 290
Tyrone, 139, 140
U-19, the, 255-7, 262
U-20, the, 255, 256
Ulster, and Home Rule, 97, 118-19,
137-8, 231, 310; arming, 116, 119,
133; the Curragh affair, 121-4;
Casement grateful to, 142-3
Ulster Volunteers, 97,108,111,307-9;
gun-running at Larne, 135; Case¬
ment’s appeal, 139
Ultimo Retiro, 63; the stocks at,
64-5, 76; other barbarities, 67,
73-4
376 ROGER CASEMENT
Unionists, and the Home Rule Bill,
96-7, 137-8, 231; the Irish Ques¬
tion, 124-6; the Curragh incident,
124-6; and the Ulster gun-running,
308-9, 311
U.S.A. and Casement’s Putumayo
report, 83,90-1; and a free Ireland,
106-7, 265; the Monroe Doctrine,
107; the Irish in, 129, 142, 144;
Redmondism, 144; the I.R.B.,
233; the Lusitania negotiations,
235; the Clan-na-Gael, 259 n; pro-
Germans in, 264-5. See America
Valcarlel, Judge, 86, 87
Vasquez, Filomene, a Peruvian, 70-1
Vatican, the, 174, 192
Victoria, Queen, and Ireland, 221
Walter, Oberleut., 256
War Office, and the importation of
arms into Ireland, 119-21; the
Curragh affair, 122-4; and recruit¬
ing in Ireland, 231; and the maps
found at Curraghane, 291
Washington, German Embassy at:
and Casement, 154, 176-7, 232,
245 n, 260 n, 279 n, 282 n 2; the
signal, 262-3. See Germany
Webb, Beatrice, 347. See Passfield,
Lord
Wedel, Count Georg von, 167, 169-70,
172, 177, WSn, 191, 195, 210-14,
224-6, 242, 299 n
Wexford, and D.O.R.A., 233
White, General Sir George, 85
Whitehead, Rev. John, 27-8
Wilhelmshaven, 247, 253, 255, 262
William II, Kaiser, 264-5
‘ Willie’s Yacht,’ 253
Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry, 119
Wilson, James, 285
Wilson, Mr., of Belvoir Park, 109
Wilson, President Woodrow, 265
Wilson Line, the, 261 n, 262, 276
Wolseley, Lord, 125
Yorke, Father, 277, 279
Young, Miss, 347
Young, Mrs. John, 2
Zangwill, Israel, 347
Zimmermann, Count von, 166, 168-9,
198-200, 217, 241, 246
Zossen, Irish Brigade at, 226-8, 240,
242, 243, 247. See Irish Brigade
Zumaeta, Pablo, 87
\ W
 V -

iAV
i'r V.'v
'■ 7 7 l iV } ■ ...
:■ . '-•> ,%'■ v^vv'- x/-:' 77X7
. .... .,r

' ■ ^ ~ % ■ 4:mM ‘ ■■■ f-r-r. ”

> tf<\ ' .jf
m ««-. ' ! ' * , ' v
ZiiS*
.
mmmm
if s«ii§i i NH ■
kA *,.V ■ V.T - wfi• b f;, Vr

frWXt-s-K -.IPL p.: - ■ '*t-v

:g®
j rm*3
# inis&M 77 YM 777 P’M ^7 PpP7%7pfe 7* .... -.■ ..;
’777' :7;'-'7|7 /;77p7 !7777 7■ '7
$7^7777, 7f|v;Tf P-.. >vr-V ; 77
SR&.V.I yjx
Ovl ■ 777 gffe'-7 S Jf 7^
*;4:
<V •■■ y^rf: life
§7
:;f» il® 7 4.7'
iiiiiiiii
. ;. .
I V \
'V i fefiK
fe/, .- '.y ' .1' ’ ! V;' .
;8 ./•'; ■ „•■ ■' >{;.\ • r: y ,r. ;S.'i
Vi’-VI ’ -i/ tv'^r ■■'.'■ ■ ■ -''

■0 ;

$
yj

\k\- &i
n- i m-k
to,' * , t"
■Mmi: v ■
l >>V-; V
■'
• •.K'.v f./ v.-Tr1.'. 1- ••''■ - r. . 1 :;vvt; Xvk.
ry; i:VS' • (' YkXr.Yy^&
,■ >rryy .yy:

-.A.-If.V f ^ *■ ; ' . ■• .. -f ' )•■■•• ■■' ' . . - > 4-r-n - -r:S •

hf, >. 7,1 'Sk \ y : • y:mMm

'' / ' • ' VyV' " ■ ’’" >■
7-t1.'' '*^7 'iY.m
Vy.--’'-'•
w.£ ■ -XvXXX. v.7/: I ■; y:, ■■ .1.1 '77. , jMi V»v®
si's'.. ;•-• ■■.'■-■ ;■ J; .s4! .'. .>. ■ -. . ' ■ „ mmm
7;' XV •7;7v'';i^v‘ Vrv'^vC- ■, 7,. ;.’> .'S ,v.:'>^ '. /r -'.,7. >'■<.y»■<:-■ i
Qv '.Vl> -l':. *4 - •■•. :■*. !'. ,'•’.' ‘(V t'. ’ ' i >.'7>./,•■. vfv:77 - :, K1 Mv

msm. m

ty i
7,'t< y ' ; S7' ■ ^ v! ■ - ■■■'■ ‘ v'; -'' ' &-■ :*
v7‘-4fci ,-"'-y.".'-‘i:- -'iy r-r;.'4’§l
p$'w j: ," 1 ; V-''. .v-yI.' •>;.•■. -y.; ■-- v. ;,.:
l.7..,7 «;■ . ;; mm
-v ..•3®:? %r
' I'Jlt- .'••'. ‘ •> > V-Vu.' • /.fv" ■• -Ai ; i.

'7 ,?>k. xpfx ''mhfm

''•f - ■ ■/:)''' ii' l

y4y#l4-7;f» l&Mikm
■ . |®P
■<yYm%mmy
/ .;7
MmS!
■’ 7 ■ ■ tiyl'ty'?*,!
I-'F'-'. W3§. , A .',71 7

*#sa
4mm
W;>77>7''V. 77./
\ • 7