Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jun 1934

Vol. 53 No. 6

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 1—Governor-General's Establishment.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,496 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana der críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1935, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Teaghlachas an tSeanascail (Uimh. 14 de 1923).

That a sum not exceeding £1,496 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Governor-General's Establishment (No. 14 of 1923).

Mr. MacDermot

I move: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration." This is a very remarkable Estimate to be presented to this House for approval by the Party opposite, whether we think of them as a Party passionately eager for economy, or as a Party engaged upon breaking all the shackles with which this nation is afflicted, or as a Party devoted to the proletarian point of view and objecting in principle to anything like a Governor-General. Large numbers of the Party opposite are absent to-day, presumably engaged in galloping around the country boasting of their performances and of their intentions in the matter of breaking shackles. They could be more usefully employed here. The shackle breakers could be doing their stuff on this Estimate, of which the House is asked to approve. It has got to be realised that apart from the sums included in this Estimate there is paid to the Governor-General a salary of £2,000 out of the Central Fund, and furthermore a sum of £190 is paid in respect of the expenses of the Gárda Síochána; £35 in respect of Posts and Telegraphs; £25, stationery and offices supplies, and £5 for printing. I suggest that for what the Governor-General does the sums that are provided outside this Estimate are more than adequate and that the sums contained in this Estimate are a sheer waste of the taxpayers' money. In the total, £2,246, they include £621 for household staff; £1,200, allowances for expenses; £75 for travelling expenses; £50 for telegrams and telephones, and £300 allowance for a motor car. It is not even as if he had to pay the chauffeur, for the chauffeur is provided by the Gárda Síochana and the payment to him is borne on that Vote.

Where is the need of any one of these items? The functions of the Governor-General are, on the one hand, clerical, and, on the other hand, ceremonial. The clerical functions are of the most modest description. Nobody would think of paying anybody more than a few hundred pounds a year for clerical work corresponding either in volume or the nature of the work to that performed by the Governor-General. What about the ceremonial duties? Owing to the policy of the present Government no ceremonial duties were left to the Governor-General except the reception of Ministers representing Foreign States. That last remaining ceremonial duty is now being undertaken by the President of the Executive Council, who has overcome any objections he might have been expected to entertain towards acting as personal representative of His Majesty the King when new Ministers arrive.

Where then is the need of these new sums of money we are asked to provide for the Governor-General? Why is there a need for a household staff? What are the expenses for which we are asked to provide £1,200 a year? What is the occasion for travelling expenses and for telegrams and telephones; and for what purpose does the Governor-General use a motor car? So far as we know the Governor-General is somewhat in the position of what used to be called a remittance man, the black sheep of a family who was despatched to Canada or Australia and paid so much a year on the strict condition that he never came back to this country. In the same way the Governor-General is marooned out in, I think, Monkstown. The most important feature of his duties is that he is to remain invisible. He can do that much better by sitting at home in his parlour than by driving about in his motor car for which we are asked to pay £300 in addition to his chauffeur. This Estimate strikes me as simply preposterous. I am not to be taken as holding that there should be no such office as that of Governor-General. I consider that the Governor-General can perform very useful functions. In the first place, from the point of view of anybody who believes in the Commonwealth connection——

An Ceann Comhairle

I just want to make the position clear. It has been the unbroken procedure of this House that on this Vote the actions and functions of the Governor-General may not be discussed. Indeed, it has been laid down that the actions and functions of the Governor-General may not be discussed in this House at all. This is the Vote for the Governor-General's Establishment. His salary is not on this Vote. It is on the Central Fund, and is to that extent, statutory. The Deputy, so far as he relates his remarks to the establishment is in order and under the terms of Article 60 might refer to the question of "suitable provision." The point to which the Deputy refers might have been properly raised on the Vote of the President of the Executive Council on which the Government's general policy was open to debate. This Vote bears no relation to Government policy.

Mr. MacDermot

I do not propose to say anything more about the actions of the Governor-General. I do not know if I can, strictly speaking, be said to have talked about his actions. I am not proposing to say anything more about his actions, but if there is any point in putting the establishment of the Governor-General before the House at all it is legitimate to consider what the purpose of the establishment is.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is exactly the point which has been decided on many occasions, both by my predecessor and myself. That is the very point which Deputies were precluded from discussing.

Mr. MacDermot

I am not proposing to raise a discussion about the relations between England and Ireland.

An Ceann Comhairle

No. The status of the Governor-General, his salary and actions were definitely ruled out of the discussion on this Estimate.

Mr. MacDermot

That may have been ruled, but I do not remember——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair need not give references, but the Deputy might look up Volume 39, column 366 and onwards, where he will find very definite rulings on this matter.

Mr. MacDermot

I accept that completely. The Governor-General has certain functions which we will not discuss, as it has been ruled that they could not be discussed. It does seem to me, however, if I might say so with great respect, that there has been a change in his functions, in his activities and so on. I should think it might be argued at least that when the functions or activities of the holder of a certain office are changed, the mere fact that there is that change made raises a different situation. First of all, the functions are different from what they were and, consequently, I personally would like to talk about the change in function of the Governor-General. It is not the actual function which he fulfils but the transition from one condition to another which has taken place within the last year.

An Ceann Comhairle

There was an opportunity of discussing the whole question on the President's Vote when Government policy was discussed. The Deputy would be in order in arguing that this Vote is not required, but he may not discuss the functions of the Governor-General. Whether the status has been changed does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. MacDermot

I only want to say a very few words. You will, no doubt, stop me if I transgress. What I want to say is that I would not object to the Vote for that establishment if certain objects that I can think of as desirable were, in fact, being attained by having that establishment. One of those objects would be what I might call liaison with the various parts of the Commonwealth. I have always doubted whether it was a wise policy for us to have an Irishman as Governor-General. I am quite sure that it would not be a wise policy to have an Englishman as Governor-General for obvious reasons, because of the reactions that it would provoke among portions of our population. It does seem to me, however, that it would be a good plan if, say, a French-Canadian or an Irish-Australian or a South African were Governor-General here, and if that sort of interchange were the general practice throughout the Commonwealth, in order that cordiality of relationship might be furthered by having Governor-Generals from various parts of the Commonwealth operating in that way. Secondly, if the Governor-General's establishment were a sort of centre of culture, if it was a focus for the culture of the country generally, if it was a place where people were brought together who had intellectual interests, and if it helped to further education, the spread of knowledge and culture in this country, I would consider that desirable. If, again, the Governor-General's establishment was a place where members of political Parties were brought into friendly relation with each other, where an effort was made to appease political passions—the King serves such a purpose in England, for instance, as between various political Parties—if there was an establishment of an official kind in this country where those opposed to each other in politics would meet normally and inevitably on a friendly basis I think that that would be a very great gain to the political life of this country. Finally, as a matter of interesting the more uneducated of the population in the State, of attaching them to the State, exciting their enthusiasm about the maintenance of ordered and dignified conditions, if there was a certain display of ceremonial that appeals to the mind of the people, I would think that that was a desirable thing that would justify the expenditure of such sums of money as are proposed in this Estimate.

But, things being as they are, I come back to the position that the money we are asked to vote in this Estimate is going to serve no useful purpose. It is a sheer imposition on the taxpayer for which he gets no return. I cannot imagine what the object of it is, even from the point of view of members of the Party opposite, seeing that a very adequate salary has been provided for the Governor-General out of the Central Fund.

Mr. Cooney

The old days of pomp and splendour again.

Mr. Minch

I hope the President, when replying to Deputy MacDermot, will tell us something about the status, functions and actions of the Governor-General.

An Ceann Comhairle

He will not be allowed.

Mr. Minch

That being so, this debate on the Governor-General's Estimate is going to be confined within a very narrow margin indeed and there will be very little to say from any part of the House. I had hopes that I would be able to make use of this occasion as I did last year, but your ruling, Sir, will always be treated with the greatest respect by us on this side of the House, and I presume by every member. In the meantime, I suggest that the way to eliminate this Estimate from future discussions in this House and to prevent it from being introduced again this time next year is for the President boldly and manfully to abolish the office of Governor-General.

Mr. Fitzgerald

By the Constitution, or by the law of this country, there is a Governor-General who is head of the State and who has a salary of £10,000 per year. Year after year there was an Estimate for the Governor-General's establishment presented here which was very severely criticised, not only here, but all over the country. We had the sort of remark that Deputy Cooney threw out a while ago about pomp and all the rest of it. To my mind, it is necessary, or at least desirable, in every State that there should be a head of the State who is somewhat detached from the political Parties, from the political turmoils of the State, to whom is attached what Deputy Cooney would call a certain amount of pomp, what Deputy MacDermot calls ceremonial and what I would call a certain amount of symbolism. As the situation was, the £10,000 a year and the other payments were made and, except those people who dishonestly wish to misrepresent the situation, one knew exactly what the purpose was and one knew also that that purpose was fulfilled. It is a tact that the present Governor-General is drawing more money for himself than the late Governor-General.

An Ceann Comhairle

The salary of the Governor-General is not on this Vote.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I did not mention salary; I said more money for himself. The part of this Vote that I have in mind is the allowance to the Governor-General for expenses. Previously there was also an allowance for expenses. The allowance for expenses has in mind expenses which necessarily flow and arise from the fulfilment of the office. I maintain that, under the previous régime, it was demonstrable that certain expenses necessarily flowed from the performance of the office. As a matter of fact, the Revenue Commissioners considered the salary and, going into the accounts, realised that £6,000 of the salary went in expenses arising out of the office, leaving only £4,000. I think it was last year the President informed us that, whereas previously £10,000 was paid, now only £2,000 is paid. That £2,000 in some very complicated fashion——

An Ceann Comhairle

Being salary, to which the Deputy stated he would not again refer.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I am very sorry, Sir. I merely want to point out that, if you take this allowance to the Governor-General for expenses, I think that even the President would not deny, but will rather glory in the fact that the arrangement he has made precludes the Governor-General from having expenses in relation to his office. I have no doubt everyone of us in our private lives may give tea parties for our families or something like that, but I understand that the allowance for the Governor-General cannot include a tea party in relation to his office because he is not permitted to do such a thing.

I do not want to transgress, but I would have liked to point out that if we take the £1,200 and add to it £2,000 we get £3,200. The late Governor-General was assessed for income tax on £4,000 and the income tax amounted to £1,006, leaving less than £3,000. Here we have the case of a Governor-General who has no expenses whatever. I understand a house is provided for him. We have salaries, wages and allowances of a household staff and an allowance for expenses, all coming to £1,821. We have this sum of £1,821 plus some salary which is not here, plus travelling expenses and a motor car. Normally we recognise that anybody who becomes a Deputy has certain expenses that he would not have in private life. If a person becomes a Minister he has still more expenses than he would have as an ordinary Deputy. If he becomes the President one recognises it is quite conceivable under ordinary circumstances that he would have more expenses than a Minister. The Governor-General, as conceived by the Constitution, would rightly and necessarily and properly have more expenses than any of the categories I have mentioned. But in the last year or so a complete change has taken place and the Governor-General draws whatever he does draw for the purpose of doing nothing in relation to his office except sign Bills. Consequently, he has no expenses whatsoever. I defy any member of the Party opposite to indicate any expense that he has by virtue of his office that he would not have as an ordinary private person.

What is the purpose of all these payments here? He gets £1,200 for expenses independent of money that comes under the Central Fund. He has £621 for salaries, wages and allowances of the household staff. What is it all for? Originally it was recognised here, as is done in every civilised country and as is recognised by all civilised people as necessary— of course, it is recognised as undesirable by Deputy Cooney—that there must be a certain dignity, a certain symbolism in relation to holders of such a high public office; but here the whole policy of the Government is rather to degrade this office. The only argument I ever heard for degrading the symbolic figure in this State—and that is, to my mind, a form of sedition—is the saving of money. Now, we come here and we are asked in this impoverished and certainly overtaxed country to impose taxation on our people to hand over to a person who only nominally holds an office which was intended by the fundamental law of this country to be conducted in a certain way.

The Government, in defiance of the Constitution and in defiance of the loyalty and obedience of those who are anxious to defend the State from any attempts to degrade and defame it, asks us in effect to vote money out of the people's pockets as a sort of compensation for indignity. Heretofore the Governor-General's Vote was regarded as a necessary payment for dignity. We are now asked by the Government to tax the people for indignity. It is a scandal that we should be asked to spend these moneys in this way. What is achieved by it? The President will say that he would like to get rid of the Governor-General's office, but in view of the Treaty and the Constitution he is not able to do it. What is he doing but actually trying to get behind the Constitution, to reverse the Constitution and to make what the Constitution intended to be dignity, nothing but indignity? It is absolutely scandalous. When the Governor-General had a very important function in this State —of course, Deputy Cooney would not understand its importance—he was actually paid less than the present holder draws.

We are asked to increase the emoluments of the Governor-General. Why? What purpose is served? Suppose none of the money was voted; suppose the Dáil, facing up to its responsibilities as custodian of the people's purse, refuses to pay any penny on this Vote, could the President say that the refusal to pay that money interfered with the fulfilment of a necessary function, a function which he himself would rather was not fulfilled, but which is made necessary by reason of the Constitution? If not one penny is voted, still much more money will be spent upon this office than should be spent in view of the condition in which the office is now. That, to my mind, is completely unarguable. There is no work, no function, no dignity attaching to this office. There is no need whatsoever to pay any money at all. We are already paying ten or twenty times as much as should be paid out of the Central Fund. The President asks us to give another £2,246 on top of the money that we are already pitching into the gutter. One can argue whether there should or should not be such an office.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not arguable on this Vote, neither is the salary, which the Deputy has again mentioned.

Mr. Fitzgerald

It was a sort of rhetorical remark of mine. I cannot see how any justification can be put forward for this payment. These moneys are not necessary to dignity or to the fulfilment of any function. They are purely gratuitous payments which the President may possibly be paying in order to salve his own conscience for degrading a human being into a position which it is almost unfit for any human being to occupy.

An Ceann Comhairle

The position of the Governor-General and his status are not relevant.

Mr. Fitzgerald

All I want to point out to the House and to the country is that in voting this £2,246 it would be just as well to pitch that money into the gutter. It is a crime against the Irish people to bring this Vote in here. Not one State function, not one additional attribute of dignity will be removed by the complete refusal of the House to pay the money. There is no need for it. It is a gratuitous payment out of the pockets of the Irish people into some fund or to some person. It is purely a personal matter for the President. If that money requires to be paid I suggest that the President ought to pay it out of his personal pocket instead of having it come from the public purse.

Mr. Minch

Will the President tell the people of Kildare that the Governor-General is in good health and strength?

Mr. Bennett

I should like to add my protest also against the amount of this Vote. As Deputy Fitzgerald pointed out, this Vote originally was intended to provide for an establishment on a much more pretentious scale, to say the least of it, than that on which it is now carried on and, to those of us on this side of the House at least, it certainly appears that the amount of the Vote here is not necessary for the establishment as it exists at present. When one is presented with a Vote like this for the establishment of such a person, one has to envisage that there is such an office as that of the Governor-General. As far as any ostensible evidence of the actual existence of the holder of this particular position is concerned, there is none apparent to the ordinary citizen. I, personally, as a Deputy, am not aware that the Governor-General—I will not say exists; I know that he is a very respectable man and I hope he exists—but as far as I personally am concerned, I have no evidence that he is in the country or that he has been in the country for a long time. The majority of citizens have hardly any evidence of his existence.

When we are presented with a bill of £2,246 for the establishment of a certain officer of this State, we do envisage that he is a man of importance and that his establishment is a place where one might expect to find him. We certainly envisage him as an important person in the State. As it happens, as I say, we do not know. As far as I know—I only know it from hearsay—the Governor-General lives very quietly somewhere in the suburbs of Dublin. I think it is at Monkstown, but I am not sure. I know that he lives a very estimable and quiet life away from the people, that he has not an extravagant expenditure to meet, and that there is certainly nothing in connection with his establishment that requires a large expenditure of money. For instance, I see here—and I say it without any bad motives—that £150 is provided for a chaplain. Originally, under the large establishment of the former Governor-General a chaplain was necessary, but I do not see how the present Governor-General, living quietly as he does live, and under the present circumstances, has any more need for a private chaplain than, say, the President has. In fact, I think it would be much more apt that the President should have a chaplain. He certainly——

Mr. MacDermot

Needs absolution?

Mr. Bennett

Well, no, I would not say that, but he certainly has a more onerous job and has a lot more to do than the Governor-General. I could envisage, quite possibly, a period when the President, with his numerous and arduous duties, would find it difficult to attend Service on a Sunday. It would be possible that the President, having so much to do, might need to have a clergyman at hand, but one does not at the moment see the necessity for providing a chaplain for the Governor-General. I presume, and, as a matter of fact, I know, that the Governor-General is a very estimable and good-living man, but that does not make it any more necessary for him to have a private chaplain at the present time than for the President to have one; nor does it make it any more necessary than it would be for any Deputy of this House that he should be provided with a private secretary to perform the duties which he does now at £285 a year, which I notice is an increase of £15 over last year. I do not say that the private secretary should not have that salary. Then there is an allowance to the secretary of £75. Lastly, there is a bonus of £111, and it does not say to whom the bonus goes.

A Deputy

It might be the chaplain.

Mr. Bennett

Yes, it might be the chaplain. I do not know who gets the bones of the establishment, but somebody gets the bonus. Then there is a provision of £1,200 for the maintenance of the official residence and establishment of the Governor-General. Now, there are many residences in this State kept up unofficially at a very high standard, which give huge entertainments, provide employment for a lot of people, buy a lot of goods from shopkeepers, and so on, and certainly their expenses would not amount to more than £1,200. We have no evidence that the Governor-General keeps such an establishment or that it is necessary.

Mr. Minch

The Deputy is jealous.

Mr. Bennett

I am not a bit jealous. I have no need for such things and hope I never will have, and certainly not at the public expense. Apart from that, however, the Governor-General must be a very busy man because I see that his bill for telegrams and telephones comes to £50. To whom he is telegraphing or telephoning, I do not know. I do my duty as well as any other Deputy and £50 would do me for I do not know how long for telephones and telegrams. Does the Governor-General telephone to the President every second day to say: "You have copped another bit of my job, and I think you should leave me at least some little nominal part of my job to enable me to hang on to some of these little perquisites here for the maintenance of my establishment?" I can imagine him saying to the President: "Now, be careful. You allowed me £2,246 last year and if you take away any more parts of my job the public will demand that you withdraw that money."

An Ceann Comhairle

I submit that the Deputy should not pursue that argument.

Mr. Bennett

With all due respect. Sir, I do not think I am out of order. I may be making rather a ridicule of the position, if you like.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will just leave it to the Deputy himself.

Mr. Bennett

Possibly, I may be making it a matter of ridicule, but I maintain that it is a serious matter and that the ridiculous aspect of the matter consists in presenting a bill for £2,246 for the maintenance of an establishment by a person who does not, to all intents and purposes, keep up an establishment necessitating such an expenditure—for the maintenance of an establishment by a person of whom we have no evidence that he is even in the country at the present moment. A good many Deputies do not know whether he is there or not or whether he has been there for a long time. I, for one, do not know and many citizens have no knowledge of when the Governor-General was there or even of what he looks like, because many citizens never saw him. One would imagine that a person who gets so much for the maintenance of his residence would be a person that would be seen some time. In the name of every kind of commonsense, and from the ridiculous point of view if you like, I protest against the expenditure of this particular amount of this establishment.

Mr. Cooney

If we could only get back to the days of Lord Dudley.

An Ceann Comhairle

The President to conclude.

Mr. MacDermot

On a point of order, is it customary on these Estimates to call on the Minister to conclude?

An Ceann Comhairle

No other Deputy rose. The practice has been in such circumstances to call on the Minister to conclude.

Mr. MacDermot

I was under the impression that it would be open to Deputies——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister concludes on his Estimate, except, of course, in the case of a closure. That has been the recognised procedure.

Mr. MacDermot

It is the result of custom rather than standing orders.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is so.

The President

It is extraordinary that the very brave people we have on the opposite benches would not take their courage in their hands by coming along with a proposition to negative this Vote. It would be more definite than asking to have it referred back for reconsideration. Why is it that those people who look for so much courage on our part are themselves so timid? Is it not quite obvious that this method of dealing with the Estimate is resorted to because they would not take responsibility? They might suddenly find that the Government would agree with them, and that the money would not be provided. This Vote is introduced because by an Article of the Constitution an officer, called the Governor-General, is necessary for certain things, the signing of Bills and matters of that kind. The Constitution provides that an officer of this sort should be provided with a salary of a like amount to that which is provided for the Governor-General of Australia, £10,000 a year. That difficulty has been got over in our case by the officer in question returning a sum of £8,000 to the Treasury. By the Constitution we are also compelled to make provision for the upkeep of his establishment. Now, we have, from the opposite benches, the complaint that this money is being voted for an officer who, in fact, performs no real necessary function. We agree, and it is our determination to end that office, and to end money being provided for it with all possible speed. It is remarkable that the very people who criticise this expenditure did not criticise an expenditure of five times the amount formerly. Oh, of course the former occupant performed very necessary functions. He went to occasional race meetings and things of that sort. These were very necessary functions, and it was necessary to provide a sum of £25,000 for salary and expenses in the year before we got into office. Since we came into office there has been a reduction of the amount by £21,430. A further saving, which does not appear on the Estimates has been effected since the Estimates were printed, arising from the appointment of an officer of lower grade than previously as private secretary. In spite of all these savings the country is to be told that the sum provided here is too much, and that these functions which the former Governor-General exercised were so valuable to the country that it was worth paying over £25,000 for them. The sum provided was £25,665 in 1931-32.

I ask any Deputy, and I ask the people of the country, to judge whether the extra functions would be worth the difference between the total sum provided, of £4,000 odd, and the £25,000. Our attitude towards the whole office is known. We would get rid of it to-morrow if there were not certain obligations involved in the Treaty, in the first instance, and in the Constitution, in the second instance. It is our hope to end them. We think they are ridiculous. The very title Governor-General is obnoxious to the whole Irish people. If people in other countries regard themselves as developing from a certain Colonial status, and if they are satisfied with Governor-Generals, as I have said previously, that is their affair. We are not satisfied with that position. It is our intention with all possible speed to change that, and as a preliminary to getting rid of it completely, we took the step of depriving it of as many functions as possible, leaving only those that we could not, at the moment, readily get rid of. We got rid of certain functions, and there are Bills to get rid of others. There is the difficulty of the immediate signing of Bills. We think that even that can be got over, and the moment we have arranged to get rid of these functions, we can get rid of the office as a whole. I am afraid I have been led into a speech on this debate.

An Ceann Comhairle

Straying from the path.

The President

I wish that this matter was raised where we could properly discuss it, and that was on my Vote, when the whole policy with regard to the office could have been dealt with. Certainly if it were, and if Deputy MacDermot made the suggestion I heard him making this evening, which you, Sir, ruled out of order, I would have something to say.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is better that we should get the whole truth when dealing with a matter of this sort.

An Ceann Comhairle

I called upon the President to conclude as no other Deputy offered even after an appreciable pause. I have made the position clear on several occasions. Up to 1927 I know of no instance in which the Minister did not conclude on his Estimate. Since 1926, on two occasions, apart from those in which the closure was given, a Minister did not conclude. I shall consequently put the question. A question may be asked now, but there must be no further debate.

Mr. Cosgrave

I was not aware that you had called upon the President to conclude. On page 50 of the Estimates there is an item of £3,924 for the ex-Viceregal Lodge. That sum is included in the saving of £21,000, so that the £21,000 is reduced by £4,000.

The President

No.

Mr. Cosgrave

What then?

The President

That has been already dealt with on another Vote.

Mr. Cosgrave

And that much more money has been spent. Would the President explain what is the allowance to the Governor-General for expenses for?

The President

Expenses of the upkeep of the place where he is.

Mr. Cosgrave

For a single individual?

The President

If we provide a residence of the type provided, is it not quite obvious that you must have some amount in order to deal with it?

Mr. Cosgrave

He has £2,000 of a salary and £1,200 expenses. What are they?

The President

Every one of them is there in detail.

Mr. MacEntee

If the President will permit me, I will explain.

An Ceann Comhairle

The debate may not be reopened.

Question put: "That the Vote be referred back."

The Committee divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 41.

Tá

• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Curran, Richard.
• Davitt, Robert Emmet.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, John.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Holohan, Richard.
• Keating, John.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Reilly, John Joseph.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reidy, James.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Níl

• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Carty, Frank.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamonn.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Donnelly, Eamon.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moore, Séamus.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.

Question declared lost.

Vote put and declared carried.