Search this Topic:
Member Since: 2-Nov-2009
Feb 10 15 2:51 AM
Feb 10 15 3:02 AM
my opinion, the best – maybe only – good attempt to look at the Document’s genesis
and status is given in a 2004 book <Seán
MacDiarmada: The Mind of the Revolution> by Gerard MacAtasney (Drumlin
Publications) ISBN 1873437315. The whole book’s an excellent read, BTW.
author uses an impressively wide range of sources. He had access to the BMH
Witness Statements too.
remarkably – and IMHO unluckily - he missed the key WS about the Document, that
of Eugene Smyth himself.
in the book is a very sharp conflict of evidence about what Sean MacDiarmada said about the
Document shortly before his execution.
The author's quoted sources are shown where relevant in [ ].
“The Mind of the
the tension in the air, it was no surprise that a document, purporting to come
from Dublin Castle, became public knowledge after being read out by Alderman
Tom Kelly at a meeting of Dublin Corporation on Wednesday 19 April. The
assembly had been specifically convened in order to allow the corporation to
adopt a new poor-rate fro parts of the city and thus Kelly knew that the paper
would be read to a larger than usual gathering of councillors and aldermen. [Source:
Dublin City Archives - Dublin Corporation Reports and Printed Documents, Volume
1, 1916, p715]
document apparently represented the authorities’ reaction to the events of the
previous months. It ordered that various classes of persons, including all
volunteer leaders, were to be put under arrest, the police to be confined to
barracks, pickets and mounted patrols to be put on guard in the city, certain
premises to be occupied and several houses to be occupied including the
Archbishop’s House in Drumcondra and the Mansion House. [F. X. Martin “Eoin
MacNeill on the 1916 Rising”, p27]
course these were the very conditions upon which MacNeill had predicated
participation of the Volunteers in any rising. As he later admitted, ‘I
accepted the document as genuine and circulated it in various influential
quarters in order to warn the country against the supposed intention of the
authorities.’ [F. X. Martin “Eoin MacNeill on the 1916 Rising”, p248]
years later, those responsible for releasing the document to the public
revealed how it emerged. The following statement is from Charles McQuaile, an
employee of the GPO and both a volunteer and member of Sinn Féin:
Holy Thursday...... I saw by accident on the desk of the superintendent’s clerk
an official paper headed ‘Secret and Confidential’ with its address ‘Dublin
Castle’. Glancing through this I saw that it was meant for a ‘round-up’ of
Volunteer leaders and other prominent Sinn Féiners. This paper was addressed to
the Secretary, GPO, to ensure that all suburban sub-post officers under his
control, which extended to Maynooth and Balbriggan, would have some member of
staff in attendance to admit members of police and military on Easter Sunday
and Easter Monday.’ [WS276]
alerted Sean Heuston of his discovery and was brought to 2 Dawson Steet to
relate it to, amongst others, Clarke, MacDiarmada, Hobson and MacNeill. He was
later dismissed by Heuston with the remark ‘it was a good night’s work.’”
this was not the same as the ‘Castle Document’. The date for his discovery seems
to pre-date the Easter Sunday night conference to decide British action, strange things were going down in Dublin].
Plunkett’s girlfriend, Grace Gifford, related that she actually wrote the
document out while sitting on the edge of Plunkett’s bed in Larkfield Nursing
Home [it was Plunkett’s house, Larkfield]. Crucially, though, she maintained
that it was indeed an official document:
‘Although it was published in Holy
Week it had come out from the Castle some time before that. It did come out
from the Castle. That is quite certain. I know who brought it. Donagh MacDonagh
was married to a girl named Smith. It was her father who brought it out. Mr.
Smith was in the Castle. He got the information piece by piece. It was not a
straight document. He got the bits around, pasted all together and gave it to Joe. It
was in code. Joe deciphered it and I wrote it down. I copied out the whole of
Seamus O’Kelly supported this version of events. According to him, Rory
O’Connor received information that a plan had been hatched in the Castle to
move against the Volunteers. He maintained that the document was decoded bit by
bit in their presence and Plunkett suggested publishing it in the papers ‘to
stir up the people.’ [WS471]
this supposed plan of action by the British appears incompatible with decisions
taken at a high-level conference attended by, amongst others, British
Under-Secretary to Ireland, Matthew Nathan, Attorney General, John Gordon and
major-General Sir Lovick Friend. This meeting had occurred just over a month
before the release of the ‘Castle Document’ and a variety of security matters
were discussed. For example, it was stated that in the event of a ban on all
illegal assemblies the Volunteers would thus be prevented from meeting but it
was felt unwise to recommend such a proclamation ‘at the present time.’ [NLI,
MS 31,700 Memorandum on a Conference at Dublin Castle on 17 March 1916]
Similarly, while the removal of Alfred Monaghan, Ernest Blythe and Liam Mellows
to England was advised, it was deemed unnecessary to re-imprison Tom Clarke
‘unless some new offence could be proved.’ [NLI, MS 31,700 Memorandum on a
Conference at Dublin Castle on 17 March 1916] Indeed, the general tenor of the
meeting was that any precipitative action by the authorities could result in
serious trouble and hence it was argued that no such action should be taken
which could exacerbate an already fraught situation.
in the tension of the moment the ‘Castle Document’, as it became known,
succeeded in its primary aim of convincing MacNeill and the Volunteers of the
necessity for direct action against the British.
Dublin Castle hadn’t produced the document, and they immediately dismissed it
as a forgery, who was responsible for it? In subsequent years it was believed
it was actually the work of Joseph Plunkett. [FX Martin, “The 1916 Rising and
UCD”, p27] However, Eamon Dore dismissed this notion on the grounds that
Plunkett was in very poor health at the time and argued it would be
unreasonable ‘that a man in such condition would concern himself in the details
of forging such
a document even assuming that he wanted to do so.’ [WS392]
the other hand however, historian F. X. Martin has commented that ‘the castle
document was almost certainly a forgery concocted by Joseph Plunkett and Seán
McDiarmada and some associates. It worked like a charm’ [FX Martin, “The 1916
Rising and UCD”, p27]. In later years, Bulmer Hobson said it was used to force
MacNeill’s hand and was ‘an out and out fabrication’. [NLI, McGarrity Papers,
17,613, Bulmer Hobson’s account of Easter Week as told to E. Martin]. Indeed,
it is interesting to note that Tom Kelly, the man who made the document public,
subsequently stated that even he doubted its veracity. [O’Fiach Library & Archive,
Armagh – Fr. Louis O’Kane Mss 2, memoirs of Barney Young] Its Importance may be gauged from remarks subsequently made
by the British military who stated that its publication should never have been
allowed as it did ‘a great deal of harm.’ [PROL, PRO30/67/31, letter from Gen. Maxwell
to Lord Middleton, 26 May 1916]
Given his earlier actions in
relation both to McCullough and Hobson there is little doubt that MacDiarmada
would have had no qualms about deceiving MacNeill in relation to something he
had spent his political life fostering. However, he took the truth of the
matter to the grave as, even in final conversations with his closest friends in
Kilmainham, he refused to reveal whether or not the document was a forgery.
total conflict with that, he later quotes Father Patrick Browne, a friend of
MacDiarmada, with him in Kilmainham Gaol the night before his originally
It was the small hours of the morning when I left. I was about five or six
hours there. This was the night of 10th-11th May ......"
the lengthy visit both men ‘talked about everything’ including the fact that Father
Browne appeared to know nothing of the plans for the Rising in spite of it
being stated by MacDiarmada that ‘sufficient hints had been dropped in
conversation all the time for anyone to pick up’. MacDiarmada claimed the Document was genuine.......”
of quotes from G. MacAtasney’s book].
Browne’s own Witness Statement includes:
thing he [MacDiarmada] told me - and I don't know whether he was deceived about
it or not - was about the document that was published in Paddy Little's paper
and given out at the Corporation, about certain houses being cordoned off and
the leaders of the Volunteers to be arrested.
He said that it was an
absolutely genuine document.
Although it was his last
night on earth and he spoke with great conviction, I found great difficulty in
That would have been
about the most important item of our conversation, as far as history is
concerned. Otherwise it was just as any conversation we might have had in Mrs.
O'Kelly's or the night he was in Maynooth.......” [WS729]
Feb 15 15 6:26 PM
got two press cuttings I'd heard about.
they’d be interesting - glad I got ‘em.
They've corrected two things I had thought:
(1) There was indeed a reaction to the revelation of Eugene Smyth's name in 1961; and
(2) Brian McAtasney's analysis of the Document story in his 2004 book was not the first.
P. J. Little penned an article in the Sunday
Press of 7 March 1961, Desmond Ryan replied with both barrels in the same
paper a fortnight later.
headlines for Little’s piece were possibly a bit provocative, LOL.
facts which clear the honour of Pearse and his colleagues.
Dublin Castle Document IS Authentic.
A Disclosure by P.
written by a sub-editor? Or even the owner, Dev.....
Ryan, mentioned in post 37 this thread, was a 1916 GPO veteran and later a historian. He’d
written a book “The Rising, the complete story of Easter week”, published in
1949 and highly regarded by historians.
knew the people in action at Easter, probably a lot better than a bystander
like Paddy Little.
being in the GPO Easter Week and being in the know beforehand are completely
possibly, Ryan even half-knew what the hell was going on before the Easter
I haven’t read his book yet.
contains a whole chapter called “A Most Opportune Document” – guess what that
one for me to read and share.
you can see, I’m making this story up as I go along...
know what I mean - I’m discovering new sources almost weekly.
will not post Paddy Little’s article. He repeated a lot of what he’d said in
1942. The only real new fact added was the name of the Castle source,
Eugene Smyth, revealed by Little earlier in May 1961.
will pick up Little’s main points from the put-down which follows.
– with a nod to The Shining and axe connotations - Here’s Dessie!
Sunday Press 21 May 1961
“MORE LIGHT ON THE
By Desmond Ryan
all respect [In Ireland, that begins a major kick at the reputation of the
person being referred to, followed by a fight] to Mr. P. J. Little, he has not produced
in his article in THE SUNDAY PRESS, or in his several letters to the press in
general, any convincing proof whatever that the 1916 “Castle Document” is
the first time, indeed [sarcasm], he has revealed the name of the anonymous
informant whose statement he used in his “Capuchin Annual” article in 1942, “A
1916 Document. The Mystery of the Dublin Castle Cypher.”
latest statement, apart from some deplorable sentimental rhetoric, is little
more than a repetition of his personal 1942 apologia, except that we now have
the name at last revealed of Mr. Eugene Smyth, now dead and beyond questioning,
and greater emphasis on the conversation between Sean MacDermott and Monsignor
Browne than in the “Capuchin Annual”.
now comes also with the significant change from the 1942 version “the document
was true” to “the information in the document was genuine and true” advanced in
his letter to the press published on May 2 last.
reply, mentioned in the notes to the MacNeill 1916 memoranda, gives some point
to this distinction: MacDermott’s reply to Mrs. Mulcahy’s question about the
truth of the document was a smile and no comment. [In 1916 she was single, Min
Ryan, mentioned in an earlier post].
Diarmuid Lynch, as an intimate friend of MacDermott, has some apt comments in
his “The IRB and the 1916 Rising” (pp. 127-128) on this same mannerism of Sean
MacDermott, sounded by Lynch on another controversial problem: “If he had not such
knowledge he would have said so but his only reply was a smile.”
this apart, Sean MacDermott could quite truthfully on May 11, 1916, have
assured Monsignor Browne that the contents of the document, so far as they
related to precautionary measures, on the Castle files were true, contingently
and in general, as in fact general Friend’s evidence at the 1916 Commission of
Eugene Smyth is in much the same case when he used “the opportunity of
obtaining full and direct information of the substance of the plans” suggested
by General friend, whether in code or in clear telegraphise [sic] for grappling
with the Irish hornets’ nest [who was moaning about dreadful rhetoric?].
Mr. Smyth’s admissions and assumptions leave the conclusion reached by Miss
Dorothy MacArdle in her “Irish Republic” still unshaken: “George and Joseph
Plunkett and Rory O’Connor fabricated the document, embodying plans which they
knew to have been prepared in Dublin Castle. (“Irish Republic”, first edition,
p. 164 footnote). [That footnote does NOT
O Lochlainn’s account of the actual printing of the document, however, proves
that the document came direct from Joseph Plunkett and suggests that neither
George nor Jack Plunkett knew any more about the truth or otherwise of the
document than Colm himself or Mr. P. J. Little himself at the time.
Friend himself thought the document a most creditable effort, and generously
said so to the 1916 Commission, even if places had been mentioned that he never
would have thought of raiding, including above all the Catholic Archbishop of
return to the “Capuchin Annual,” 1942 – the “Castle Document” was also examined
by a man as much involved in the controversy as even Mr. Little himself,
Alderman Tom Kelly.
describing the events that led to his reading the document at the Dublin
Corporation meeting of April 19, 1916, on the urgent appeal of Arthur Griffith
that thus alone could bloodshed be averted, Alderman Kelly concludes:
to the genuineness of the document, I have grave doubts. I think myself it was
part of move in the military plan – justifiable in war [WWI or Anglo-Irish?];
and it did have the desired effect. But I think it was forged.” (“Capuchin
Annual,” 1942, p. 600).
asterisk directed all readers of the annual to Mr. Little’s article, but
unfortunately no asterisk directed the readers back to Alderman Tom Kelly, an
omission that Mr. Little would no doubt agree was as deplorable as the omission
of any footnote in the “Castle Document” about the change made in that little
item about the name of the Archbishop’s house.
are the two conflicting views on this famous and mysterious document in brief
P. J. Little declares that the “Castle Document” is a genuine British military
Tom Kelly accepts the document as a forgery issued by the Irish military
leadership to rouse public opinion and the fighting spirit of the Irish
volunteers for the insurrection, the date of which has already been fixed by
the Military Council [IRB] three months before.
second explanation – forgery – I accepted also in my book “The Rising,” and
stated the arguments on both sides in the chapter “A Most Opportune Document.”
Mr. Diarmuid Lynch criticised that book with a meticulous fury that won my
admiration, yet on this particular chapter he was cordiality itself, and batted
not an eyelid at the strong word “forgery” and even went further than I had
done, as I was inclined to doubt that Pearse and Ceannt suspected the truth,
and, from a remark of Sean McGarry to me, “we all accepted it then,” Tom Clarke
Ruse of war
Lynch, in clear touch with the Military Council than most, in his book accepted
my statement that the document in its final form was a forgery, and implied
that the whole military Council, including Pearse, knew this.
defended the document “as a ruse of war.”
page 40 of the same book Lynch referred to “the alleged plans of the Castle
authorities” as detailed in the document, adding: “The fact that the Volunteers
were this keyed up at this particular moment suited the Military Council
a word, Mitchel’s “fires of hell for the British Empire,” if possible.
is no sentimental nonsense about this line of argument. Rather is it in the
spirit of that Italian statesman who defended some of his more questionable
means to win the unity of Italy in the words: “O! What scoundrels we should be,
if we did it for ourselves what we do for Italy!”
Army notebook belonging to Joseph Plunkett, now in the National Library, which
refers to the Dublin Castle code, and which contains portions of the document
in either crude shorthand in Roman script or decoded text, in one respect
throws grave doubt on Mr. Little’s belief in Mr. Eugene Smyth as the final and
irrefutable witness to the truth of the “Castle Document”.
Smyth in his statement declares categorically: “Only the reference to the maps
and lists is unfamiliar to me.” The very last line of the Plunkett document
contains the line: “See 1st A3 & 4 to sup A2.”
[A printer’s error – 1st should be list. It was not the very last line anyway –
that was ‘premises in List 5D, See Maps 3 & 4’].
the truth of the matter be that Mr. Eugene Smyth supplied instalments of the
substance to be weaved in due course into the “ruse of war” document with the
reference to lists and maps inserted not in London but in Kimmage?
the Plunkett document and in the document read by Alderman Kelly there is due
mention of the maps and plans on which Mr. Eugene Smyth never set eye.
Seamus O’Kelly told me briefly of the committee meetings, one in his own house,
where the document was produced piecemeal, and though he made few comments, I
sensed scepticism in his reticence.
have since read a statement he wrote in Irish on the subject in 1952, ten years
after Mr. Little’s “Capuchin Annual” statement, and there Dr. O’Kelly shows
little enthusiasm as to the authenticity of the “Castle Document” although he
notes with wry respect Mr. Little’s unshakeable faith in that most mysterious and
most opportune production.”
turns out there is some more to this 1961 controversy which I will dig out asap
- a follow-up article by another writer.
I find Desmond
Ryan’s attack on P. J. Little (whatever about the man’s arguments) striking. Was there some bad blood between them, or is there more involved?
find it strange that Min Ryan in her BMH WS never quoted Sean
MacDiarmada/MacDermott’s enigmatic remark and smile at their last meeting,
although she does cover many details of that occasion.
be interesting to see what many people referred to by Desmond Ryan had already said in
their locked-up Witness Statements before he expounded his categorical belief.
Feb 15 15 7:14 PM
F. X. Martin [see post 37], writing in 1967 (Studia Hibernica, No. 7
- 1916: Myth, Fact, and Mystery):
best known example of the deception practised by the Military Council was the
is still a haze of mystery surrounding the affair and there are those who
continue to believe that the document was genuine, but the weight of evidence
now leaves little doubt but that it was a fake. The purpose of the document is
now clear: it was to screw up the Volunteers, and in particular MacNeill, to a
state of intense expectation of attack by the British.
succeeded for a time and at the right time. The document was unexpectedly read
out by Alderman Tom Kelly at a meeting of the Dublin Corporation on Wednesday,
April 19, and appeared the next day as part of the newspaper report on the
Corporation meeting. It thus gained widespread publicity throughout the country
and at the same time eluded the military censor. The contents of the document
were indeed startling. It was alleged that the document was a highly
confidential directive drawn up by the British military authorities in Ireland
for the arrest of all the leading Irish separatists, the suppression of their
organizations (which were named) and the occupation of their premises. Also,
certain private residences were to be isolated: they included the Catholic
Archbishop's House, the Mansion House, MacNeill's house, O'Rahilly's house, and
document in code was supposed to have been copied surreptitiously from a secret
file in Dublin Castle by a government employee, friendly to the nationalist
cause, and passed on to Joseph Plunkett who decoded it and arranged for a copy
to be available for Alderman Tom Kelly. The publication of the document
produced a state of excitement and tension, among the Volunteers in particular.
MacNeill, as chief of staff, immediately warned them to be on the alert
throughout the country and ordered them to resist by force any attempt at suppression
or disarmament. So tension mounted, and all was set for an explosion, with the
British apparently the intended aggressors. If, as arranged, the German ship,
Aud, had arrived at Fenit within the week with arms for the Volunteers the
British would have attempted to seize them. This would have been the
flash-point for the rising, on a national scale, with the Volunteers a united
ingenious a scheme almost deserved to succeed on its artistic merits. But it
fell apart. MacNeill had second thoughts about the authenticity of the
document; the Aud was intercepted off the Kerry coast by British warships;
MacNeill, with Hobson and 'Ginger' O'Connell, discovered that a rising had been
planned secretly for Easter Sunday, and realized how timely had been the
appearance of the 'Castle Document'. Joseph Plunkett, with Sean MacDermott in
his confidence, seems to have been responsible for concocting the document. We
shall never know the full truth of the affair. MacDermott, on the eve of his
execution, was asked for the true story of the document and smilingly
commented, 'That is a secret that is buried in Joseph Plunkett's grave - a
secret that I and Plunkett will keep'. Desmond Ryan devoted a chapter of The
Rising to the 'Castle Document' and concluded firmly that it was a forgery.
There have always been some who insist that it was authentic, and in May 1961
P. J. Little stated their case fully.189
had been editor of New Ireland in April 1916 and played a principal part in
publicizing the document at that time. Ryan, in a reply to Little's article,
re-assessed the evidence and declared that any new evidence produced by Little
only served to strengthen the case against the authenticity of the document.190
Cathal O'Shannon in a lengthy commentary on Little's article of May 1961
pointed out the many unanswered questions in its arguments.191
The private papers of Sir Matthew Nathan, Under
Secretary for Ireland, used by Leon O Broin in his recent book on the rising,
corroborate the case for the 'Castle Document' as a forgery.192
189 P. J. Little in
Sunday Press, 1 May 1961, p. 15. The most thorough examination of the problem is by D. Ryan, The Rising (Dublin
1957), chapter 5, but it needs to be brought up to date in the light of points
raised during the controversy in 1961.
190 In Sunday Press, 21
May 1961, p. 15.
181 In Evening Press,
28 July 1961, p. 13.
192 Sir Matthew Nathan to Alice Stopford Green, 13 May 1916, in L. O’ Broin,
Dublin Castle and the 1916 Rising, cit., p. 185. See also ibid., pp. 80-81.
The immediate purpose of the 'Castle Document' was
as a military ruse, a deception. But it was more than that. The fantasy, the
imagination of the scheme, was an expression of the artistic mind in the realm
of politics. One of the most important books on the rising, William Irwin
Thompson's The Imagination of an Insurrection: Dublin, Easter 1916, was
published at New York by the Oxford University Press in 1967, and came into my
hands only after most of this survey of the 1916 literature had already been written.
Thompson's conclusions ........ the rising was a drama conceived on an
imaginative, not on a military level.
When Birrell was being questioned on 19 May 1916 by
the royal commission on the causes of the rebellion he gave special attention
to the Irish literary renaissance and asserted that its many products were198
characterized by originality and independence of thought and expression, quite
divorced from any political party, and all tending towards, and feeding latent
desires for, some kind of separate Irish national existence. It was a curious
situation to watch, but there was nothing in it suggestive of revolt or
rebellion except in the realm of thought.”
Thompson, without adverting to Birrell's assertion,
traces the process by which Ireland passed from thought to action, from a
literary revolt to an armed rebellion.........” [I’ll cut off here the further philosophical
discussion which follows].
198 In Royal Commission
on the Rebellion in Ireland (London 1916), p.21 (a).
Augustine Birrell was not as clueless as I’ve always believed].
DUBHGHAILL, Insurrection Fires
Only one other book published to commemorate Easter
Week, M. O’Dubhghaill's Insurrection fires at Eastertide, attempts to assess
the rising as a whole.58 ........... Designed as an anthology, to
present 'extracts from all that is best in 1916 writings to date', it is a
curious and, in some ways, a baffling volume. O’Dubhghaill does not limit
himself to a mere selection of extracts but adds his own commentary, and while
he attempts to maintain an impartial stance, his real sentiments break through
at various points, as when he discusses the suspect 'Castle Document' (pp. 196 -
203). In the final chapter, 'In retrospect and prospect', he runs his colours
to the mast and emotionally upholds the thesis that the Easter Rising was
necessary, inevitable and justifiable. ...... Yet there can be no doubting O’Dubhghaill's
seriousness or the exceptionally detailed knowledge he has of 1916. In the last
analysis the book is not an objective investigation of a problem but is heavily
charged with nationalist emotion..............”
58 M . O’Dubhghaill, Insurrection fires at Eastertide: a golden jubilee
anthology of the Easter Rising (Mercier Press, Cork 1966).
Member Since: 20-Mar-2011
Feb 15 15 9:16 PM
Feb 16 15 2:29 AM
it goin CSM.
thanks for a great input by you, as usual.
you taking the time to find & post the relevant bit, you know I will dig up Ryan's
book and digest it myself.
slaggin you at all - I know you'd do the same and you're only a messenger, like me.
as I'm sure you know, my problem is who said that MacDiarmada said what he said
to her who then told him. And many years later, written about by Desmond Ryan?...............
secret.... carried to the graves.....".
was and still is easy (lazy?) for any author to write about their times, before
forums like this. Not so easily challenged in the past.
very kindly asked if you can contribute even more info from that Ryan book.
love to know if you can tell us if Desmond Ryan gave a source for that
"MacDiarmada secret" quote.
be of mega interest to me, anyway!
aware it has been attributed to (blamed on) Min Ryan, later 'Mrs Richard
Mulcahy', to use the old-fashioned title. But I've never seen a direct quote
And, with all due respect to Min's memory - and that of all her sex actively
involved - what did she really know
BEFORE Easter 1916?
sexist insult intended whatsoever - how many people or 'governing bodies' on either side knew
even 10% of developments or news, let alone plans and conspiracies then!
an evil thought - were Des & Min Ryan related? I don't think so..... But, another
possible conspiracy theory for you?).
Feb 16 15 2:36 AM
Castle Document story is getting longer every day.
while I’ll continue this thread if it kills me, I’m also opening a new one.
the 1916 spy in the Castle himself, Eugene
find it here: http://theoldric.com/topic/1921/master/1/.
When I'm happy that Eugene's grandson is OK with the core of my planned full post, I'll complete it.
No censorship by him implied; none accepted by me!
don’t forget to check back here again as the story of the Document itself runs
and runs........till at least 2016.
Feb 17 15 7:48 AM
Feb 18 15 9:29 PM
Member Since: 15-May-2010
Feb 19 15 12:28 AM
Feb 19 15 1:44 AM
Feb 19 15 2:07 AM
are mentions of the Document, from brief to detailed, in quite a few BMH Witness
can’t claim I’ve found all of them, but all interesting in
their own way.
Must start with the one by the spy himself, Eugene Smyth, 3 January
1950. Strangely, surname typed as Smith, but clearly signed Smyth (http://www.bureauofmilitaryhistory.ie/reels/bmh/BMH.WS0334.pdf )
no. W. S. 334
Witness: Mr. Eugene Smith, Mayville,
Bird Avenue, Dundrum, Co. Dublin.
Identity: Official in Dublin Castle
prior to and post Easter Week 1916.
Subject: Transfer of information
obtained secretly in Dublin Castle, to Irish Volunteers 1913-1918.
STATEMENT OF MR. EUGENE
SMITH, MAYVILLE, BIRD AVENUE, DUNDRUM, DUBLIN
1. Before the Rising I
was an official in the Castle and in that capacity a certain document came into
my hands. It was a long Communication from Major General Friend, General
Officer Commanding the Forces in Ireland and addressed to the chief Secretary
in London. I believed at the time and still believe that it was sent in reply
to a query as to what military precautions would be necessary with a view to
the enforcement of conscription in Ireland. The document was not in code or
2. It was unusual for
Major General Friend to send communications from the Castle to London, as he
had a private line from his headquarters at Kilmainham to London. It may have
been that the matter dealt with in the document was discussed with Sir Mathew
Nathan at the Castle and that was the reason the communication was sent from
there or it may or it may have been that the private line connected only with
military headquarters in London and not with the Chief Secretary's Office.
3. It was a lengthy
document - about the length of that published in the press; but I had ample
time to study the details of it, as it was I dealt with it, and I memorised the
main points of it. I was deeply interested in the political situation in
Ireland and in the threat of the application of conscription to Ireland
which was then, to the best of my recollection, under active consideration in
the British Press and in the House of Commons. Although I had taken an oath of
secrecy I did not feel myself, as an Irishman, bound by it in the existing
circumstances and I determined to give this important information to those whom
4. The contents of the
document were practically identical with that read out by Alderman Tom Kelly at
the meeting of the Corporation on Spy Wednesday except that, as far as I can
recollect, it did not state that the operations suggested by Major General
Friend were authorised by the Chief Secretary and there was no reference to
maps or lists. The words Ara Coeli were mentioned as being the Archbishop's
house and in this I think Major General Friend confused the Archbishop's Palace
with that of Cardinal Logue, as he had correspondence with both. To the best of
my recollection also, the Mansion House was included among the places to be
5. Having memorised the
contents of the document, I put a precis of it on paper. I cannot remember to
whom I gave the paper, as at the time there were various parsons to whom I
passed information of that sort. I seldom went to the same place twice in
succession as I had an idea that I might be followed. I used to hand such
papers to Billy O'Flaherty, Jack Shouldice, Paddy Sheehan, Maurice Collins who
had a shop in Parnell St., and Micheal Ó Liathain, an uncle of Con. Lehane. I
handed the paper complete and not in instalments to whoever was my go-between.
I gave all this information about the document to Mr. Paddy Little some years
ago and the account he published of it is quite correct, as far as I know.
I cannot state how Major
General Friend's suggestions were dealt with or whether any reply came to them
from the Chief Secretary's Office in London. If a reply came, there may have
been another document in the Castle with the additions contained in Alderman
Tom Kelly's version.
6. I never heard that
there was a meeting in Dunboyne Castle to discuss measures to be taken against
7. On the Wednesday after
the Rising started I went down to the Castle ostensibly on duty. I wanted to
find out what police messages were coming in from the country. The Castle was
overrun with soldiers who were using all the rooms as sleeping quarters and
they were lying on the floors. When I arrived they would not admit me as I had
no pass. I was kept waiting at Ship St. gate with a water official from the
Corporation until a guard of soldiers came and marched me to the Provost
Marshal's office, where I was identified by a policeman and obtained a pass. As
I was then anxious to get out and transmit any messages there were to the
Volunteers, I informed them that I would have to go home and relieve my wife's
anxiety about me and that I would return again that evening. In fact, I did not
return until the following Tuesday.
That night or the next
night a man called Sean Brown - I think he was a ticket collector at the Abbey or
Gaiety [inserted in manuscript and initialled by E. Smyth] Theatre - came
and said he was sent to find out information about what was happening in the
country. I gave him any I had which was very little, as it was impossible to
find an opportunity to read many documents on account of the crowds of soldiers
in all the rooms.
I never found out whether
he delivered the information as I never saw the man since.
8. That was not the only
information I brought to the Volunteers from the Castle. I can recall the
9. Shortly after the
first world war broke out - I think the split in the Volunteers had not yet
taken place - it came to my knowledge as an official that instructions had been
given to detective headquarters to raid for rifles, at the rere of a house in
Hardwicke St. I passed the information through one in close touch with the
Volunteers to two of the joint leaders of the Volunteers. One of these, Mr.
Judge, said there were no arms stored in those premises. The other, who was a
member of the Irish Volunteers, just winked at my friend and, when Mr. Judge
was gone, informed him that the information was correct and that he would have
arrangements made to remove the arms.
This was done, and when
the raid came nothing was found.
On another occasion
immediately before the arrests in connection with the German Plot, I learned
from a conversation with a police officer that the detective force was to be mobilised
at 9 o'clock that night to arrest all the leaders and I gave the information in
outline to Liam O'Flaherty. The Round-up in Dublin did take place that night
and all the leaders except those who were members of the I.R.B. were arrested.
The next day I took a document containing the names of those leaders in the
country to be arrested to Hynes' Restaurant in Dame St. where Micheal Ó
Liathain proceeded to copy it. While he was engaged on it a Police Inspector
whom I recognised from having seen him sometimes in the Castle came in. He
evidently recognised me too, for as he walked up the stairs he leaned over the
banisters and had a good look at us. I was a bit uneasy lest he should guess
what I was at. I had an official-looking paper in my hand from which Micheal
was copying the names and he might realise there it came from. I went into the
lavatory and disposed of the paper so that if I were searched on my return to
the Castle nothing incriminating would be found on me.
When I saw that the arrests
took place in Dublin I wondered whether Liam had succeeded in passing on the
information, but it is clear that he did, as Darrell Figgis’ book* shows that
the matter was discussed at a meeting of the Sinn Fein Executive that night and
that three different lines of action were proposed (1) that they would go on
the run, (2) that they would let things take their course and submit themselves
to arrest and (3) that they would call out the Volunteers and offer resistance.
The second course was the one they adopted.
At the present time I
cannot remember anything else of this kind that would be worth relating.
Signed: (E. Smyth),
3/1/’50 Witnessed: (S. Ní
A calm and collected
statement with no hint of heroics, bravado, exaggeration or ego-tripping like
in many other WS’s.
It’s obvious to me, an ex-civil servant - the man IS a civil servant, the way he qualifies his statements.
But the substance of the
statement is clear. Eugene Smyth saw the Document in the Castle, memorised it
and passed it on to his Volunteer contacts.
He also recounts other
times he supplied information to them, mentioning a close-shave in one case.
So, as the great Bill O'Herlihy used to say - "LIVE - we'll stop it there for the moment" (before Eamon Dunphy claims all the credit )
Feb 19 15 3:26 AM
Grace Gifford, later and
all-too-briefly Joe Plunkett’s wife, gives her version at:
I remember the document
that was published in Holy Week, because I wrote it out myself for Joe, sitting
on the edge of his bed, in Larkfield House.
Joe did not do it in the
Nursing Home. Although it was published in Holy Week, it had come out from the
Castle some time before that. It did come out from the Castle. That is quite
certain. I know who brought it. Donagh McDonagh was married to a girl, named
Smith [sic]. It was her father who brought it out.
Mr. Smith was in the
Castle. He now lives, I think, at "Mayville", Bird Avenue, Dundrum;
but Donagh will be able to give you the exact address.
This man could not tell
about it until he had retired. I think the document that Mr. Smith got out is a
most interesting thing. He told Don about it. He got out the information piece
It was not a straight
document. He got the bits around, pasted all together, and gave it to Joe.
I did not like to
question Mr. Smith about it, as he had not retired; but it is alright now to
I met him hundreds of
times, and he never mentioned those things. It might affect his pension. ........ I do not know what job exactly Mr. Smith
had in the Castle.
I could find out. Donagh
would know. He [Mr Smith] has retired from his position now. He can talk freely now.
Joe had this in code. He
deciphered it, and I wrote it down. I copied out the whole of it.
It was the "[Evening]
Mail" that published it. Once it was finished, I forgot all about it. It
would not be my job. The British certainly were up against it, if they had only
known. You cannot be very careful, when the Civil Service is composed of Irish
people. It could have happened in England, at Whitehall itself.
That code it in the back
of a despatch book, describing the Rising. It is in the Museum, on a sort of
long loan. It is a despatch book, which Joe kept during the Rising in the
G.P.O., and the code is in the pocket of it [NLI has this - but, CSM, I haven't seen it, haha].
This is in Joe's
handwriting. It could not be confirmed at that time, but Mr. Smith ought to be approached,
and asked to confirm it now. The pocket book was dropped on the street –
presumably Moore Street - towards the end of Easter Week, and it was found by a
waiter from the Granville Hotel.
He brought it to me, at
my mother's house, in Palmerston Park. It was in the pocket of it, I found the
I shall have to read a
book about the Rising, as I know nothing of the military history of it..........”
Jack Plunkett, Joe’s
brother, had helped print Document edition 1.
He made two witness
statements, nos 488 and 865.
He had this to say about
it in the first of those:
The Castle Document
I remember about the
famous document that was made public in the beginning of Holy Week 1916. I knew
of it before that because I'd seen it in manuscript and Joe asked me did it
look all right. In addition I was to check its translation from Morse. I found
an error in the Morse but that was not what was
worrying him; he was anxious that the translation should be correct.
I did not
think and I do not think now that the manuscript was in Joe's handwriting, nor
was the Morse copy made out by him. I had and still have an impression that the
Morse copy was produced at the same time as the alleged translation and that
the Morse was a sort of camouflage. Joe told me certainly though I cannot say on
what occasion that all the steps described in the document as contemplated by the
British authorities were seriously under consideration. My idea was that the
use of Morse was to disguise the fact that the information had been obtained
direct from somebody in the Castle, who was to be
I know that some document
was printed in Larkfield in many hundreds. We had a printing-press there and
Joe, George [his other Volunteer brother] and myself used to work it but on this occasion further help was
necessary and looking back on it now it can have been nothing else then the
famous "document" that was printed on that occasion. I was much too
busy at that time to occupy myself with printing..................” [END]
Feb 19 15 10:32 PM
article is a bit tortuous, but the author takes the time to analyse the various
sources and frames a bunch of questions.
of those can now be answered from information available to us in Witness
Info on author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathal_O%27Shannon_%28TV_presenter%29
BTW - His excuse for not checking Joe Plunkett's despatch book in NLI is novel!
Evening Press 28 July 1961
The Background to
the Castle Document
An examination is
needed now, says Cathal O’Shannon
letter from Mrs. Maura A. Smyth in Monday’s IRISH PRESS on Sean T. O’Kelly’s
reference in his memoirs in the IRISH PRESS to what is known as “The Castle
Document” of April, 1916, is additional reason for suggesting that there should
be undertaken by some competent historian a coldly objective examination of the
document’s origins and authenticity and the circumstances in which it was
printed, circulated and published.
examination would have to include a critical examination of the statements made
on it by P. J. Little in the Capuchin
Annual, 1942, and the SUNDAY PRESS of 7 May, 1961, and as well the
statement written at P. J. L’s [sic] request by the late Eugene Smyth, a civil
servant in Dublin in 1916 and the reference to it by his son-in-law, Donagh
MacDonagh, in his article on Joseph Plunkett in An Cosantoir, November, 1945.
would also have to take into consideration the firsthand evidence of Dr. Colm O
Lochlainn who was responsible for printing the copies made at Plunkett’s at
Father F. X. Martin, O.S.A., has remarked, in his Notes on Eoin MacNeill’s
memoranda in Irish Historical Studies of March this year, the most thorough
discussion of the document to date is in chapter V of The Rising by Desmond
the Little-Smyth statements are incomplete and to a certain extent, defective.
I suggest that it is now high time to complete them by giving us answers to
questions arising out of these statements and the letter from Mrs. Smyth who is
the widow of the late Eugene Smyth.
Mr. Little and Mrs. Smyth state that it was Smyth who deciphered the document.
Mrs. Smyth adds “that he gave it to the Sinn Feiners. I was in his confidence
and he told me all about it at the time.”
himself, however, does not say that he gave any document to anybody or that he
deciphered any document. What he says is; “I have read over the document which
was sent by Mr. little to Alderman Tom Kelly... The document was an outline of
the method (suggested by the
in Ireland to the British Government) for grappling with ‘The dangerous state
of affairs in Ireland.’ I was in a position to know firsthand the entire
contents of the suggested plan of operations and I can definitely confirm the
truth of the contents of the document.”
is to be noted here that “the document” here is “the document which was sent by
Mr. Little to Alderman Tom Kelly,” not something given by Smyth to somebody. On
the other hand Mr. Little stated that Rory O’Connor told him “that a friend of
his had discovered some very important information” and “that a certain
official in Dublin Castle had occasional access to certain secret messages and
files there. He had discovered one document in code which outlined a scheme for
the military occupation of Dublin. To get the text accurately and undetected,
he would only copy it piecemeal during a few minutes on certain days.”
implies that the official in the Castle copied from time to time the parts of
what Mr. Little describes as “an order in cipher on a secret file in Dublin
Castle” and brought them out on different days and gave them to Rory O’Connor
or his friend.
MAN WITH OPPORTUNITY
was these Mr. Little agreed to publish in his paper, New Ireland.
when he comes to print the written statement made at his request in later years
by Eugene Smyth, Mr. Little describes him, not as an official in the Castle but
as “telegraphist in the G.P.O. who had the opportunity of obtaining full and
direct information of the substance of the plans contained in the document.”
I have noted above both Mr. Little and Mrs. Smyth state that Smyth deciphered
this document, although Smyth himself does not say so, and gave this “to the
Sinn Feiners,” presumably Rory O’Connor or his friend.
GOT WHOLE TEXT
Little goes on to say “The main body of the document was substantially accurate
and correct.... in Dr. O’Ceallaigh’s house, Rory O’Connor produced the first
half of the document and, subsequently, we got the whole text.”
in a covering letter he enclosed what he described as “a copy of portion of a
document.... The cipher does not indicate punctuation or capitals.”
we have Mr. Little saying what Eugene Smyth does not say: that what was
circulated was portion of a document copied from a cipher. But he has already
said that its “main body” was “substantially accurate and correct.”
most that Smyth says is that it “was an outline” of what he “was in a position
to know” and that he confirmed the truth of the outline.
as Desmond Ryan remarks, he weakened that by admitting that the reference in
the circulated document to maps and lists.
very peculiar reference indeed – were “unfamiliar” to him and that he assumed “these
were inserted, possibly in London, but certainly after the matter had passed
out of my sphere of duties.”
he added: “I cannot confirm that the plan of operations as suggested by the
G.O.C. were ordered to be put into operation.”
Little declares that the document had been printed at Kimmage by Rory O’Connor
and without punctuation or capitals because O’Connor told him that “the original
in code” had none of these.
Little is in error on the printing and O’Connor’s share in that was the
accidental upsetting of the frame when all but a couple of lines had been
printed. This resulted in the job being done all over again.
facts on the printing have been given by the man most concerned in it. They are
summarised in this passage from Desmond Ryan’s chapter entitled “A Most
Plunkett and Colm O’Lochlainn were given the task of setting up the document on
a small hand-press in Kimmage, and printing it. Joseph Plunkett at the time was
in Miss Quinn’s Nursing Home in Mountjoy Square. This was in [sic] April 13,
1916. An additional flourish was introduced by Joseph Plunkett in his
instructions to the compositors which Rory O’Connor delivered: punctuation and
capitals to be omitted as the original had no such marks.”
“There was a very serious error in this famous original which Colm O’Lochlainn
detected and insisted should be referred back to Joseph Plunkett. It was the
mistake in the Archbishop’s House, Drumcondra, which was given as Ara Coeli – the name of Cardinal Logue’s
house in Armagh. Jack Plunkett was at once dispatched on his motor bike to the
nursing home, and returned with the laconic message from his brother: ‘Make it “Archbishop’s
House.” The work of setting up was completed with the exception of a line or
two when O’Lochlainn left. Unfortunately as Rory O’Connor was examining the
forme later, it was upset, and the whole task had to be begun again.”
O Lochlainn tells me that the “copy” for printing came to him in instalments as
if Joseph Plunkett were decoding a piece at a time from some original in cipher
and that what he got was in Joseph Plunkett’s handwriting and in pencil. I
understand that this, in pencil, or part of it, is in the National Library. I
have not yet been able to examine this as the Library is at present closed
until next month.
PRESENT AT DECODING
Ryan quotes Donagh MacDonagh’s claim in An
Cosantoir: “Grace Gifford, who married Joseph Plunkett, was present while
he decoded parts of the document.”
putting the questions that arise from the statement I have quoted, it should I
hope be unnecessary to assure Mrs. Smyth that nobody at any time has suggested
that her husband fabricated this or any document.
Can Mrs. Smyth remember now what exactly her husband told her at the time? Did
he say whether the information he gave was verbal or written? If written was it
his deciphery [sic], or a cipher copy of a document or part of a document or “an
outline of the contents,” of a document in code?
Was this information brought by Mr. Smyth out of the Castle or out of the
G.P.O.? And were portions of it brought out at different times?
To whom did Mr. Smyth give this information in whatever form it was? To Rory O’Connor
or to whom?
DONE ON HANDPRESS?
Was “the first half of the document” which Rory O’Connor produced in Dr. Seamus
O Ceallaigh’s home (Mr. Little) printed or in manuscript?
If printed was this one of the copies done on the hand-press at Joseph Plunkett’s
Were the copies given to Alderman Tom Kelly and other persons and to the
newspapers and New Ireland in manuscript or type-written or printed at Kimmage?
In what form did the document reach Eoin MacNeill or Arthurs Griffith?
Was it only “portion of a document” (Mr. Little) which Mr. Little enclosed with
his covering letter?
If only a portion, what portion was this?
Did Mr. Smyth tell Mr. Little whether he had given “the entire contents of the
suggested plan of operations” (Mr. Smyth)?
Did Mr. Smyth say whether the “outline of the method” (Mr. Smyth) was what he
saw as given to Alderman Tom Kelly, in his own wording or was it in somebody
else’s wording corresponding to the plan he “was in a position to know at first
hand” (Mr. Smyth)?
Wasn’t this “copy” delivered for printing to Kimmage in Joseph Plunkett’s
handwriting and in pencil and received in sections of successive instalments?
If Mr. Smyth’s information was given by him in writing what became of that writing?
If in Mr. Smyth’s writing why wasn’t this used for the printing in Kimmage?
Mr. Little or anybody else can answer these questions he will make a very
useful contribution to the coldly objective examination which I suggest should be
made by a competent historian. [END].
I'd suggest we have a bunch of competent historians on this forum - we should be able to do what Cathal suggested 64 years ago.
Mar 4 15 4:49 PM
Paddy Little’s WS should
come as no surprise, pages 9 -11 covering the origin and distribution of the
A short extract:
“There was quite a number
of copies of the [Rory O’Connor, edition 1] document printed, and these were
disseminated in various ways to important people, together with a letter,
signed by myself.
Unfortunately, only seven
copies of 'New Ireland' were printed, containing an exposure of this plan.
Now, I cannot lay hands
on any copy which contained the document.
Bulmer Hobson got one.
John O'Byrne got one.
Laurence O'Byrne [Lord Mayor of Dublin] got one.
Skeffington brought a
copy of the document and a letter, signed by me, to Alderman Tom Kelly, and
[he] raised the whole question at a meeting of the Corporation on the Wednesday
of Holy Week.
Seamus O'Kelly must have
got one.[WS to follow]
My copy would be one of
the originals, but I don't know where it is.” [END]
Mr Little referred to his
1942 Capuchin Annual piece and also attached two newspaper articles –
one by him in Sunday Press 7 May 1961, another by Cathal O’Shannon in Evening
Press 28 July 1961.
Both already posted here.
WS392, Eamon T Dore, Member IV and
IRB, Limerick, 1912 -1921
by Gerard MacAtasney in Seán MacDiarmada, The Mind of the Revolution
Drumlin Publications, Nure, Manorhamilton, Co Leitrim, 2004. ISBN
was then a member of the Fintan Lalor circle of the IRB. Seamus O'Connor* was
the Centre up to a date about six or eight months before the Rising, from when
Seán McDermott acted in this capacity......
the time I am speaking of, or just before that, in or about nine months before
the Rising [about August 1915], Seamus O'Connor announced one night at a circle
information had been got out of the Castle ......... to the effect that the
British contemplated raiding the houses of certain individuals for arms,
and we were ordered to stand by and if necessary defend our arms rather than
said something to the effect that "this is just the usual sort of
thing" or, in other words, made light of the warning, but at the same time showed that
he himself was somewhat alarmed by it.
was soon after this
incident that he disappeared from the circle and Seán McDermott [MacDiarmada]
took his place there. I mention this incident as showing I think that there was in fact a
source of information inside the Castle and that more than one communication
was received from this source, the last one being the famous document just
before Easter Week 1916, which Joe Plunkett has been accused of forging.
Concerning the Plunkett document; Joe Plunkett was at that period
suffering from serious tubercular glands, so serious that despite the Rising
and the preparations for it, he had to have an immediate operation by Surgeon
Charlie McAuley. It is not reasonable to suppose that a man in such a condition
would concern himself in the details of forging such a document, even assuming
that he wanted to do so.
More to come....
Mar 6 15 12:28 AM
Maybe this witness sat on the fence?
Dr. Seamus, or Seumas, O’Kelly, a
close associate of Eoin MacNeill (who he calls John McNeill), left a real fly-on-the-wall
Witness Statement (0471) covering the Document and the frenzied flurry of
activity orchestrated by MacNeill to cancel the Rising at the 11th
He was not a member of
the Volunteers but was very close to them.
The WS was given in
Irish, the BMH attached an English translation.
Here, I will only quote a
small part of what the doctor has to say about the Document – on its source, decoding and
(Anyone interested in the lead-up to the Countermand Order & the Rising will find
his complete WS very worthwhile reading).
“A short time before the
Rising.............. Rory O'Connor came to my house with an invitation to a
meeting of friends ........ The same friends came together about four times.
They were once in my own house.
The following were those
who were present: Rory O'Connor always, P.J. Little, Francis
Sheehy-Skeffington, L.P. O'Byrne ("Andrew Malone") and myself.
Rory was directing the
matter. It was he had the information and the instructions. Rory's story was
that a plan was laid in the Castle against the Volunteers, that it was in code
and that a friend of ours there had the opportunity of making a copy of it
gradually, but it would take time.
Twice, three times a part
of it was decoded in our presence.
At last we had the
complete document, "The Bogus Document". When we had the complete
document, Rory informed us of Joe Plunkett's opinion that it would be worthwhile
to publish the whole proposal in the newspapers to stir up the people, but that
it should first be communicated to the Bishops.
I think I was fixed on to
leave the document with the Archbishop of Dublin. I did not see the Prelate himself
but I gave the letter to his secretary, Fr. Michael Curran [his WS will follow]...........”
After covering his showing
of the paper to bishops in Maynooth & Belfast, Dr O’Kelly says he was also first
to show it to Eoin MacNeill:
“It was I gave the first
copy of the document to John McNeill...... He examined the print. I think that
was the first time he saw it complete.
He suggested publicising
it. "That will startle them [Government]", he said. He put the
printed paper down in the mouth [!] of his shoe, he put his pistol in his
pocket and he went off. That was the Saturday morning of Passion Week, I think
It was at that meeting we
had that it was decided in what manner the thing should be publicised.
Wednesday was fixed on for the publicity......”.
He goes on to relate how
he tried and failed to get two Dublin evening papers (Mail & Herald) to publish the document,
corroborating Paddy Little’s story......
and this little incident:
“I got onto my tram and.......
who was in it but Tom MacDonagh! He greeted me and I sat beside him.
"Did you see the
evening paper?" he asked. "What do you think of the news?" (He
meant the "bogus document").
“I would not attach any
credence to it", I answered [I’m not 100% about the translation of his
answer. Maybe it means “I don’t believe or disbelieve it”].
I was only trying to take
a 'rise' out of him, to be sure, but he took me seriously. "Are you one of
the doubters too?"
I thought it well that he
should [I think the word not should be here] know a bit more about my part in
the matter. There were no secrets between him and Plunkett. But I left the matter
as it was. I did not know that I would never see him again.”
Then he concludes on the
subject of the Document:
“This is the story of the
"bogus document" so far. Can the document be relied on (taken
seriously)? I leave that question to those who are inquisitive. That aspect of the
episode has been examined and investigated by Little.
He is satisfied to
believe, in the story. Having regard to all that was said about it, I always
understood that Plunkett was responsible for the printing of it and that there
was a printing press in Kimmage. Perhaps I am not right.........”
stuff in all that; some puzzling things too. And some iffy translations of a
few words and phrases!
Member Since: 6-Aug-2014
Jun 17 15 4:21 PM
Jun 18 15 2:26 AM
Jul 11 15 10:41 AM
Jul 13 15 10:49 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.