‘shot like a dog’: the murder of francis sheehy skeffington and the … · 2016. 9. 27. ·...

Published by Century Ireland, Sept 2016

‘Shot like a dog’: the murder of Francis Sheehy Skeffington and the search for truth By Ed Mulhall ‘I wish to appear for myself, I am the father of the murdered man, Mr. Sheehy Skeffington’.1 J.B. Skeffington stood up before a crowded Court of Appeal in the Four Courts Dublin on 23 August 1916 at the opening of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the death of his son Francis and two others, Patrick McIntyre and Thomas Dickson. In the court room were his son’s wife Hanna, her sister Mary Kettle (whose husband Tom was with the Irish regiments at the Somme), their father David Sheehy MP and other members of their family and the families of the other deceased. Another MP Tim Healy represented Hanna and the Skeffington family but J.B. was determined to represent himself. He alone of the family had seen Francis’s body after his death, having witnessed its exhumation from the prison plot and re-internment in Glasnevin. The Sheehy Skeffingtons’ son Owen was also to attend the hearings; on the day his mother gave evidence he accompanied her, described by The Freemans Journal as a ‘bright little lad of ten’. Presiding over the Commission was Sir John Simon, former Attorney General and Home Secretary. Simon had resigned earlier in 1916 in protest at a bill allowing for the conscription of single men; a decision he later viewed as a mistake, not on the issue itself but rather on the tactics. The Prime Minister Herbert Asquith had considered him as a possible Irish Secretary when Augustine Birrell resigned following the Easter Rising. He was a major figure to chair such a commission but was apprehensive calling it ‘a horrid job’.2 The other members of the commission were Lord Justice Molony later the last Lord Chief Justice for Ireland and Mr Denis Henry KC MP, newly elected Unionist MP for South Londonderry and future Northern Ireland Chief Justice. The Attorney General for Ireland James Campbell, later Lord Glenavy (who had been appointed in some controversy and was later a Lord Chancellor and the first chair of the Senate of the Irish Free State), represented the Crown. It was a high powered commission appointed after a concerted campaign in Parliament and the Press by Hanna, J.B., their family and supporters, to see some public investigation into the killings. Their aim was, not just to establish the facts of the case, but by so doing to expose some of the excesses of militarism, confirming the pacifist principles Francis Sheehy Skeffington had campaigned and suffered for. Francis Sheehy Skeffington had returned to Ireland in late December 1915 from America. He had spent four months there, writing and lecturing about the war, following his recuperation in Wales from the effects of a hunger strike, undertaken while imprisoned in Mountjoy Gaol for anti-conscription activities. In America he had written regularly for The New York Times and sent back to his own newspaper The Irish Citizen, dispatches and funds, the raising of which was an important part of 1 All details from the proceedings from Joseph Edelstein, Echo of an Irish Rebellion –Verbatim report of the proceedings of the Royal Commission, Dublin 1932. Edited version in Weekly Irish Times, Sinn Féin Rebellion Handbook (Dublin 1916, 1998) 2 David Dutton, Simon: A Political Biography of Sir John Simon (London, 1992) p. 43


the US trip. He had an uncomfortable relationship with nationalist leader John Devoy in America and also discussed his concerns about the growing militancy with union leader Jim Larkin who may have sent word back with Skeffington for Connolly saying that his boys ‘were not to move’.3 His father believed he should have stayed in the U.S.: ‘It would have been better for yourself if they had sent you back to America where you might make a living, I don’t see how you can do that here.’ He added: ‘I must say no other government would have been so lenient. In war when countries are spending thousands of lives and maiming millions they are in no mood for kid glove treatment of those opposed to them at home and it is unreasonable to expect such. Everybody here knows the pros and cons of recruiting, enlistment and conscription. So it is quite gratuitously running into ruin to talk of such matters. Perhaps your own family and especially Owen might have need of some of your consideration not to mention any others.’4 These concerns, particularly over his livelihood, and the vehemence with which they are expressed are a regular feature of the father/son correspondence, often tempered by the inclusion of a cheque to assist Frank in his latest financial crisis. Francis Sheehy Skeffington’s appointment diary for 1916 showed a period of intense activity. Large format, with a page for each day and each hour marked up in fifteen minute sections, he listed all his meetings, events, visits home, tasks completed, often with the names of those attending or met. There were frequently over twenty entries a day.5 He began a series of lectures starting on 4 January 1916 about his visit to America. He resumed his journalism for many publications including that of his own Irish Citizen for which he was trying to find a new guarantor. (Kathleen Lynn eventually joined Jack White and Dr Maguire, the paper having become a monthly due to lack of advertising in the war environment.)6 His anti-war activities now concentrated on the issue of taxation, with a campaign to prevent extra taxation being levied in Ireland to support the war. (The committee for the campaign, the Irish Financial Relations Committee, included Sean T. Ó Ceallaigh and William O’Brien). He wrote to John Redmond in March with a list of councils who had passed motions on the issue (Dublin, Limerick Thurles, Athy, King’s County). His work for women’s suffrage also continued with both the Irish Women’s Franchise League and Irish Suffragettes. Through the diary one also saw regular meetings with individuals, his morning visit to the Dublin Bakery Company café, to read the papers or play chess at lunch time. Throughout the period he was becoming more and more concerned at the prospect of serious violence in Ireland. At that 4 January 1916 meeting, held in the Forester’s Hall and chaired by James Connolly, Skeffington had praised the efforts of the Ford Peace Mission in promoting an end to the war. Constance Markievicz replied to his speech by disagreeing and declaring that there should not be peace until the British Empire was smashed. Reflecting on her remarks and the response they got, Skeffington wrote to The Workers’ Republic saying there was a ‘certain vagueness in the public mind as to what they really want which is desirable to clear up. I desire hereby through your

3 C. Desmond Graves, The life and times of James Connolly (London,1961) p. 385 4 J.B. Sheehy Skeffington to Francis Sheehy Skeffington 23/12/15, Skeffington Papers, NLI MS 33,609/13 5 Diary 1916 NLI MS 40,474/4. 6 Letters to Redmond, White, Lynn, Maguire in MS 40,473/3 see also Leah Levenson, With Wooden Sword, A Portrait of Francis Sheehy Skeffington, Militant Pacifist (Dublin,1983)


columns, to challenge Madame Markievicz to a public debate on the question – ‘Do we want peace now?’ – in which I would take the affirmative and she the negative side.’7 Markievicz accepted and saying she was prepared to show that ‘now as ever England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity.’8 It was a challenge similar to the one he had made to Thomas MacDonagh nearly a year earlier but now in more stressed times. The debate was held on 18 February 1916 in the Forester’s Hall. In the debate Skeffington argued that there was not the slightest possibility that Germany would defeat England and that therefore it was folly to build hopes on securing freedom for Ireland through the crushing of England and that immediate peace was in the best interest of Ireland, of small nations and of civilisation. He countered the Countess’s repeated assertion that she was prepared to die for Ireland by saying that he was also willing to die for Ireland but he would not kill for Ireland and he considered it absolutely futile to talk of winning Irish freedom by arms. He was arguing a difficult cause as the suffragist Louie Bennett, who also spoke, recalled:

‘There was probably five or six hundred in the hall (chiefly men) for the debate. The debate itself was very uninteresting. Madame has no powers of debate. She re-iterated the same few points in various wild flower phrases, and talked much of dying for Ireland. The open discussion was ominous. The Countess had the meeting with her. Skeffington’s supporters numbered 26. Her supporters spoke in a bitter and sinister vein. I gathered they were willing to watch the war continue, with all its dreadful loses and consequences, if only it led to the overthrow of England and consequent release of Ireland. I broke out of the cowardice of that. I spoke pretty strongly and was listened to with civility. Then Connolly got up and spoke at some length. He spoke strongly in favour of seizing the moment to fight now against England. I gathered he regretted that more were not ready to do it. As always one felt the tremendous force of this man, with his big powerful body, and powerful face and head, and it came home to me that here, in this man, was the centre of danger at this time, and he would be relentless in carrying out a purpose. The meeting depressed me utterly. The spirit of it was bad, sinister, lacking in any idealism to redeem its bitterness.’9

Hanna, who was there also, noted that Connolly’s intervention had won the argument recalling him saying to Frank afterwards: ‘I was afraid you might get the better of it Skeffington, that would never do.’10 Skeffington wrote for Century Magazine that ‘it is the duty of Irish statesmen to use every effort to keep out of war’. He warned against the growing support for the Volunteers and said that when peace came Ireland would stand with other small nations to claim their rights from the community of nations: ‘Shall peace bring freedom to Belgium and Poland, perhaps to Finland and Bohemia and not to Ireland? Must Irish freedom be gained in blood or will the comity of nations, led by the United States, shame a weakened England into

7 The Workers Republic , February 1916 in Padraig Yeates ed., The Workers Republic, James Connolly and the Road to the Rising (Dublin 2015) 8 Jacqueline Van Voris, Constance de Markievicz in the Cause of Ireland (Amherst, 1967) 9 R M Fox, Louie Bennett- her life and times (Dublin 1957) p. 50 10 Van Voris (1967) p.160


putting into practice at home the principles which are so loudly trumpeted for the benefit of Germany.’11 Skeffington was meeting Connolly regularly at this time so he was well aware of his growing militancy though not perhaps of the fact that he was now a member of the secret council planning a rebellion. In March, Skeffington was given a copy of the so-called ‘Castle document’ by the editor of New Ireland P. J. Little who in turn had received it from volunteer Rory O'Connor. The document purported to be a distillation of a secret plan by Dublin Castle to seize the headquarters of the Volunteers, Citizen Army, Sinn Féin and other buildings as well making widespread arrests. (While there has been much dispute about its authenticity, a Castle employee Eugene Smith, seems to have been the main source of the document which was printed by Joseph Plunkett in, perhaps, a 'sexed up' format.) Skeffington, Little, Dr Seamus O’Kelly, O’Connor and another journalist L.P. O'Byrne met on a number of occasions to assist in its distribution. (Their aim according to Desmond Ryan was to pre-empt such intervention and prevent bloodshed or insurrection.)12 Skeffington went with his old college friend J.F. Byrne (with whom he had stayed in the US and who was also acting as a newspaper correspondent) to James Connolly with the document. Connolly encouraged them to get it to members of parliament and Byrne brought it over to London and gave it to Lawrence Ginell MP. Skeffington gave a copy to Alderman Tom Kelly who read it out at a meeting of Dublin Corporation, causing a major sensation as was the intention of Plunkett.13 (O’Kelly and Little had also given it to the Dublin newspapers. Only one, The Mail published it.) O'Kelly had also given the document to Eoin MacNeill who was greatly concerned. Their contacts continued and when MacNeill began to have doubts about its authenticity on the Monday or Tuesday of Holy Week, Skeffington, O’Kelly O’Connor and Little again met with him to assure him. When they left, Little said to Skeffington: ‘I hope this will work out and there will be no attack on the Volunteers. Skeffington: Please God it will.’14 Neither Skeffington nor Little were able to refer to the document in their own newspapers although Skeffington did add this item into The Irish Citizen:

‘There is much reason to believe that the military authorities in Ireland are planning a pogrom of those who are opposed to them – are deliberately meditating such action as they know, in the present state of the popular temper, must provoke resistance and lead to bloodshed. To avert this militarist plot, which would deliver Ireland up to a regime of unchecked and undisguised martial law, is the duty of all pacifists’. 15

The concerns expressed here were informed not only by his regular contact with Connolly and others involved in militancy but by a number of clashes between the police and Volunteers and Citizen Army members during March and April 1916 (notably in Tullamore and later in the attempt by the authorities to close down the printing press at Liberty Hall).

11 Levison, p. 209 12 Desmond Ryan, The Rising (Dublin, 1949) p. 70 13 See J. F. Byrne, Silent Years (New York, 1953). Also Witness Statements by PJ Little WS 1769, Eugene Smith WS 334 and Seamus O’Kelly, WS 471. 14 PJ Little, WS 1769 15 Irish Citizen, May 1916


He wrote to his father: ‘I fear the government means to precipitate matters in Ireland – to provoke armed opposition and get an excuse for drastic measures. After what happened in Tullamore on Monday and at Liberty Hall on Friday, the authorities know the armed men are earnest and if they proceed on the same lines it is because they want bloodshed.’16 He added that he believed the anti-taxation movement to be a potential safety valve. He wrote to The Manchester Guardian on the same day, saying that the two events proved that both the Volunteers as shown in Tullamore and the Citizen Army by their resistance in Liberty Hall would resist to the point of 'bloodshed' any attempt to silence them: ‘This is not bluff in either case. These are determined men. If after these unmistakable warnings Dublin Castle proceeds to action in either of these directions, it can only be because Dublin Castle wants bloodshed – wants to provoke another ‘98 and get an excuse for a pogrom.’17 He added privately in a letter to Jack White on 5 April, in which he confirmed the new arrangements for supporting The Irish Citizen, that ‘the military authorities are determined to provoke bloodshed, to cause another 98 and get an excuse for a machine gun massacre.’ 18 But it was not just from the Dublin Castle side that Skeffington saw danger. He must have been aware, at least indirectly, that something was afoot from the paramilitary groups. The constant armed guard on the Liberty Hall press was one sign. He was in regular contact with Connolly and – by involvement with the ‘Castle Document’ publication – with those close to Eoin MacNeill and Joseph Plunkett. Hanna was approached to be a member of a ‘Civil Provisional Government’ should hostilities break out. The other members were Sean T. Ó Ceallaigh (a Volunteer and member of the IRB), and William O'Brien (union leader and confidant of James Connolly), who had alerted him to the insurrection plans. The Skeffingtons were also told not to leave Dublin at Easter.19 All of this added to Skeffington's foreboding. He sent an ‘Open Letter’ to The New Statesman on 7 April. He wrote in the hope that ‘despite war fever, there may be enough sanity and common sense left to restrain the militants while there is yet time.’ He added the context and warning of a ‘machine gun massacre’ outlined in his earlier letters and continued: ‘Irish pacifists who have watched the situation closely are convinced that this is precisely what the militarists do want. The younger English officers in Dublin make no secret of their eagerness ‘to take a whack at the Sinn Feiners’; they would much rather fight them than the Germans’. This was a dangerous situation: ‘Once bloodshed is started in Ireland who can say where or how it will end.’20 Skeffington sent the piece to George Bernard Shaw telling him that although it was intended for other papers as well, he thought it unlikely they would print it: ‘…so I am sending you a copy for your personal information, that you may understand all the efforts of men of goodwill to avert bloodshed in Ireland; and perhaps you having an ear to the press maybe able to intervene effectively.’21 He was correct, it was only his death which led to its publication in The New Statesman.

16 FSS to JBS 26 March 1916, NLI MS 33,612/18 17 FSS to Manchester Guardian, 26/ March 1916, NLI MS 40,473/3 18 FSS to Jack White,5/4/16 MS 40,473/3 19 See William O’Brien, Forth the Banners Go (Dublin,1969) 20 .New Statesman, 6 May 1916 21 George Bernard Shaw, The Matter with Ireland (London) p.110


Having been in Eoin MacNeill's house earlier in Holy Week discussing the ‘Castle Document’, Francis Sheehy Skeffington must have recognised the importance of the 'countermanding order' printed in the Sunday Independent of 20 April 1916. MacNeill, finally, convinced that the ‘Castle Document’ was a forgery and having got news of the sinking of the Aud issued orders aimed at preventing a rising taking place. Skeffington went to Liberty Hall that Sunday morning where he and William O'Brien discovered that Connolly was in a meeting with other leaders of what was then the Military Council (the other signatories of the Proclamation). This meeting decided to go ahead with the Rising plans on the following morning. Both O'Brien and Skeffington left without knowing this, but having witnessed the extent of the mobilisation at Liberty Hall. Skeffington was in the city the following morning, Easter Monday, when the Rising began and was witness to one of its early actions. At Dublin Castle, Seán Connolly, the actor whose performance in a James Connolly play Skeffington had reviewed only weeks earlier, fired the first shots of the Rising, killing a policeman. In the battle that followed Seán Connolly was also killed and a British officer wounded. Because of the crossfire no one was attending to the officer, Captain Pinfield. Skeffington went for a pharmacist to assist and both tried to get to the soldier at the gates. (He was eventually pulled inside the Castle before they could help). He told Hanna later: ‘I could not let anyone bleed to death while I could help.’22 Helena Molony had met Skeffington while moving between City Hall and the GPO in Dame St.: ‘…he was looking very white and dispirited…when I met him he was really looking distressed. He was standing in the midst of a hail of bullets as if they were raindrops. He was a fighting pacifist. He believed one had to suffer for peace not to inflict peace but to suffer for it.’23 Roger Webb met Skeffington on the Monday his aunt wrote later: ‘Mr. S held up his hands and exclaimed: ‘This should never have occurred; it is deplorable’ or words to that effect.’24 The writer and Abbey theatre manager St John J. Ervine met him that afternoon at the Unitarian Church on Stephen’s Green:

‘We stopped and talked of the rebellion. I was very angry at the rebels because I saw the work of thirty years being blown up in a careless fashion and I expressed myself to him in that manner. He told me that the Government were to blame for the outbreak and made reference to some acts of General Friend which he said were of a provocative character. He said he was opposed to the rebellion because he was a pacifist. His exact words were ‘I'm inclining more and more to the Tolstoian position’. He described the outbreak as a ‘folly, but it's a noble folly’ and said the only possibility of a successful issue lay in a German landing.’25

22 Hanna Sheehy Skeffington, ‘A Pacifist Dies’, in Roger McHugh ed. (Dublin 1916, London,1966) p. 276 23 Helena Molony, WS391 24 Josephine Webb to HSS 11 May 1916, MS 33,605/1 25 St John Ervine to HSS, 9 August,1916,41,209/4


Both Frank and Hanna Sheehy Skeffington made it into the GPO on that day. As he arrived to see Connolly, Frank was horrified at the looting he witnessed. Inside he talked to the leaders about it, finding that they were aware of it but unable to stop it (speeches outside from Mac Diarmada and an armed guard sent with Sean T. Ó Ceallaigh to Clery’s having little effect). Hanna met her uncle Father Eugene Sheehy, who had been imprisoned in Fenian times. He was amazed to see her: ‘“what are you doing here?” I explained that I was bringing a cup of Bovril upstairs to Tom Clarke and then in turn I asked ‘and you, what are you doing?’ ‘Ah’ he replied with a smile, “I am bringing spiritual comfort to the boys.” The old Fenian in him was roused, he stayed in the GPO till its garrison left, burnt out.’26 Skeffington began to remonstrate with looters. Eileen Costello, who was staying in the Gresham saw him: ‘I saw a man speaking to a crowd of people from the top of an empty tram car near the O’Connell monument. It was Sheehy Skeffington appealing to the people to be quiet and orderly, to go home quietly, to stay in their home and to keep the peace…people from the slums were breaking and looting a shop (Laurence’s toy shop)’.27 Maud Joynt, a feminist, vegetarian and scholar of Early Irish literature, met him on his way home on Portobello bridge: ‘He said he considered the Rising a deplorable mistake for that nothing but success would justify a revolution and that nothing short of a miracle could secure success in this undertaking. I said that I did not believe success could justify such violent methods and he fully agreed with me adding that the rising was a logical outcome of the Western spirit of militarism and the belief that physical force was the only means of winning a cause. He told me as we parted that he feared a great deal of damage would be done in the city during the coming night owing to the absence of police and the excited temper of the mob.’28 That evening, back home, the Skeffingtons discussed Frank’s proposal to set up a 'Citizens defense force' to curb the looting and arrange a meeting at the Irish Women’s Franchise League headquarters to organise it. He prepared a notice: ‘When there are no regular police on the streets themselves and to prevent such spasmodic looting as has taken place in a few streets, Civilians (men and women) who are willing to co-operate to this end are asked to attend at Westmorland Chambers (over Eden Bros.) at five o'clock this (Tues.) afternoon.’ 29 On Tuesday morning Frank began to organise small groups with armbands and sticks to patrol the streets. Hanna went back into the GPO to see if she could help with messages and food. William O'Brien met him around noon, O’Brien had seen Connolly, who was unconcerned about the looting as it was another thing the British had to handle. Skeffington told O'Brien that he had heard that two gun boats were landing troops in Kingstown and that he should pass on this information to the leaders. They went to Mrs. Wyse Power's shop to eat and, at her request, Skeffington went out to get some medicine for her daughter in O'Connell Street. 30

26 Hanna Sheehy Skeffington-Dublin Memories draft manuscript, NLI MS 41.190/4 27 Eileen Costello, WS 1,182 28 Maud Joynt to HSS 13 May 1916, MS 1,178/18 29 Poster in Skeffington papers, NLI MS 41,209/5 30 O’Brien, 1969, p. 288


St John Ervine met Skeffington that morning in Sackville Street: ‘he was carrying some walking sticks under his arm and he came up to me and said he was trying to form a special constabulary to prevent looting. ‘You’ll do for one’ he said, and offered a walking stick to me. I thought his proposal was a hopeless one and declined to join him and he went off. Later in the afternoon I met him again, but this time did not speak to him. He was putting up a notice on one of the stone pillars on O'Connell bridge.’ 31 Looking out at Middle Abbey St from Reis’ where he had been setting up a wireless operation for the rebels, William Daly saw Skeffington continuing remonstrating with looters and appealing to them to go home.32 Future Lord Mayor Alfie Byrne MP was one person he recruited: ‘He had about thirty of us with armbands patrolling the streets near the Pillar. But it got too hot for me. When he went up the street, I went home.’33 Hanna and Frank met up at the IWFL headquarters in Westmorland Chambers around 5.30 p.m., to see if anyone would turn up for the proposed meeting. When they parted Frank decided to wait a little longer in case some turned up. Hanna recalled: ‘We had tea together and I went home by devious routes, for I was anxious about my boy. I never again saw my husband.’34 Frank was on his way home when he was arrested on Portobello Bridge. Julia Hughes witnessed it: ‘I was in Dublin standing On Portobello Bridge when the soldiers came and arrested Mr Sheehy Skeffington. He was giving out leaflets, one of which he gave to me advising the people not to be looting and was not doing anything unlawful or political.’35 Next morning Hanna, worried that Frank had not returned home, set out to look for him. She met Nancy Wyse Power at the GPO who told her of Frank’s visit with her mother and she also went back into the GPO to inquire there. In a city full of rumours many were circulating: ‘all sort of rumours reached me – that he had been wounded and was in hospital, that he had been shot by a looter, that he was arrested by the police. I also heard he had been executed, but this I refused to believe.’36 On the Thursday morning the writer James Stephens heard that Skeffington was dead: ‘I met D.H…He says Sheehy Skeffington has been killed. That he was arrested in a house wherein arms were found and was shot out of hand.’37 Stephens met Hanna on the street later in the day: ‘She confirmed the rumour that her husband had been arrested on the previous day but further to that she has no news.’ Hanna that evening saw Muriel MacDonagh, wife of Thomas MacDonagh ‘wheeling her two babies to her mother’s house; the soldiers had turned machine guns on her house.’ Both women were concerned about the safety of their husbands.38

31 St John Ervine to HSS, 9 August,1916, MS 41,209/4 32 William Daly WS 291 33 Owen Sheehy Skeffington, Francis Sheehy Skeffington in O. Dudley Edwards and Fergus Pyle eds., 1916 The Easter Rising (Dublin 1968) 34 HSS in McHugh (1966) p 276. For Hanna’s account also see Hanna Sheehy Skeffington, British Militarism as I’ve known it, pamphlet, in NLI, MS 33,625/1. 35 Julia Hughes, WS880 36 HSS in McHugh (1966) p. 281 37 James Stephens, The Insurrection in Dublin (1916) p. 50 38 McHugh (1966) p. 282


On the Friday morning Hanna wrote a note to Deborah Webb: ‘these are awful times, we have all the horrors of war in our very midst and so many brave Irish volunteers dying. I have no word of Frank since Tuesday evening – he wasn’t a combatant being as you know a thorough pacifist but was arrested I suppose as a ‘suspect’ I have no definite detail but told he is in Portobello barracks under military arrest.’39 She went to see a doctor connected with the Portobello Barracks but was prevented by police from doing so. Her sisters Mary Kettle and Margaret Culhane succeeded in getting into the barracks by asking about their brother Eugene, a Lieutenant in the army, also stationed in the city. Once there they inquired about Frank. They were then arrested by Captain Bowen Colthurst as they had ‘been seen talking to Sinn Féiners’. ‘They were refused all information by Captain Colthurst, who said he knew nothing whatever of Sheehy Skeffington and told them ‘the sooner they left the barracks the better for them’.40 Hanna met with John Coade whose son James had been killed by a patrol from the barracks led by Colthurst on Tuesday. He confirmed that he had seen ‘my husband’s body with several others in the mortuary when he went for his son. This a priest afterwards confirmed but he could give me no further information.’ That evening a raiding party of about 40 men led by Colthurst with fixed bayonets raided the Skeffingtons’ house, holding Hanna, their son Owen and a maid at gun point while they searched for incriminating evidence: ‘Colthurst brought my husband’s keys, stolen from his dead body, and opened his study. All my private letters, letters from my husband to me before our marriage, his articles, a manuscript play, the labour of a lifetime, were taken.’41 It made a lasting impression on Owen. ‘My mother and I were put under the guard of a young soldier with a rifle and a fixed bayonet – the first I had seen – a young Belfast man who soon revealed that he was thoroughly ashamed of what he was doing. But military discipline is military discipline.’42 The house was raided again on the following Monday. It was only from reading a report in The Irish News that J.B. Skeffington learned of his son’s death. He wrote to Hanna:

‘…dreadful news in the Irish News today saying Sheehy Skeffington killed during fighting…I am sure he was not a fighter but so many outsiders were hurt and he was so interested and indeed reckless he was likely to be in the firing line and even enemies might try to hit him. I fear the dreadful report is only too true. It is a terrible calamity. He may be damaged in some ruins or where not. Have you any reliable news? I don’t know whether I can get to Dublin or not. I feel this is only the last remnant of hope – alas. If you and he had taken refuge and not trusted in revolutionaries. Sorrowfully yours, JB Skeffington.’43

By the time that letter was written, the courts-martial and executions of the revolutionary leaders had already begun (including Thomas MacDonagh on 3 May). J.B. did travel to Dublin and was present when Skeffington’s body was exhumed on 8 May. Following an agreement between J.B. and General Maxwell that the killing

39 HSS to Deborah Webb, NLI MS 41,176/18 40 McHugh (1966) 41 McHugh (1966) 42 Owen Sheehy Skeffington in Edwards and Pyle eds., Op. cit.p.147 43 JBS to HSS, 4 May 1916, NLI MS 33,609/9


would be investigated, the body was reburied in Glasnevin Cemetery. Hanna was unaware of the reburial at the time. 44 On 3 or 4 May 1916, Hanna was visited by Sir Francis Fletcher Vane, a major in the Munster Fusiliers who had been in Portobello Barracks right through Easter week. Vane, who had had a troublesome record with authority in the army, had been assigned to recruiting duties in Ireland.45 He volunteered to the Barracks once the Rising had begun and was the second highest ranking officer present there. He arrived into Hanna’s house having met Owen outside and he told her that he was just back from London where he had met John Redmond, the Undersecretary for War and eventually Lord Kitchener in his efforts to get Captain Colthurst removed from duty and arrested for the murder of Francis Sheehy Skeffington. He told her that in his presence Kitchener had sent a telegram to Dublin ordering the arrest of Colthurst. He had explained how when he returned to the barracks on the Wednesday from a manoeuver in Rathmines he had heard that Skeffington and two others, Thomas Dickson and Patrick McIntyre, had been taken out from the guard room under Bowen Colthurst’s orders and shot. He had already had concerns about Colthurst who the previous day had said to him ‘is it not dreadful …to have to shoot Irishmen.’ Having heard of the shootings, Vane had gone to Major Rosborough, his superior officer, and told him what had happened. He recommended that Colthurst be confined to barracks until the rebellion was over. Vane also agreed to address the men on their responsibilities under martial law. Colthurst continued to leave the barracks and raided the Skeffingtons’ house. When the ceasefire occurred Vane was removed from his post of responsibility and replaced by Colthurst. Vane went to the General in charge of the Irish Command but only got to see the Chief Intelligence Officer Major Price. Vane said Price told him: ‘Some of us think that it was a good thing that Sheehy Skeffington was put out of the way anyhow.’ It was then that he decided to take leave and go to London to press the case. He offered to help Hanna in any way he could, by going to the authorities with her to regain her possessions and providing statements as to what he knew.46 Vane had got some of the details of what he knew from the soldier (and later writer) Monk Gibbon who was stationed at the barracks. Gibbon’s notes of the time are written on Portobello Barracks notepaper and give a stark chronology to what he heard and saw.47 These are the notes of what he heard of the Tuesday night’s raid and the shooting of young Coade:

‘Story of Colthurst..at Kellys. bombs into the cellars, ‘down with the military’ ..Shot.. Bombers story…pot shots at windows…pushing up his rifle’ Then the Wednesday morning activities 9.30 am Breakfast for prisoners…Messages for wives..Dixon and others. Skeffington bows. Skeffington and handkerchief. Bombers story of S’s pluck. Talking round.…splendid forehead. Handkerchief incident...A defiant angry what colour..’tell my wife I am in safe keeping …£8… on what charge. Watching across the bridge.’ Then the aftermath: ‘11 Hayward tells rumour …across to guardroom with Forester…3 carried out

44 Levenson (1983) p. 230 45 For Vane’s own account see Sir Francis Vane, Agin the Governments: Memories and Adventures (London,1929) 46 See McHugh 1966 and Vane’s statement in Skeffington Papers, NLI MS 41,209/5 47 Monk Gibbon, 1916 papers, NLI MS 5808


...Hat over S’s face …not over others. Story of it Dobbin sends across to orderly room if you do on your own authority…Colthurst down to cells…out into courtyard. Bloodthirsty sergeant.’

The notes continue with an account of Colthurst out on another raid with ammunition captured, sergeants shooting another civilian in view of crowds and a quote ‘to be taken out and shot.’ (This incident is probably the shooting of Councillor Richard O’Carroll by Colthurst’s men).48 Later Gibbon would fill in the detail. He wrote of what he had been told of the evening raid and his visit to Skeffington and the others in their cells, all wanting messages to be sent to their wives:

‘Skeffington gets up and bows to us. There is something dignified about the action, though my first impressions are of a slightly ridiculous figure. He is small with a reddish beard and is wearing knickerbockers. These and the Votes for Women in his button hole suggest the Hyde Park orator. But my feelings are at once in revolt over the handcuffs. He tells us re the question of food that he is a vegetarian…I ask Skeffington if there is anything I can do for him. Second impressions efface the earlier ones and I see only his dignity, the quiet dignity of a man in a terrible position meeting it quietly. He has a wonderful smile and there is a gentleness about the whole man, in every move, in every word he says. He asks for his handkerchief to wipe his mouth and ‘Tell my wife that I am here and in safe keeping’ and he goes on to say that she is without money, that he had £8 in his pocket when taken prisoner and asks that it should be sent to her. On what charge is he here? He was crossing the bridge delivering pamphlets against looting when he was arrested. I can tell him nothing but say I will do my best for him.’49

At 11.00 o’clock a rumour went round the barrack yard that Colthurst had gone down to the guardroom to shoot his prisoners. A soldier, Hayward, said to Gibbon: ‘He had gone across to shoot them. It is nothing but blood lust.’ A message as to what was going to happen was sent to the orderly room which got the reply noted. Gibbon wrote later: ‘I was still standing with Hayward in front of the room when we heard two shots being fired. The guardroom was a few hundred yards away and we had already started in that direction when a third volley went out…. we saw three stretchers being carried out through the doorway of the main guard and then round to the side of the guardroom. There were bodies on them roughly covered with a blanket and over the face of a third corpse a hat had been placed, a bowler hat. As I drew near the third stretcher, I saw the limp hands dripped with blood. It was the body of Skeffington, the gentle creature I had been talking to only a short time before.’50 Gibbon was later to look through the material gathered in the raids on the Skeffington house, reading the love letters, the play (which didn’t impress him) and stealing a letter from George Bernard Shaw to Frank and other memorabilia. Following her meeting with Vane, Hanna managed to get a meeting herself with John Dillon MP who was still in Dublin on 8 May. By this time all the Sheehy family 48 see McHugh ,1966 and NLI file in MS 33,625/6 49 Monk Gibbon, Inglorious Soldier (1968). Earlier accounts in NLI MS 5808 50 Gibbon (1968) p.46


including the sisters in Dublin and their father – the MP in England – were lobbying all their contacts in public life and the press to get a full investigation into what had occurred. J.B. Skeffington was also contacting General Maxwell. Redmond and other MPs in Westminster were beginning to ask questions in the House of Commons. Hanna brought to Dillon a full statement on the murder. She found him receptive: ‘I never saw a man more moved than he by the tragedies of Easter Week.’ Dillon included the full text of Hanna’s statement in his major speech to the House of Commons on 11 May which called for an end to the military executions: ‘A more lurid light on military law in Ireland could not possibly be imagined than that a man be shot in Portobello – it must have been known to at least 300 or 400 military men, the whole city of Dublin knew it, his poor wife was denied all knowledge of it until her husband was lying buried in the barrack yard for three or four days – and the military authorities turn around and say that they knew nothing whatever about it until the 6th of May. This would never have been known if Skeffington had not been one of the leading citizens of Dublin and his shooting became known to the populace. The military authorities did not know and would not have known apparently, unless the whole people of Dublin knew it and it was raised in this house. Therefore, I say the horrible rumours which are current in Dublin and which are doing untold and indescribable mischief, maddening the population of Dublin, who were your friends and loyal allies against this insurrection last week and are rapidly becoming embittered by the stories about these executions – I say the facts of this case disclose a most serious state of affairs.’51 The Skeffington case and the pressure from MPs had an impact on the Prime Minister who sent another message to Dublin ordering the executions to stop. The Bureau of Military History statements include one on behalf of Sir Alfred Bucknill, legal officer to General Maxwell who later addressed the issue of whether American influence had led to Éamon de Valera being reprieved:

‘This had nothing to do with it. If any single factor was more responsible than another it was the murder of Sheehy Skeffington...Skeffington had friends in the Irish party who were assailing the PM with questions. Downing Street regarded General Maxwell’s replies about the Skeffington case as wholly unsatisfactory and after repeated questioning General Maxwell had to admit that a mistake had been made. The reply was a preemptory order from the Prime Minister to General Maxwell that there were to be no executions pending a personal discussion which the PM intended to have a day or two later. Sir Alfred said that when he got the order General Maxwell asked him for a list of men awaiting execution and the Taoiseach’s name was first on the list.’52

The order did not apply to James Connolly who was executed just before Asquith arrived in Ireland on the following day, 12 May 1916. Connolly’s wife and daughter had been with him before the execution and went to see Hanna when they left the jail. Nora Connolly wrote to Hanna: ‘Could Mam see you at any time? We went up to your house but you were out. Papa, before he died, sent out a message to Mr Skeffington not knowing he was dead. We were unable to tell him so until last night when we paid our last visit to him. Mama would like to see you. In deepest sympathy, 51 Text of Dillion speech in Hansard, 11 May 1916, and in Edwards and Pyle eds.pp. 62-79 52 Sir Alfred Bucknill Witness Statement, WS 541


Nora Connolly.’53 The message Connolly wanted delivered was to ask Skeffington to be his literary executor. David Sheehy and his colleagues in the Irish Party in Westminster now sought a full inquiry into the events at Portobello Barracks and their aftermath. Hanna now had the legal support of solicitor Henry Lemass and counsel Tim Healy MP who began an extensive correspondence on her behalf. A Commission into the Easter Rising was announced but this would not deal with the Portobello killings or other controversial military killings at North King Street. As Colthurst was now subject to military discipline he was to be court-martialled and in a response to the pressure it was decided that this would be public, with any further inquiry having to wait until due process was complete. (The court martial proceedings against Colthurst had already begun in Belfast on 13 May when statements were taken from the soldiers involved, the unit having moved there from Portobello.) The court-martial was held in the Richmond Barracks, on 6-7 June 1916 and presided over by three military judges, led by Major General Lord Cheylesmere. The Sheehy family were allowed to attend but their counsel was not allowed to participate. Throughout Hanna, according to Louie Bennett, was a ‘mute presence. Pale still like a stone image of tragedy. She emitted extraordinarily the impression of tense absorbed interest, every fibre of her being strung to one single point in life.’54 Bowen-Colthurst looked like a ‘tall, well set-up young officer’. He heard the charge read with composure and in a firm voice pleaded ‘not guilty’, becoming more preoccupied as the evidence proceeded.’55 The arrest of Skeffington on Portobello Bridge was described by Lieutenant Morris of the Royal Irish Rifles and Sergeant John Maxwell. Skeffington was known to them by description. Maxwell said that when arrested and interrogated he said ‘he believed in passive resistance and said something about militarism that I did not understand’. Adjutant Morgan who did the interrogation asked whether he was a Sinn Féiner: ‘He said he was not. I asked was he in favour of the Sinn Féin movement. He said he was in favour of Sinn Féiners but he was not in favour of militarism.’ Lieutenant Leslie Wilson told of taking Skeffington as a hostage on a raid on the instructions of Captain Bowen Colthurst: ‘I had orders that if any of his men were fired on I should shoot Skeffington immediately...He ordered Skeffington to say his prayers (before being taken as hostage out) ‘Oh my god if it shall please thee to take away the life of this man forgive him for our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake.’ Lieutenant Morgan reported to the commanding officer, Major Rosborough, that Skefffington had been taken out as a hostage. Sergeant Aldridge, 10th Battalion of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, gave evidence as to what happened on Wednesday in this exchange:

- About 10 Captain Colthurst came to you. - He told me he wanted men named McIntyre, Dickson and Skeffington

in the yard; he wanted to shoot them. He ordered part of the guard to 53 Nora Connolly to HSS, 12 May 1916, NLI MS 33/605/20 54 R M Fox, Louie Bennett: her life and times (Dublin 1957) 55 Ibid.


come with me. Seven. All privates. All armed. Each man had one hundred rounds of ammunition, the magazines were charged. I followed them into the yard. Captain Colthurst told the men to go to the further end of the yard, which they did. He then told the men to load, to pull off the catch and pull out the bolt, then he told them to present and fire. The three prisoners to my belief were shot dead sir.

- Were they shot together? - Yes. With one volley. Yes. Then Lieut. Dobbyn came in. I examined the

bodies and so far as I could see I took them all to be dead. I saw the back of the coat where the bullets penetrated. Dobbyn came into the yard and at the time he thought there was some movement in Sheehy Skeffington. He went away and came back in two minutes and there was another volley fired at one particular man. My own impression is that he was dead before that particular volley was fired.

Lieutenant Dobbin of the 3rd Battalion Irish Rifles gave evidence that Colthurst had come into the guard room and said he was taking out the three prisoners to be shot. Dobbin said he had heard the shots soon after and having first denied he examined the bodies in the courtyard under cross examination said that the accused was in an 'excited' state and then said he had examined the bodies:

- Did you notice anything particular with regard to one of the bodies? - I did. I noticed a movement in one of the legs in Sheehy Skeffington. I

sent an officer to the orderly room. Lieut. Tooley. He returned with the order I was to shoot again.

- Who sent that order? - Captain Colthurst. Second Lieut. Tooley told me. - After receiving the order what did you do? - I complied with it. - How? - I stood four men to.’56

Hanna in the crowded courtroom let out an anguished cry at this description and when asked if she wanted to leave replied that ‘only force’ would remove her.57 Major Rosborough, 3rd Royal Irish Rifles, said that Colthurst had come to him: ‘He said he had just shot three prisoners and he would get into trouble. His words so far as I can remember were that he would possibly get into trouble over the matter and that of course he had shot them on his own responsibility and possibly they would hang him or words to that effect. ...later he came to the orderly room and said something to the effect that he thought the prisoners might escape or be rescued.’ Lieutenant Morris gave further evidence that he had seen him on Tuesday heading out on a raid, in a state of ‘mental excitement’. ‘It struck me very stupid of him to warn to shoot Sheehy Skeffington if anyone fired.’ He (Morris) had been with the Adjutant when Colthurst told them he had shot prisoners: ‘He seemed if anything rather worse than the night before. He was extremely agitated and excited. He did not strike me as a man who should be in charge of troops.’ At half four or five Captain 56 Weekly Irish Times, Sinn Féin Rebellion Handbook (Dublin 1916,1998 57 Margaret Ward, Hanna Sheehy Skefffington: A Life (Cork, 1997) p. 164


Colthurst made an ‘extremely ridiculous’ set speech, according to Morris, in which he accused Sir Francis Vane of being a Sinn Féiner and a pro-Boer. ‘He thought Sir Francis Vane ought not to be allowed in the barracks and ought to be shot... Not capable of discriminating legal right and wrong.’ Medical evidence was given by Dr Parsons of the Royal City of Dublin Hospital who had interviewed and examined Colthurst following his arrest: ‘He told me that on Wednesday morning he went to bed at 3 o'clock. He read his bible that morning and came across a passage that seemed to have exercised a very profound influence on his mind. The passage was to this effect: ‘And these, my enemies which will not have me to rule over them bring them forth and slay them.’ So far as I could gather from him, the way it affected him was that it was his duty to slay men who would not have His Majesty to reign over them.’ A Dr Leeper confirmed Parsons’ diagnosis of Colthurst’s mental instability. Major General Bird, who had been Colthurst’s superior officer in France, gave evidence of Colthurst’s experience there and in particular of incidents of erratic and wreckless behaviour that could have been due to shell shock during the battle or Mons and the retreat from Aines. A number of officers gave character references on behalf of Colthurst: Captains Wade, Thompson and Lawless, Majors Weir and Eckford and Colonel Hamilton Fell. The Judge Advocate summarised the basis of a potential ‘guilty but insane verdict’, that or guilty the only choice available on the evidence. The verdict was guilty but insane. Colthurst, who had stayed in the Hibernian Hotel in Dawson Street during the court-martial, was arrested and eventually moved to Broadmore asylum in England to be detained. For the families the court-martial was totally unsatisfactory. They had no ability to cross examine or produce witnesses (neither Francis Vane nor Dr Balch an army doctor who had refused to certify Colthurst as insane were called); no other incidents involving Colthurst were investigated and they suspected that the evidence was coordinated in order to produce the agreed verdict and limit detail and responsibility. Hanna later quoted Tim Healy's assessment of the court-martial: ‘never since the trial of Christ was there a greater travesty of Justice.’58 Louie Bennett described an incident before the end of the court-martial:

‘…a terrific hail shower came in (this in June). It battered upon the roof and the large skylight with such force that every other sound was inaudible. For some minutes the trial was suspended and all sat in tense stillness. After that it was difficult to listen to the prisoner’s council labouring to build up this theory of insanity. I went out into the great bleak barrack space, stupidly wondering if I were in a real world. Was it possible that in our city of Dublin, with all its homely associations, all these cruelties had been enacted, all these agonies suffered? I thought of Sheehy Skeffington – a man I knew and talked with many a time – a man of mind and of gentle character, hustled about the

58 McHugh (1966) p. 286


streets as a prisoner and a hostage – these familiar streets, close to us, close to his wife and then shot in the yard like a dog. Shot like a dog.’ 59

Hanna, her father and sisters maintained the pressure for a full inquiry with Irish Party MPs pulsing the issue in the House of Commons. A special commemorative edition of The Irish Citizen was produced and a fund started to continue its publication. The pressure increased following the Royal Commission into the Rising which did not deal with the Portobello (or North King Street) events. MPs were also contrasting the treatment of Casement with that of Colthurst. A series of letters from the Skeffington's solicitor Henry Lemass outlined to MPs and the Prime Minister what they were looking for in the inquiry and a list of witnesses that they wanted called.60 Hanna met with Prime Minister Asquith on 19 July in the Cabinet Room of 10 Downing Street. He said the felt that the House would refuse a sworn inquiry and also broached the subject of compensation in lieu of an inquiry which could support her and her son. Hanna said that the only compensation she would take was a full public inquiry and failing that she would take her case to America and ‘tell an honest country what British militarism would do’. Asquith denied that the military were blocking him and promised he would give his final answer later to John Dillon in the House.61 On the following day Hanna wrote a public letter to the PM asking that Casement's life be spared. Dillon confirmed that the Government had agreed a Royal Commission on 25 July.62 It would be chaired by former minister Sir John Simon. Simon had recently refused the brief to defend Roger Casement. (Perhaps intended as an ironic comment Sir John Lavery’s painting of the Casement Appeal, which had just concluded, features Simon on the legal benches even though he is not believed to have attended the hearing.)63 The inquiry was to be more restricted than the families wanted; it could not go into other incidents, Colthurst could not be called nor witnesses compelled. But it would be public and they would be represented. The Royal Commission of Inquiry began on 23 August in the Judge's Ross's Court in the Four Courts. Later moving to the Court of Appeal due to the crowds wishing to attend, it had six days of hearings.64 The proceedings began with the Attorney General James Campbell giving a detailed account of the events along the lines given in the court-martial testimony and as expected to be given by the key witnesses to the inquiry. Even at the beginning there was a dispute as to how far the inquiry could go in dealing with the events. Simon allowed evidence concerning the raids on the Skeffington house and the burial details to be included and the Attorney General insisted that the military’s treatment of Colthurst after his arrest was not a matter for the inquiry.

59 R M Fox, Op. Cit. p. 62 60 Lemass letters, NLI MS 33,625/1 61 McHugh (1966) pp. 286-87 62 John Dillon to HSS 25 July 1916, NLI MS 41,209/4 63 Donal O’Donnell, High Treason, the Appeal of Roger Casement (Dublin City Gallery Hugh Lane, Dublin,2016) p. 40 64 Details of proceedings from: Joseph Edelstein, Echo of an Irish Rebellion –Verbatim report of the proceedings of the Royal Commission (Dublin 1932). Edited version in Weekly Irish Times, Sinn Féin Rebellion Handbook (Dublin 1916,1998)


When the witnesses began giving testimony – although many of them had already testified at the court-martial – there was now an important difference. They were subject to cross-examination by counsel representing the families which brought out new details. Lieutenant Morris gave evidence of the arrest. He clarified that he had not been asked to arrest Skeffington, but did know of him and was unaware that he was trying to prevent looting. But Morris also confirmed that he had witnessed Skeffington being brought out on a raid and the threat to shoot him by Colthurst. Details of that raid were given by Second Lieutenant Leslie Wilson of the 5th Royal Irish Fusiliers who told Healy that Skeffington had been tied with a rifle 'pull-through' while on patrol and also that Colthurst was shooting a number of times into the air as they marched. But unlike the court-martial, Wilson was also cross-examined about the killing of James Coade: two men were slinking about the barracks and when challenged by Colthurst one of they gave him ‘some impudence’ ... ‘he then ran away, like a coward. Captain Colthurst raised his rifle, evidently with the intention of shooting him in the legs. The bullet evidently was misplaced and went through his abdomen.’ He did not report the killing only telling Sir Francis Vane of it some days later. Sergeant John Aldridge of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers gave evidence of the events of Wednesday morning and Colthurst bringing out the three men to be shot, that they were not blindfolded, shot in the front and that things happened so quickly they were unaware of what was happening until the final moments. The firing squad was a mixed unit. He later said he had stood behind the squad when Colthurst gave the order ‘Load, present, fire. The captain of the guard went out leaving the three men on the ground.’ Lieut. Dobbyn had said that one was still alive and another squad of four was brought out and shot at Mr Skeffington. There was an important intervention in the inquiry on the second day when Tim Healy said that a statement in parliament had potentially prejudiced the case of Major Rosborough who was to give evidence and be cross-examined and that he now could not in all justice cross-examine him. He was referring to statements made by the Irish Party MP and army officer Captain Stephen Gwynne in a debate on the Irish administration. Gwynne had referred to the Skeffington case, that Colthurst had told his commanding officer what he had done but had been left in position and contrasted this with Sir Francis Vane who had reported the incident to Lord Kitchener: ‘As is perfectly clear to any soldier that the commanding officer had failed in his plain duty in the grossest way and the effect on the people of Ireland was bad beyond words.’65 The effect of this was to limit any discussion of the line of responsibility for dealing with the aftermath of the killings. Adjutant Morgan gave evidence of burying the bodies, rolled in sheets, and of the removal of bullet marked bricks from the walls of the yard some days later by order of Col. McCammond. Healy was not allowed to ask him about another expedition Colthurst went on after the shootings. The Adjutant also confirmed that no incriminating documents were found on the men. The inquiry also heard that the only document that could in any way be considered relevant was what had become known as the ‘Castle Document’ with its account of potential arrests of subversives

65 Hansard, 22 August 1916, Vol. 85,2570


which was found later in the raid on the Skeffington home. He confirmed that orders were given that Capt. Colthurst was not to be placed on duty outside the barracks after the shooting but he had gone on the expedition to raid Mr Skeffington's home. Major Rosborough gave evidence, saying that he had not heard anything of Skeffington and the other prisoners until after the shooting and it had been stated that he was informed the night of the arrest of Skeffington but ‘if he was it had escaped his memory’. He confirmed he had sent Colthurst out on the raid on O’Kelly’s but didn't know a hostage was taken with him and that it was Colthurst himself who told him of the shootings and admitted responsibility. When told he asked for a written report and gave instructions that Colthurst was not to be used outside the barracks, he confirmed that the raid on Mrs Skeffington's house was a breach of this order. He was not cross-examined by Healy. The most senior officer Col. McCammond who had been sick at the time of the shootings also gave evidence of the aftermath. Counsel were prevented from asking him why Capt. Colthurst was allowed stay in command after the shootings. McCallmond confirmed that a disciplinary hearing had been held into the events in Belfast (where the unit had moved to after the Rising). The army chaplain Rev. F. O'Loughlin gave evidence of the burial and exhumation of the three bodies and also that Coade was a member of the local sodality and had been at a sodality meeting on the evening of his killing. Hanna gave testimony on the third day, with her young son in the court. She gave a calm and detailed account of the events of the week, her last meeting with her husband, her search when he didn't return, the meeting with Mr Coade and his description of her husband's body ‘lying on the mortuary floor in the chapel’. Then she spoke of Colthurst and the two raids on her house. As her boy cried, she said she put her arms above him and believed she had said: ‘These are the defenders of woman and children.’ She told of the items removed from the house, her German and French textbooks and their correspondence. She was prevented by Simon from making any political reference when she referred to the Prime Minister but she did tell of the personal items removed from Skeffington including his signet ring and her wish to hear whether any medical man had examined his body after his death. Her sister Mary Kettle also gave evidence of her encounter with Colthurst at Portobello and clashed with Simon when she described Colthurst as having been a ‘cold collected type of Englishman…(with) a peculiar cruel look which goes with the unimaginative nature’. Dr J.B. Skeffington also gave evidence. His main theme was to show how Frank had not supported the Rising. He read extracts from their letters which showed Frank’s concern at the growing militarism and talked of his visit to him before Easter when he expressed his foreboding. Tim Healy called as witnesses some men who had been prisoners in Portobello Barracks and who were giving evidence for the first time. Christopher Kearney a worker at the Curragh military camp had been arrested on Easter Monday ‘without cause’. He had witnessed Skeffington's arrival in the cells and his repeated request that his wife be told of his whereabouts. Skeffington was removed to another cell before Dickson and McIntyre were brought in. He testified that both thought they


had been arrested in error and would soon be released, Dickson stressing he was a ‘loyal subject’. He told the court that on the Wednesday, after the two prisoners had gone from the cells, he had heard one shot, then ten minutes later another, followed by an order which he could hear and another shot. He afterwards heard scrubbing up sounds in the yard. William Boland, an ex-soldier who had also been arrested, gave evidence next. He had seen Skeffington being interrogated on his arrival. He had also been in the cells with Dickson and McIntyre. He relayed what Dickson had told him of his arrest at Kelly's and also that he had put a Stop Press notice in his paper advising people to obey the military curfew. He had heard a volley being fired on the Wednesday morning while Dickson and McIntyre were still with them. They were brought out two minutes or so later. He added: ‘I heard the military falling in and the rattling of accoutrements. I heard the order ‘out into the yard’ and presently I heard marching round the yard...’

- How soon after did the volley go? - Immediately afterwards that where the first volley went. - Did you hear any further noise in the yard? - After the second volley I heard an officer’s voice who was very much in

charge of the guard saying ‘Sergeant, this man is not dead.’ - What happened then? - Another volley rang out.

It was, he said, less than two minutes later. He later saw the bullet marks – six bricks battered – that was at the height of Sheehy Skeffington and about the same as the height of Dickson and again of McIntyre. Lieutenant Alexander Wilson who was recalled to give evidence said that on the Wednesday morning about 10 a.m. he was at the gate when Lieutenant Dobbin told him that Captain Colthurst wanted to take the three prisoners out to be shot. He was asked to go to the Adjutant on his bicycle. The Adjutant told him he could give no such authority and that anything Capt. Colthurst did would be on his own responsibility. He had just finished giving this message to Lieut. Dobbin when shots rang out. He had later reported to the Brigade Major about this. Lawrence Byrne of Rathmines gave evidence he had been with James Coade at Richmond Hill when they met Colthurst and his unit, who had stopped them. Colthurst had told Coade to remove a cigarette he was smoking, asked him if he knew martial law was in force and then stuck him on his reply of ignorance. As they left together, a flash of fire and then ‘Coade put a hand to his back’ and fell. And he roared for me.’ William Devin had been there too. He had seen Coade and two other talking with a tall officer ‘The officer took out his revolver and there was a shot. One of the chaps went off on a bicycle, another ran by the side of the wall. Immediately after he fired the shot the officer gave the order ‘Quick March’ ...he went over immediately and saw Coade lying in front of Behan's photographers.’ John Hughes of Kenilworth Square had encountered Colthurst on Rathmines Road and had a gun put to his head. Later they saw him aiming straight at a man who fell. A witness called Gaynor, also a prisoner in Portobello, had also heard the three shots.


James Coade’s mother gave evidence as well; she and another witness, Julia Byrne, said the boy also had a wound to the head (there had been suggestions in the questioning that he had been hit by a rifle butt). Alderman Kelly's sister gave evidence of the arrest of Dickson and McIntyre. She said that the Captain had said: ‘Remember I can shoot you like dogs. Martial law has been proclaimed and I can do it as I already shot men in the street before I came here.’ McIntyre said he was the editor of The Searchlight and the captain said ‘another rebel paper’. ‘No, a loyal paper’ said McIntyre. Alderman Kelly told the court that he saw the raid on his house from the outside, that a bomb was thrown in the cellar and he confirmed he was actively recruiting young men for the war. Healy also called Sir Francis Vane who told of how he came to be in the barracks and that he had first heard of the shooting when heckled on patrol on Wednesday as 'murderer (of?) Skeffington' by an old woman in Rathmines. In a testimony which was regularly interrupted as to relevance by the Commission chair, he told of how later he been ordered by Major Rosborough to arrest Alderman Kelly and he did so that afternoon. He had discussed the Portobello shooting with Major Rosborough. He had been relieved of his post in the barracks by Colonel McCammond. He had informed Headquarters command orally of the ‘murders’ of that day and in ‘consequence of the replies’ he got, went to London to report the matter to Mr Tennant, Bonham Carter and later Lord Kitchener. He confirmed that he had been relieved of his command. The Inquiry was adjourned until Lieutenant Dobbin was recalled from France to give evidence. He said Captain Colthurst had ordered the prisoners out of the guardroom and said ‘I am going to shoot them Dobbin, I think it is the right thing to do’. He admitted that a grave irregularity had been committed both in regard to the holding of Mr Skeffington as hostage and in respect to the shooting of the three men but he was not in a position to say to his superior officer that what he was doing was right or wrong. Dobbin said that when Skeffington had been taken from the guardroom on the previous night he had reported this to the Adjutant. He confirmed sending Wilson the following morning to the Adjutant when Colthurst said that he was taking the prisoners out to be shot and that when Wilson returned with the message he heard the shots. He told of seeing the bodies and that one was still alive and sending to Colthurst for instructions, as a consequence of which another volley was fired. Dobbin was subjected to questioning by Healy about a report he had sent to the Adjutant on the Tuesday night, telling him Colthurst had brought Skeffington bound out on patrol, a message which Dobbin hadn’t remembered. Dobbin said throughout that he didn’t have any authority to intervene as Colthurst was his superior officer or even to delay him while a message was sent to the Adjutant before the shootings on Wednesday. He said that he had written a formal report to the Adjutant after the shootings, saying that ‘at 10.20, Colthurst came into my guardroom. He ordered six of my guard to ‘stand to’. He gave the order to the Sergeant of the Guard to bring out Thos Dickson, Patk. McIntyre and Sheehy Skeffington, three civilian prisoners in my charge, out of the cells into the yard attached to the guardroom. Shortly afterwards I head shots fired. Capt. Colthurst left the guardroom. On searching I found the prisoners dead.’ It was pointed out that this did not include the second shooting of Skeffington.


Lieutenant Dobbin was 19 years of age and only one year in the army. In closing statements, T.W. Brown on behalf of Major Rosborough and Lieut. Morgan asked the Commissioners to consider the context of the rebellion and the state of the city at the time and also the particular circumstances of Portobello Barracks with a large number of inexperienced soldiers from different regiments gathered in an excited atmosphere. Counsel for the military authorities J.B. Powell went through the events in detail stressing that the murders were the responsibility of one man: ‘The officer who committed these grievous wrongs, an officer of sixteen years’ service – has been convicted of wilful murder, and his career terminated in that which was worse than death, the awful seclusion of a madhouse.’ But he added that responsibility should stop with Colthurst and not extend to the other military involved: ‘…let them not put the disgrace, the odium on the heads of soldiers who were carrying out their duties under circumstances of the greatest possible difficulty, and let it not be forgotten that they suffered also terribly in the discharge of their duties.’ The Commission was adjourned on 1 September 1916. Sir John Simon issued his report to Herbert Samuel the Home Secretary on 29 September. The report as issued gives in clear factual statements a chronological account of the events from the arrest of Sheehy Skeffington, the killing of James Coade, the attempts of the family to find out information and the raids on the Skeffington house. As well as the events themselves, it deals in some detail with Colthurst’s own statements on the killings, his claim that he had authority under martial law and that he had found incriminating evidence. (It confirmed that the ‘Castle Document’ had been found later and also that as Skeffington was a journalist it was not surprising that he had it.) The Commission had no role in adjudicating on his sanity. In its conclusion it stressed three main points: (1) That the circumstances of the time, the Rebellion and the inexperience in the Barracks and the absence of the commanding officer were important factors in allowing Captain Colthurst to act without restraint. (2) It stressed that Colthurst should not have remained free to raid the Skeffington’s house after the shootings. (3) It laid great emphasis on the limitations of the powers given under martial law: ‘such a proclamation does not in itself confer upon officers any new powers. It operates solely as a warning that the Government acting through the military is about to take such forcible and exceptional measures as may be necessary for the putting down of a rebellion.’ Acts are still subject to the law. ‘The shooting of unarmed and unresisting civilians without trial constitutes the offence of murder, whether martial law has been proclaimed or not. We should have deemed it superfluous to point this out were it not that the failure to realise and apply this elementary principle seems to explain the free hand which Bowen-Colthurst was not restrained from exercising throughout the period of crisis.’66 Tim Healy felt that the Commission had achieved something: ‘Sir John Simon was fair. Everyone is satisfied that we have done better than we had a right to expect. Bringing Lieutenant Dobbin back is a humiliation to the military. We have thrown new light on events. There will be little esteem for martial law or for soldiers’ decisions after the Skeffington disclosures.’67 Looking back Sir John Simon felt his 66 Royal Commission September 29th 1916 full text in Weekly Irish Times, Sinn Féin Rebellion Handbook (Dublin 1916,1998) 67 Tim Healy, Letters and Leaders of My Day p. 575


Commission ‘did something to show that excesses would be rigorously exposed’. It had set out the ‘ugly facts without fear or favour’ and also set out an important legal principle that ‘the shooting of unarmed and unresisting civilians without trial constitutes an offence of murder, whether martial law has been proclaimed or not’.68 But some of those directly involved were not as impressed. Sir Francis Vane writing to Hanna said that the commission suffered from the narrowness of its frame of reference and did not deal with the fact that Dublin Castle were aware of the shootings from within an hour of their occurrence. He particularly objected to the ‘whitewashing’ of the senior officers who had allowed Colthurst to stay in a position of authority and promoted him, allowed him to go on the raid on her home and had authorised the repairing of the execution wall.69 She also got correspondence from other soldiers, one who had witnessed Skeffington on the raid and Coade’s shooting and had subsequently deserted. One detailed account, which is anonymous in the files, came from someone who was with Adjutant Morgan at the time of his interrogation of Skeffington the morning after the arrest and who claimed that Colthurst first threatened to shoot the three men on the Tuesday night and that this threat was relayed to McCalmon and Rosborough. The writer also claims that Colthurst told Morgan in person that he was going to shoot the prisoners, which is when he was told it would be on his own authority and finally that Rosborough himself had been in the barracks on the Wednesday morning but left hearing of Colthurst’s intentions. The document’s covering note challenges any of those involved – Rosborough or Sergeants Maxwell or Swann – to refute the accuracy of this account. This testimony may have come from Lieutenant Morris. If it had been given to the Commission – or at least formed part of a cross-examination of Rosborough – it could have had a significant impact.70 Despite this correspondence and her own misgivings, Hanna did feel the Commission to have had a worthwhile impact. She fought and eventually succeeded in getting the final report published. She also embarked on an extensive lecture tour of the US where she spoke of her husband’s murder, events in Ireland and gave support for the prisoners and Sinn Féin as a political response to the Rebellion and its aftermath. She said of the Simon Commission:

‘As a public exposure the Commission had a great effect, and the attitude of the Military under the searching heckling of Mr. Healy and the questions of Sir John Simon showed them at their worst. Francis Sheehy Skeffington could not have imagined any more damning exposé of the militarism he detested and under which he perished. No writer of fiction could have imagined a more harrowing story of unrelieved brutality than may be found in the cold and lawyer-like language of the Simon Report. But all these officers still enjoy favour…A martyr fights in death more terribly than many warring saints. He is entrenched, you cannot reach him with your heaviest shot… My husband would have gone to his death with a smile on his lips, knowing that by his murder he had struck a heavier blow for his ideals than by any act of his life. His death will speak trumpet-tongued against the system that slew him.’71

68 John Simon, Retrospect-The Memoirs of Viscount Simon (London,1957) p. 110 69 Walter J Farrell to HSS, 24 December 1916, and Vane letter in NLI MS33,605/8 70 typed letter and statement in NLI MS 33,635/7 71 McHugh p. 288. For her activities in America see Ward, Op. cit. (1997).


J.B. Skeffington remained concerned with the welfare of his grandson. He had urged Hanna to accept compensation. Writing to her during the Commission he had listed nine reasons why she should accept including that it was an ‘ancient Irish means of reparation’ but principally to provide for Owen as J.B. was concerned that he would not survive: ‘I too may not live long, especially as my health has suffered severely from this atrocious murder.’ Following the Commission, he sought to get compensation directly from the Rebellion’s victims committee for his grandson. Hanna alerted by her solicitor Henry Lemmas wrote to the Prime Minister restating her position against accepting any compensation and later won a libel action when it was suggested that she had.72 For many involved in the Skeffington case the aftermath of the Commission meant a return to war.73 Lieutenant Dobbin would die of shellfire in March 1918; Captain Morgan was killed in August 1917; Lieut. Alexander Wilson died as a member of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers in April 1917; Lieut. Leslie Wilson, took holy orders later in 1916, and was re-assigned to the Fusiliers in 1918 but when he was sent to the front he was considered ‘lacking in military spirit’, he was sent back to England, survived the war and became a Vicar, dying in 1965. Lieut. Morris had a number of incidents of sick leave preventing him seeing serious action and survived the war. Monk Gibbon went home on sick leave in 1917 having been ordered to the Front Line. Indeed, the events in Portobello had a significant impact on his disillusionment with the army and the war. In correspondence with Sir Francis Vane, he considered deserting; he instead got a medical discharge. Sir Francis Vane’s own army career ended after Portobello, Sir John Maxwell deeming that he was no longer needed for recruiting duties and failed to get any other commission. He wrote a book about the Rising which didn’t pass the military censor but continued his campaigning as seen by the title of his biography Agin the Governments, which dealt extensively with the Portobello case.74 Major Rosborough had an instruction to resign (which had been made by General Maxwell in his review of the killings) rescinded following the Commission’s report. He was posted to France and remained in the Army until 1921. He died in Australia in 1957. Bowen Colthurst, following petitioning from MPs such as Edward Carson and James Craig, was released from Broadmore in January of 1918 and moved to a private hospital in Surrey. A campaign for his full release followed, which also included Sir James Craig, and an amnesty was sought in keeping with the release of Rising prisoners. Following medical assessment, restrictions were eased in January 1919, at which time Colthurst was complaining that he had not been allowed to give a submission to the Royal Commission. He emigrated to British Columbia in May 1919, where he continued to protest about his treatment. He continued a long campaign of threatening letters to Major later General Bird because of his testimony at the court-martial. He wrote to his cousin the writer Elizabeth Bowen in 1963: ‘I was court-martialled not by the War Office but by the personal order of Mr. Asquith. My crime

72 Leah Levenson and Jerry H. Natterstad, Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington: Irish Feminist (Syracuse, 1986). Letters in NLI MS 33,609/9 73 All details which follow from James W.Taylor, Guilty but Insane, J.C. Bowen-Colthurst: Villain or Victim? (Cork,2016) 74 Sir Francis Vane, Agin the Governments Memories and Adventures (London,1929)


in the eyes of politicians was far worse than the breech of the rules of war. It was a breach of their rules of politics.’75 He died in December 1965. Sir John Simon lost his seat in the 1918 election regaining a seat in 1922. He retained an interest in Irish issues, having after 15 years as a widower married an Irish woman, herself a widow, in 1917. She had been the governess of his children and they re-established contact when she was seeking assistance for her son who was in a German prisoner of war camp. Simon was prominent in opposing the activities of the Black and Tans during the war of independence.76 He later returned to Cabinet office as Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer, becoming Lord Chancellor in 1940. In the aftermath of the Commission’s report and indeed over subsequent years many of the items taken from the Skeffington house in the raids were returned to Hanna Sheehy Skeffington. Much of the materials had been retained by the military for the subsequent investigations; some items were taken as souvenirs, some lost in the confusion of the times. Her husband’s cane came from a soldier in Belfast; his ring was located for her by Sir Francis Vane; many letters were returned, many not.77 A bloodied coat said to have been worn by Pearse at his execution was returned to her in error. Many years later Monk Gibbon would return the items he took including the letter of GB Shaw.78 Some items remain now as a memorial of these events. In the National Museum of Ireland is the ‘Votes for Women’ badge worn by Francis Sheehy Skeffington at his execution. There, too, is a brick, removed from the scene with the bullet marks of the final act that silenced him.79 But in the Sheehy papers in the National Library is perhaps the most fitting epitaph, Skeffington’s appointment diary for 1916. It is large format loose leaved and coverless, violently torn apart in the search for evidence. In his hand for the first four months of the year are the hectic details of an activist. Day by day, hour by hour, they are listed: meetings, assignments, discussions from early morning until late at night, and the routine connections of a family man, appointments with his wife, notes about his son. The last detailed entry is for the morning of 11 April 1916 (although the date of Easter Sunday April 23rd in noted by him). The last words written there in his hand ‘speech towards peace’. Under these words is a note written in another hand: ‘His last entry’. Thereafter, there are just empty pages. Every day, every hour: empty. Empty with the possibility of what might have been. Francis Sheehy Skeffington was 38 years old.

Ed Mulhall is a former Managing Director of RTÉ News and Current Affairs and an Editorial Advisor to Century Ireland

75 Taylor (Cork, 2016) p. 222 76 John Simon, Retrospect:The Memoirs of Rt. Hon. Viscount Simon (London,1957) p. 122 77 See letters in MS 33,605 and McHugh (1966) 78 To Owen Sheehy Skeffington see Gibbon (1968) 79 See Brenda Malone blog post for the National Museum of Ireland https://thecricketbatthatdiedforireland.com/2015/06/01/the-bullet-in-the-brick-the-murder-of-francis-sheehy-skeffington-and-the-madness-of-captain-bowen-colthurst-1916/

https://thecricketbatthatdiedforireland.com/2015/06/01/the-bullet-in-the-brick-the-murder-of-francis-sheehy-skeffington-and-the-madness-of-captain-bowen-colthurst-1916/

https://thecricketbatthatdiedforireland.com/2015/06/01/the-bullet-in-the-brick-the-murder-of-francis-sheehy-skeffington-and-the-madness-of-captain-bowen-colthurst-1916/


Further Reading:

1. Leah Levenson, With Wooden Sword, A Portrait of Francis Sheehy Skeffington, Militant Pacifist (Dublin, 1983)

2. Leah Levenson and Jerry H. Natterstad, Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington: Irish Feminist (Syracuse, 1986)

3. Margaret Ward, Hanna Sheehy Skefffington: A Life (Cork, 1997) 4. James W. Taylor, Guilty but Insane, J.C. Bowen-Colthurst: Villain or Victim?

(Cork, 2016) 5. Hanna Sheehy Skeffington, A Pacifist Dies in Roger McHugh ed., Dublin 1916,

(London, 1966) 6. Owen Sheehy Skeffington, Francis Sheehy Skeffington in O. Dudley Edwards

and Fergus Pyle eds., 1916: The Easter Rising (Dublin, 1968) 7. Weekly Irish Times, Sinn Féin Rebellion Handbook (Dublin 1916, 1998) 8. Sir Francis Vane, Agin the Governments Memories and Adventures (London,

1929) 9. Monk Gibbon, Inglorious Soldier (London, 1968) 10. John Simon, Retrospect:The Memoirs of Rt. Hon. Viscount Simon (London,

1957) 11. T.M. Healy, Letters and Leaders of My Day (New York, 1929) 12. James Stephens, The Insurrection in Dublin (Dublin, 1916) 13. R.M. Fox, Louie Bennett: Her life and times (Dublin, 1957) 14. Joseph Edelstein, Echo of an Irish Rebellion – Verbatim report of the

proceedings of the Royal Commission (Dublin, 1932) 15. David Dutton, Simon: A Political Biography of Sir John Simon (London,

1992)

‘shot like a dog’: the murder of francis sheehy skeffington and the … · 2016. 9. 27. ·...

Documents