Count Plunkett, the man of the hour in 1917

Éireann_Ascendant

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
335
Twitter
eireannascenda
A 5-part series of articles on the brief but intense political career of Count George Plunkett, father of the 1916 leader Joseph Plunkett, from early to mid-1917.



(Count Plunkett)

Plunkett’s Rising: Count Plunkett and His Family on the Road to Revolution, 1913-7 (Part I)

On Easter Monday, 1916, Count Plunkett dropped by the office of Archbishop Walsh of Dublin, and explained to the secretary there that he had just returned from Rome, having met the Pope and reassured him about the forthcoming rebellion. When told about this, the Archbishop did not initially take the Count too seriously, regarding him “as a simple soul and [he] could not conceive a man like him being at the head of a revolution.”

In truth, however, there was more to the elderly scholar, ardent Parnellite and three-time electoral candidate than meets the eye...


Plunkett’s Turbulence: Count Plunkett and his Return to Ireland, January-February 1917 (Part II)

Count George Plunkett, father of the 1916 Rising signatory Joseph Plunkett, began 1917 in a miserable state - exiled from his home to England and publicly ejected from the Royal Dublin Society. His luck turned when he was chosen to be a candidate in the North Roscommon by-election.

He had been selected by a coalition of Nationalist groups and individuals, joined by an impatience with the status quo, who sought to use the Plunkett name and its connection with the Rising. Their thoughts on Count Plunkett himself were often ambivalent, however. Arthur Griffith said to anyone who asked that: “If Plunkett goes for Roscommon, all Nationalists should support him.”

But in private, Griffith was distinctly cool towards a candidate he knew so little about. One of the Plunkettite workers in North Roscommon later claimed that Sinn Féin not only refused to support the Count at first but did everything it could to stop him from standing.

Upon his triumphant return to Dublin after his electoral success in North Roscommon, the Count announced his refusal to take his Westminster seat and called for a separate Irish assembly to govern the country.

At no point did he acknowledge Griffith as the originator of these policies. To hear Plunkett talk, one would think he had come up with them entirely on his own, which did not bode too well for future working relations with Griffith...


Plunkett’s Agenda: Count Plunkett against Friend and Foe, February-April 1917 (Part III)

The election victory of Count Plunkett, father of Joseph Plunkett, in North Roscommon, February 1917, was soon followed by the frosting of relations between him and Arthur Griffith. The immediate point of contention was Plunkett's public refusal to take his seat at Westminster. Although absentionism had long been a policy of Sinn Féin, Griffith was concerned that this was a step too far and too soon for the Irish electorate.

As the mutual dislike between the two leaders festered into a feud, other members of the burgeoning nationalist movement weighed up their preferences. Plunkett found support in hardliners such as Michael Collins and Rory O'Connor, who saw Griffith as insufficiently committed to their republican ideals.

On the other hand, there were fears that Plunkett was starting to throw his weight around: "[he] no longer supplicated; he commanded; and it seemed to all that he had made up his mind that he was going to rule whatever organisation was to take shape from his triumph."

As if the internal disputes were not enough, there was an attempt to link Plunkett with - God forbid - socialism. This was almost certainly the work of the Irish Parliamentary Party, who recognised a dangerous rival in the Count. But Plunkett had his defenders, one of whom argued that: "To refer to him in connection with ‘socialism’ is unjust, because its principles, as usually understood, could not possibly be sanctioned by any true Catholic or patriot."


Plunkett’s Gathering: Count Plunkett and His Mansion House Convention, 19th April 1917 (Part IV)

On the 19th April 1917, the simmering feud between Count Plunkett and Arthur Griffith, the two most prominent leaders of the burgeoning independence movement, spilled out into public view at the 'Plunkett Convention'.

The Convention, held in the Mansion House, Dublin, was also notable in how it was the first attempt to voice the mood in Ireland since the Rising of the previous year. Due to the lack of elections since the start of the War in Europe, public bodies tended to be full of nominees of the Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) who now longer spoke for their constituents or the country as a whole. But, while the IPP was on its way out, what would replace it was by no means certain.

As president of Sinn Féin, Griffith was regarded as a relative moderate who intended to continue with constitutional methods to achieve independence. This was not necessarily seen as a virtue by some, particularly those who had fought in the Rising, and they preferred to rally around Count Plunkett as a more militant alternative.

At the Convention, Plunkett did not disappoint his supporters. "Two things the Irishman could not separate from life were,” said the Count, “first, his reverence and subjection to God, and, secondly, his duty to his fellows in establishing liberty."

He then spoke of the need to form a new organisation, both politically and which would use the young men of the movement to establish "a series of resistance which no government could ignore and which no government could withstand."

This was met with approval from some, caution from others. It was when Seán Milroy, supported by Griffith, spoke of the need to form an alliance of nationalist groups, as opposed to a more centralised society like Plunkett wanted, that the suspicions and hostility between the two factions oozed out into view.



(Arthur Griffith)


Plunkett’s Liberty: Count Plunkett and the Liberty Clubs, April-August 1917 (Part V)

The tensions between Count Plunkett and Arthur Griffith finally spilled out into the open at the 'Plunkett Convention' on the 19th April 1917. Griffith announced to the audience that the Count had refused him permission to speak, and warned them about the likelihood of failure unless they stayed united.

The reaction in the hall was one of consternation, according to a newspaper report:

Those on the platform rose to their feet and conversed – in some cases very heatedly – in small groups, while murmurs of protest throughout the room testified that opinion was divided on the action taken.
To prevent the split from worsening into something irreparable, a committee consisting of the two men and their respective allies was formed. Even so, this could be nothing more than a stopgap, and not a very effective one at that. On the first meeting of the new committee, Griffith was able to deny Plunkett the chairmanship through deft maneuvering.

Determined to replace Griffith's Sinn Féin with an organisation of his own creation, Plunkett set up the Liberty Clubs. These initially flourished throughout the country but ultimately failed to replace Sinn Féin as the voice of the new nationalist Ireland, in no small part due to Sinn Féin being already associated in the public mind with the hallowed Easter Rising (however undeservedly, in the opinions of some).

However, Griffith's position was increasingly untenable, and he came under pressure to step down as President of Sinn Féin. It was at the party's Ard Fheis in October 1917 that the feud between the two men, and the direction of nationalist Ireland, would be decided, with the help of a certain Éamon de Valera...



(Éamon de Valera in the uniform of the Irish Volunteers)
 
Last edited:


derryman

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
10,621
Great ok. Thanks for posting it. Now I have read all these links.
 

Mushroom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
15,474
Interesting chap. A Papal Count I see.

I've always been puzzled by the concept of Papal Counts.

After all, if a Pope believes in the afterlife (and I gather that most of them do) then why do they go around awarding temporal honours rather than simply assuring the individual concerned that he or she'll be well rewarded in the next life?
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
83,462
Interesting chap. A Papal Count I see.

I've always been puzzled by the concept of Papal Counts.

After all, if a Pope believes in the afterlife (and I gather that most of them do) then why do they go around awarding temporal honours rather than simply assuring the individual concerned that he or she'll be well rewarded in the next life?
Interesting chap, supposedly a pain in the arse - and a liar about his visit to Rome to seek the Pope's blessing for the Easter Rising.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,836
Twitter
No
Interesting chap. A Papal Count I see.

I've always been puzzled by the concept of Papal Counts.

After all, if a Pope believes in the afterlife (and I gather that most of them do) then why do they go around awarding temporal honours rather than simply assuring the individual concerned that he or she'll be well rewarded in the next life?
They are well aware in Rome of the power of a ribbon. It is a cheap way to pat a peasant on the head for loyalty.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,606
Twitter
No
//

On Easter Monday, 1916, Count Plunkett dropped by the office of Archbishop Walsh of Dublin, and explained to the secretary there that he had just returned from Rome, having met the Pope and reassured him about the forthcoming rebellion. When told about this, the Archbishop did not initially take the Count too seriously, regarding him “as a simple soul and [he] could not conceive a man like him being at the head of a revolution.” //

There's lie number 1.

When Sean T OKelly wrote to the same pope benedict in 1920, he had to explain all over again. So Plunkett hadn't mentioned it in 1916.

Memorandum by Sean T. O'Ceallaigh to Pope Benedict XV from Sean T O Ceallaigh to Pope Benedict XV - 18 May 1920 - Documents on IRISH FOREIGN POLICY


Why did these eejits impress us so much?
 

Levellers

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
14,071
Interesting chap. A Papal Count I see.

I've always been puzzled by the concept of Papal Counts.

After all, if a Pope believes in the afterlife (and I gather that most of them do) then why do they go around awarding temporal honours rather than simply assuring the individual concerned that he or she'll be well rewarded in the next life?
Well look at the get up the Pope robes himself in! I don't accept any of them believe in the afterlife.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
83,462

Éireann_Ascendant

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
335
Twitter
eireannascenda
There's lie number 1.

When Sean T OKelly wrote to the same pope benedict in 1920, he had to explain all over again. So Plunkett hadn't mentioned it in 1916.

Memorandum by Sean T. O'Ceallaigh to Pope Benedict XV from Sean T O Ceallaigh to Pope Benedict XV - 18 May 1920 - Documents on IRISH FOREIGN POLICY
A different situation here - O'Kelly was canvass for support for the fledgling Republic that was struggling to survive in an occupied country. Hence why he was laying it so thickly here.

Count Plunkett was trying to get the Pope to refrain from condemning a rebellion was that going to happen anyway - an arguably much simpler proposition. The two missions here don't necessarily cancel the other out.


Why did these eejits impress us so much?
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
 

Éireann_Ascendant

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
335
Twitter
eireannascenda

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,606
Twitter
No
A different situation here - O'Kelly was canvass for support for the fledgling Republic that was struggling to survive in an occupied country. Hence why he was laying it so thickly here.

Count Plunkett was trying to get the Pope to refrain from condemning a rebellion was that going to happen anyway - an arguably much simpler proposition. The two missions here don't necessarily cancel the other out. //

There's no record of "an cuunta" P saying any such thing, beyond his own memoir designed to max his importance. Why would he say anything, when there was a risk of it being passed on to the british legation to the vatican?

The pope's condemnation would make no difference at all to true IRB type republicans, would it? Of course not.

O'Kelly had to start all over, and despite his fawning text the papacy never recognised the irish republic.


In fact anyone conversant with the history of the papacy c.1916 would know that it didn't like republics at all...

In 1905 the church had been dismounted in france - 1871-1914 - Third Republic and the Catholic Church

In the Paris commune of 1871 ha killed priests - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Martyrs of the Paris Commune

in 1848-49 a roman republic was set up that kicked out the pope; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic_(19th_century)

In 1798 our french allies (!!) had kicked out the pope and set up a ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic_(18th_century)
 

Éireann_Ascendant

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
335
Twitter
eireannascenda
There's no record of "an cuunta" P saying any such thing, beyond his own memoir designed to max his importance.
We have the testimony of Monsignor Curran, secretary to Archbishop Walsh, who was no fan of the Count otherwise, but who recorded in the Bureau of Military History Statement the confirmation from Vatican sources that the Count had indeed visited them on behalf of the Rising leaders.

Whether the Pope gave his blessing with tears in his eyes like Plunkett claimed in his article on the subject in 1933 is debatable, but *some* sort of meeting between the two did happen.

Plus participants in the Rising such as W.J. Brennan-Whitmore and even Eoin MacNeill record hearing about the Count returning with the papal blessing, so it was a contemporary story - perhaps less a blessing and more of a 'non-condemnation' but still.


Why would he say anything, when there was a risk of it being passed on to the british legation to the vatican?
A risk, sure, but a risk the Rising leaders, or at least the Plunketts, were willing to take. The whole Rising was a risk, after all.

The pope's condemnation would make no difference at all to true IRB type republicans, would it? Of course not.
True, but to the majority of Irish Volunteers, who the IRB were relying on being the muscle behind the Rising, many of whom were good, Church-going Catholics...it might may meant a lot.

O'Kelly had to start all over, and despite his fawning text the papacy never recognised the irish republic.
True, but again, different situation. In 1920, O'Kelly was expecting the Vatican to publicly endorse the Republic and risk the displeasure of Britain. With Plunkett and 1916, all that was asked of the Pope was not to condemn it.
 

ergo2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
14,065
Monsgr O'Hagan, the Rector of the Irish College in Rome was an enthusiastic republican. He and some of the senior students/young priests in College spent a lot of time developing contacts in the Vatican, and amongst the diplomats from all the other countries at the Vatican.

Sean T. O'Ceallaigh spent most of his time at Paris because of the Treaty of Versailles talks. O'Hagan and his teams in Rome arranged appointments for him in ROme.
The Brits had a huge diplomatic presence in Rome. It was necessary to counteract it.

I was disappointed that Enda forgot, or didn't know all that when closing our embassy. Glad it is re-opened
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,606
Twitter
No
Monsgr O'Hagan, the Rector of the Irish College in Rome was an enthusiastic republican. He and some of the senior students/young priests in College spent a lot of time developing contacts in the Vatican, and amongst the diplomats from all the other countries at the Vatican.

Sean T. O'Ceallaigh spent most of his time at Paris because of the Treaty of Versailles talks. O'Hagan and his teams in Rome arranged appointments for him in ROme.
The Brits had a huge diplomatic presence in Rome. It was necessary to counteract it.

I was disappointed that Enda forgot, or didn't know all that when closing our embassy. Glad it is re-opened

Interesting also that the british envoy from 1916 was catholic (of course) and owned estates in Limerick and Armagh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Francis_Charles,_7th_Count_de_Salis-Soglio

I'm guessing the cardinals felt he was more, ermmmm, civilised all round.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top