I move: That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 3.
Financial Resolutions (Nos. 3 and 4)—Report.
Deputy Dockrell asked the Minister when dealing with this Resolution at the earlier stage whether tile surrounds would be held by the Revenue Commissioners to be concrete slabs.
They would not.
Has the Minister put the same question to the Revenue Commissioners with reference to cement roofing tiles?
They are not dutiable as concrete slabs.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 4.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to a matter that was under discussion in this House some time ago and that arises on this Resolution, that is the proposed tax on second-hand clothing. As a result of a good deal of opinion in this House, not confined to any particular side of the House, the Minister some time ago agreed to some concessions in the matter of the importation of second-hand clothing. I want to point out that the effect of the duties proposed to be imposed will be completely to wipe out that trade. The amount of the duty imposed on some of the items will exceed the price at which the article is sold in the market. A very large number of people in this country get a living out of the sale of this clothing. It was previously pointed out, and I have even more information on that point now than I had then, that a very large number of people who engage in this business in Cork and other places are widows with no other means of living, or women who have to support unemployed husbands. I believe that there is a demand for this kind of clothing in the country and I suggest to the Minister that before the next stage of his proposals is reached he should consider a substantial modification of the proposed duties, or, alternatively, another method of dealing with the whole question. I want to be quite frank in this matter and to say that I believe that the Minister has met with very considerable difficulties in dealing with this problem. There have been, I understand, attempts at evading the duty by means of certain subterfuges. I do not want to defend that here. I would not defend it anywhere. I want to make a plea for the people who are honestly endeavouring to make a living and who want to play the game fairly as between themselves and the State. One suggestion of responsible, respectable and honest people engaged in this trade is that the Minister should tax second-hand clothing by weight. That will obviate the difficulty that he has probably considered already of the reluctance of some of his officials in dealing with this class of clothing and, secondly, the other difficulties that arise in the same way. If the Minister could not sympathetically consider a proposal of that kind, at least I ask him to consider some proposal that will substantially modify the duties imposed. The imposition of these duties means that a large number of people will simply get out of the business. It is all very well to talk about the danger of disease arising from the second-hand clothing coming into the country. I think that is all exaggerated and that there is really no foundation for it. In parts of the country that I know well labourers in receipt of 7/- or 8/- per week, with food from their employers, have to return to their homes on Saturday night with only 7/- or 8/- in their pockets and very often they have a wife and three or four children depending on that 7/- or 8/-. People in that position could not possibly afford to clothe themselves were it not for the fact that up to the present they have been able to buy second-hand clothing. I believe we shall have another opportunity of dealing with this matter, but I suggest to the Minister that the representations already made to his Department in this connection should be considered and that when a further stage in the proposals is reached he should be prepared to indicate some substantial concessions in this connection.
This matter has already been under discussion from one point of view, namely, the heavy burden it imposes on the very poorest of the population. There are two matters especially that I want to refer to. One has been referred to by Deputy Murphy from two angles. For the moment I want the Minister to consider the effect of this tax on second-hand clothes on the poorer people in various parts of the country who cannot afford it. I take it for granted that in this particular instance, and in the case of cotton socks, the Minister intends this to be a prohibitive tariff. Am I correct in that?
No.
In practice, so far as cotton socks, especially children's cotton socks are concerned, it means a tremendous increase. If the full value of the tariff is put on to cotton socks it will certainly mean a tremendous increase in price, especially of the cheapest class of cotton socks, which will be a great imposition on the very poor. Now it may mean an increase of from 4d. for a pair of socks up to 10d. at the very least, or possibly 1/-. The Minister says there is competition. Is the Minister prepared to make it clear that there is a supply of such cotton socks at the moment on the market for the poorer people? It was definitely stated, in the course of the debate a short time ago, that there is no such supply available so far as the ordinary shopkeeper of this country is concerned. Is the Minister in a position to say that there is a sufficient supply of such socks of a cheap character? I gather that he denies my figures as regards the increase in price. It was definitely stated in the House on the last occasion that there is not a sufficient supply available, that there will not be competition and that that being so, we must take it for granted that there will be an increase of more than the actual duty—an increase that will be a great deal more than the actual duty. I think the Minister ought to consider the effect that this tax on children's cotton socks will have on very poor families, and whether he intends it or not it does seem, in this particular case, to be a prohibitive tariff. I doubt very much whether there will be sufficient competition within the State not to prevent the full amount of the tariff being charged, and probably a great deal more as well. I am afraid that in this particular instance the question of the clothing of the very poor has been left out of account, and that the imposition that will be put on them will be very considerable. I doubt if the shopkeepers throughout the country will be in a position to supply to the poor people especially those socks at anything like the price that is being charged at present. I think the Minister is not justified in putting such a tariff on the particular goods to which I have referred.
The Minister to conclude.
On the question of second-hand clothing——
On a point of order. There is no question, I take it, of the Minister concluding.
Yes. This is Report Stage.
I would like to say a word on these tariffs. I could not make out, when Deputy O'Sullivan was speaking, if the Minister assented to Deputy O'Sullivan's statement that there is no source of supply in Saorstát Eireann for children's cotton socks.
The only interruption I made, in the course of the Deputy's statement, was in reply to a question as to whether the tariff on second-hand clothing was intended to be prohibitive.
Deputy O'Sullivan reminded the Minister that it had been alleged in this House that there was no source of supply in Saorstát Eireann for children's cotton socks, and asked him did he assert that there was a source of supply. Can the Minister now answer that question?
I will answer when replying.
The Minister does not like to expose his flank. Fortunately, on an earlier stage he did do so. Speaking on this Financial Resolution when it was introduced, I asked the Minister if it was "his intention to impose a duty of 6/- per dozen pairs on imported children's cotton half hose," and the Minister stated in reply: "On imported hose only." I then asked: "Does the Minister say that it is possible to get children's cotton socks manufactured in this country?" The Minister, in an indiscreet moment, answered "Yes." Well, it is not. The following evening —this is the kind of information the poor Minister appears to be getting and that I was waiting to get out of him the whole evening—the following appeared in the Evening Herald:—
"We saw a notice in your issue of yesterday, October 2nd, stating that children's socks were not made in the Irish Free State. This is not correct. We have always made children's socks and ¾-hose in Balbriggan, and only this year we have brought out a large range of new numbers and we have put down additional machinery to cope with the increased trade. We enclose you a couple of pairs of children's socks for your inspection. When we saw the paragraph in the Report of the Dáil proceedings we wrote to Mr. Dillon, T.D., as per enclosed letter. Yours, etc.,
Lewis Whyte,
Managing Director."
I want to say that while Lewis Whyte romped out into the open I did not bring him out. He is rather a decent man, but he has brought this on his own shoulders. In all my experience, and in all the Minister's experience, I do not suppose that he has ever heard of any person in trade publishing in a newspaper the details of a business transaction that he has had with a customer of his own firm. That is bad enough, but where you have a gentleman who is supposed to be an authority in the hosiery trade romping into print and showing himself to be entirely ignorant of the most elementary details of the trade it is very much worse. Now I have no doubt that the Drapers' Chamber of Trade will deal with Mr. Whyte in the proper way for his conduct. I must say, to his credit, that I have a letter of apology from Mr. Whyte for doing what he did and explaining that he never meant the letter to be published. Mr. Whyte knows the value of publicity, and he knows the cost of advertising per half-inch in the Evening Herald, but he succeeded by this little démarche in getting nine inches on what he imagines through publicity.
I raised the question of children's cotton hosiery, children's cotton socks. I want to tell the Minister and Mr. Whyte, incidentally, that he never made children's cotton socks and that he never alleged that he made children's cotton socks. He does not make them. Mr. Whyte went on in his letter to say that he sent me a range of samples of his products. Here is the list.
Did you keep the samples?
I sent them back to him carriage forward. This is a list of the commodities he had to offer, and mind you, this is for labouring people who are in the habit of getting a pair of children's socks for 4d. The list begins at 101/- per dozen, and goes down to the modest figure of 48/- per dozen. On another page the prices range from 25/11 to 12/11 per dozen pairs. I am discussing with the Minister cotton hose, the cost of which is 2/6 per dozen, and this is what he produces. That is the kind of information the Minister for Industry and Commerce is running a tariff policy on in this country. Mind you, there are many phases of business that I know he knows nothing about, and that I do not expect him to know anything about, but unless I am very much wrong the Minister for Industry and Commerce had the distinction of belonging to a trade to which I have also belonged, the gentlemen's outfitting trade. His name has been long and honourably known in the trade in this city, and he must know the difference between the variety of commodities to which I have referred in this debate. I say this, that there was available to the poor of this city and the country generally children's cotton socks at 4d. and 5d. per pair for which they will now have to pay 1/- per pair. I have known socks to be sold to the poor of this country for 3d. per pair. These socks will now cost them 9d. or 10d. per pair, so that the woman who went out with a shilling to get four pairs of children's socks to put on her children on a Sunday morning, will now have to pay a shilling for one pair. Take the case of the mother of a family in straitened circumstances who has been in the habit of wearing cotton hose. She could have got a very good pair for a shilling. I have no doubt Deputy Mrs. Concannon, with her knowledge of conditions in the City of Dublin, will be able to confirm what I said. A woman was able to get a wearable pair for 6d. That woman will now have to pay 1/- for a wearable pair, and 1/6 and 1/9 for a fairly good pair. There was a type of foreign cotton underwear — perhaps the Minister has heard of it, No. 1100—which was extensively sold in this city at 1/- a garment. There were thousands of dozens sold in Dublin to people who could not afford to pay more. That garment will now cost 1/6 to 1/8. It is not a question of these people going and paying something less; they will simply do without it. They cannot afford it. The Minister knows that. The Minister's own experience of the trade in this city must have taught him that there are large numbers of people who cannot afford to go beyond these prices. If prices rise above that, they have to do without. I could go through a further list of commodities which are exclusively used by the poor of the City of Dublin and of the country, which will now be unobtainable. To tell you the truth. I do not know what they will do to get an alternative. It is up to the Minister to say. It is also up to the Labour Party to make up their minds whether they are going to stand for that.
With regard to second-hand clothes, I raised the point mentioned by Deputy Murphy some time ago, about the danger of clothes being imported which were insufficiently disinfected. The question was fully investigated by the Department of Local Government and Public Health, by direction of the Minister, and the conclusion was that there was no reason for apprehension, that every reasonable precaution was taken and that, in fact, no evidence was forthcoming of a reliable character to confirm the suggestion that they could cause disease. To-day the Minister stated that the tariff to be imposed now is not prohibitive. That is absolute nonsense. The tariff to be imposed under this Resolution wipes out that trade absolutely. I am not so profoundly concerned as Deputy Murphy about persons engaged in the trade. I am concerned about the people who buy the clothes.
Mr. Murphy
I spoke about them, too.
I know. In the rural areas at the present time, conservatively speaking, 60 per cent. of the ready-made clothes people are buying are second-hand clothes. An overcoat can be got at what is called a stall for 8/- or 10/-. Anything like the same overcoat in a shop would cost from 30/- to £2 2s. 0d. These people cannot afford to pay £2 2s. for an overcoat, because they have not got the money. From the shopkeepers' point of view this tariff will be welcome to a large number of people. This tariff will be welcome to the ready-made clothes trade which has very largely gone from the shops. There is some strange glut of second-hand clothes in Scotland which are sold in this country for half nothing. I am told, although I cannot confirm the accuracy of the information, that last week a man went to Sligo to get a bale of clothes, for which he paid £28, and the customs officer demanded £129 duty, so he left it there. Let the Minister make no mistake, the tariff which he proposes to impose on second-hand clothing is absolutely prohibitive. That is bad enough from that point of view but Deputies would be amazed if they knew the quantities of ready-made clothing that go into country houses. Enormous quantities of ready-made clothes come to small farmers for their children. When I say children, I mean growing boys and growing girls. Duty will have to be paid on these clothes now and, of course, the country people will not pay it. I do not think any tariff the Minister has ever proposed has less justification. I will challenge a division on this tariff, and I hope I will have the support of Deputy Murphy. He knows the conditions that obtain, and knows that this tariff is going to impose a real hardship on poor people. I am sure I will have his support. This tariff will bring home to the mind of every Deputy what unrestricted and irresponsible tariffs mean. Tariffs can be usefully employed but, at the same time, they can do great damage. I think this will be an object lesson to a great many people of the hardships that tariffs imprudently applied can inflict.
The discussion concerning the second-hand clothing position is based, I think, upon a very definite misunderstanding. In the first place the Deputy should take into account the fact that there is a very substantial supply of second-hand clothing in this country, that people who are engaged in the business have got in stock, and in stores here, huge quantities of second-hand clothing, which were purchased, and which cannot be disposed of because of the exceedingly dishonest tactics of those engaged in importing clothing. The only "poor people" who are going to be hit by this tariff are a very small section of crooks who are at the present time exercising their ingenuity, with considerable success, in defrauding the revenue of this country, and driving honest people out of business. A very large number of those engaged in the second-hand clothing trade, who tried to run their business honestly, have been driven out because of the activities of people engaged in importing this clothing, in faking invoices, and adopting various devices which have absorbed a very large part of the time and the attention of the Revenue Commissioners in checking, and which have been successful in a number of cases. In the first place I want to emphasise that fact, that even if we stopped the importation of second-hand clothing there is still an adequate supply.
For how long?
It is only our peculiar geographical position, being in such close proximity to another country, which has a surplus, for which there is no market in any other country, that has led to this peculiar position. There is no fear of a shortage of second-hand clothes as far as they are required. The tariff is not prohibitive. That statement of mine is based upon the assumption that the values at which these clothes are imported represent the price paid for them, and taking that price into comparison with the price at which they are sold on the admission of the people selling them. Deputy Dillon talked about the overcoat being sold for 5/-. The people engaged in that trade submitted various figures.
I said 8/- or 10/-.
They are consigned here at 3d. and 4d. I have an actual invoice, utilised in connection with this business, which gives women's costumes at 2d., robes at 3d. and various other garments at different prices ranging up to 6d.—obviously faked invoices. If these people are really importing these goods at these prices and selling them at the prices which they admit, then they are making exorbitant profits, and if they are not importing them at these prices we have got to have some means of checking them and preventing them from defrauding the revenue. If these garments are being sold at the prices which these people say they get and imported at the prices which they say they are paying for them, then the imposition of the minimum duty which we propose should not necessitate a rise in price if these people are going to be satisfied with, say, a 50 per cent. profit on their business; but if they are not buying them at the prices at which they say they are buying them, then there is the position in which it is our duty to intervene to prevent fraud, not merely on the revenue but on the unfortunate people who have to buy these garments. If there are people, bona fide traders, as there are a number of them, engaged in the sale of second-hand clothing which has been patched and reconditioned throughout the country, who fear for their supplies, I refer them to the different houses in the different cities and towns where such clothing is likely to be obtainable and they will find there adequate stocks to maintain their supplies for a considerable time. I refer particularly to the South of Ireland, because definite information was given to me by pawnbrokers in Cork City, where it is no longer possible for them to make advances on second-hand clothing pledged with them because of the sheer impossibility of selling these garments afterwards in competition with the second-hand clothing coming in from Glasgow. It all comes from Glasgow and from a very small number of firms established over here which ring the changes between themselves.
There were undoubtedly here in the City of Dublin honest firms doing the business of importing second-hand clothing and submitting genuine invoices to the Revenue Commissioners. Most of them have gone out of existence. I mentioned here when the Resolution was before us for the first time that after we reduced the duty of 25 per cent. upon second-hand clothing a meeting of these people was held in Glasgow to consider the new situation in which one foolish person suggested that they would submit honest invoices in future, and he was laughed at. There is no secret about it. Anybody who knows anything about that trade knows that it is being conducted on these lines. On the representations of the pawnbrokers alone, and knowing that they should be able to make advances on the clothing pledged with them and for the purpose of securing that persons engaged in this trade will engage in it in a bona fide manner, there is a case to be made out. There is a case to be made on that alone, but the case is strengthened because it is necessary to impose an import duty on new clothing. So long as we had only an ad valorem duty on clothing imported new, we could deal leisurely with the second-hand stuff, but when we have altered that by imposing a prohibitive flat rate duty on new clothing coming in from Poland, Russia and other countries, it is essential that we impose a small duty on second-hand clothing unless it is to be open to frauds of all kinds. As a matter of fact, new clothing is coming in as second-hand clothing. The coat of a suit comes in in one bale, the waistcoat in another and the trousers in another bale. They are imported separately as second-hand goods and afterwards put together and sold as new. The position is that the imposition of this minimum duty will protect the bona fide trader and secure for him the ability to continue to trade knowing that he will only pay the same duty as his competitor has to pay, no matter how clever his competitor may be or no matter what connection there is between the Saorstát importer and the Glasgow exporter. They will all have an even break. Supplies of second-hand clothing now available in the country will be cleared and the development of fraud will be prevented.
As to Deputy Murphy's suggestion that a tax should be imposed not per garment but by weight, I can only say that the conditions under which the trade is carried on make the suggestion completely impracticable. If garments were supplied in separate bales according to their contents, one bale, say, containing only men's overcoats and another containing only women's silk dresses or women's robes, it might be practicable, but, as it is, in one bale you get a man's overcoat and, say, a silk dress and it would be obviously unfair to levy the same duty by weight on a lady's silk dress and a man's overcoat. A duty applied by weight could not be leviable at all. I have had the matter examined and I do not think it is practicable, nor do I think it would be right to levy the same rate of duty upon a second-hand suit, almost new, as would be leviable on a second-hand suit that is nearly worn out.
How are going to differentiate between them now?
The ad valorem duty will remain and if it exceeds the flat rate the duty will have to be paid ad valorem. I have very little doubt that we will not collect much more under the ad valorem rate anyway. On the question of cotton socks, they are being made here.
Children's cotton socks?
Yes.
By whom?
First of all, there are two kinds of cotton socks. There is the fashioned sock and the seamless sock. Up to recently only the fashioned sock was made here but now seamless socks are being made here. The position is that when machinery which is now being installed is in production we will have 1,200 dozen pairs a week of children's seamless socks being produced here at prices from 4/6 a dozen upwards.
2/6.
It is true that they are coming in from Japan for 2/6. One can buy a pair of socks made in Japan for 3d. retail. We cannot do that. We can only do that by paying our workers the same rate of wages as is paid in Japanese hosiery factories. I do not think anybody would contemplate that but if we are going to allow these goods to come in here in competition with the goods in our factories we can abandon the idea of manufacturing them here. These cotton socks are being produced here as cheaply as in England. In so far as the English standard of life compares with ours, we can maintain ourselves in the hosiery trade against the English firms in respect of particular kinds of hosiery goods. In fact, production here in some lines is more efficient than in England and cheaper costs have been realised mainly due to the fact that the hosiery factories which have been developing here have been able to instal the very latest in machinery. No doubt, the English factories will instal the same machines and are at the present time installing them, but because of the fact that the industry here is, to a large extent, newly established, at any rate in respect of a large number of lines, the very latest in equipment and factory layout have been adopted and in certain lines a cheaper industrial cost has been secured. I know that on the admission of directors of prominent English hosiery firms with whom I have been in conversation. In respect of the cotton socks, the price here is much the same as in Great Britain. Seamless socks are being produced in at least two factories in the country; there are other factories producing children's socks but not necessarily all of cotton. In Balbriggan, at the present time, a new battery of machines for the production of 600,000 pairs a week of children's cotton socks is being installed. In a factory in Cork a similar installation has in part been made, and is in part being made, to enable a similar production to take place and there is no doubt whatever that the hosiery manufacturers here are quite enterprising and will make anything for which there is a market. They have shown no hesitation whatever to embark on any capital expenditure required for that purpose. These goods, however, can never be made here at all unless we are prepared to make up our minds that the Japanese goods which are coming in here at a very low price and disturbing not merely this but every European Government so that every European Government is taking action at present to exclude them, are kept out.
Recently, the general indication appears to be that the demand for cotton socks is falling off. When the Japanese cotton socks came first on the market, they secured a very big sale but now traders say that there is a big falling off in the demand and, of course, that takes place particularly at this time of the year when the winter is coming on. That is why this time of the year was chosen for the imposition of this duty because there is bound to be a certain dislocation of trade following it. By the time the demand has again reached its maximum, there will be more than sufficient of these socks being produced in the country.
What about women's cotton hose?
All classes of hose are being produced here. The only class of hosiery goods in respect of which there was a deficiency in production in relation to requirements was children's cotton socks and men's cotton undergarments. The machinery for the production of these has been or is now being installed in a number of factories consequent on the imposition of this duty, and the production will meet the demand. My reason for that statement is that I had these men in my office, and I got from them an assurance that the capital expenditure and the installation of machinery necessary to produce the full requirements would be immediately undertaken by them. They have, in fact, carried out that undertaking quite satisfactorily.
May I ask the Minister —because this is a matter of vital importance—if they gave him an estimate of the figure at which they could produce women's cotton hosiery and men's cotton underwear?
Yes, but I cannot recollect the figure at the moment. We had the figures at the time—the price at which these are produced in Great Britain and at which they could be produced here, which is the same price. There is, of course, no reason why it should be any dearer. There is the same machinery, if not better machinery and, generally speaking, the same rate of wages being paid to the workers.
Did the Minister ask them to compare their prices with Dutch prices?
No.
The Minister is aware that the bulk of the cotton socks comes from Holland?
Stuff is coming from the Continent occasionally at extraordinary prices, but it is mainly due to the disposal of surplus stocks and the getting rid of stocks of goods in lines that have been abandoned for new lines or something of that kind. I had produced to me a lady's silk stocking with a clock down the side which is being imported here at 6/- a dozen, and it cost that to put the clock on in this country, so that obviously it was impossible for our firms to produce the goods in competition with that. The clock has to be put on by hand. There is no machine yet invented for doing it.
I think that Deputies can be quite satisfied that the hosiery industry in this country which is expanding very rapidly will expand to any extent necessary. The various firms engaged in it have been purchasing and installing machinery at a considerable rate during the year. To the extent to which there has been a delay in securing the full production required, it has been due to difficulties in the commercial situation and, perhaps, in some cases, to the fact that selling organisations were not properly developed or properly controlled. These are difficulties inevitable in an expanding industry and once they have been overcome, we can hope to get the entire hosiery requirements of this country supplied from our own mills and possibly, in certain circumstances, recover some of the export trade in hosiery goods which we had some years ago.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 38.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Flinn, Hugo. V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- 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.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Coburn, James.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Tray nor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.