Did Pádraig Pearse ‘sign the death warrants’ of 1916 leaders?

recedite

That was the jist of last week's "Rebellion" TV series on RTE anyway.

Basically, the prosecutor Wiley advises Pearse before his court martial that he (and his men) could be convicted of a lesser charge which does not involve the death penalty, if he denies that he is in league with the Germans.
This apparently because of the Defence of the Realm Act 1914 which brought in draconian powers against anyone helping the enemy.

Pearse listens to this advice, and then subsequently adds a postscript to the final letter he wrote to his mother, which unequivocally links the rising to the German war effort.

More here in the journal.

Possibly General Maxwell was going to execute the leaders either way, which he would have been legally allowed to do under martial law. It does seem a bit callous of Pearse to remove any room for manoeuvre though. Its as if he wanted maximum blood sacrifice.
In fairness to Pearse, he was subsequently proved to be right if he was thinking the executions would swing popular opinion in favour of the rebels.

laoch na mona

the blood sacrifice thing has been drastically overstated, Pearse was no more blood thirsty than Redmond or the British government who sent millions to pointless deaths in the First world war.

I'd take anything in rebellion with a large pinch of salt, especially a claim that Maxwell offered any kind of leniency. The first person executed (not by Maxwell admittedly) was Francis Sheehy Skeffington after all

recedite

I agree that the whole blood sacrifice thing was endemic throughout most of Europe at the time, which is what allowed a pointless world war to happen in the first place. But of all the people who subscribed to the concept, Pearse was definitely one of the keenest.

Interesting story about Wiley here.
It seems he was a very fair man, and because the rebels recognised that, he was able to go on and become a High Court judge in the Free State.
I wonder if he ever spoke afterwards about this conversation he had with Pearse?

JohnFalstaff

First off, I wouldn't rely on Rebellion for an accurate portrayal of historical fact. It's a drama series and the events it depicts have been altered and rewritten to suit the dramatic narrative.

Now in terms of history... William G Wylie (not Wiley) was appointed prosecution counsel for those to be tried for their part in the Rising at very short notice. He did not meet with Pearse before the letter you mention was written.

Pearse wrote the letter on May 1 and handed it to a soldier on duty - Sergeant Goshman. It was shown to General Maxwell who forwarded it to Asquith. It was also typed up and used as evidence at Pearse's court martial.

So Wylie could not have written about this conversation. And even if he did you would have to take his version of events with a grain of salt. He wrote a memoir in the 1930's which deals with his involvement with the trials of the 1916 leaders. In his unpublished memoir he describes Countess Markiewicz as breaking down and crying throughout her court martial.

The official record of her trial was released in 2001, and it shows that she acted bravely and with characteristic defiance throughout.

For more information I would recommend reading Brian Barton's book From Behind a Closed Door: Secret Court Martial Records of the 1916 Rising. It deals extensively with these events and is full of detail on Wylie and the leaders of the Rising.

recedite

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

He did not meet with Pearse before the letter you mention was written. Pearse wrote the letter on May 1.

Very significant alright, if true. This timeline seems very tight though. Pearse was "martyred" on May 3rd, and you're saying the prosecutor never even met him before May 2nd?

In this account by Wylie, he says it was left entirely up to him what the charges would be. Also he says there were no official records made of the court martials at the time. If that was true, then the account of Markievicz being defiant must have been invented afterwards.
Why would Wylie make up the crying story? It would have been a lot safer for him, and even his family after he was dead, to stick to the "defiant" narrative.

Has anyone got a link to the "official" court martial records that the British released eventually?

recedite

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

I would recommend reading Brian Barton's book From Behind a Closed Door: Secret Court Martial Records of the 1916 Rising. It deals extensively with these events and is full of detail on Wylie and the leaders of the Rising.

Looks interesting alright. The author of the book is not "a primary source" any more than the producer of the TV series, but I see the book claims to contain "the complete transcripts" of the court martials.

Here is the wording of Pearses postscript;

P.S. I understand that the German expedition which I was counting on actually set sail but was defeated by the British

Seems an odd thing for a man on death row to write to his mother. A man as astute as Pearse must have known that by adding the postscript, the letter would be kept as evidence against him, and would never reach his mother. In the event it seems this letter was kept by Maxwell and a copy sent to the PM Asquith. Which would have been reasonably foreseeable by Pearse.

Pearse wrote another, more personal, last letter to his mother just before the execution on 3rd May.

The Chieftain

Just within the last few weeks I read an online description of the various courts martial and executions - unfortunately I can't recall exactly where it was! The key point is that it included an interesting analysis of the legal basis of the charges that the British used. IIRC, the argument was that there was actually a fatal flaw in the legal basis for the charges. Apart from that of course, there is the fact that the patriot defendants were denied any semblance of due process, were denied legal representation, had no opportunity to conduct a defense, or call witnesses. The "trials" were basically a preordained sham, held in secret, with many lasting no more than 15 minutes. This of course was all planned by Maxwell - a regular General Court Martial would have provided all the protections that were lacking in the process he chose to adopt.

donaghs

laoch na mona wrote: »

the blood sacrifice thing has been drastically overstated, Pearse was no more blood thirsty than Redmond or the British government who sent millions to pointless deaths in the First world war.

In terms of numbers, the Easter Rising's total dead of 400 and something can't compare with contemporary events in Europe, e.g. there were 20,000 British-only dead on the first day of the Somme Battle (1 July – 18 November 1916).

However, focusing purely on the tactics of the Pearse versus the WW1 politicians and generals, there is a difference. Pearse was effectively on a suicide mission. He knew he was likely to end in death by execution if he survived the fighting. And the tactics he chose to fight didn't leave any room for maneuver or escape to fight another day. You can substitute the phrase "blood sacrifice" for something else, but he wanted to make one, and by doing this wanted to change the course of Irish history.

Generals like Haig, Petain, Ludendorff, did cause massive casualties, but they weren't trying to make a statement by fighting hopeless missions. They wanted to win on the day, and did take steps to minimize casualties - e.g. preparatory bombardments (creeping barrage etc), surprise attacks with deceptions plans, stormtrooper infiltration attacks, etc.

Pearse may not have achieved all his aims, e.g. Irish language revival, educational reform etc, but the Easter Rising was surely a success in his terms by moving Ireland to a stage where waiting for Home Rule was no longer sufficient, and an a fully independent nation was to won by force of arms.

recedite

donaghs wrote: »

..but the Easter Rising was surely a success in his terms by moving Ireland to a stage where waiting for Home Rule was no longer sufficient, and an a fully independent nation was to won by force of arms.

Well, 26 counties at least, became a fully independent nation in I937, by peaceful means.
I would say whatever Pearse achieved, it was done through polarising public opinion. Whereas Redmond always tried to build consensus. Two very different philosophies.

The Dargle Hood

I would agree with JohnFalstaff's caution about relying on anything depicted in 'Rebellion' as historically accurate, however on this occasion there does appear to be some substance in what is depicted. Amongst the depositions given to the Bureau of Military History is a personal account provided in 1953 by the then Lord Justice Alfred Bucknill, who in 1916 was the Deputy Judge Advocate General who supervised the Courts Martial process from a legal perspective (Document No. W.S. 1019, File No. S.1838). This gave him a unique perspective. Amongst other things, he met Pearse in Arbour Hill on the Saturday evening following the surrender. In a covering letter to the transcript, the then Irish Ambassador to London, Freddie Boland (who met Bucknill), provided the following synopsis of Bucknill's testimony;

"When General Maxwell was sent over he was given a pretty free hand to deal with the insurgents but he was told by the Prime Minister personally that at all costs whatever was done would have to be done legally; there would have to be a complete answer to possible criticisms in the House of Commons. Sir Alfred was specially attached to General Maxwell to look after this aspect of the matter.

When he got down to business in Dublin, Sir Alfred found that the legal powers available were by no means watertight. General Maxwell proposed to proceed with Court Martials and executions under D.O.R.A (Defence of the Realm Act); but D.O.R.A. did not provide for the case of armed insurrection. For that reason, it was necessary to charge the insurgents with "Aiding the enemy" and in order to bring the case with the four corners of this charge it was decided to use in evidence the postscript to Paraic Pearse's last letter to his mother. The prosecution would have been in some difficulty without this postscript."

In his handwritten statement, Bucknill comments that " It was obvious from the outset that there would be great difficulty in getting sufficient legal evidence to pin any particular offence against any particular person". Thus it seems that the post script to the Pearse letter must have come as something of a Godsend for the prosecution. Bucknill in fact attached a copy of Pearse's letter to his statement, which is also included in the file. Reading it now, the postscript does seem oddly out of place. On the other hand, Pearse writes, chillingly and prophetically;

"We expect the government to spare the lives of all our followers, but do not expect that they will spare the lives of the leaders. We are ready to die and shall die cheerfully and proudly. Personally I do not hope or even desire to live, but I hope and desire and believe that the lives of all our followers will be saved . . . "

He was proven right in that regard, and also, ultimately, in his comments that "People will say hard things about us now, but we shall be remembered by posterity and blessed by unborn generations."

recedite

The Dargle Hood wrote: »

in order to bring the case with the four corners of this charge it was decided to use in evidence the postscript to Paraic Pearse's last letter to his mother. The prosecution would have been in some difficulty without this postscript."

In his handwritten statement, Bucknill comments that " It was obvious from the outset that there would be great difficulty in getting sufficient legal evidence to pin any particular offence against any particular person".

An interesting facet of this is the source of the guns used in the insurrection.
The guns which Casement was transporting when he was intercepted off the Kerry coast were German supplied guns and the crew were German navy. The British knew all about this because they had intercepted the coded messages sent by Germany. So in that respect the case against Casement was watertight. But as we know, these guns were never deployed, and any official action by the Irish volunteers was countermanded by IV leader Eoin Mac Neill.

The rebels who fought on the east coast were a mixture of the marxist Citizen Army and the Fenian IRB faction within the IV's. Their rifles were the "German made" Mausers as landed at Howth and Kilcoole. But these rifles had nothing to do with Germany in WW1. So you could not truthfully say that the rebels had been armed by Germany. These rifles had been captured by the Russians from Prussia during an earlier war, and were purchased from a Belgian arms dealer, using money raised in England and loaned to the IV's.
So it would probably have been impossible to link the rising to the German war effort, without Pearse's postscript.
And without that evidence, it seems likely that Bucknill would have stepped in to veto the executions (as per the PMs instructions to him to ensure a watertight legal case) Even if both Maxwell and Pearse had been keen to proceed with them.