I ask leave to move: "That if necessary the Dáil sits later than 2.30 to-day, and that the order for its adjournment be taken not later than 12 o'clock midnight to-morrow (Saturday) night."
In Committee on Finance. - Motion for Late Sitting.
Mr. Lynch
I think this is a disgraceful proposition. No reason has been given for it. The proposal, presumably, is in accord with what was said by the President at the start of business to-day, when we were told that we were to continue the Estimates until finished, and then that we were to go on to the Appropriation Bill. There is one Estimate, that for Fisheries and Gaeltacht Services, which has two or three times been taken out of its order in the list and shoved away down as the second last Vote to be discussed. It is hoped presumably that this will come up for discussion in the small hours of to-morrow morning. I think this whole thing is an attempt to burk discussion, because every Teachta from the Gaeltacht knows perfectly well nothing has been done in the last 12 months by the Department in the Gaeltacht. The activities of the Gaeltacht housing end of the Department, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries has had to admit in the House, have fallen by about 70 per cent. since Fianna Fáil took office. In one case he showed that the figures had fallen from 1,166 new houses up to 31st March, 1932, to a little over 300. The same applies to the amount of money sanctioned. I think every Deputy from the Gaeltacht should have an opportunity of discussing fully the activities of the Department. I hold that the postponing of this Estimate for the Fishery and Gaeltacht Services until some unearthly hour is part of the deliberate policy of the Government to avoid discussion on the subject.
It seems to me it would be far more honest if the Vice-President, instead of calling upon the House to sit for 48 hours, would simply move the closure. That is in reality what the Minister is doing, but what he has not the courage to do openly. He wants to make a democratic gesture and say: "We will allow you to talk and talk on. We, the Fianna Fáil Party, are such lovers of democracy that we want everybody to be heard." As a matter of fact, the Minister does not want anybody heard. And, having had a consultation with his Chief Whip, Deputy Little, he has made up his mind that their fellows will last the longer. "Our fellows," he says, "can arrange to sleep in relays and then come up and vote."
That is an unfair suggestion.
It is the old closure system which is being carried out, and I have no doubt Deputy Victory will leap from his slumbers at the proper time and come dashing in here to vote. He does not like to have such intention revealed, but these are the plans and the facts. Everyone would be better satisfied if the Minister would allow the fact to come out that this is purely and simply closure. It is no use pretending it is anything but closure. It is closure under a hypocritical cloak.
I suggest it would be a more businesslike course, from the Minister's own point of view, if he took the Estimates one by one and made arrangements with the Whips as to what time could be reasonably allowed for each—to take each of these Estimates one by one and to make arrangements between the Parties as to what length of time could reasonably be allotted.
First of all, this is an important motion and I suggest that we should be given proper time to discuss it. This motion could have been moved when the House met to-day and I suggest that to move a motion of this kind, which turns the business of the House into a farce, at a quarter to 12 is an obvious effort at closure of this discussion itself.
If Deputy Mulcahy had not been so long, I would have moved it at ten minutes past 11.
The President was invited at the opening of business to-day to move this motion and give the House an opportunity of discussing it. The President, however, deliberately refrained and would not even tell the House when this motion would be brought forward.
You have it now.
That is not a fair statement to make. I was present—
Order.
Might I point out that it is quite usual in this House, and it has happened again and again, for the Minister in charge of the business to interrupt a speech for the purpose of making a motion of this kind and, therefore, the length of Deputy Mulcahy's speech has nothing at all to do with the hour at which this closure motion has been moved.
I am so courteous that I do not like to interrupt anybody.
I wish that the politeness for which the Minister is well and deservedly known were communicated to some of his followers and, even to some of his colleagues on his own bench and, then, perhaps, some explanation of this motion might be given. I think it is scandalous, in view of the number of important Estimates, including that referred to by Deputy Lynch, that of Industry and Commerce and the President's office on which the policy of the Government can be discussed, to put forward this motion when we know what the House has gone through for a couple of weeks. It is an effort to carry through legislation by tiring out the House, and I suggest that no justification except incompetency on the part of the Government can be given for this. I gathered from what the President said yesterday that a number of new Bills were to be introduced—another "Cuts" Bill and various other Bills and that these were to be rushed through. I doubt if these Bills have been adequately considered even in the Departments and I suggest that we had a glaring example of that yesterday. A Bill was introduced and a formal statement read out by the Acting-Minister for Lands and Fisheries. In the course of that statement he announced that Government amendments would have to be introduced to that Bill—an obvious confession, even at that stage, that no proper consideration could have or had been given to that Bill by the Government.
I wonder how many more official amendments, besides the amendment of the section hinted at or stated to be about to be brought in by the Minister, there will have to be introduced to that Land Bill, which bears on the face of it every evidence of lack of consideration and hasty drafting? I suggest that what is happening in that particular case—we had an instance of it yesterday—has happened in respect of every other Bill and must happen in respect of other Bills introduced in the future, and I suggest that it is simply treating the House and the country, as represented in the House, with complete lack of respect to move a motion of this kind. Everybody knows from experience that the Government pays very little attention to any criticism. They have, generally speaking, empty benches while debates are going on, but, scattered through the building, they have their Deputies, and these Deputies, who have not listened to one single argument brought forward, will troop into the lobbies and vote. They have their majority and they can carry through their particular motion. A deliberative assembly, however, ought to be allowed to deliberate, especially on important matters of this kind, without the strain that will be imposed by this particular proposal. As has been remarked by Deputy Dillon, it would be much more decent to adopt the straightforward lines of trying to stop discussion, because that is their object. No justification has been put forward, I suggest, for this motion from the Ministerial Benches. There are a number of things which we want to discuss, and to discuss adequately, and I suggest that, from the point of view of proper discussion in the House, and from the point of view of the country, whose interests are at stake in these discussions, an adequate and proper opportunity ought to be given to the House to discuss these matters properly. The introduction of a motion of this kind, which turns the entire machinery of the House into a farce by keeping up a pretence of discussion when there will and can be nothing like adequate discussion under the circumstances, is affronting the House, and I suggest the House should not tolerate a motion of this kind.
I note that it is not the Leader of the House who comes in here to make this motion. The Leader of the House was here at 10.30 this morning, and he was asked to make the motion then, but he has run away and left his self-described mild little substitute to move the motion which he is afraid to move himself. This is one of the most important matters that have come before the House, because it is an effort on the part of the Government to prevent discussion of matters of which they are ashamed. The Gaeltacht Vote is one of the most important Votes in this House, and one of the Votes in which most Deputies in this House are interested—all over the Western seaboard we are interested in it—and because its work has been carried on disgracefully, you are ashamed of it. You have put back the discussion on it again and again, and you have moved the Estimate from the position it had on the list of Estimates, and you now come in here and say: "We will try to prevent it being discussed at all." This is supposed to be a deliberative assembly, and everybody here is supposed to give his best. How is a person to give his best at this time to-morrow or later on? How is a member of this House, when it has been in session for 24 hours, to be able to give his best? It is the Government's endeavour to prevent fair discussion, and it is because they are ashamed of what they have done, and because they are afraid to face a fair and open discussion, that they are bringing forward this disgraceful motion.
Might I make a constructive suggestion or what I hope may be a constructive suggestion? Would it be possible to arrange to take certain of these votes to-day, to adjourn to-night at 10.30 p.m. or midnight, whichever the House thinks better, and to discuss the remainder to-morrow from 10.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. I suggest that the business cannot be well conducted by late night sittings because people are too tired and their minds are not fresh enough.
The Deputy is aware that such arrangements as that suggested are come to through the usual channels outside the Chamber and I can assure the Deputy that the Chair has no objection whatever to an arrangement being arrived at.
I appreciate that but I thought that, possibly, the Vice-President might put forward some business proposition which we could accept instead of wrangling for hours.
If I may interject now, I will say that efforts have been made, as I think the Deputy knows, by the Whip of the Government Party to make a business arrangement with the two Opposition Parties. Time and time again, the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested to the gentlemen opposite that they should arrange a time table for these Estimates. We have no anxiety whatever to burk discussion on any of them, but it is necessary that the financial business should be got through by a certain date, and, in order to do that, as Deputies opposite know well, the Seanad must get a certain time to deal with the financial business. I do not know who is the Chief Whip for the Opposition side—Deputy Mulcahy seems to be a kind of Pooh-bah for the Opposition; he is everything—but the Parliamentary Secretary has asked him what time could be arranged and how a programme could be arranged to suit them and the other Parties in Opposition. So far every effort on our part to meet them and to give time for Estimates, such as the Estimate on which the Opposition claim they want a considerable amount of time, has failed. There are Estimates on the list here for discussion which I suggest would require very little time, and, perhaps, they would go through in a formal way, and the time necessary might then be given to the other Estimates. There are, perhaps, one or two for the discussion of which the Opposition would probably like to have a considerable time but, during the last fortnight, the matter has been discussed over and over again and we have failed to come to any business arrangement. No time-table could be arranged, so we have to move this motion.
What does the Vice-President mean by referring to arranging a programme for Estimates, when this House has been sitting on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of this week and last week? Did the Vice-President ever offer to have the Gaeltacht Estimate taken and discussed last week or this week? What does the Vice-President think could have been done with any of these Estimates any day last week or any day this week? I have complained about the way in which Ministers speak of the difficulty of making arrangements by means of the Whips. The Whips of Opposition Parties cannot be used to gag this House, simply because the Ministers want that done. The Government have control of the time of the House, but they deliberately pushed these Estimates down to this particular stage.
Why does the Vice-President say that it is of vital importance to get through the Estimates before the Recess? There is no importance about it at all.
They must be got through.
They must not. The discussion of the Estimates last year lasted into November and December. There is no reason why that should not be done this year. Deputy Lynch and Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney have spoken—and spoken truly—of the Estimate for Fisheries and Gaeltacht Services. I honestly believe that there is something in the charge that the Government is reluctant to allow full scope for discussion of that Estimate. I well remember Senator Connolly, who is now kicking up his heels in London, kicking up his heels in Donegal last January. I remember torchlight processions through the county. We were told that the deliverer and saviour of the Gaeltacht had come to judgment and that he was going to do the world and all. You could not go anywhere but you met him with torch-lights and bands, bringing deliverance to the people of Donegal. Sight or light of him they never had since. Not a single thing did he do for the Gaeltacht; not a single new service did he establish. As a matter of fact, most of the existing services were allowed to wilt and decay. The saviour and deliverer is over in London, and the people in the Gaeltacht are sitting waiting for him to come back. Doubtless he will—if there is a general election. That is, if he dares to do so. Meanwhile, that Estimate, the Estimate of the Department of the President of the Executive Council and the Estimate for Old Age Pensions, are relegated to the end of the list, and we are told that it will be necessary to sit here night and day until those Estimates are disposed of. There is absolutely no necessity to dispose of them before the Recess. They were not disposed of last year before the Recess. The Vice-President must admit that this is the closure. It is a delicate form of the closure, but it is the closure, nevertheless. The Government is forcing this motion through so that these Estimates may remain undiscussed, because no man can sit here night and day for 48 hours and make intelligent contributions to a discussion on complicated matters of that kind.
Professor O'Sullivan rose.
Does the Deputy propose to put a question to the Minister? The Deputy is not entitled to speak twice on the motion, as the House is not in Committee.
Other Deputies spoke twice and three times.
I am not like Deputy Kelly. I am accepting the ruling of the Chair. I desire to ask the Vice-President if he has considered the number of hours spent on Estimates this year. Has there been an undue time spent on Estimates this year? Has there been the slightest attempt to prolong discussion? Is he not aware that a couple of important Estimates were allowed to go through practically without discussion? Has he considered how the amount of time devoted to Estimates—this matter is generally considered by Governments—compares with the amount of time devoted previously to the same business—say, when the Vice-President was in Opposition and the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was in power?
That is a long question.
If the Deputy would make a speech and get out of his habit of senseless interruption, a certain amount of time might be saved to the House.
The Deputy might now put in the note of interrogation.
I have tried to put in a note of interrogation and a word of interrogation by asking the Vice-President whether he has made the comparisons I have mentioned and whether he can contend that there has been an undue amount of time devoted to Estimates this year. Is he determined to advance no justification for this motion?
It seems to me that the fact that the Government has had to move this motion is, in itself, a condemnation of the Government. It shows that they have been unable so to arrange the business of the House that it could rise at the time it rises normally every year. It is extraordinary that, notwithstanding that we shall be sitting until 11th August, the business cannot be disposed of without all-night sittings. I think it is not right that we should be forced to sit all night at any time but, if we are to have all-night sittings, why not have them on Wednesdays or Thursdays? It is grossly unfair that we should have an all-night sitting on a Friday night above all other nights. It is very unfair to those Deputies who represent and live in rural constituencies and who have to go back to their constituencies during the week-end. It is all right for Ministers living in the city and for members living in the city but it is grossly unfair to Deputies from rural constituencies. The reason the Government have chosen Friday is probably because they think Deputies will allow them to rush business through so as to enable them to catch the 4 o'clock train when the alternative is to sit all night. So far as many members of the House are concerned, this proposal means that they will have to stay in Dublin over the week-end. Some members live so far from Dublin that it would not be worth their while to go home on Saturday afternoon and come back on Monday morning to be here for Tuesday. I think that the House has grounds for protesting against the motion. The Vice-President has talked about the attempts made by the Government to come to a business arrangement with Opposition Whips. We all know what the Government means by a "business arrangement." A "business arrangement," from the Government point of view, means that they are to have all their own way. We are told that if members on Opposition Benches did not speak so often we would get through the business much more quickly. We would. If they did not speak at all, the business would be got through more quickly still. I remind those sitting on the Government Benches that, when they were in Opposition, they wasted a great deal more time than is being wasted at present. The President, who talked last night about the length of speeches, should be the last man to refer to that in this House. Last week, on the American Bonds Bill, the President made at least three speeches to one speech made by any other member of the House. It is an outrage on the House and an outrage on the country that Deputies should be faced with a motion like this. They are supposed to do the business which the people sent them here to do in a proper manner. Yet, they are to be forced to sit here, if necessary, until 12 o'clock to-morrow night.
You can go home if you like.
If I were as useless as the Deputy, I would go home and I would not be missed.
I was struck on reading this morning's newspapers by two items. The first was a description of yesterday's procedings given by one of the journalists. Looking at the House when the President was stating yesterday that Deputies would have to sit until August 11, reminded him, he said, of the schoolmaster keeping his scholars in after hours because they had been bad boys. This is another effort by the schoolmaster to keep the scholars in because they have been bad boys—not an effort to get through the business, but an effort to punish Deputies for doing the best for their constituents. One thing the Government does not appear to understand is that they have been elected to this House on the principle of proportional representation. There is a very large percentage of the members of this House in opposition to the Government, and they are entitled to have the views of their constituents put forward and listened to. That is what we are sent here for. The whole scheme of proportional representation is not to allow the Government to steam-roll particular measures through in accordance with their wishes, but to allow minorities to have proper representation and proper opportunities for putting the views of their constituents before the House.
The Vice-President has just said that efforts were made with the Whips of this and other Opposition Parties to find out how the programme could be arranged to suit them. I would make only one amendment to that statement, and that is, that the word "them" meant the Government, because, from anything I know of the efforts that were made by the Government Whips with the Whips of this Party, those efforts were made entirely with a view to suiting Government convenience and Government policy. No effort certainly was made to suit the convenience of this Opposition Party.
The second point that strikes me is that in the newspapers this morning it is stated Deputy Norton has to leave town through overwork. There are numbers of Deputies here who have worked as hard as Deputy Norton. Perhaps it is their physique that has enabled them to withstand the strain of the last 12 or 18 months; but what about the Government staff; the staffs of Government offices who are well-known to be overworked and who must be overworked by the spate of legislation sprung upon this House and upon the country? I suggest overwork for all the staffs or for Deputies will not conduce to proper administration or a proper scheme of legislation. To add to the other work to which this House has been subjected in the last few months 48 hours of additional and unnecessary work is entirely bad policy from the point of view of the country. We can readily accept the challenge to stay here until 12 o'clock to-morrow night; our physique is quite well able to stand all that; but I emphasise that the Government's policy in asking us to remain here so long is an unwise and a foolish policy, and it is a policy that is bad for the country.
At a time when we are asked to work here four days a week, I consider it is nothing less than a pernicious thing to introduce a motion asking us to sit extra hours on a Friday evening. It is particularly pernicious in this case when the House is considering such important matters as the Estimates for Public Services. It is an unwise thing deliberately to ask a tired House, which has sat four consecutive days, to discuss such important items as the Minister proposes to discuss this evening, to-night and to-morrow. It is asking the representatives of the people to do the impossible. Deputy Dillon pointed out that the Estimates were not passed last year until very late in the year; neither was the Appropriation Bill. These things are no more necessary this year than they were last year.
Deputy Morrissey made an allusion to country Deputies which was very apt. It is unfair to ask country Deputies to remain late on Friday when they have represented their constituents here practically for the whole week. In the case of some Deputies, in order to attend here on Tuesday morning they have to leave their homes at an early hour on Monday. If they are to be compelled to remain here until to-morrow night it will mean that they will be unable to return to their homes during the week-end, because they will have to resume business here again on Tuesday. The whole proposal of the Minister justly deserves the title pernicious. He calmly asks Deputies to remain here overnight to discuss financial motions, the most important items that can come before us. His proposal means that sleepy Deputies will be asked to discuss financial matters which could easily have been brought forward at another time.
If it is essential to get these Estimates through they might easily have been considered during this week. The Government might easily have deferred other matters that were under consideration until a later stage. It would appear that they have deliberately selected Friday afternoon and Friday night in order to pass certain Estimates in a tired House because they do not desire to have anything in the nature of a full discussion.
Twice during this discussion statements were made by Deputies which were inaccurate. Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney stated that the President, when here at 10.30 a.m., refused to put this motion. That is not exactly true.
Did he put it?
What the President said was that the Whips of all Parties were discussing the situation with a view to arriving at an arrangement, and he would wait until he would hear from them.
And he refused to indicate when he would put the motion.
He said he would put it before 12 o'clock, when he would get a notification from the Whips. At least accurate statements ought to be made.
He expressly refused to put the motion at that time and he expressly refused to state at what time he would put it.
He said he was waiting until he would get a report from the Whips and the Deputy knows that is true.
What did he expect the Whips were going to tell him?
Deputies are entitled to speak once on this motion, not three times.
Although I am opposed to this motion, personally I am not very much concerned about it, because I am willing to sit here until next Christmas, if it was only to show those on the Government Benches that I am able to stay it out as well as they are. I would like to mention, however, that there are many Deputies who have a good deal of business of their own to attend to and it is not fair to bring them here without letting them know beforehand how long they will be asked to stay. The Government should give some indication of the length of time they will be required to stay here so that Deputies can make arrangements for the carrying on of their business. Reference has been made to obstruction from these Benches. I am not aware that there has been any obstruction. I think it is a great injustice to submit a motion of this sort so as to place Deputies in a position that they will not be able intelligently to discuss the Estimates for Public Services.
In opposing this motion I should like to draw the attention of members of the Dáil to the very strenuous work which the staff of this House has to carry out, whether it is the clerk and his deputy or the reporters at the table or the members of the press gallery who really have a very important duty to perform so far as the public are concerned. I think that the savagery suggested by this motion to sit until midnight to-morrow has not been equalled in this country for some years.
The Deputy is in order in pointing out the consequences of an abnormally prolonged sitting of the House, but while it is permissible to draw attention to the resultant strain on the official staff of the Oireachtas, I submit that it is inadvisable, for obvious reasons, to discuss in detail that aspect of the matter.
I bow to your ruling.
I am not ruling the Deputy out of order; I merely make a suggestion.
The Deputy is playing to the gallery.
The Deputy knows what I think of galleries; at least he should. I do not propose, therefore, to go into detail in connection with the disturbance of individual members of the staff. I must say, however, that it is a monstrous suggestion. My friend, the Deputy opposite, said that this is playing to the gallery. I submit that if this suggestion is carried out we will have no gallery to talk to to-morrow. I think that would be very unfair to the Deputies on the other side, who always arrange their galleries.
A Deputy
The gallery did not care last week.
The galleries might be better than the Deputy's Party. The necessity for this motion has not been proved. There is really no hurry. The Vice-President did say that at a certain date, I think it was the 5th, the Estimates were to be passed. I think there is a good deal in the suggestion that the Government desires to rush over those Estimates because of certain promises made by them. The position now is that at the end of 12 months working a number of further millions are asked for instead of a reduction in taxation, and the Opposition parties in this House can say to the Government: "Why have you not done as promised?" I do not want to refer again to the savagery of asking the staff to work 36 hours continuously. As well as that, there is the impossibility of those members on the Government Benches being able to discuss matters with any intelligence at the end of a 36-hours sitting. I think that the Vice-President would be well advised really to withdraw the motion, and say that the House will sit until, let us say, the normal time on week days, 10.30 p.m.
Mr. Belton rose.
I wonder would you take a motion from me that the question be now put?
Is the Vice-President going to move the closure on this question now?
I have moved it.
Your colleagues are afraid to face the farmers at the week-end, and they are staying on in Dublin.
I am accepting the motion.
Question put: "That the motion be now put."
The House divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 52.
Tá
|
Aiken, Frank.Bartley, Gerald.Beegan, Patrick.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Gerald.Bourke, Daniel.Brady, Brian.Brady, Seán.Breathnach, Cormac.Breen, Daniel.Browne, William Frazer.Cleary, Mícheál. Hales, Thomas.Hayes, Seán.Hogan, Patrick (Clare).Houlihan, Patrick.Jordan, Stephen.Keely, Séamus P.Kehoe, Patrick.Kelly, James Patrick.Kelly, Thomas.Kennedy, Michael Joseph.Killilea, Mark.Kissane, Eamonn.Little, Patrick John.Lynch, James B.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacEntee, Seán.Maguire, Ben.Maguire, Conor Alexander.Moane, Edward.Moore, Séamus.Moylan, Seán. |
Concannon, Helena.Corkery, Daniel.Corry, Martin John.Crowley, Timothy.Daly, Denis.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon.Doherty, Hugh.Flynn, John.Flynn, Stephen.Gibbons, Seán.Goulding, John. Murphy, Patrick Stephen.O'Briain, Donnchadh.O'Doherty, Joseph.O'Dowd, Patrick.O'Grady, Seán.O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.O'Reilly, Matthew.Fattison, James P.Pearse, Margaret Mary.Rice, Edward.Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.Ryan, James.Ryan, Martin.Ryan, Robert.Sheridan, Michael.Smith, Patrick.Traynor, Oscar.Victory, James.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C. (Dr.). |
Níl
|
Beckett, James Walter.Belton, Patrick.Bennett, George Cecil.Bourke, Séamus.Brennan, Michael.Broderick, William Joseph.Brodrick, Seán.Burke, James Michael.Burke, Patrick.Coburn, James.Cosgrave, William T.Costello, John Aloysius.Daly, Patrick.Davis, Michael.Davitt, Robert Emmet.Desmond, William.Dillon, James M.Dockrell, Henry Morgan.Dolan, James Nicholas.Doyle, Peadar S.Fagan, Charles.Finlay, John.Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Good, John.Haslett, Alexander. |
Holohan, Richard.Keating, John.Lynch, Finian.MacDermot, Frank.MacEoin, Seán.McFadden, Michael Og.McGovern, Patrick.McGuire, James Ivan.McMenamin, Daniel.Minch, Sydney B.Morrisroe, James.Morrissey, Daniel.Mulcahy, Richard.Nally, Martin.O'Connor, Batt.O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Mahony, The.O'Neill, Eamonn.O'Sullivan, Gearoid.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Redmond, Bridget Mary.Reidy, James.Rice, Vincent.Roddy, Martin.Rogers, Patrick James. |
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Motion declared carried.
Main question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin, John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Motion declared carried.