Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Dec 1934

Vol. 54 No. 6

In Committee on Finance. - Financial Resolution No. 3. —Stamp Duties.

I move:—

1. That the several enactments specified in the Schedule to this Resolution shall be repealed as and from the 1st day of April, 1935, to the extent mentioned in the third column of that Schedule.

2. That every exemption from stamp duty arising under any enactment (whether public, general, local or private) by virtue of the incorporation, application, or extension by such enactment of any of the enactments to be repealed in pursuance of this Resolution shall cease to have effect as on and from the 1st day of April, 1935.

3. That every instrument or other document bearing date as of or after the 1st day of April, 1935, which would, but for this Resolution, have been exempt from stamp duty by virtue of an enactment to be repealed or of an exemption to cease in pursuance of this Resolution shall be chargeable with stamp duty under the appropriate provision of the Stamp Act, 1891.

SCHEDULE.

Session and Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

6 & 7 Will. IV, c. 116.

Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836.

Section 168, to the words “mentioned therein.”

1 & 2 Vic., c. 53.

County Treasurers (Ireland) Act, 1838.

Section 1.

1 & 2 Vic., c. 56.

Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838.

Section 96.

7 & 8 Vic., c. 106.

County Dublin Grand Jury Act, 1844.

Section 148, to the words “mentioned therein.”

9 & 10 Vic., c. 60.

Grand Jury Cess Act, 1846.

The whole Act.

42 & 43 Vic., c. 25.

Dispensary Houses (Ireland) Act, 1879.

Section 14.

This Resolution is designed to remedy a serious leakage of revenue, and to remove anomalies in the administration of the stamp duty law in its application to local authorities. Under the provisions of the Act of 1838 and certain other Acts relating to local administration, certain documents such as road contracts, executed by local authorities in connection with local government administration, are treated as being exempt from stamp duty. Originally the only documents which were exempt were those relating to funds in regard to poor law relief and such cognate purposes; but, owing to administrative action and the statutory application of poor rate machinery to the collection of other rates, the exemption has been extended far beyond the limit originally intended. For instance, the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930, applied the poor rate machinery to the collection of Dublin and Dun Laoghaire rates, and a claim by the Dublin Corporation for exemption from stamp duty on these rates was upheld by the High Court and the Appeal Court. More recently, it has been extended to the collection of rates under the management of the City of Limerick Act of last year. There is no reason why these three bodies should be in a privileged position as compared with other local authorities. There is no reason why documents of one local authority more than any other should be generally exempt. It is, therefore, proposed under this Resolution that in future stamp duty shall be paid by all local authorities in the same way as other bodies of persons.

Will the Minister say the amount of money that will be raised in this way (1) from county boroughs, (2) the county councils, and (3) the urban district councils?

About £2,000 in all. I am not giving the details, but if the Deputy will put down a question I will have the information for him.

That is to say, the Minister has not considered, in imposing this tax, how it is going to fall on the county councils.

Does the Minister give it that the estimate to be derived from this Financial Resolution will not be more than £2,000?

He must be very hard up.

It is not a question of being hard up; it is a matter of a uniform process. There is no reason why these bodies should be exempt.

What would the alternative suggestion cost?

I do not know.

Then you are hard up.

I take it that the bulk of this money will be collected from the Corporations of Dublin, Limerick, and, I think the Minister said, Cork?

No; Dublin, Dun Laoghaire and Limerick. They are the three most recent exemptions. They are the three cases in which, owing to the application of the poor rate machinery to the collection of the ordinary rate, this exemption went to the ratepayers with the introduction of the machinery.

Then, in fact, the purpose of this is to upset the decision of the courts. It means that the courts decided the wrong way and, accordingly, we are to introduce ad hoc legislation to right them.

That is not so.

The Minister has just admitted to this House that the Revenue Commissioners interpreted the matter in one way and the Corporation in another way. They joined issue on that—the ratepayers on the one hand and the Revenue Commissioners on the other. The High Court gave a decision in favour of the ratepayers. The Revenue Commissioners then went to the Supreme Court and they, again, gave the decision in favour of the ratepayers. Whereupon, the Revenue Commissioners said: "You have forgotten that in litigation with us it is always a matter of heads we win, tails you lose." The Revenue Commissioners, in effect, said: "We have the Minister for Finance just where we want him and we will now proceed to put the screws on him; having failed to intimidate the judiciary and an array of legal talent, we will now apply a little more direct pressure upon the tender person of the Minister for Finance." As a result, here you are now with the necessary decision handed down, not by the courts of the country but by the Revenue Commissioners, to the Minister for Finance, who comes in and flaps his wings as they pull the string.

I think the principle is bad. I think that, when statutes are enacted by this House and citizens go into the courts and vindicate their rights before the courts, it is a bad principle to allow any Department of State to override by ad hoc legislation the interpretation of the courts of privileges designedly and consciously granted to bodies corporate or to others by statute of Dáil Eireann. The sum at stake is very small—£2,000. It cannot be of any material concern to the Exchequer, but it does mean this: it means a red light to every citizen of this country warning him: “Do not avail of the processes of the law as against the Revenue Commissioners; do not go into the courts when the Revenue Commissioners are the defendants, because if you do, and even if you have the courts on your side, the Revenue Commissioners will squeeze the Minister for Finance into the introduction of the necessary ad hoc legislation to deprive you of the benefits of the decisions which the courts have given you.” For the sake of this sum of £2,000, I suggest to the Minister that he should not press this and that he should not be a party to the overriding of the courts by ad hoc legislation except where some grave public evil would ensue from the interpretation laid upon the statute by the courts of the country.

The Minister has not stated whether or not this imposition affects Cork Borough or, in fact, any other borough which might wish to take the same steps as were taken in the case of the litigation which went on in the courts. In the normal course of events, this is one of those matters which ought to fall for consideration at the time of the annual Budget, but, as Deputy Dillon has said, the case he has made against the Minister is patent on the face of it: that a citizen of this State or a corporation in the State, believing that they have certain rights and looking over the list of the various statutes or sections of them which are being repealed, going back to William IV, Victoria and so on— back, in one case, to 1836—a citizen realises of what little avail it is to take a case into court and to win a case in court when, without notice to anybody, a motion is tabled here in the House and the citizens of Dublin will learn to-morrow morning that they have been mulcted, although they have won their case in the courts, to the extent of approximately £1,500 per anuum. I take it that that would probably be the sum which would fall upon the City of Dublin by reason of this particular imposition. In order to ensure that it is going to fall upon them, a section of an Act, passed 98 years ago, is going to be repealed.

The Corporation of Dublin can say that when they were governed from Westminster 98 years ago, with the prejudice against this country that existed in the time of King William IV, they got some privilege by which they were enabled to evade certain stamp duties or some other instrument, which, in the normal course of events, but for the passing of that particular clause, would have saved them money. In the case of an Act passed in 1838 the first section is removed, and, coming down along the line till you come to the Act of 1885, when the whole Act is repealed in order to make the Corporation of Dublin pay £1,500 a year more than they have secured by their access to the courts of the country. It means actually what Deputy Dillon says: That no matter what protection you seek from the courts—and the courts, after all, have got to interpret the Acts of Parliament—they are going to be caught subsequently by this, and this is the motion by which the State seeks to recover the costs that it has probably incurred by reason of contesting the claims of citizens who claim their rights or of corporations that take steps to ensure that their ratepayers are not going to be mulcted.

If it has reference only to three corporations in the State—the Corporation of Limerick, the Corporation of Dublin and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire—obviously, it is taxing certain individuals in this State by a special enactment, and, in order to do it, we have to go back practically 100 years to the clause of the Act that will enable the Minister to collect this £1,500. What fault has the Minister to find with the citizens of these three areas? They went to the courts and they won their cases in the courts, only to find that the Minister comes in here and ensures, perhaps, that he will get even more money than they contested about in the courts in order to save their ratepayers from the liabilities.

Everybody knows that Parliament, during the last 30 or 40 years particularly, has placed upon local authorities expenses which, 98 or 100 years ago, or even as far back as 1879, would not have been thought at all likely to have been placed on local authorities. There were only three or four services for which local authorities were responsible up to about 60 years ago—water, roads, lighting and sewerage. Since then, a whole list of liabilities has been imposed by statute upon them, and in the exercise of that work they do require to have stamps affixed to certain instruments, which arises out of their new obligations and so on. Now we come in here, in the last few days of the winter session, and we occupy the time of the House in imposing a direct tax on the citizens of Dublin of approximately £1,500 a year. I oppose this.

I should like to add one word of protest to the case made by Deputies Dillon and Cosgrave. This is a direct attempt on the part of this House to advance the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners in their interpretation of an Act of Parliament against the decision of the judges. The only reason given by the Minister for the introduction of this motion is that it is unfair to the rest of the community that those two boroughs and one council should get this advantage. We have, I think, heard no protest from the rest of the country against the advantages that those councils got under this Act. While in certain other directions there are almost universal protests about other matters the Ministry have taken no action, but here in a matter which concerns only two cities and a local town the Minister brings in a special motion, as he says, to put the whole country on a level; in other words, to try to persuade this House that the rest of the country is objecting to the advantage that those cities get. There is no evidence before the House that there is any universal protest against this, and it is unfair that the Minister should advance that argument in favour of this motion.

We have heard what was intended to be a very learned speech from Deputy Cosgrave about the hard case of the citizens of Dublin. We were told they had enjoyed certain privileges dating from, I think, the year 1838. Of course that does not happen to be true. This exemption from stamp duty was conferred quite inadvertently by the Act of 1930. This Resolution is not an attempt to reverse the decision of the High Courts but to express plainly what was the intention of the Dail when it passed the Act of 1930. After the passage of the Act neither those who were responsible for the Act nor the Dail thought that it had made any change in the situation. The law was held by the Revenue Commissioners to be as it had been before the introduction of the Act.

And the courts held otherwise.

In the Limerick Act of this year full advertence was made to the fact that the law would have to be amended—here I am going to answer Deputy Cosgrave's first question —if Limerick was to be put in the same position as the County Borough of Cork or the County Borough of Waterford or most of the other local authorities through the country. It was realised then that a Resolution of this sort, withdrawing this exemption, should be brought in in order that the whole position should be put upon a uniform basis. The exemption was accidentally—if I may put it that way —granted because of the fact that the poor rate machinery had been found to be a suitable and desirable machinery for the collection of the general rates, and this exemption went with the introduction of the poor rate machinery. We have heard about the heavy burdens placed on the local authorities, but to assist them in meeting those burdens substantial help has been given by the Exchequer.

In what way?

There is no reason why any body of citizens should be exempted from the general burden of taxation. Those wealthy corporations and bodies should not be exempt any more than any private individual.

Is a debate being opened now on exemptions and benefits?

Yes—on the relevant ones.

As the principle in taxation is that the taxes should fall evenly on all citizens who are properly taxable, then the Corporation of Dublin and the Corporation of Limerick should be put in the same position as the Corporations of Waterford and Cork and most of the other local authorities throughout the country.

If the Minister's statement were quite correct presumably one of the enactments that should be amended was the one of 1930 which he mentions. In order to offset this particular enactment of 1930 he proceeds to say in the course of this motion—the very first Resolution—"that the several enactments specified in the Schedule to this Resolution shall be repealed as on and from the 1st day of April, 1935, to the extent mentioned in the third column of that Schedule." The first one that is mentioned is the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836. The second is the County Treasurers (Ireland) Act, 1838. The third is the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838. The fourth is the County Dublin Grand Jury Act, 1844. The fifth is the Grand Jury Cess Act, 1846, and lastly, the Dispensary Houses (Ireland) Act, 1879. There is no mention of the Act which the Minister says that this particular Resolution proposes to offset. The second paragraph says "that every exemption from stamp duty arising under any enactment (whether public, general, local or private) by virtue of the incorporation, application or extension by such enactment of any of the enactments to be repealed in pursuance of this Resolution shall cease to have effect as on and from the 1st day of April, 1935." There is still no mention of this inadvertent clause in the Act of 1930. The third paragraph makes no reference to it either. In order to catch the particular inadvertence which took place in 1930 we have to go back 98 years, to ensure that this money is going to be got from the Corporations of Dublin, Limerick and Cork. Only a short time ago this evening a concession was granted to a firm down in Cork. If they read this they will know the value of concessions as far as this Ministry is concerned. If they have a dispute with a Department of State the Minister can make himself a court over and above the Supreme Court when and if he comes into conflict in the court with any citizen, corporation, company or anyone else. We should like the Minister to give us a little more information about the Act of 1930, which is not mentioned here, and why it is necessary, in order to catch it, to rope in Acts passed 80 or 90 years ago.

The principle at stake is not as to whether one corporation will pay taxes and another corporation will not. The principle at stake to my mind in this Resolution is whether or not the writ of the Supreme Court runs in this country. Is it the intention of the Fianna Fáil Administration to notify all cumain that there is no use embarking on litigation with the Revenue Commissioners, because, if any advantage is enshrined in the Statutes of the Oireachtas in favour of the citizen as against the Revenue Commissioners, the vindication of those rights or privileges will immediately be dealt with by the introduction of ad hoc legislation to withdraw them? That is the principle at issue here. To my mind, it is the only fundamental principle at issue.

The Minister may have other highfalutin' intentions at the back of his mind, but the popular interpretation of this Resolution will be that litigation with the Revenue Commissioners is not going to be allowed except in those cases where the Revenue Commissioners win. We have here a Schedule of Acts which have been repealed, or I should say, parts of which have been repealed. The Minister does not bother to inform the House what the effect of each of these repeals is going to be, except in so far as they apply to the County Boroughs of Dublin, Limerick and Dun Laoghaire. I take it that the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836, had general application all over the country; that the County Treasurers (Ireland) Act was similarly of general application; that the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, Section 96, was of general application; and that the same applies to the County Dublin Grand Jury Act, the Grand Jury (Cess) Act and the Dispensary Houses (Ireland) Act. This system of legislation by reference is extremely confusing, because the House will remember that these Resolutions were placed upon our desks after the House had met today.

And the proper thing to do is to discuss them with the Bill.

The procedure of this House declares that it is the right of any Deputy to discuss any Resolution in Committee on Finance, and we are doing so. The Minister might think otherwise had the procedure been left to him.

If the Resolution has taken Deputies by surprise, they can discuss it on the Bill.

They can also discuss it now.

Surely, it is appropriate that a case should be made.

It has been made.

I have reason to complain that the Minister has come to the House with a message, the full significance of which was, I think, understood to repeal only a section which the House does not at the moment understand. If the Minister searches amongst his papers, in all probability he will find a brief informing him what the effect of the repeal is. When he has given that information to the House we will be in a position to judge whether, in fact, the application of this Resolution is wider than he has led us to believe. Remember he has told us that it applies in the case of three county boroughs. My statement is that repeal of the Resolution will have a far wider application. I oppose this Resolution on the ground that it amounts to an overruling of the Supreme Court of the country; that generally it notifies citizens that they may not litigate with the Revenue Commissioners; and also on the grounds that we have here a large Schedule of repeals of statutes which the Minister does not understand and which the House does not understand.

The Deputy is only entitled to speak for himself.

The Minister will never speak for me in that particular. As no information was forthcoming, I invite the Minister, before pressing it to a division, to say if it is on each of these six Bills in the Schedule it is the Minister's intention to act.

The Minister declines the invitation.

The Minister more or less took exception to Deputies endeavouring to find out what the position is, and he suggested that an elaborate discussion might be more satisfactory, if it took place at another stage. That might be quite so, but one of the things which drives Deputies to the kind of question Deputy Cosgrave asked is the fact that the Government put these Resolutions before the House with absolutely no explanation as to what they are about. Not only that but Ministers approach the House with an air of resentment if they are questioned with regard to them. One of the reasons why that resentment on the part of Ministers grows is that for a long time they have taken the attitude, to a considerable extent, of paying no attention to the House or to those wanting information. The Minister put Resolutions before the House to-day without going to the trouble of finding out what their effect will be on the County Boroughs of Dublin, Cork and Dun Laoghaire or on the county councils. He gave the explanation that this measure was brought in to undo an amount of injustice inadvertently done to the revenue when the consolidated rate was made in Dublin. He would hide from the House the fact that he is by Resolution taking certain rights from the County Boroughs of Cork and other local authorities that they had up to the present. The Minister shakes his head. The Minister could have explained if that was so.

I did explain. I am afraid the Deputy must not have been listening.

The House listened attentively to the few words of the Minister and heard in his subsequent explanation of the Limerick Bill that a change would have to be made. The Minister put the Limerick Bill before the House, giving a new light on the court decision on certain privileges and powers of the Limerick Corporation, without indicating that they would have to be withdrawn for any reason at any particular time. If the Minister shakes his head and says that neither from Cork, Waterford nor any other local authorities, except the County Boroughs of Dublin, Limerick and Dun Laoghaire, no rate held by them already is being withdrawn, I should like to hear the Minister explicity saying so. On the other hand, if there are some local authorities as well as Dublin, Limerick and Dun Laoghaire which will lose some rates, what are they, and what is it going to cost them?

The whole thing is within £2,000. I cannot understand what Deputy Mulcahy wants. I do not say that no local authority will be affected other than Dublin, Limerick and Dun Laoghaire and other local authorities that collected their rates by the poor rate machinery, but there are others to which it does not apply. The people who will suffer will be put in the same position as those to whom it does not apply.

The position is that other local authorities that collect rates are going to suffer a reduction. The Minister shakes his head when I say that Cork and Waterford are going to suffer. Does he say that neither the City of Waterford or other places will suffer as a result of the passing of the Resolution?

Can the Minister tell the House what is the real effect of the decision in the High Courts, if it is allowed to stand? Presumably only two or three corporations took action but, by reason of doing so, they secured rights for others. What is the total sum involved? Is the £2,000 the amount involved? What is the actual amount in the light of the court decision?

This Resolution has not been determined by any decision in the Supreme Court. This is to remove anomalies which have come into existence since 1838 and which in the changed circumstances of the time it was not considered right should exist any longer. The decision in the case of the Dublin Corporation had nothing to do with it. It is only another of Deputy Dillon's mare's nests.

Presumably whatever the cost is in connection with the Dublin Corporation, £2,000 is involved.

The whole lot.

Does that mean in connection with any Housing Act that was passed, or stamp duties in connection with the acquisition of land, that all exemptions are being wiped away?

The Minister has again completely shifted his ground. He tells the House that the purpose of the Resolution is to remove anomalies that have existed since 1836.

The Minister said that.

I did not say they existed since 1836. I said they had come into existence in the changed circumstances of the time.

You mentioned 1836.

I did not say that the anomalies had arisen in 1836, but since 1838.

In relation to what?

This exemption from stamp duties was first granted in connection with receipts and other things for poor rates in 1838.

And you call that an anomaly!

No, but since then anomalies have been created by the fact that the poor rate machinery now applies to the collection of other rates.

Unfortunately, your tongue slipped when you said it was an anomaly.

If my tongue slipped, my mind did not.

We know you have a tongue, but as to the other——

I should say that there is no doubt about the existence of Deputy McGilligan's tongue.

The Minister has now made a statement which is a complete shifting of the ground. He tells us that this Resolution is for the purpose of removing anomalies, let us say—that Dublin, Limerick, and Dun Laoghaire Councils are simply three; that there are hundreds of others throughout the country which will be affected by this Resolution. Will the Minister say if any anomaly existed in 1934 or in 1930, additional to any anomaly that existed in 1898, or the years immediately following the introduction of local government into this country? When he talked of anomalies in the existing circumstances, is he referring to anything that arose since the introduction of the Local Government Act of 1898?

The amount involved is £2,000, and the removal of this exemption is to date from 1st April next. There is no substance from the Exchequer point of view in repealing this exemption. There is no urgency—none has been explained to us. The Minister's first remarks in introducing this were entirely about the decision of the High Court.

No. My first remarks were not entirely about the decision of the High Court.

Let me leave out the word "entirely."

The Deputy was wrong.

Work your mind and let your tongue rest for a minute. The Minister introduced into the framework of his opening remarks that there had been a High Court judgment, confirmed by the Supreme Court. That may not have been the pivotal point, but it struck people here as the pivotal point.

What else is there?

Dr. Ryan made a remark.

What has the slaughterer to say?

Dr. Ryan:

To whom does the Deputy refer?

No one else would take the compliment but yourself.

Deputy McGilligan slaughtered his Government.

Your Government are just about three-quarters dead at present.

Dr. Ryan:

The Opposition are not three-quarters, but completely dead and never to come back.

On the Resolution.

On the Resolution, we are told that it is a passion for uniformity which, in relation to a matter of £2,000, to date from 1st April next, drives the Minister to bring in a Financial Resolution which we have to take in the ordinary way of Financial Resolutions, that is to say, debate in this way without a prima facie case really being made, and wait for the Bill for further information. That procedure is usually adopted where there is some principle at stake or some urgency about stopping people from going into court with similar cases. But the Minister tells us that the whole matter of this exemption will amount to £2,000. What we are repealing is phrased very vaguely—“every exemption from stamp duty arising under any enactment, whether public, general, local or private...” Has the Minister passing before what he calls his mind a flare of these Acts, public, general, local or private, containing these exemptions from stamp duty by reason of the enactment of the matters now being repealed? At any rate, he puts himself on record in this House as saying that £2,000 is the full amount. It is not quite clear that it is not a passion for uniformity, it is not the money, it is not the question of urgency; that it is none of these things that is irking the Minister, but clearly this: that a case was fought and that a case was won by the ratepayers and the Minister must go into court at a fairly early opportunity in order to declare that the version adopted by the Supreme Court of the particular resolution passed here is the wrong one, and that people may see that, even if the Revenue Commissioners were adjudged to be wrong in a particular matter, he thinks it right to come at the earliest possible moment and give them their justification?

I should like to know what was the sum involved in costs in the particular case fought and won by the ratepayers on which this whole matter turns. The Minister, I hope, will do that on the next stage. He says the Supreme Court have found a particular thing; but that the Supreme Court clearly did not realise the intentions of the Dáil when passing the particular measure he referred to—the 1930 one. The Supreme Court never would pay any heed to what would be described as intentions; they look at what is before them and interpret it. The Minister might, at any rate, have given us an indication of, say, how clearly it could be demonstrated that there was inadvertence in respect of which we have this series of six statutes flung at us dating from 1838. We are told, first of all, that these are the pivotal matters. Then we are told that really they did not matter; but only the 1930 Act and something later. Does it not start out from the whole circumstances, the infinitesimal value of the sum involved; the fact that there is no urgency—none revealed to us; and, in making the case, the fact that the High Court judgment and the Supreme Court judgment played some part in the Minister's opening remarks? Is it not clear that the whole thing is intended as a warning: Do not take the Revenue Commissioners to court, because, if you do, you may cause greater damage than you know; you may get a particular enactment repealed in a particular way; that something of this general nature of exemption from stamp duty arising out of any enactment—public, general, local or private—by reason of the incorporation of these things we are now repealing, ceases?

The Minister, if he wanted to pay some respect to the Supreme Court, if he wanted to show that this was not deliberately or definitely aimed at them, that this was not a driving forward by the Revenue Commissioners, zealous in their duty, and wanting to be justified for what they have done, would have explained to us that there was inadvertence and how it arose, and given to us the text of the measure which would clearly demonstrate the inadvertence. Instead of that, he says that we know what the wishes of the Oireachtas were on these occasions. Personally I do not know what the wishes of the Oireachtas were on the occasion of the 1930 Act, or whatever Act is being talked of. We have no reference to the circumstances under which it was passed; no reading of the text that would demonstrate clearly that we, who have the right to look at intentions, could now say: "That is a good case; we did mean something else; the Supreme Court not looking at intentions, which they are not asked to do, have found that the law incorporates something else, and we have to amend that." But for the sake, mind you, of preserving the institution of the court system, and for the sake of preserving also this right of the citizen to go to law even against a powerful corporation like the Revenue Commissioners, we oppose this. I think in a matter of £2,000, there is indecent haste in rushing in here with a finance measure to amend the Act when in the ordinary way the change will come into operation on the 1st April next. Why did not the Minister amend the original Finance Act? That would be the ordinary way of doing it. There is a way in which it could be done with dignity. That would demonstrate that the court system was right. We also would have the right to say here that that is not what it is to be in the future. That would have been the way in which the matter should have been approached. Instead of that, we have this thunderbolt in a matter of about £2,000 and then we have this justification of the Finance Department acting through the Revenue Commissioners while it is quite clear that that is what it means.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 46.

Tá.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cleary, Mícheál.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Davin, William.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O Cealliagh, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • 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.

Níl.

  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Bourke, Séamus.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dolan, James Nicholas.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McDermot, Frank.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Reilly, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Rogers, Patrick James.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Motion declared carried.
Top
Share