1916 (48 page)

In the midst of the executions, the Bishop of Down and Connor,
Joseph MacRory, writing to Michael O’Riordan in Rome on 4 May 1916, may have summed up what the archbishop of Dublin was thinking:

The Dublin affair is a shocking and idiotic tragedy. It was engineered by a few desperate socialists and a few sincere but silly patriots. Of course it had no chance whatever of succeeding. The danger is that it may have succeeded in gravely injuring Ireland’s constitutional cause. Peace is restored everywhere. Belfast remained quiet, thank God, throughout all the excitements.
⁷²

On 8 May Curran wrote a long, descriptive letter to Hagan reviewing what had happened in Dublin:

We have had a terrible fortnight since and we have tasted of the horrors of war and don’t want any more. It is all a nightmare and I can hardly bear to [think] about it. The whole thing was terribly foolish and tragic! I told you in my last letter that the danger of a collision with the police [and] troops seemed to be at an end, as on that day MacNeill ordered the Easter meeting of the Volunteers should not take place. An attempt to nullify the orders by the extremists was met by a second order from MacNeill authenticating his previous orders, and these orders were obeyed.
⁷³

Curran then described what happened next:

What was our dismay on Easter Monday to hear about 12.20 that the GPO was taken by the Volunteers and that the Castle was attacked! It was hard to realise that here in the year 1916 we were back in 1798 and that the Rising was at our very doors, largely by people known to every Dublin man. It would appear that the Larkin crowd leader, James Connolly, the secret soc. men headed by T[om] Clarke and an extreme fanatical section of the Volunteers headed by Padraic Pearse, MacDonagh and Kent, determined on Sunday evening to rise! There seems to be all too convincing evidence that they had conspired with the Germans through the Clan na Gael, or directly, for such a rising and that they used the Irish Volunteers for their own purposes. MacNeill was latterly a mere figure-head in their hands. I fancy MacNeill must have got wind of what was on late on Good Friday or on Holy Thursday. Many say he cancelled the orders for the Easter assembly of the Volunteers – probably on hearing of Casement’s appearance in Kerry.

He continued:

The extremists, seeing that the stopping of the Easter demonstration would spoil their plans, circulated the reports that the cancelling of the Easter parades was a bogus command – a government dodge. John MacNeill thereupon sent out in all directions new commands authenticating his former command. I saw some myself, for his sister came here in a pitiable state about 3pm on Easter Sunday with copies of them, signed by MacNeill. He wanted the Abp [archbishop] to get the priests to stop the assembly.

He explained further:

At any rate the Connolly-Clarke-Pearse section summoned their men. I have no doubt whatever that very few knew what really was on. The rank and file were composed of young men, very many only 15–17, who formed the Volunteers (1) to counteract Carson’s, (2) to be prepared against conscription. These did not want rebellion, though they were prepared, as I warned you, to resist disarmament. Some believed that disarmament was immediately at hand and were quite prepared for resistance, but very many only thought that it was one of the usual route marches. You need have no doubt about these facts for we have all met several instances of such cases during the terrible crisis. Rebellion was the last thing they dreamed of.

Curran was convinced that:

It was the strong men of extreme views that stampeded the whole thing and compromised all. MacNeill was no match for such men and the only strong thing he did was resolutely to refuse [to] countenance them and he certainly saved a general rising all over the country. His words were everywhere obeyed, except to a small extent in Cork city. The risings in the country were due to the news from Dublin on Wednesday and Thursday. We were saved the prospect of a German invasion.

He continued:

The Rising was very nearly being a terribly serious one. Had John MacNeill’s orders not been sent and obeyed, we would have had a score of Dublins over the country. The Rising would not be over yet and the entire country would have had to be [deployed] with soldiers and starved and burned.

He noted that ‘the material damage done in Dublin is immense’. He also described what it was like to live under martial law: ‘We must be indoors at 8.30. Houses are searched for arms and papers. Letters are opened and afford abundant material for prosecution and arrests are being made wholesale.’
⁷⁴

What was the reaction of other members of the hierarchy to these events? The Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnois, Joseph Hoare, called it a ‘mad and sinful adventure’. The Bishop of Ross, Denis Kelly, told his congregation in Skibbereen that he could see no justification for it and that ‘on those to blame for it was the guilt of murder’.
⁷⁵
The Archbishop of Cashel, John Harty, admired and supported the Irish Volunteers. But his initial reaction to the Rising was one of criticism. He told a congregation in St Michael’s church, Tipperary, on 7 May:

We all know that the people of Ireland at large do not want any revolutionary measures … We are perfectly well aware that the people of Ireland believe that by constitutional means they can obtain substantial redress of their grievances. The history of the past has shown that all revolutionary measures are doomed to failure.
⁷⁶

Similar comments were made by the Archbishop of Tuam, John Healy.

Professor Whyte has described the spectrum of reaction among the other bishops, placing the Bishop of Killaloe, Michael Fogarty, and the Bishop of Limerick, Edward Thomas O’Dwyer, as being more on the advanced nationalist side.
⁷⁷
Jumping forward a month, to 14 June, Michael Fogarty gave an address at Quin, Co. Clare, on the Rising. It was harsh in its criticisms of the British authorities. Writing to Michael O’Riordan on 16 June, he described the political situation thus:

There are Sinn Féin and sinn féin – those on for rebellion, those short of that in pursuit of the preservation of Irish ideals, religion, moral social etc. The former were few, the great body belonged to the latter class. Practically all Irish Ireland has gone over since the rebellion to this latter class. That is: they don’t want rebellion. But the brutal shootings and deportations of their young insurgents after surrender has filled the country with indignation and roused such an anti English feeling as I never saw before.
⁷⁸

As regards the priests, Bishop Fogarty said that there was only
one
priest in all Ireland who joined the rebels, as far as the bishops’ sources showed. Fogarty had about 150 priests and ‘not one of them was connected with rebellion’. The same was true of all Munster as far as he knew. But, he claimed, it suited county inspectors to make sweeping statements without precision:

It is quite true that a great many, mainly most of the young priests, were in sympathy with Volunteers, Sinn Féin etc. but not for rebellion. No one knew rebellion was in the air until the thunder broke. They were in these movements because they aid Irish ideals, as opposed to English, American sensualistic materialism, and as a defence against the threatened attack from Carson’s Orangemen. For this it was not the priests who [word unclear] these movements: the usual thing happened; this Irish sap rose simultaneously in young Irishmen whether their call was lay or cleric. The priests were merely exponents of a general sentiment which washed all around them, as in the Land League days. So at this moment the whole country has gone Sinn Féin as a result of the stupid brutal shooting of the insurgents – not that they want or mean to have rebellion: they simply have turned deadly sour, and have lost all sympathy with England.

Fogarty wrote that he did not have time to give O’Riordan a more detailed account, as he was away every day on visitations. In summary, however, he concluded that ‘the
Freeman
has become rotten’ and ‘the Irish party (William O’Brien excepted) has fallen into disrepute. The people resent their language and apathy about the insurgents.’ He felt that the chances of home rule being accepted ‘with part of Ulster cut off are very problematical’. It was a wise man who would say what was wisest. Before signing off, he gave the news ‘Bishop of Cork is dead – going to funeral’ and ‘Limerick is Ireland’s one man at present’.
⁷⁹

In Cork, meanwhile, Daniel Cohalan, the then auxiliary bishop, along with the Lord Mayor, T.C. Butterfield, and the High Sheriff, William Harte, sent a telegram to the lord lieutenant, John Redmond and the prime minister protesting against further executions.
⁸⁰
On 16 May
Cohalan, along with Butterfield, Harte, and the chairman of Cork City Council, W.M. Murphy, wrote another letter to the lord lieutenant. Published in the
Cork Examiner
on 17 May, the letter deemed ‘it our duty to place on record our protest against the continuance of arrests throughout the country and the further detention of a large number of those who, during the panic of the past two weeks, have been placed under arrest, and in many cases deported’. They did not consider that the state of the country warranted the continuance of those measures any longer. On the contrary, they believed that the ‘unrest was thereby prolonged’. There were cases of arrested men where charges could not be brought against them and, in other cases, men were detained because they were members of the Irish Volunteers. The latter did not constitute an offence against the law of the realm. The signatories felt it was ‘the bounden duty of the authorities
to have these cases investigated without delay’ and to provide facilities so that they could make their defence.
⁸¹
On 2 July 1916 Cohalan wrote to O’Riordan at the Irish College:

My letter gives in outline a history of the late eventful Easter week in Cork: and as you can see we did not make much history in Cork. I sent my letter to London to be printed; got it censored in London; and then taken by the Press Association. That got it a wide circulation.
⁸²

Overall, therefore, it can be seen that Cohalan, who succeeded in August to the bishopric of Cork, was cautious in his reaction to the Rising.

The Archbishop of Dublin, meanwhile, had run into difficulties with the British military authorities. Two priests of his archdiocese had been arrested. Fr Paddy Flanagan, a curate at Ringsend, was held and sent to Richmond Barracks. Released on 9 May he gave ‘a dreadful account of the treatment of the prisoners’. Fr Mooney was detained in his own house under armed guard from noon until 6.30pm, ‘and then only freed on the promise not to leave the place for three days’.
⁸³
Walsh’s anger with General Maxwell over the executions, the extra judicial killings and the mass arrests, was palpable. The following exchange of letters was published in the
Cork Examiner
,
dated 12 May:

Noble priests
General Maxwell’s appreciation
The following ‘correspondence’ has passed between General Maxwell, Commanding the Forces in Ireland, and Archbishop Walsh:
Headquarters, Irish Command,
8 May 1916.

Your Grace, - I shall be glad if you will convey to the clergy of your church my high appreciation of, and thanks for, the services rendered by them during the recent disturbances in Dublin.

I am aware that such services were practically universal, but it is possible that Your Grace may desire to bring to notice individual cases of special gallantry or devotion.

If such is the case, I shall be obliged if you will inform me of the names of the gentlemen in question. I am, Your Grace’s obedient servant,
J.G. Maxwell, General,
Commanding in chief the forces in Ireland.

Archbishop’s house, Dublin,
11 May 1916
Dear Sir John Maxwell, - In reply to your letter of Monday, I beg to thank you for your gratifying testimony to the fidelity of our clergy in the discharge of their duties during the recent troubles in Dublin.

I have been much struck by your request to be furnished with the names of the clergy in cases of special gallantry, or devotion, that I might desire to bring under your notice. But I quite concur in your view that services deserving of high praise are practically universal. Many such cases have, of course, come to my knowledge – especially amongst the clergy of my own pro-cathedral parish in Marlboro’ street and those of the Cappuchin community in Church street. But I feel that it would be invidious to treat those cases as if they were exceptional.

Again, thanking you for your kindly letter, I remain, your faithful servant. William J. Walsh,
Archbishop of Dublin.

While Walsh did not immediately issue a general statement on the Rising, his exchange with Maxwell reveals how icily he regarded the British authorities. His actions spoke louder than words. On 10 May he subscribed £100 to a relief fund that had been set up by the lord mayor of Dublin.
⁸⁴
On 13 May, the day following the final executions, he signed a petition from the lord mayor requesting that Alderman Tom Kelly should get a fair and immediate trial. On 15 May the archbishop was invited to meet Prime Minister Asquith at the vice regal lodge. He replied that he was still an invalid and was unable to make such a call. On 23 May he received a telegram from the United States and agreed to act as chairman of the executive committee of Cardinal Farley’s Irish Distress Fund, later known as the National Aid Fund. On 27 May two members of the royal commission of inquiry into the causes of the rebellion called on him to ask his views. His answer focused on the breakdown of the constitutional movement.