Book Review

The Accusing Ghost or Justice for Casement, by Alfred Noyes, Gollancz, 1957

When this book was published in 1957 the controversy surrounding Roger Casement resembled a Kafka novel!  There were rumours about Casement’s sex life but the ‘proof’, in the form of personal diaries, was not available for inspection.  Indeed, the official position of the British State was  to not even acknowledge their existence.

So, defenders of Roger Casement’s reputation were faced with rumours without anything tangible to refute. 

Alfred Noyes took the position that, while the spreading of rumours by the British State was disreputable, it was at least understandable during a war [WW1].  But, with the end of the War, it was time to come clean:  and apologise if the rumours were false. 

To add piquancy to the issue, William Butler Yeats had written a poem denouncing Noyes for his part in the denigration of Casement.

At the beginning of The Accusing Ghost, Noyes quotes extensively from a 1956 Debate in the British Parliament.  Of course, Debates in the British Parliament are not primarily about conflicts in the society but reflect divisions within the British Establishment.  

The Conservative Government position in the Debate was represented by W.F. Deedes, Joint Undersecretary of State for the Home Department.  Deedes’ excuse for not releasing the documents was that:

“…no official disclosure should make it possible for anyone further to blacken the memory of a man who has been imprisoned and hanged”.

But, of course, the idea that the British State did not wish to blacken the name of Casement was risible, since it had propagated the rumours in the first place!

In the 1956 Commons Debate, the opposing view was represented by the Unionist MP for Belfast North, H. Montgomery Hyde.  In his past career he had worked for MI6. 

During the Debate he referred to an accusation that Sir Basil Thomson had faked the diaries.  Commenting on this he said:

“Sir Basil Thomson’s family, with whom I have been in touch, are naturally distressed by this accusation, which they regard as unfounded, and they are anxious to have his name cleared.”

Hyde proposed that a committee of experts should examine the diaries for the “purpose of establishing Sir Basil Thomson’s bona fides or otherwise”.

So, Hyde was not some kind of libertarian railing against the State.  He was very much part of the Establishment, representing security interests that wished to show that the Diaries were genuine. 

However, he made two mistakes.  Firstly, he drew attention to “four accounts” by Thomson “of how the diaries were discovered and subsequently used”.  He claimed that these accounts “differ on minor points”.  Noyes commented that this excuse was “quite incorrect”.

Secondly, he quoted from a memo from the legal adviser to the Home Office in 1916, Ernley Blackwell.

Hyde’s access to this classified document, which was dated 17th July 1916, confirms his insider status. The purpose of quoting the memo seems to be to recap on the allegations of “sexual degeneracy” against Casement.  But, at the beginning of that memo, Blackwell describes the Diaries as “covering many pages of closely typed matter”. 

It appears that Hyde’s handlers did not inform him that Casement could not type, and that the Diaries that were to emerge in 1959 were all handwritten!

Noyes commented on the debate in a letter to The Times (17 May 1956).  In this he corrected the false impression that he was responsible for circulating the diaries.  He went on to say:

“In 1916 when I was doing some work in the News Department of the Foreign Office, a copy of the alleged ‘diary’ was placed upon my desk.  It was a typed not a photographic copy as Mr. MacColl stated in his book.  It was left with me for a few minutes and was then hastily withdrawn.  It was never in my possession”.

It is interesting that Noyes says he was shown a “copy” which is a very elastic term.  Numerous biographers of Casement give the impression that photographs of the handwritten diaries were shown in 1916.  But, in the above passage, Noyes makes it clear that the “copy” consisted of a typescript, and that Rene MacColl’s assertion in his biography of Casement that Noyes saw a photographic copy was simply wrong. 

In his letter Noyes goes on to say that, after expressing revulsion at the contents of the “copy”, his comments were noted and used without his permission in the campaign to denigrate Casement. 

Such are the ways of the British State!

The Black Diaries’ Conception

A hint of when the fabrication of the diaries was conceived is given by Casement himself. 

In Casement’s authentic “Munich diary”, he describes the arrival on 29th October 1914 of himself and his manservant Adler Christensen in Christiania (modern day Oslo).  Christensen was approached by British Envoy and Minister to Norway Sir Mansfeldt de Cardonnel Findlay.

Findlay indicated that he knew all about Christensen and Casement.  He had intercepted a telegram from Casement to New York, and he went on to say:

“Now I want the original of that telegram to have his handwriting” (p84).

Why was Findlay interested in ‘having’ Casement’s handwriting?!  It seems the forgery plans were already in train in October 1914!   

Casement would not have been aware of the significance of that telling statement from Findlay, since at the time that Casement made his diary entry in 1914, he was unaware of the British plan to destroy his reputation. 

At this 1914 meeting Findlay also suggested:

“If someone knocked him [i.e. Casement- JM] on the head he would get well paid for it”.

When Christensen protested that he could get into trouble, Findlay responded that there would be no enquiry since Casement was travelling under an assumed name.  Findlay then offered to give Christensen the sum of £5,000 (about half a million in today’s money). 

Casement was later able with Christensen’s help to obtain proof of this offer in writing. 

The “Discovery” of the Diary: Version 1

Noyes has a very interesting account of the ‘discovery’ of the ‘Black Diaries’ or ‘Diary’.  He says that two of Casement’s trunks were transferred from his lodgings at Ebury Street to Scotland Yard 16 months before his interrogation (i.e. around December 1914/January 1915 —JM).  It is inconceivable that the trunks were not opened when they arrived in Scotland Yard (note 1).

But in his statement of 21st November 1921 in The Times, Basil Thomson gives a different account:

“Towards the end of the interview a policeman who had been sent to search Casement’s old lodgings in London, entered the room and said that he had brought away two or three trunks of clothing and wanted the key to open them….  I asked Casement for the key and with a magnificent gesture he said ‘Break them open.  There is nothing in them but clothing and I don’t want the trunks again.’  There was something in them besides clothing—a diary with occasional gaps from the year 1903.”

This is bad theatre!  Is it plausible that Thomson would ask Casement for the key (singular) for the trunks (plural) when Casement had been searched numerous times following his arrest on Good Friday and prior to his interview the following Sunday?

The account wishes to give the impression that the trunks were only transferred from Casement’s old lodgings to Scotland Yard on the day of the interview (note 2).  The purpose of this lie was to make it seem impossible for the Diaries to be fabricated in the short space of time between finding genuine documents (the raw material for the forgery) and the dissemination of the typescripts of the Black Diaries one month later.  

The other problem with being in possession of the trunks sixteen months prior to Casement’s interview is that it begs the question as to what the police were doing with the diaries in that period. 

Noyes thinks that the reason that Thomson says he only asked for one key is that he knew that the documents were in one trunk, and he knew which trunk that was. 

But it is interesting that Thomson only discovers one diary (1903).  It seems that, as late as November 1921, Thomson was only aware of one diary in the Black Diary collection. 

Version 2

We now come to the second version of the story which is from Thomson’s book Queer People, published in 1922. 

“Some months earlier, when we first had evidence of Casement’s treachery, his London lodging had been visited and his locked trunks removed to Scotland Yard.  Towards the end of the interview a policeman entered the room and whispered to me that Casement might have the key to the trunks.  I asked him, and with a magnificent gesture he said, ‘Break them open;  there is nothing in them but clothing and I shall not want them again’.  But something besides clothing was found in one of the trunks—a diary and a cash book from the year 1903, with considerable gaps.”

Many of the forgery deniers explain away the differences as Thomson’s lapses in memory.  But the similarities are as significant as the differences! 

Some of the sentences in the November 1921 version are repeated almost verbatim in the 1922 version.  It is obvious that, when Thomson was composing his 1922 version, he had the 1921 version in front of him.  The similarities were transcribed and the differences were consciously made.  There were no memory lapses!

The first significant difference is that Thomson has decided that he could not sustain the lie that Casement’s trunks were transferred to Scotland Yard on the day of the interview.  After all, many of Casement’s relatives were still alive and it is likely that the landlord (or landlady) was also around. 

“Some months earlier” is still a little misleading to describe a period of sixteen months, but it could be said to be somewhere near the ballpark of truth!

The second significant difference is that, in the second version, he has found a cash book which was not in the first version!  The diary and cash book are from 1903. 

But, of course, the cash ledger that was part of the Black Diary collection covered the period 1911 and part of 1910!

And where are the 1910 and 1911 diaries?!

Other minor differences are a slightly more diffident approach to requesting the key.  The policeman “whispers” that Casement “might” have the key (singular).  This diffidence is understandable since, by conceding that Scotland Yard had possession of Casement’s trunks for “months”, he is asking the reader to believe that the police did not open them during this time. 

The other minor difference is that, in the second version, it is said that there are “considerable” gaps in the 1903 diary and cashbook whereas, in the first version, there are only “occasional” gaps. 

Version 3

Thomson’s third version was published in the March 1925 issue of English Life.  In this account the detective informed Thomson in a whisper that, some months earlier, Casement’s landlord had brought two trunks to Scotland Yard.  Interestingly, Casement’s cousin, Gertrude Bannister, says it was a landlady who brought the trunks to Scotland Yard (see note 2 below).  Thomson then asked Casement for the “keys” plural.

Someone must have told Thomson that, if there are two locked trunks and you want to pretend that you don’t know which trunk has the relevant documents, it would be a good idea to ask for the keys (plural)!

Version 4

Thomson’s fourth version appeared as follows in his book The Scene Changes published in 1939, the year that he died. 

“Our interview was but half completed when Patrick Quinn, Superintendent of the Special Branch, peered round the door with the expression of Mephistopheles, tiptoed up to my table and deposited a MS. volume upon it.  He then withdrew discreetly and left the interview to proceed.  Whether Casement recognised the volume [in the singular—JM] or not I am unable to say.  At any rate it did not appear to confuse him.  Quinn had abstracted it from his luggage, which was lying in the Special Branch office.  It was a diary, and when I came to examine it after the interview, I realised that it could not be printed in any language”.

Probably, the most remarkable fact in the four charades described above is there is no record of Thomson or anyone else asking Casement about the diary that “could not be printed in any language”!  

   There are two explanations for this “oversight”.  The first is that Thomson knew that Casement would deny any knowledge of the material since Thomson also knew that Casement did not write it.  The second is that the “diary” did not exist in written form when Casement was interviewed on Easter Sunday, 23rd April, 1916. The latter explanation assumes that Thomson was lying about presenting the “diary” to Casement.

Regarding the fourth version above, Thomson has dispensed with the story about the keys.  The other interesting difference is that he doesn’t find the diary in any of the trunks but in “luggage” which was “lying” in the Special Branch Office. 

Noyes thinks that the reason for changing the story to finding the diary in “luggage” is that, between the publication of the third version in 1925 and the fourth version in 1939, Casement’s Prosecutor, F. E. Smith (Lord Birkenhead) had published his own version of where the diary (singular) was found.  Birkenhead says it was found in one of three coats on a beach in Kerry where Casement landed on Good Friday, 1916. 

To put it mildly, Smith’s version has zero credibility!  The Police in Kerry compiled a detailed inventory of everything that was found pertaining to Casement’s arrest.  The list included such insignificant items as wrapping paper for a sausage, but no diary (see Irish Political Review, April 2026:  note 3).

Noyes thinks that the general word “luggage” in the fourth version, as distinct from the specific word “trunks” in previous versions, is an attempt to bridge the gap between the Ebury street and Kerry coast stories.  Readers will recall that Thomson’s final version appears in his book The Scene Changes.  One can only compliment the author on the appropriateness of the title!

But, interestingly, the Cash Book has been forgotten about.  

There is only a single diary.  The idea that there was only one diary that “could not be printed in any language” is a consistent theme from 1916 right up until the 1950s. 

Is it possible that the original conception of the forgers was that there would be only one diary, covering the period 1903 to 1911?  This is why Thomson said the diary was “from” 1903 rather than “for” 1903? 

And it is also why he drew attention to the “considerable gaps” in the diary.  It was only later that the idea of more than one diary was mooted so that it was not necessary to explain the “considerable gaps”!

But it is quite possible that, in 1939, Thomson believed that the Black Diaries would never see the light of day.  So, there was no requirement to “find” a cashbook, still less the other Diaries that were to emerge. 

By 1957, when his book was published, Noyes had some idea of the Black Diaries.  He knew, for example that the period covered was the years 1903, 1910 and 1911.  He makes the interesting point that these were precisely the years that the British State had the most visibility of Casement’s movements, since he was reporting to it on the Congo atrocities in 1903 and the Putumayo in 1910 and 1911. 

Brian Inglis and other forgery deniers have argued that the Diaries are authentic because a forger would not risk exposure by fabricating so much material.  But, in the case of Casement, unlike Parnell, the volume of authentic information that the British State had about Casement was so vast that the temptation to make the most of it was impossible to resist.

My overall impression is that what was found in Casement’s trunks in Ebury Street was largely irrelevant.  The British had already voluminous information about Casement for the relevant years.  But they needed to identify where and how they “found” the fabricated ‘diaries’.  

Saying that they were found in the trunks from Ebury street was a mistake, since it begged the obvious question as to what Scotland Yard was doing with the “diary” for sixteen months!

Interestingly René MacColl wrote a letter to Noyes dated 1st May 1956, stating that he had seen the complete official copies of “five immense volumes and three ledgers”.  This, of course, is a more substantial haul than what emerged in 1959 (an army notebook, three diaries and a cash ledger).  Is it possible that some of the manufactured volumes did not pass the quality control standards of the security services and had to be destroyed?!

The Trial

Noyes has an interesting account of the Trial. He is rather generous to Casement’s defence counsel, Serjeant Sullivan.  One of the strongest arguments for the Defence was that the Irish Volunteers was set up to defend the Home Rule Bill which was passed by parliament.  The Bill had been subverted by the Ulster Volunteers and the Curragh Mutiny.  But, when this line of argument was ruled out of order by the Judge, Sullivan made an abject apology for introducing it!

Sullivan had a nervous breakdown during the trial or so he claimed.  But there have been doubts about this (note 4). 

The present writer always found it strange that F.E. Smith gave some typescripts of the Black Diary to Sullivan (through the latter’s junior counsel Artemus Jones).  As we have seen in the example of Noyes, the normal modus operandi was to show the typescripts and then withdraw them so that they could not be analysed. 

Sullivan returned the typescripts to Smith after only a cursory look.  It looks like Smith wanted to demoralise the defence team and knew that Sullivan would return the files promptly. 

Later, as rumours of the Black Diaries gathered pace, Casement’s Defence Team tried in vain to obtain copies of the ‘diaries’.

F. E. Smith

Another aspect of the trial was the role of F. E. Smith (later known as Lord Birkenhead).  He played a prominent role with Edward Carson in the Ulster Unionist armed resistance to Irish Home Rule.  He was often seen at Carson’s side on horseback, hence the derisive nickname, “Galloper Smith”!  

Another person might have recused himself from the trial of his political enemy, but not Smith!

Smith was both the Senior Prosecutor, as well as Attorney General.  As Attorney General he could sit in the Cabinet. 

The Attorney General could decide to prevent an appeal to the House of Lords, which he duly did. 

He also, as Attorney General, had an influence on the conduct of the Trial.  Normally, the Prosecutor makes his closing speech to the jury after the Defence.  This is an advantage that the prosecution has:  and its justification is the fact that the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”.  

However, in the case of the Defence not calling any witnesses, including the defendant, the rule is that the Defence Counsel is entitled to make the final closing speech. This was the case in the Casement trial.

However, this rule can be overridden by the Attorney General, which again Smith duly did!

After Casement was found guilty, the Cabinet could have granted him a pardon, but Smith threatened resignation if the Cabinet exercised that right.

So, in the trial of Casement, Smith was not only a ‘player’, but also in part a referee in a game where the opposing Senior Counsel was—to put it kindly—very weak. 

Casement’s Character

When the death sentence was confirmed without hope of reprieve, Smith said it gave him the “greatest of pleasure”:  to which Noyes commented that Smith must have had a very miserable life!

Noyes contrasts the noble demeanour of Casement with the thuggish behaviour of Smith, who walked out in the middle of Casement’s speech from the dock;  a speech which is considered one of the finest in the English language. 

The strongest argument against the authenticity of the Black Diaries is that the character of Casement, as testified by numerous distinguished people of the time, bears no relation to the sexual degenerate who wrote the forged diaries. 

But perhaps one of the most eloquent testaments came from his executioner, John Ellis, who described Casement’s last moments as follows:

“The impression will ever remain on my mind of the composure of his noble countenance, the smile of contentment and happiness, as he willingly helped my assistant…  the steady martial tread of his six feet four inches and soldierly appearance adding to the solemn echo of his prompt and coherent answers to the Roman Catholic chaplain while marching to his untimely doom.  Roger Casement appeared to me the bravest man it fell to my unhappy lot to execute.”

John Martin

Note 1

Basil Thomson was a prolific writer of detective novels.  The present writer has read one of them – The Milliner’s Hat.  In this novel the detectives from Scotland Yard routinely rifle through the suspects’ private possessions.  There is not a hint of the author disapproving of such practices. 

Note 2

Gertrude Bannister, Casement’s cousin, said that Scotland Yard took possession of his trunks sixteen months prior to his interview.  Noyes quotes her as follows:

“As a matter of fact, the trunks left behind by Roger in Ebury street were handed over to the police by the Landlady, at the instigation of another lodger, as soon as Roger went to Germany in 1914. Sir B. T. had the diary at least 16 months before Roger’s trial, and he had plenty of time to see that it was so doctored as to suit his purposes long before the time he needed for propaganda purposes. It was shown to various people sometime during 1915, I think at the end of the 1915 but am not sure.”

Note 3

The police in Kerry did find a single sheet with dates and recent journeys which was described as “a kind of a diary”, but that had no sexual content.  At Casement’s trial Smith latched on to this, but of course a single sheet bore no relation with the diaries which emerged in 1959!   During the Trial there was a long, and apparently pointless, discussion between Smith and presiding Judge Rufus Isaacs on whether the single sheet could be called a “diary”.  Noyes thinks the purpose of this discussion was to remind the jury of rumours circulated in the News of the World and the Weekly Dispatch of the diaries with sexual content. 

Note 4

Paul Hyde in an article entitled A Suitable Case For Treatment, says the nervous breakdown was feigned so that Sullivan could abandon the case. 

Note 5

Casement’s note that Findlay was interested in his (i.e. Casement’s) handwriting without knowing why makes Casement’s observation all the more credible. If Casement had made that observation in July of 1916, when he was aware of the rumours about the Black Diaries, it could be said that he was making the observation to accuse the British of forgery. But, since it was made in 1914, it cannot be regarded as a self-serving observation!

JM