The Treason of Sir Roger Casement

Abstract

1 George H. Knott, ed., The Trial of Sir Roger (London, 1917), p. 15. 2 Lord Birkenhead, Famous Trials of History (London, 1926), p. 263. 3 Alexander M. Sullivan, The Last Serjeant (London, 1952), p. 271. Sergeant Sullivan, who came over from Dublin to defend Casement, declares in his recently published memoirs that the Attorney General-for what motive is stated-did everything he could to get him to read the diary during the trial, and was furious when he refused to do so. Mr. Sullivan states simply that the trial was already a great strain on him (indeed he collapsed in court during his speech for the defense), without having to read horrible document. Is it possible that Sir F. E. Smith's motive was to demoralize the defense? Mr. Sullivan leaves the reader with the impression that he considers the diary genuine, though he never actually says so. But his obiter dicta, e.g., that Casement had that touch of megalomania which is associated with mental aberration of a more unpleasant kind; or, that he was not completely normal and one of the abnormalities of his type is addiction to unpleasant practices, do inspire confidence in his psychological acumen. Sullivan, pp. 271, 267. Amusingly cnough, the gossip in the London clubs had it that Sir F. E. Smith, fearing lest losc the sergeant's professional services, would even let Mr. Sullivan know of the existence of the diary. This was exactly the opposite of the truth. E. S. P. Haynes, A Lawyer's Notebook (London, I932), p. 32. The British government has to this day steadfastly refused to clear up the mystery of the diary, refusing even to confirm or to deny the alleged fact of its existence. In this attitude Ramsay MacDonald and Stanley Baldwin were agreed. In view of these circumstances, the explanation advanced by Parmiter in 1936 still seems the most plausible one. He suggested that the diary was one of the Putumayo documents which submitted to the Foreign Office. The original being in Spanish, translated and copied it out in his own handwriting; he mentioned to several friends at that time that part of the evidence he was submitting was such a diary. When, after his death, the Foreign Office returned Casement's papers to a relative, the diary was among them. See Geoffrey de C. Parmiter, Roger (London, 1936), pp. 315-i6; William J. Maloney, The Forged Diaries (Dublin, 1936), passim; Denis Gwynn, Traitor or Patriot (New York 1931), p. 19!; Henry W. Nevinson, Last Changes, Last Chances (London, 1928), p. iI5. T. E. Lawrence was also refused information on the subject. Letters of T. E. Lawrence, ed. David Garnett (New York, I939), p. 863. Such a prohibition, besides making it impossible to ascertain the truth, facilitates such foolish comment as in Blanche Patch, Thirty Years with G. B. S. (London, 1951), pp. 100-103. Miss Patch is willing and eager to accept the allegation of Casement's perversion, in order to emphasize thereby Shaw's broadmindedness in matters of sexual irregularity. Even worse than this, the well-known London solicitor, Mr. E. S. P. Haynes, explains Casement's self-possession during his trial as due to an alleged insensitivity to death, which is in turn regarded as the result of syphilis. Haynes, p. 32. Cf. Alice Roosevelt Longworth, Crowded Hours (New York, 1933), p. 266; The Times, Aug. 4, 19I6; Nevinson, pp. II5-I6.