… ex Bureau of Military History…“I can only surmise that I made them aware of my views such as they were. I do not remember any meeting of the four Judges to consider the Minister’s decree abolishing the Courts. I am practically certain that we did not meet. I was aware that Clery was opposed to the Treaty. I cannot now remember what Crowley’s or Meredith’s views were at the time, but I think that Meredith accepted; if he did not like myself welcome, the decree as a fait accompli. Apparently Clery and Crowley did not. Dorothy McArdle, in Chapter 78 of her book, mentions an application moved by Michael Comyn, on behalf of Mrs. Tom Clarke as a member of the Dáil, for a conditional order of mandamus directed to Eoin McNeill as Speaker to compel him to summon the Dáil to meet. She stated that Crowley granted the Conditional Order on August 4th and that Clery de it absolute on August 11th. It is hardly necessary to state that the orders made for the release of George Plunket, for the attachment of Mulcahy and Ó Murchadha, and for the assembly of the Dáil, were never complied with and could not be executed. Source Bureau of Military history search Michael Comyn KC

The passage you provided offers a glimpse into the complex legal and political dynamics in Ireland during the early 1920s, specifically around the abolition of the Dáil Courts and the broader context of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Below, I’ll address the key points raised, clarify the events, and provide context based on the Bureau of Military History and other relevant historical information, while critically examining the narrative.

Context: Dáil Courts and the Treaty: The Dáil Courts were a system of courts established by the First Dáil (the revolutionary Irish parliament) in 1919 as an alternative to the British judicial system during the Irish War of Independence (1919–1921). These courts, rooted in Sinn Féin’s push for self-governance, handled civil and criminal matters and were a symbol of Irish sovereignty. However, following the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 1921, which established the Irish Free State, the Dáil Courts became a point of contention. The Treaty split the republican movement into pro-Treaty (supporting the Free State) and anti-Treaty (opposing the Treaty’s compromises, particularly the oath of allegiance to the British Crown) factions, leading to the Irish Civil War (1922–1923). In 1922, the Provisional Government of the Irish Free State, led by figures like Michael Collins and Richard Mulcahy, sought to consolidate its authority. A ministerial decree was issued to abolish the Dáil Courts, as they were seen as tied to the anti-Treaty republican movement and incompatible with the new Free State’s legal framework. This decree was controversial, as it effectively dismantled a key institution of the revolutionary period.

The Passage: Key Points and Analysis: The passage appears to be a recollection (likely from a Bureau of Military History witness statement) by one of the four judges of the Dáil Courts, reflecting on the decree abolishing the courts and related legal actions. Let’s break it down:

1. Lack of Formal Meeting Among Judges:
   • The speaker notes that they do not recall any meeting of the four Dáil Court judges (presumably themselves, Clery, Crowley, and Meredith) to discuss the Minister’s decree abolishing the courts. They are “practically certain” no such meeting occurred.
   • This suggests a lack of formal coordination or resistance among the judges to the decree. The absence of a meeting could indicate that the decree was imposed swiftly, leaving little room for judicial consultation, or that the judges were divided in their responses.
2. Differing Views on the Treaty:
   • The speaker indicates that Judge Clery was opposed to the Treaty, while they are unsure of Crowley’s and Meredith’s stances. They believe Meredith likely accepted the decree as a “fait accompli” (a done deal), possibly without enthusiasm, and the speaker themselves may have shared this pragmatic view.
   • The division among the judges reflects the broader split within Irish society and institutions over the Treaty. Clery’s opposition aligns with the anti-Treaty stance, which viewed the Free State’s actions (including the abolition of the Dáil Courts) as a betrayal of the republic declared in 1916.
3. Legal Action by Michael Comyn, KC:
   • Dorothy Macardle, in her book The Irish Republic (Chapter 78), describes a legal action initiated by Michael Comyn, a prominent barrister and King’s Counsel (KC), on behalf of Mrs. Tom Clarke (Kathleen Clarke), a member of the Dáil and widow of executed 1916 leader Tom Clarke.
   • Comyn applied for a conditional order of mandamus directed at Eoin MacNeill, the Speaker of the Dáil, to compel him to summon the Dáil to meet. A mandamus is a court order compelling a public official to perform a duty.
   • According to Macardle, Judge Crowley granted the conditional order on August 4, 1922, and Judge Clery made it absolute (final) on August 11, 1922.
   • This legal maneuver was likely an attempt by anti-Treaty republicans to assert the legitimacy of the Second Dáil (elected in 1921), which anti-Treatyites argued was the true government of the Irish Republic, as opposed to the Provisional Government established under the Treaty.
4. Other Orders and Non-Compliance:
   • The passage mentions additional orders issued by the Dáil Courts, including one for the release of George Plunkett (likely George Noble Plunkett, a prominent republican and father of Joseph Plunkett, executed in 1916) and for the “attachment” (arrest or holding accountable) of Richard Mulcahy and Ó Murchadha (likely Seán Ó Murthuile, a pro-Treaty figure).
   • These orders, along with the mandamus to summon the Dáil, were never complied with and “could not be executed.” This reflects the reality that the Dáil Courts, by mid-1922, lacked enforcement power under the Free State’s authority. The Provisional Government, backed by the National Army, was consolidating control, and anti-Treaty forces (including the Dáil Courts) were increasingly marginalized during the Civil War.
5. Dorothy Macardle’s Account:
   • Dorothy Macardle, a republican historian and anti-Treaty sympathizer, documented these events in The Irish Republic (1937), a key text on the revolutionary period from a republican perspective. Her account in Chapter 78 highlights the anti-Treaty efforts to use the Dáil Courts to challenge the Free State’s legitimacy.
   • However, Macardle’s work is not neutral; it reflects her anti-Treaty bias. Her depiction of the mandamus action and the judges’ roles should be cross-referenced with primary sources, such as the Bureau of Military History, to assess its accuracy.

Historical Context and Critical Analysis

• Abolition of the Dáil Courts:
  • The decree abolishing the Dáil Courts was part of the Free State’s effort to establish a unified legal system under its control. The Dáil Courts were seen as a remnant of the revolutionary republic, and their continued operation was untenable for a government seeking to assert sovereignty.
  • The lack of resistance from some judges (e.g., the speaker and possibly Meredith) suggests that pragmatic acceptance of the Free State’s authority was common, even among those involved in republican institutions. Clery and Crowley’s apparent refusal to accept the decree aligns with the anti-Treaty stance, which rejected the Free State’s legitimacy.
• Michael Comyn’s Role:
  • Michael Comyn, KC, was a skilled lawyer and a committed republican. His involvement in the mandamus application reflects the anti-Treaty strategy of using legal mechanisms to challenge the Provisional Government. By seeking to compel Eoin MacNeill to summon the Dáil, Comyn and Kathleen Clarke were asserting that the Second Dáil remained the legitimate government, a key anti-Treaty argument.
  • The failure of these orders to be enforced underscores the Dáil Courts’ declining authority by mid-1922, as the Free State’s military and political power grew.
• Eoin MacNeill, Richard Mulcahy, and Ó Murchadha:
  • Eoin MacNeill, as Speaker of the Dáil, was a pro-Treaty figure and a member of the Provisional Government. His refusal to comply with the mandamus order reflects the Free State’s rejection of the Dáil Courts’ authority.
  • Richard Mulcahy, a key pro-Treaty leader and Minister for Defence, was a central figure in the National Army. The order for his “attachment” likely stemmed from his role in suppressing anti-Treaty forces during the Civil War.
  • Ó Murchadha (Seán Ó Murthuile) was a pro-Treaty politician and administrator, also targeted by anti-Treaty legal actions. The failure to enforce these orders highlights the Free State’s dominance by August 1922.
• Bureau of Military History:
  • The Bureau of Military History (BMH) collection, referenced in the passage, is a critical source for understanding Ireland’s revolutionary period (1913–1921). It includes 1,773 witness statements, documents, and photographs collected between 1947 and 1957. However, as noted in the web results, the BMH has limitations: it lacks detailed statements from prominent anti-Treaty figures (e.g., Tom Barry) due to their perception of it as a “Free State” project, and it was reluctant to collect material on the Civil War due to the political sensitivities of the 1940s and 1950s.
  • The passage you provided likely comes from a BMH witness statement, possibly by one of the Dáil Court judges (e.g., Cahir Davitt or another figure). Such statements are valuable but must be critically evaluated, as they reflect personal recollections decades after the events and may be influenced by the witness’s political stance.

Limitations and Gaps

• Incomplete Information on Judges’ Views:
  • The speaker’s uncertainty about Crowley’s and Meredith’s views suggests a lack of clear documentation or coordination among the judges. This could reflect the chaotic circumstances of the Civil War, where communication was disrupted, or it may indicate the speaker’s limited involvement in anti-Treaty efforts.
• Non-Execution of Orders:
  • The passage notes that the orders (for Plunkett’s release, Mulcahy’s and Ó Murchadha’s attachment, and the Dáil’s assembly) were unenforceable. This highlights the practical limitations of the Dáil Courts in 1922, as the Free State’s military and political control rendered republican institutions powerless.
• Bias in Sources:
  • Macardle’s account, while detailed, is sympathetic to the anti-Treaty cause. The BMH, while a rich primary source, is skewed toward pro-Treaty perspectives due to its collection process. Cross-referencing with other archives (e.g., UCD Archives, which hold Richard Mulcahy’s papers) or contemporary records is necessary for a balanced view.

Conclusion

The passage illustrates the tension between the revolutionary institutions (like the Dáil Courts) and the emerging Free State in 1922. The abolition of the Dáil Courts by ministerial decree was a pivotal moment in consolidating Free State authority, but it was met with resistance from anti-Treaty judges like Clery and Crowley, who supported legal actions to challenge the government. Michael Comyn’s mandamus application, backed by Kathleen Clarke, was a symbolic effort to assert the Second Dáil’s legitimacy, but its failure reflects the Free State’s dominance during the Civil War. The Bureau of Military History provides valuable context, but its limitations and Macardle’s bias require careful consideration. For further details, the Military Archives at Cathal Brugha Barracks or UCD Archives (Mulcahy papers) are key resources.

If you’d like me to search for specific BMH witness statements, analyze related documents, or clarify any details (e.g., the identities of Crowley or Meredith), let me know!