Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Feb 1937

Vol. 65 No. 6

Spanish Civil War (Non-Intervention) Bill, 1937. - Spanish Civil War (Non-Intervention) Bill, 1937—Fourth and Fifth Stages.

Question put: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 48.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Corbett, Edmond.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamonn.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Good, John.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • 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.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Neilan, Martin.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Rowlette, Robert James.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Bourke, Séamus.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Davitt, Robert Emmet.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Dolan, James Nicholas.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lavery, Cecil.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Reilly, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Rogers, Patrick James.
  • Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

On this Stage I desire to say a few words as to why the Bill should not pass. The Minister for Justice, who has left the House, quoted some words of mine, from a speech made at Swinford, on, I think, the guillotine motion to-day about the Irish Brigade having gone to Spain. I accept completely the quotation given from the paper in so far as the Minister read it, but he might have gone a little bit further back and read the following, which went before the particular passage that he quoted:

"We have seen where some 50 men recently left the Free State to fight for religion in Spain; but we know in our hearts that if there is any place where Irishmen can stand together and fight for Catholicism, it is here in Ireland. The young men who went out to fight against Communism, which is attacking European civilisation in Spain, are not representative of a great Catholic nation helping another Catholic nation in distress. If we sent men to Spain, we did not send them from our strength but from our weakness."

I indicated that the reason why we were weak as a Catholic nation, standing by and able to do very little for a Catholic nation like Spain that is in the death struggle with Communistic forces, as it is to-day, was that because instead of developing resources of this country in the way in which they could be developed, instead of linking up international friendships on sound international principles with a decent sustained morality in international affairs, we had put a Government into power here that has turned its back on all these things. What is being done to-day is weakening further the position of this nation here as a Catholic nation, with a Government of its own, from being of any help to any State fighting for Catholicism, or fighting for religion throughout the world against the forces organised from Moscow that are being spread in a most systematic and effective way from one country to another.

This is not a non-intervention Bill. In all the circumstances in which this Bill has been discussed and is being passed, this is an intervention Bill, and it is intervention on the side of the Madrid Government. The Government Party have complained of the misrepresentations that have been made in this House and elsewhere both of themselves and of their policy. It is nothing to the misrepresentation of the situation that is being brought about by their action in stifling discussion in this House and in withholding information from it on perhaps the most vital struggle that is going on in Europe to-day. If the weaknesses of this country, arising out of the political and economic policies that are being pursued here, are grave, every step that the Ministry has taken in connection with the Spanish matter from the time that the question of an international examination of it arose, has made the country still weaker.

The President had to state the other day that our representative in Spain was not an accredited representative to a popularly elected Government. The thing is very far from that. In the brief space of time at our disposal we have been able to point out that the Government that was elected there as long ago as February of last year was a minority Government, that the Cabinet that was set up there represented nearly 1,000,000 votes less than the Opposition represented, and that if it was possible to set up that Government it was because there was unity amongst the Left sections in Spain and that the Right sections could not get unity amongst themselves. Systematic disorder was organised throughout Spain, and one Premier followed another until the forces of disorder put Caballero at their head. The Spanish Government set going the forces of disorder. The fact that we are passing this Bill while leaving the present representative in Spain and allowing the type of misrepresentations that have been made in this House about the situation to stand, weakens us as a nation and weakens us as a people. It weakens our minds, our will and our unity on the present situation. It was possible for a Deputy to rise and say in this House that the present movement of General Franco in Spain arose from an aristocratic military reaction against interference with land in Spain, and it would also be possible to show that land legislation, that was at least as good as land legislation in Great Britain or here, was introduced in Spain in 1935, and that, if land was in any way responsible for the organisation of Franco's forces and the organisation of the Right to combat the Government that was put into power through Communistic force, it was the circumstance in which, over whole provinces, thousands of the peasants seized the land and, I think, hundreds of thousands of acres were taken over in that particular way. No systematic information, however, with regard to the position in Spain was put before us here. No systematic information was put before us here as to what was going to be the possible outcome of the situation there, and, in the face of, admittedly, a gigantic Communist movement in Europe—particularly active in Spain at the present time— having captured the Government of Spain by force, we are preventing in this House a thorough understanding of the situation. We are keeping our representative with that Communist Government, and that can do nothing but weaken us in our efforts to be of use to any progressive forces with any respect for religion in the world. In fighting any battle in the world, or from the point of view of any respect for religion in the world, the kind of situation we have here at present and the type of action that the Government have been responsible for can do nothing but weaken us. I just want to put one small picture before the House of the programme of the people who dominate the Government in Spain to which the Irish Free State has now its accredited representative.

Twice to-day I have had occasion to remind the House that on the Second Stage reasoned amendments, one advocating non-representation with one Government in Spain, and another advocating the recognition of another Government were defeated. On the Fifth Stage of a Bill, argument should be confined to what is in the Bill and, certainly, the question of representation to either side in Spain is not in this Bill.

Well, Sir, the Bill proposes that no intervention of any kind, whether by the sending of men or by the sending of arms, may take place with regard to Spain at the present time, and we have argued here that representatives of nations like Great Britain and France have, on the Non-Intervention Committee, indicated their opinion some months ago, at any rate, that non-intervention was in favour of the Madrid Government; and we have pointed out here that such reports as are available through those persons whom the Members of Parliament in South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and such Governments other than the Government in Great Britain, rely on for information with regard to European affairs, indicate that the Franco forces, towards the end of last year, were weakening and that the Madrid forces, therefore, were strong and that time was on their side. I hope, therefore, that I am in order,in a discussion where there was so much suppression, in indicating briefly the programme of the Madrid Government to which our representative is accredited, and in pointing out that our accrediting of a representative in that manner is making this Bill, in our opinion, an intervention measure rather than a non-intervention measure. The quotation I am about to give is very short, but these reports state that, about September of 1934—that was 18 months before the general election of January last—the official organ of the Communist Party published a programme and manifesto. The report reads as follows:

"Before it was suppressed by the Government, the official organ of the Communist Party published a programme and manifesto calling for the establishment of a Government of Workers and Peasants which should confiscate, without compensation, all land belonging to great landlords, Church municipalities and State, this land to be divided amongst workers and peasants. Industries, banks, railways and all means of transport, should likewise be confiscated and controlled; Catalonia, Galicia, and the Basque Provinces should be granted autonomy and, if they wished, separation; the Spanish colonies likewise should be freed; all debts owing to capitalist enterprises should be annulled; armed and civil forces should be recognised on a Soviet basis. It was pointed out that the masses in Spain were more and more faced with the necessity of seizing power, and the public ‘must decide whether it was to receive its inspiration from Rome or Moscow'd."

That was the plan in September,1934 —the published programme and manifesto. After a minority Government was set up in Spain in 1936, the forces of disorganisation brought about a position in which the leaders of the two Left organisations dominated the situation in Spain and took over the reins of Government. Now we are asked by the Minister for Justice here to shut our eyes to what the Spanish conditions are; to shut our eyes to what may possibly be done actively by non-intervention people, and to simply take our own country and say that nobody must leave here to go to Spain or to take part in any military operations there, while we stand with a representative solemnly accredited to the Government in Spain that has run towards that plan.

Now, we stand for non-intervention, and it is because we stand for non-intervention that we have fought so strongly for a discussion of this measure. Why the Ministry could not calmly discuss the measure, even if they wish to continue their representation in Spain—why they should go off the deep end and reduce this Parliament to impotency, when they had plenty of time to argue the matter and plenty of people on their own Front Bench to argue it, is a matter that I find it hard to understand. There was plenty of time to do it, but instead of that, they have taken a Parliament—set up with so much effort in this State, set up with so much democratic effort —and practically crushed it out of existence from the point of view of being able to discuss in a reasoned way the most serious crisis that, perhaps, Europe has had before it for many a long day. I do not want to labour the matter, but I say that that is our attitude in connection with this Bill. We stand for a policy of non-intervention—and this Bill is a policy of intervention, and of intervention in the worst possible way one could imagine. The fact that we have a representative accredited——

The Deputy has been twice informed that, on reasoned amendments, that whole matter was debated. The question as to where the representative of this State is accredited to does not arise now, and the debate on Friday last may not be reopened.

I do not want to reopen it, Sir, but how we can allow that Bill to go from this Parliament in the present circumstances, and after the shutting down of discussion in this House, without pointing out what is the dominating factor in our minds in this matter, I do not know. We stand for non-intervention, but, in the circumstances in which we have a representative so accredited, we think that it is a scandal that this Bill should pass here, and particularly that this Bill should be rushed through by the Government in the manner in which it is being rushed through.

This Bill, which is about to pass the House in its Final Stage and become law, demands even yet a final consideration from every Deputy in this House irrespective of Party. The fact that the terms of the Bill are so obscure seems to me to be the most dangerous feature of the Bill. I should like to ask the Minister who is responsible, if he intends to reply to the final criticisms of the Bill, to say whether this Bill precludes a protest by the Government, if events demand, as they have demanded in the past-a protest against the treatment of Christianity by certain forces that are operating in Spain. Does this Bill preclude and debar moral intervention, say, by criticism and protest? If so, I should like to hear what the Minister has to say in that regard. There is not the slightest doubt that if the time comes when other nations refuse to carry out the policy of non-intervention, this country has only one weapon and that is the weapon of moral support—a weapon that can only be exercised by a definition, through the Government, of how this country stands. If other nations do not subscribe conscientiously and fairly to the policy of non-intervention, we, under the terms of this Bill, can do nothing but retire from the present arrangement and retire, I presume, after long vacillation on the part of other nations to the arrangement. There will have to be some machinery devised afterwards through which the Government can voice their protest. I can see, a Chinn Comhairle, that you are going to call me to order and, possibly, you are justified.

The Deputy is mistaken.

Thank you. If this country wishes to make that protest I should sincerely like to know how we stand. I understand the situation in Spain as well as anybody else here. There are many of us who have been students of the conditions that exist there as described by both sides, and by people who have visited the country, who know the conditions there and who have written real impartial reviews of these conditions. I should be long sorry that we should tie ourselves up here by an Act in such a way that we really could not come out and give voice to our opinions on behalf of the nation, if such action were called for. Everybody knows that the existence of Christianity is at stake in Spain. We, who are for Christianity, must admit that two-thirds of the population are Catholics. If we are debarred as Catholics by our Government, as a result of this Bill becoming law, from making any strong protest should the occasion demand it, I hold that this Bill should never become law, no matter what it may mean. To us material things do not matter as much as spiritual things. I contend, and I am sure the House will agree, that the Catholic Church in Spain is entitled to as much democratic rights as any other institution. We have seen that the clergy in Spain have received a terrible crucifixion. We find also that Catholic churches have been wrecked and that sacred images and even the Blessed Sacrament in the Tabernacle have been desecrated. Whatever its effect on the policy of non-intervention, outrages of that sort should not be allowed to pass by the Catholics of this country without protest. The Catholics of this country will at all times unite in one voice in showing their abhorrence of occurrences of that kind and in giving their full moral support to those in Spain who are fighting against those guilty of them.

I shall not say much further at this stage beyond that I think the Bill should not pass. Deputies on the Government Benches have said that we have been inconsistent in our views. I should like to know exactly where the Government stand on this particular matter, because on Second Reading we had speeches made by Deputy MacDermot and Deputy Rowlette, who are both supporters of this particular measure. Deputy MacDermot went out of his way to assert that the reason he was supporting the Bill was that he wanted General Franco to win.

One reason.

The Deputy can make his own speech afterwards. At any rate the Deputy gave as a reason that he wanted General Franco to win. Deputy Rowlette, on the other hand, supported the Bill because he believed that General Franco was the enemy of democracy and therefore, suggested by implication, that he wanted the other side to win. I want to ask does the Government know which side this Bill is going to assist? Are they clear on it, or which of these two views are they backing? Are they backing Deputy MacDermot's views or Deputy Rowlette's views? Deputy Rowlette stressed the point that the Government which General Franco was opposing was a democratic Government. It is very peculiar that that democratic Government has on its programme the confiscation, without compensation, of all lands belonging to great landlords, the Church and the State. If that is democracy, it is hardly the brand that we on these benches, or in fact that any country which has a sense of responsibility, could stand for. I fail to understand how Deputy Rowlette could call that democracy, or how he could give it his support in any way.

I would like to know by what right democracy could confiscate Church land in Spain and be unable to confiscate it in this country, even for a social service. Apparently it is quite all right to take land from the Catholic Church in Spain in the name of democracy, but if we interfere with Church property in this country, even in the County Longford, it is an infringement of the rights of certain people. I do not want to be misunderstood. I stand positively and definitely for the rights of property, but I cannot see how Deputy Rowlette could put forward an argument that it is quite legitimate to confiscate Church property in Spain without compensation and argue that as regards certain people to whom he belongs or with whom he is associated it would be unfair to confiscate Church property in this country, in particular in County Longford, even with compensation. You cannot have it both ways, and that in the name of democracy.

The Report I have here is the Report on Foreign Affairs. It is connected with the Empire Parliamentary Association, so I presume it is all right and there is nothing wrong with it. This is what it reports:

"Perhaps the most striking demonstration of the rise of the Left occurred in the province of——"

I suppose I will be like Deputy Belton, I cannot get my tongue around these names—anyway, in some province——

"60,000 agricultural workers, under the leadership of Communistic Deputies, to all intents and purposes took possession of the whole province. They confiscated the big estates and proceeded to partition the land amongst themselves."

Democracy in action! And yet we have these two Deputies making such statements. Deputy MacDermot wants this Bill because it will help Franco to win. That is one of his reasons—I must be careful. Deputy Rowlette wants it because it is in the interests of democracy. Where do the Government stand in the matter? Is it not only right that they would give us some indication as to which view they accept—or is it a fact that they are only hoping for the best and do not know what is going to happen? I believe they are running into this in the same way as they have run into other things within the last three years; they rush in, and the moment something happens, "Oh, only for so-and-so the thing would have been all right."

They have charged us with diverse opinions, but surely there never was such a display of diverse opinions as we have had from the few Government people who did speak in the course of this debate. The Government should positively declare what is going to be the net result of this legislation. I oppose the passing of this Bill because, as I said before, it contains a section which makes criminals out of our countrymen who are fighting for what they believe to be correct, and what I believe to be correct. Why should we do that? Why should we make criminals out of them? A law may make a criminal all right, but that law will not be honoured by the Irish people. There is no question about it, these men, some of whom have given their lives, and others who are prepared to give their lives for this ideal, should not under any circumstances be branded as criminals. Under no circumstances should any attempt be made so to brand them. What an outcry there would have been in 1866 and 1870 when the Papal Zouaves came back if the British Government arrested them and charged them under the Foreign Enlistment Act! And yet an Irish Government proposes to brand those men in this way! As has been stressed, so far as those who are out are concerned, if they come back for any reason, if by any chance they succeed in getting away, under no circumstances should an attempt be made to brand them as criminals, to give them two years' penal servitude and fine them £500.

For these reasons, I submit that the Dáil should not pass this Bill as it stands. It has not been fully considered in Committee. The arguments that were put forward here in connection with the amendments show how little the Government have considered the matter. It is quite clear that if a chaplain comes back here he cannot return to Spain and he cannot send anybody to replace him unless the Minister finally states that it was not the intention to refuse permission to the chaplain to return. Therefore, the Government apparently are prepared to smash the law themselves. Surely you are not going to start that sort of a game, passing a law for one section of the community and interpreting it in another way for yourselves.

That would be nothing new.

That is not what I believe should be the law. I believe everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law, nobody above it, and everyone should get a fair chance. For these reasons I submit that this House should not give assent to the Bill.

We are drawing to the close of the debate on this Bill. There have been some very notable speeches and, I regret to say, on a few occasions we have had statements which one would rather were left unsaid. Deputy MacDermot, for instance—it has been referred to already—said that we in this Party were endeavouring to cash in on Christianity.

Electorally.

Electorally on Christianity, meaning, I suppose, that we were taking a political advantage of the war in Spain. If I might be allowed to make a pecuniary allusion to our attitude on Christianity, I should like to say to Deputy MacDermot that our Christianity and the Christianity of the people of this country is an asset. It is banked and bearing interest to redound to our credit and the credit of this country some day. And it is not something that should have been alluded to in slighting terms by any Deputy here or outside.

There was another statement, made by the Minister for Finance, when he alluded to the volunteers who, rightly or wrongly, thought it was their duty to go and fight the cause of Christianity in Spain. He said that their motive, perhaps, in going there—I think he did not even say "perhaps"—was that they might return to fight the cause of Fascism in this State. Was there ever a viler statement made? One might not agree with these young men, that they took the right course in going to help militarily the Christian side in Spain. One might argue that they could have offered greater help by giving pecuniary assistance here towards certain medical or other outfits. But most of these young men had not the wherewithal to offer monetary help for their fellow-Christians in Spain and they thought that perhaps the best thing they could do was to offer something of greater value to them than money, their very lives, in the interests of the cause which they felt sacred. Who shall say that Hyde or Chute were not sincere when they laid down their lives in that cause?

During the course of the debate a great many reasons were given against the Bill and not very many reasons advanced from the Ministerial side as to why the Bill should pass, or at least why it should pass in a hurry. We got more material against the Bill from Deputy MacDermot than from any Minister who has spoken, including the President. Deputy MacDermot said to-day, I think, that practically every nation had taken the course we were taking now, and there was no reason why we should not take it; that no nations, except the Fascist nations, had done anything similar to what we were asking to have done. Perhaps there is a reason why we should at least not be in a hurry to take this particular action. There may be reasons why we should go as far as accepting the amendment Deputy Belton proposed—the complete recognition of General Franco. It was argued, I think, by the President that there was an international code in that respect and that most of the great nations had fallen in with it. Germany and Italy broke the code, if there was a code, and nothing serious happened to them because they departed from the international code. Was anything serious going to fall upon this little State if we imitated Germany and Italy and recognised General Franco's Government?

There was one reason perhaps more than any other why we should at least not be precipitate in our action in regard to this measure, and it was this: that we are practically the only Catholic democracy at present. There are other Catholic States, but they have either gone Fascist or some other way. We are practically the only democratic Catholic State, and in this fight for Christianity in Spain, because it is a fight of Christianity against Communism—I think that has been proved —it behoves us to offer some sympathy to the side that is fighting the battle that we accept as just, and to offer some condemnation of the side fighting against them. One thing at least we should have done before we embarked upon this Bill, and that was to make the greatest protest we could to what the President calls the existing Government in Spain, and to express our disapproval of their action by withdrawing our representative to that Government.

All the useful arguments have already been made against the passing of this Bill. What was missing was any fair attempt on behalf of the Ministry to prove that there was any urgency for the passing of the measure. Nothing was said which would prove to us that if the Bill had been delayed until next week anything serious would happen to this country, or to the nations of Europe. As was pointed out by Deputy McGilligan, the Minister and others made no attempt to elaborate what precautions were taken by the various Governments or by our Government to put this Bill into effect when passed. In fact, we leave this Bill when passed, not knowing whether it will ever prove an effective weapon for doing what it is proposed to do. Because we take this action we are described by a Deputy as endeavouring to "cash-in" on Christianity. If there was one thing that the people of Ireland were proud of it was the great heritage that spiritual things matter to us more than material things. Generations of our people have accepted that and have been willing to fight for spiritual rather than material matters. I believe that the bulk of the people of this State are actuated by that sentiment, and it is mainly because of that we are opposed to the hurried passing of this measure.

There have been two misapprehensions indicated in the course of the last 20 minutes or so in regard to the Bill that seem to be worth alluding to. One was a suggestion by Deputy Minch that as a result of the passing of the Bill it would be impossible for us in this country to voice any protests against outrages that might occur in Spain. Needless to say, no one can find any clause in the Bill to that effect. Then it was suggested by Deputy MacEoin that the result of this Bill would be to turn Irishmen serving in Spain into criminals. There is nothing in the Bill to do that. If, after the passing of this Bill, people deliberately disobey its provisions, then of course they become subject to the penalties that are established by the Bill. It is the merest rhetoric and the emptiest of rhetoric to suggest that the effect of the Bill is to turn gallant young Irishmen now serving in Spain into criminals.

Deputy Bennett in the early part of his speech accused me of having referred slightingly to Christianity. That statement is absolutely false. I am not accusing Deputy Bennett of saying that knowing it to be false.

If it appeared to the Deputy that I did use that expression I did not mean to do so. I meant to say that the Deputy intended to accuse us of slighting Christianity.

That is very different.

Not very.

I fully accept the disclaimer. I understood the Deputy as stating that I had referred slightingly to the Christianity of the Irish people. I quite realise that he did not mean that.

I do not think I said it.

In any case, I wish to make it perfectly clear that it is not true. What I did say was that those on the front Opposition bench had taken a line on this whole subject which amounted to trying to cash in electorally on Christianity, and I have nothing to withdraw from that, not one iota.

We know your mind too well.

The accusation has been often made before in this country and the thing itself has often taken place before.

By people who were very near to your heart.

The personal abuse that was poured out from the start of the debate by Deputies Belton, O'Sullivan, Dillon, McGilligan and others is not going to intimidate me into withdrawing one iota of what I said. It was not personal vituperation but an attempt to sum up to the best of my ability what I believed to be the character of the opposition to this Bill.

Deputy MacEoin complained that some who favoured the Bill are supporters of General Franco and that others in favour of the Bill are supporters of the opposite side. I do not know if that is true. I was not here to listen to Deputy Rowlette's speech. If it is true what does it prove? It proves nothing against the Bill. It is perfectly legitimate for people to support the Bill with different outlooks. The one overwhelming motive for the Bill, the one that the Opposition Deputies conspire to forget is that it is an effort to prevent a European war. Either it is justified by that or it is not justified at all.

The suggestion has been made that the Government have been throttling discussion and treating our Parliament in an arbitrary manner. What justification is there for that? As a matter of fact we have been slower than most other countries. The speeches of Ministers have been perfectly satisfactory from the point of view of treating the case for this Bill as fully and as calmly as they knew how to treat it. They have not treated questions and criticisms in an arbitrary manner or refused to discuss the Bill. They made very full and very fair statements on the subject and if anybody has gone off the deep end, as Deputy Mulcahy suggested, surely it has been some of those speaking against the Bill and thundering along for hours on end about irrelevant matters. It was Deputies who neglected to address themselves to the question whether the Bill was likely to prevent war, and pretended like Deputy Dillon that the real issue was whether God is in Heaven or not. Some of the backbenchers of the Opposition may be taken in by that sort of talk but I do not believe that the experienced men on the front Opposition bench can say that sort of thing except with their tongues in their cheeks.

Deputy Mulcahy complained that this Government has shown no sustained morality in international affairs. He said nothing to illustrate that. I do not know the occasions on which he accuses them of lack of sustained morality on international affairs. On the only occasion that I can call to mind in recent years when the Opposition criticised the attitude of the Government in international affairs my impression was that the cause of morality was sustained not by the spokesmen of the Opposition but by the spokesmen of the Government. Take their attitude with regard to our obligations to the League of Nations——

What about sanctions?

——their view that it would have been proper to refuse to honour our obligations to the League of Nations without making a bargain.

I support this Bill, as I have done from the beginning, whole-heartedly, not with the smallest feeling—far from it—of hostility towards those who have made sacrifices in the cause of the Catholic side in Spain; not in any supercilious attitude towards those throughout the country whose feelings have been stirred by the struggle in Spain, as the feelings of Catholic people everywhere have been stirred by the struggle in Spain; but with sincere indignation at the unscrupulous uses to which the Opposition have attempted to turn it.

Those who have been listening to the debate to-day and who will read it in the newspapers to-morrow, will agree certainly that a sustained effort has been made by the Opposition to carry on the discussion on the same lines which they entered upon last week. In spite of the fact that almost every speaker on the opposite side has proclaimed his strong belief in the policy of non-intervention, we find, after a further day's discussion, that we are now having a closing debate which to all intents and purposes resolves itself into another debate as to whether non-intervention is a good policy for this country or not, in which the Opposition, whatever they may feel, are certainly at pains to give the impression that they are opposed in some way that is not very clear—least of all to themselves —to the policy enshrined in the Bill. I should think that the important factor to which Deputy MacDermot called attention, the question of peace in Europe, should have some relevance to this discussion and should get some attention from the Opposition. What is the position going to be if these two groups of nations, which have proclaimed that they are interested in the struggle in Spain are to continue the policy of intervention? Has it not been stated and made clear that they are already "trying-out" on the Spanish people the full weapons of war which they intend to use in the next conflict? Is it not the duty of this country and of every small nation to take such action in international affairs, if small nations have any influence, to use their best efforts on the side of reason and on the side of peace? I think it is an extraordinary thing that on this, the second occasion on which we have had to undertake serious obligations, in common with a large body of other European nations, in the cause of peace, we are going to be attacked because we have not seen fit to take up an independent attitude. I should like the critics of the policy of co-operation in European affairs to show us where we are going to stand, and where the small nations in Europe are going to stand, in five or ten years time if they do not pull their weight and do their level best to bring the big Powers of Europe to their senses, to get them together in matters that seem to threaten war. If the cause of international peace does not appeal to the Opposition, surely the contemplation of the frightful horrors of this war—the murder of priests, the burning of churches, the bombing of cities, the destruction of women and children by bombing from the sky and the piling of the streets with corpses—must. Does anybody think that that kind of conflict, if it was going to continue, is going to lead to anything but anarchy for a long period? If it were the case, as I said on the last occasion I spoke on this Bill, that the Government saw its way to take some definite and effective steps which would help to bring this conflict to a speedy termination, and if they failed to do it, they would be wanting in their duty.

But when we are asked to proclaim loudly our belief in one party or the other, and when it is going to stop at that, when there is no proof whatever that any good is going to result from it, when moreover we consider our position as a small nation which, no matter how it may strive to keep apart from those international disputes, may —if Europe is threatened with a dangerous situation—whether we like it or not, find ourselves forced into a difficult position, is not that all the more reason for our Government examining the position calmly and clearly, and being quite sure before they take any step that that step is the step which is necessary, and the step which is going to help the thing that we would like to help?

How do you know it will help those people?

I certainly think that no evidence whatever has been brought forward to show that the Government is in any tittle or degree lacking in its responsibility in this matter. The Bill we are now passing through the Dáil is based on a well considered policy over a long period of time. It is a policy which has been agreed to by the Opposition even so far back as last November, and it is no credit whatever to the Opposition that when the Government sincerely and honestly has pursued that policy, and when they have not pleased certain people by not doing something that they themselves do not consider to the advantage of the country, that they should be met with the type of criticism they have been met with here to-day. One would at least think that the Opposition would give some credit to the Government for having honestly and sincerely pursued their policy, for not having deviated from the policy which they embarked upon, and which they gave other States participating in the Non-Intervention Committee to understand that they were going to act up to.

Every possible kind of red herring has been dragged into this discussion to-day. And what is the object of it all? Simply to try to give the impression that the Government is in some way false to Irish ideals, false to the things which the Irish people hold dear, if it is not indeed false to its responsibilities to the citizens whose interests it has been elected to look after. We were told, for example, when we said that we would like to see the end of this conflict, that it was very questionable whether we had the right to express such an opinion. Why, it was almost heresy to suggest that the Government of this State should do whatever it can—and I certainly believe it should—to bring this conflict to an end if it is not clear in advance what side is going to win. This State is not in a position to say what side is going to win. We have a strong idea that the people of Spain themselves will in the long run have to decide that question, that it will not, as the House was reminded here last night, be decided by foreign bayonets. Even the great Napoleon Bonaparte had to realise that foreign bayonets could not conquer the Spanish people, and there is no Napoleon in Europe to-day. We had again dragged into this debate to-day that the Government regard this as a question of one "ism" as against another, when it was made quite clear that what was said was that with the people who are seeking to intervene in this conflict in Spain it is very largely a question of one "ism" versus another.

The Deputy, perhaps, has a right to speak for those people; I have no right to speak for them. I simply say that, as a matter of opinion, it might be very well said that a great many of them are more interested in those "isms" and in those particular national policies for which they stand, than in the spiritual things which the Irish people hold dear. Again, is it to be thought that an international war can help the cause of Christianity, or can help—as Deputy MacDermot very rightly pointed out to us last week —to kill Communism? Rather it would give new birth to Communism, and help to revive it in most of the countries of Europe. Why is it always assumed that it is a wrong thing spiritually, that it is in some way acting unfairly towards our spiritual ideals, if we do not put ourselves in a position of committing ourselves in advance, committing our people, and committing our country? I again repeat what I said to-day and said on the last day, that when the Government considers the time opportune, when they consider that they can get out of so doing advantage for the cause that they have at heart, they will certainly not be slow to take suitable action, either in the recognition or non-recognition of representatives, or any other matters in the international scheme.

Deputy Mulcahy even told us—after his Party has wasted three days of the time of Dáil Eireann telling us that they are fully in favour of the policy of non-intervention, but they are against the Bill—that they are against even the provisions in the Bill which impose penalties. But there is not a single suggestion as to how this policy can be made effective unless it is accompanied with bans and penalties. The suggestion, I understood from Deputy Mulcahy, is that the Bill in some way helps the Madrid side. It might be very well argued, and has been argued in the House, that the Bill is helping the other side. We cannot know. We are not in a position to know what side it is going to help. It was not on the consideration, in the first instance, of what side it is going to help, but on general considerations of peace, of creating a better spirit in Europe, of doing what we can in that sphere, and also of doing the right thing in the interests of our own people, that we have recommended this action. It is our responsibility. We mean to accept responsibility for that action. I think it will be recognised that in international affairs Governments are in a better position to understand the situation, are in a better position to be informed of what is going on, than other parties. We take the responsibility. We are the Party who speak for the Irish people at the present time, and I think we can also claim to be the Party which understands the situation, because our understanding is based on whatever knowledge of the situation is available. Our Party is, therefore, best qualified to lay down the policy. It is again I say an extraordinary thing that, in this small country, because we happen to have a deep sense of religion and a deep attachment to our traditions, that for that very reason we should have an Opposition challenging a Government which is predominantly Catholic, which is in no sense whatever different to the Irish people it represents, in ideals or in any other way that can matter in this particular issue.

Deputy Mulcahy said that the Bill cannot be disentangled from the other issues which it calls up. It cannot be disentangled because the Opposition do not want to disentangle it. They do not want to disentangle the plain, simple, and straight question as to whether we should stand in with the other European nations in this matter of non-intervention, or whether we should not. I suggest that in no other parliament in Europe will we have such a futile, and, if I may say so, such a nauseating discussion as we have had in this House. The attempt will fail, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, because the Irish people are no fools. While they hold their religious ideals dearly, they have understanding enough from our own history, and from the experience we have had of the interests that foreign nations have taken in our affairs from time to time, to realise that things are not always quite so plain or quite so simple as they seem to be. These arguments that we are wanting in our duty to the people, that we are forgetting our traditions and so on, are simply on a par with the arguments that we have been hearing for the past few years, lectures on Marxism, and the suggestions that the Government, in its social policy, mind you, is going to bring this country into the position of Spain, that, because of our social policy, we are going to bring about Communism in this country. The Party that could start off with that argument and could try to have it accepted by the Irish people are, it is quite plain, sufficiently out of touch with the situation and with all reasonableness to account for the fact that, at this stage in the day, they are taking up the argument that because we take a plain, simple and clear policy and fall in with it, in this matter of non-intervention, we are to be dubbed as in some way Red or in sympathy with the Reds.

Another argument advanced to-day was that British diplomacy, as in the case of sanctions, is apparently responsible for our attitude. Our attitude has been taken up quite independently and always has been, both in the past and at present, and is based solely on a consideration of what is the right policy for our people, and, tomorrow, if we should see fit, and if we should think it the right thing, we are not going to be bound to remain a member of this Non-Intervention Committee or to take part in any other concert of nations, or any other council that is there at present or likely to be there. But we believe that at present we are in the same position as other small nations, and that it is good and sound policy for us to exercise whatever influence we can for the general good feeling and general peace of Europe.

Deputy MacDermot has apparently been appointed acting-Minister for External Affairs by the Fianna Fáil Party. This is a very important measure, we are told by Ministers, and there is very great urgency with regard to it. The Bill has been discussed for nearly six hours in the absence of the Minister for External Affairs. Deputy MacDermot takes himself very seriously. He has taken it upon himself, not only on this Bill but over the last couple of months, to explain Government policy, and the President himself has accepted that. On more than one occasion, he has told the House that Deputy MacDermot has put the matter quite clearly and we had the Minister for Education calling to his aid again to-night the utterances of Deputy MacDermot. The Government, I am sure, are very pleased with the assistance they get from Deputy MacDermot and it is quite obvious that it is welcomed by them. Deputy MacDermot takes it upon himself to lecture members of this House and members of this Party on their motives in regard to the attitude they have taken up on this Bill. The Deputy is a very superior sort of person, too superior altogether for this House, this Parliament and for this country. The Deputy said he did not mean to be offensive when he told Deputy Professor O'Sullivan that his speech was a discreditable one and that he and the members of the Front Bench were "cashing-in" electorally on Christianity. The Deputy repeated it to-day and his excuse was that it is not the first time that it has been used in this country, that it has been used before and used by the Orange leaders in Belfast. Perhaps it was there, or in similar circles, that Deputy MacDermot got the phrase.

We are asked to give a Final Reading to this Bill and to pass it under a guillotine. We are asked by the Minister for Education why we did not talk about international and European peace under a guillotine motion, and we are told by Deputy MacDermot that far from the Bill being rushed and closured and guillotined, the Government has given by far too much time for its discussion.

Hear, hear.

Deputy Donnelly says "hear, hear." I am not surprised at Deputy Donnelly saying "hear, hear" to that because Deputy Donnelly told us earlier in the evening that it was dishonest to advance any amendment or any point of view in this House that was not going to be accepted by the majority. I see that the Minister for Finance has at last been able to work up a smile. I had thought that the chastising he got for his indiscretions of Sunday last had wiped whatever smiles were there from his face for a considerable time. We are asked to give those powers to a Government consisting of persons who are capable of giving utterance to the statements that were made by the Minister for Finance on Sunday last, who were capable of giving the description of conditions in Spain that the President gave on the Second Reading, and to a Government and Party who have the point of view of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance that this is a fight between Fascism and democracy and Fianna Fáil has no use for Fascism.

We are told by the Minister for Education that the Government are carrying out the wishes of the majority of the Irish people. Does the Government claim that they have a mandate for the recognition of Madrid as mentioned by the Minister to-night? Is there any member of either the Front Bench or the Back Bench who will claim that they have the majority of the people behind them in continuing that? There is not a single member will do so. "The Government is going to take action which will bring matters to a conclusion in Spain." It is a pity the Minister did not develop that and tell us what actions they were going to take that were going to bring matters to a conclusion in Spain. He told us quite clearly that he had no idea to which side any action taken by this Government would bring victory in Spain.

Which condemns the whole Bill.

He said that the passage of this Bill may help or assist the Valencia Government, but, on the other hand, he said, it may be argued that it will help General Franco. He was very careful, however, not to tell the House whether he himself had any definite opinion as to which side it was going to help and whether the Government had any information at their disposal as to whether it was going to help either one side or the other. This is clear anyway, that this Bill is aimed at seeing that this country will not give any assistance, good, bad or indifferent, to General Franco. And when this Bill passes, the only official connection that the people of this country will have with Spain will be with the Red Government of Spain.

That is not so. Ask Deputy Coburn. He got his reply from the President on Friday evening.

What Deputy Morrissey has said is quite true.

I think it has already been ruled that on this measure we cannot discuss where our representative is in Spain.

I am not going to refer to it any further, but what I said must be true, because it is hurting Deputy Jordan.

I hope it is not. When I was interrupted I was proceeding to say that when this Bill is passed by this House to-night and becomes law, the only connection that our Government will have with Spain will be with the Caballero Government. The Deputy cannot deny that and no member of the House can deny it. The Minister for Education tells us that the Government have the sanction and the authority of the Irish people for this measure. The Minister does not believe that and neither does the Government. They know quite well that they have not the Irish people behind them in this Bill. I am quite sure that a majority of the Irish people are not, and will not be, in favour of the position in which we will stand in relation to Spain when this Bill becomes law. Those are the facts to which we have to face up. All the talking and all the misrepresentation of the President on last Friday night is not going to get away from that.

The President started his speech on Friday night—having got an opportunity at a time in the debate when he should not be allowed to get in and talked about the people on this side of the House and said they were not dealing with this matter on its merits, that they were not discussing it honestly, but that they were misrepresenting him and the Government Party. And he proceeded himself immediately afterwards—it can be read in the Official Report—to indulge in the worst piece of misrepresentation that was ever attempted in this House. He quoted from the Irish Catholic, and then turned to this side of the House and said: “If you are going to class as Communists the 204,000 members of the Irish Trade Union Congress...then, of course, you can very rapidly increase the number of Communists.” And when he was told by this side of the House that that suggestion was never made by the Opposition and that it was an absolute misrepresentation on his part, what did he say: “If the Deputies make it quite clear that they withdraw that suggestion I shall certainly be glad.” Any Deputy on any side of the House can read that passage in the Official Report of the President's speech delivered here last Friday night. And that is the President who talks about misrepresentation and honesty in debate and honesty in speech. The whole thing can be boiled down to one point and that is this: that the people of this country if they want any intervention at all in Spain want intervention on the side of General Franco. The Government of this country are passing this Bill which says they are to have complete non-intervention. But when this Bill becomes law, and I want specially to emphasise that, the only connection we will have with the Spanish people will be the connection we will have with the Caballero Government at Valencia.

The speech to which we have just listened might, for crude claptrap and pompous blatherskite, have been delivered by Deputy Belton. The Deputy, Sir, made one point of substance during his tirade of the last 15 minutes. It was that he had made the Minister for Finance smile. Well, Sir, I smiled because I thought it would have been impolite to yawn.

And the Minister would not be guilty of that.

The Dáil should pass this Bill for three reasons: first, because it is our duty and our obligation to Christianity as well as to humanity to act in concert with the Powers of Europe when the aim of such concerted action is the maintenance of peace. All history teaches us that religion and morals in general are ill-served by the conditions of war. The moral decay which is so widespread in Continental Europe to-day is within the knowledge of every one of us, those who are canting about Christianity on the opposite benches, those who sit here, those who preach from the pulpits, those who work in our cities and towns and those who have the hard task of looking after their flocks. In Germany and Russia and in most of the Continental cities of Europe to-day the moral decay which is so widespread and general was greatly accelerated by the conditions of the World War in 1914, when the nations of the world were embattled against each other. We know that the mentality that dominated those at the heads of the warring nations was a mentality of materialism. It is a mentality of materialism that dominates——

On a point of order. What has the World War to do with this Bill? Will the Minister give us a reason for the passage of this Bill? The Minister should show some little manners there.

What is the point of order?

I want to know if the Minister will give us any reason to show how this is relevant?

I take it the Minister will make the reference relevant. To the Chair it does seem relevant. If the conflict in Spain precipitates another war the Minister's point is that the conditions in Europe will be worse. That is the analogy, I take it, the Minister is making.

That is exactly the point I was making. I was saying that the mentality which dominated the world in 1914 was one of absolute materialism. That also will be the mentality that will dominate the next world war.

In Spain to-day representatives of almost all religions and irreligion— Catholics and Protestants, heretics and infidels, primitive pagans and neopagans—are fighting side by side, as well as face to face, with a bitterness and intensity of hatred beyond our conception. The national prestige of foreign States is engaged on one side and the other. Is it not clear to every thinking man that this present conflict in Spain is the crater of a volcano that may yet destroy religion and civilisation in Europe? The words that he who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword are a warning for militant Christians as well as for militant pagans. Anyone who has any regard for religion or for Christianity cannot contemplate with equanimity the prospect of a new European conflict. It is our duty, therefore, as Catholics and Christians, to circumscribe and confine the war in Spain to the narrowest possible territorial limits. The Non-Intervention Pact, to which, by the enactment of this Bill, the Government is empowered to give its practical adherence, is the only machinery that human intelligence or human experience has been able to devise to that end. I repeat and emphasise that this House is bound to pass this Bill not merely in the interest of humanity but in the interest of Christianity, and, aye, of Catholicity. If this civil war, which to-day is confined to the Iberian peninsula, were to spread over Europe, what do Deputies think would be the position of the Catholic religion in those States which, because of their own territorial interests or foreign policy, would range themselves on the side of the Valencia Government? If there are cathedrals desecrated in Spain—and it is a terrible thing for Catholics to think that the House of God should be so desecrated—do you think that if from Spain there goes out this fire of irreligion, cathedrals and Catholic shrines in other countries will not be desecrated as well?

When a fire breaks out in a prairie or in a forest, wise men try to make a clearing around it, and they do not go heaping on that fire dry grass or brushwood in an attempt to put it out. We have recognised the wisdom of that, and we are endeavouring to prevent our people from intervening in that conflict not merely on one side but on the other as well. Let us not forget that while Irishmen died fighting at Madrid on one side, whose deaths were announced in this morning's papers, Irishmen died in the fight at Madrid on the other side, whose deaths were announced some few weeks ago. There are Frenchmen, there are Germans, there are Italians, there are representatives of every nation of Europe in exactly the same position. Some day or other, if this thing goes on, it may be that those who feel that the tide of battle is going against the side they have espoused may think that, by precipitating a European conflict, they can make their side victorious in the present war. If this thing is permitted to go on and European nations outside Spain take a part in it, one day or another an international incident is going to happen just as it happened in July, 1914, and Europe is going to be face to face again with the early days of August, 1914.

The purpose and the policy of the Government is, so far as the Irish people are concerned, to do everything it possibly can to prevent that happening. I say that every man who believes in Christianity, every man who follows the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount, every man who stands for the Gospel of peace for which our Church stands, will, on this issue, stand behind the Government.

Mr. Broderick

And recognise the Reds.

Those who support this Bill are more concerned with the cause of Christianity than those who, for mere Party gain, would trail the garment of Christ in the arena of politics. They see that Christianity would be imperilled by the extension of the Spanish conflict and they are resolved, in the face of misrepresentation and with the full knowledge of the utter unscrupulousness of the Opposition in this regard, to do everything they can to ensure that that will not happen.

This Bill deserves to be supported for another reason. It should be passed by the Dáil because we are bound, in the national interest, to do everything possible to prevent the outbreak of another world war. If such a war were to break out, we have no assurance that our people would be permitted to remain outside the ambit of such a conflict. Our history has been a sorrowful and a distressing one and it is a record of many sufferings, but that record would pale before that which would have to be written if the full force of modern warfare visited our shores.

Less than 30 years ago, we might have been content to take a passive attitude in the face of a European conflict, because our geographical position would have kept us immune from its horrors. The ingenuity of mankind had not then succeeded in overcoming the problem of distance. To-day, however, the aeroplane is almost annihilating space. Only a few days ago, an aeroplane carrying half a ton of cargo, in addition to its crew, flew 2,500 miles without stopping in less than 15 hours. In the event of another world war, there would be hundreds of even more powerful planes in the air, able to traverse almost equal distances at greater speeds and carrying a heavier load—a load of death and destruction. We, a small people, cannot guarantee to our country immunity from attack in such an event. The very need and urge upon our people to live might compel them in war time to be one of the main food suppliers of one of the possible protagonists in that struggle. If they were, it would not matter whether we proclaimed our neutrality or otherwise. Those who were concerned to use again the weapon of the blockade against Great Britain, as it was used in 1914, would take care that Britain's food supplies would be cut off at their source before they could be transhipped to the other side of the Irish Sea. Because a European war means that death by bombing and aerial warfare may visit our shores, I say it is the duty of this Government and the duty of this House—a duty which they owe to the people—to pass this Bill so that we may keep our country out of the Spanish conflict and, so far as we can, prevent that conflict from engulfing Europe.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 50.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cleary, Micheál.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Good, John.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Keely, Seamus 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.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • MacEntee Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Corbett, Edmond.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamonn.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Neilan, Martin.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Rowlette, Robert James.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Davitt, Robert Emmet.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Dolan, James Nicholas.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lavery, Cecil.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Reilly, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Rogers, Patrick James.
  • Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.
Motion declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.15 p.m. until Thursday, 25th February, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share