See new posts

Michael Comyn In 1912, he served as a revising barrister at the Cork Revision Sessions, handling voter registration disputes. Can we elaborate

Thought for 1m 13s

Michael Comyn (1871–1952), an Irish barrister and nationalist, served as a revising barrister during the Cork Revision Sessions in 1912. In this capacity, he presided over quasi-judicial proceedings aimed at updating and correcting electoral registers for local and parliamentary elections in the Cork borough and surrounding areas. These annual revision sessions, typically held in the autumn, involved hearing claims from individuals seeking to be added to voter lists, as well as objections from parties challenging existing registrations on grounds such as residency, property qualifications, age, or other eligibility criteria under British electoral laws (e.g., the Representation of the People Act and related Irish statutes). Comyn’s role required impartial adjudication, often in contentious political environments, as voter rolls directly influenced election outcomes amid rising Irish nationalism and tensions between unionists, home rulers, and other factions. A revising barrister like Comyn was typically a practicing lawyer appointed temporarily by local authorities or the courts to handle these disputes efficiently, ensuring the registers were accurate and free from fraud or errors. Sessions could involve hundreds of cases, with solicitors representing claimants, objectors, or political groups. For instance, a newspaper report from November 1912 describes an incident where Comyn, during a session, “turned sharply” on Mr. Hanrahan, a solicitor for the All-for-Ireland League (A.F.I., a moderate nationalist group led by William O’Brien), after Hanrahan interjected during proceedings—highlighting the occasionally heated atmosphere.

This rebuke underscores how Comyn managed courtroom decorum amid politically charged disputes. An illustrative example of the disputes Comyn handled comes from a similar session (likely in 1911, with appeal in late 1911, but reflective of his ongoing work in the area). In O’Brien v M’Carthy, Comyn ruled as Assistant Revising Barrister that rooms occupied by attendants at the Eglinton Lunatic Asylum qualified as “dwelling-houses” under voter laws, allowing David Browne and 33 others to remain on the inhabitant householder register and local government supplement. He based this on evidence that the rooms served multiple personal uses (e.g., recreation, privacy, and entertaining), despite restrictions like needing permission for fires. The decision was appealed to the Irish Court of Appeal, resulting in a split judgment: two judges overturned it for lack of evidence treating the rooms as full dwellings, while one upheld Comyn’s finding based on precedents.

His work as a revising barrister provided steady income and experience in administrative law before he gained prominence defending republicans in high-profile cases during the 1916 Rising aftermath and Irish Civil War. Later, he became a Fianna Fáil Senator (1928–1936) and Circuit Court judge (1936–1952).

The 1912 sessions occurred against a backdrop of intensifying Home Rule debates, making voter registration a flashpoint for political mobilization in Cork, a nationalist stronghold.

In O’Brien v M’Carthy, Comyn ruled as Assistant Revising Barrister that rooms occupied by attendants at the Eglinton Lunatic Asylum qualified as “dwelling-houses” under voter laws, allowing David Browne and 33 others to remain on the inhabitant householder register and local government supplement. Can we have deeper meaning of what this meant?

Thought for 48s

The case O’Brien v M’Carthy (1912) arose in the context of early 20th-century Irish voter registration laws, specifically under the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act and related statutes stemming from the Third Reform Act of 1884. At that time, voting rights for men in the United Kingdom (including Ireland) were largely tied to property qualifications or occupational franchises rather than universal suffrage. One key pathway was the “householder franchise,” which granted the vote to adult males who occupied a “dwelling-house” as an inhabitant for at least 12 months, provided it met a minimum rateable value (typically low, around £4-£10 depending on the borough). A related “service franchise” extended this to employees or servants whose accommodation was provided as part of their job, but only if that accommodation could be legally interpreted as a separate “dwelling-house” rather than mere lodgings or a shared facility.

In this case, the attendants at the Eglinton Lunatic Asylum (a large public institution in Cork for the mentally ill, housing segregated patients across multiple buildings on 200 acres) lived in on-site quarters. These were single rooms allocated by the asylum’s superintendent, primarily used as bedrooms but also for personal activities like reading, recreation, and limited entertaining of guests. The rooms had basic amenities (e.g., fireplaces, gas for cooking with permission), and attendants held keys, though access was restricted by asylum rules (e.g., a 10 p.m. curfew).

Daniel O’Brien, likely a political agent or objector, challenged their inclusion on the voter rolls, arguing the rooms were not true dwelling-houses but institutional bedrooms incidental to employment. Assistant Revising Barrister Michael Comyn’s ruling in favor of the attendants—retaining David Browne and 33 others on the “inhabitant householder register” (the main parliamentary voter list) and the “local government supplement” (an addendum for municipal elections under the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898)—had several layers of deeper significance:

1. Broad Interpretation of “Dwelling-House”: Comyn found, based on evidence of the rooms’ multifunctional use and elements of privacy/exclusivity, that they qualified as dwelling-houses under the service franchise. This meant treating institutional accommodations as equivalent to independent homes for voting purposes, emphasizing practical habitation over structural form or full ownership. It drew on precedents like English and Scottish cases (e.g., involving soldiers or policemen), prioritizing how the space was inhabited rather than its label as a “bedroom.” This was progressive, as it avoided a narrow, literal reading that could exclude workers in controlled environments.
2. Expansion of the Franchise to Institutional Workers: By qualifying these attendants, Comyn effectively enfranchised a group of lower-middle-class or working-class men (asylum staff were often modestly paid civil servants) who might otherwise be disenfranchised due to their live-in roles. Asylums like Eglinton were common in the era, employing hundreds in similar setups. The ruling implied that similar employees in hospitals, prisons, workhouses, or other public institutions could claim voter status, potentially adding thousands to the rolls in Ireland alone. This aligned with gradual reforms pushing toward broader democracy, countering the property-based exclusions that favored landowners and independent householders.
3. Political and Social Implications: Voter registration was highly politicized in pre-partition Ireland, amid Home Rule debates and tensions between nationalists, unionists, and the British administration. Including asylum attendants—many of whom might lean nationalist—could shift local and parliamentary balances in places like Cork, a hotbed of Irish nationalism. On a societal level, it recognized the humanity and citizenship of mental health workers, who dealt with stigmatized roles in “lunatic asylums” (a term reflecting the era’s views on mental illness). It subtly challenged class hierarchies by affirming that even “servants” in public service had residential rights akin to private citizens.
4. Precedent and Legal Debate: Though Comyn’s decision was overturned on appeal by the Irish Court of Appeal (majority holding the rooms were mere bedrooms, lacking sufficient evidence of dwelling-like occupation), it highlighted ongoing judicial debates over franchise boundaries. The dissent by Cherry, L.J., supported Comyn’s view, showing division even among judges. This case contributed to evolving jurisprudence on occupational franchises, influencing later reforms like the Representation of the People Act 1918, which moved toward universal male suffrage and reduced property ties.

In essence, Comyn’s ruling symbolized a step toward inclusive democracy by interpreting laws to empower marginalized occupational groups, though its reversal underscored conservative limits on such expansions.

3 web pages

Quick Answer