from Jeff Dudgeon

The Winston Churchill archives and its Casement papers

The Editorial Team in the March 2026 issue of the Irish Political Review alerted readers for the first time to the existence of  “a copy of the typescripts…in the Churchill Papers.” That is accurate in that Churchill College in Cambridge has a copy of the typescripts of the 1903 and 1910 diaries and of the 1911 Cash Ledger – almost their only Casement-related papers. The provenance is unclear but the College Archives Manager in 2024 did advise me, “The materials were a small accession we received which was entirely separate from the Churchill Papers.”

The absence of the 1911 Diary and the fact of a missing January 1903 Diary page indicates they are a copy of the material handed in the 1920s by Basil Thomson to the journalist Peter Singleton Gates. He published them in 1959 still not knowing of the existence of the 1911 Diary, and without that January page – which does exist in government files at the National Archives in Kew.

In late 1914, Sir Edward Grey had forwarded copies of the Findlay material from Oslo, which spoke of unnatural relations between Casement and Adler Christensen, to Blinker Hall’s boss Winston Churchill at the Admiralty, as well as to Asquith, Kitchener and Birrell. There is no evidence however that Churchill was given one of the six sets of the four typed diaries created by Scotland Yard in May and June 1916. He was out of office for the whole of 1916 which is a reason they would not surface in his Cambridge archive. Neither was he known for strong homophobia, having long had a private secretary, Edward Marsh, who was gay.

It is true as written, “The allegation of homosexual crime played no part in his conviction” since Casement was not charged with such. However it is not accurate to say, “It was introduced only when a campaign against his execution began to be raised.” The allegation was circulated and published in various forms from May 1916, well before the sentence of death was imposed on 29 June. Indeed the first selected sexual extracts from the diaries were typed up early in May, as Jack Lane pointed out inChurch and State (No. 139 of 2020).

The DPP 1/46 file he wrote “included, inter alia, the first appearance of the police typescripts, 24 carbon copy pages describing homo­sexual activity by Casement, submitted to the DPP on the 5th May 1916 with a covering note by Inspector Parker of the Metropolitan Police.” That, as Jack argues, does not preclude the typed versions existing before the diary manuscripts but it certainly indicates official reaction getting under way within days of, but only after, Casement’s arrest on 21 April 1916.

Jeff Dudgeon

11 March 2026

Reply By Jack Lane

What Mr. Dudgeon says about the Churchill documents is essentially correct, except that the Churchill typescripts are not copies of the Gates typescripts. 

They are the Gates typescripts, which Gates donated to The Times and which the newspaper donated to Cambridge in 1982.  Mr. Dudgeon is misleading where he suggests that I ‘pointed out’ that ‘sexual extracts from the diaries were typed up …’   This is quite wrong.  I merely cited Inspector Parker’s claim.

 The issue raised in the last paragraph of Mr. Dudgeon’s letter is crucial, as it concerns the question of which were created first—the typescripts or the manuscripts, which are now in the Kew Public Record Office.  When he says my case—

“does not preclude the typed versions existing before the diary manuscripts”

—he is in fact admitting that there is no evidence proving the diaries were created first. 

      Typescripts first is therefore a possible reality which Jeff now accepts. 

Which of the two possibilities is most probable is a matter for informed judgment.  Mr. Dudgeon is already halfway to admitting my argument, and a resolution can only be found when there is verified evidence for each possibility so that readers can judge from that evidence.  

Mr. Dudgeon has not provided the necessary evidence against my argument.  Of course, my argument that the typescripts came first might seem counter-intuitive:  and that is why I did some research on the issue. The result was the Church & State article Jeff refers to, which is reproduced below for convenience.

Some background must be acknowledged, briefly.  A narrative intended to be forged, as  manuscript diaries had been in the making since before January 1916.  That is when two British officers visited Putumayo to investigate Casement’s reputation locally;  they focused on homosexuality.  

Casement’s unexpected arrest interrupted the original forgery plan.  At a time when the 1914-18 World War was going badly wrong for Britain, public morale demanded that this detested high-profile traitor, who supported the German enemy, be dealt with as soon as possible!  

There was no time for the lengthy forgery of manuscript diaries:  instead a rapid typing operation went ahead;  something had to be shown promptly:  and that was in the shape of typescripts.

Mr. Dudgeon has until recently firmly believed that the manuscript diaries did exist when the typescripts were being shown.  But where is his evidence? 

He accepts that typescripts were sent by the police on 5th May 1916 and on 23rd/24th June to the DPP, and he accepts that no manuscript diaries were sent to the DPP.  He has not explained why manuscript diaries were not sent.

Nor has he produced independent witness testimony for the existence of manuscript diaries at that time.  That Mr. Dudgeon has failed to produce such verified evidence after so long inevitably leads to the conclusion that the evidence does not exist.  And perhaps his letter tacitly hints that he has reached that conclusion.

Mr. Dudgeon has been aware of this problem concerning the police file that was sent to the DPP for at least six years, long enough to find and present the vital evidence.  His attention was first drawn to this file in the Spring of 2020 as he explained to Michael McDowell:  “Jack Lane quotes a letter from a six-volume TNA DPP file (1/46) whose contents I had not been aware of.” (5 October 2020).

For a lifelong, acclaimed proponent of authenticity, Mr. Dudgeon’s present situation is extraordinary because it reveals that his former defence of authenticity rested on a vacuum of evidence.

If Mr. Dudgeon cannot produce the evidence which explains why police typescripts rather than manuscript diaries were sent to the DPP, and why no independent eye witnesses for hand-written Diaries have ever been named, he should have the moral courage to honourably admit that the ‘Diaries’ are a forgery.  

His research and scholarship over many years have now brought him to recognising the very real possibility of forgery.  It  requires moral courage to admit that. 

I have been following this issue for exactly 60 years:  ever since I  first met and heard Dr. Herbert  Mackey in UCC in 1965. 

The outstanding fact in this period has been the work of  Paul Hyde who “cut the Gordian knot” on the issue:  by proving conclusively that the so-called ‘diaries’ did not exist in Casement’s lifetime. 

The six volume Book of Evidence prepared by the police for the DPP to prosecute Casement proves that: as it shows that there was no physical diaries then in existence.  Now at last Jeff too has reached the moment of truth. 

Jack Lane