Committee on Finance. - Electoral (Duration of Dáil Eireann) Bill, 1943—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am opposed to increasing the life of the Dáil to a period of six years. I do not think that the Minister gave any real reason for such an extension. My recollection is that he referred the proposed extension to present circumstances. But we have to look to the normal carrying on of political work. Here, we have a democracy, with Parliamentary institutions clearly based on that democracy. We have the Dáil manned by proportional representation. We have planned for the operation of Parliamentary institutions in a way in which Governments will not change very quickly or very often. When you base your Parliament on a democracy and introduce the principle of proportional representation, you accept a position in which the electorate will be called upon only at stated intervals to decide who will represent them in the Parliament. In these circumstances, I do not think that anybody would suggest that the electorate should be called upon to act at less frequent intervals than once every five years. On one occasion, I said that, when the Angel Gabriel was sounding the last trumpet, the Taoiseach would be asking for one minute more to give another explanation. I detect, in the suggestion made with regard to this additional year, the implication that everything would be all right if the present Government could only get another year in which to pull the strings together. I do not think that we should carry on our business in that way.

It would be a great mistake if Parliament were to last longer than five years in view of the foundations on which it rests. I do not think that any wishes arising out of the weaknesses or dangers of the present position should drive us into taking a decision of that kind. We are to have a new Dáil elected now. It will live the early years of its life in rather difficult and exceptional circumstances. If the emergency continues and if there is any reason for extending the life of the Parliament, nothing that Parliament would consider necessary in that connection would be beyond its power.

The very fact that we are likely to be running into difficult circumstances would be one of the reasons why I would oppose an extension beyond five years. There is no doubt that the strength of our institutions here arises out of the political understanding of our people and their general economic strength. I think that we have departed more than is desirable in bringing our Parliamentary institutions farther away from the ordinary people. We have made representations here from time to time about the way in which the Government has strengthened its hands as against the people, the way in which the Government and the Government Party have refused practically to discuss various aspects of national policy. That was reflected in Deputy Cosgrave's speech on the Budget to-day. I myself have reiterated it again and again on various Estimates and in various discussions here. We have weakened the strength of Parliament by the fact that policy has not been discussed openly and effectively here. I think that the speech of the Minister for Finance to-day indicated that he and perhaps other members of the Government, now realise that they have gone too far in that direction. At any rate, our political strength rests, and must rest, on our people as a whole. It can only be really great if our people are closely associated with our Parliamentary institutions. I think that at the present time it would be a disastrous thing to feel that we were asking the people, in the coming election, to elect a Parliament which they would have no control over for, say, another six years. I think it is essential to make them feel that they have a certain type of institution here, and that the period will never be longer than five years within which they will be in a position to call that institution to account. Therefore I am very much opposed to this Bill.

Mr. Lynch

I think that Deputy Mulcahy has only been voicing his personal opinion, because I must admit that all my instincts are in favour of having a six year life for future Dáils. The life of the Tenth Dáil is now drawing to a close. Twenty-four years ago last January the First Dáil came into being. Therefore, the average life of Dáils to date has been something under 2½ years. In my view anything that would help to increase that average should be supported. I am hoping that in voting for a Dáil with a life of six years we may, at least, have one in the future with a life of five years. In practice, this is the first time that a Dáil has run out its full course. It went very near it once before when it ran for a period of, I think, four years and three months. It is unlikely that, in the future, Dáils will run the full period of six years, but I think the provision should be there.

We are now facing the end of the life of the Tenth Dáil. There was considerable opinion throughout the country, with which I must say I do not agree, that the life of this Dáil should be prolonged. I think it would be most undesirable that any Dáil should have the power to prolong its own life. There is no such objection, of course — there cannot be — to this Dáil providing that future Dáils should have a longer life. It may be that we may find ourselves at the end of five years — after the next election—when it would be desirable that the Government in office should continue without a general election. I think now is the time to make the provision, and, therefore, as far as I am personally concerned I certainly should like to be free to support this measure. I think that no harm can come of it. With regard to what Deputy Mulcahy has said about the people feeling that they will have no power or control over Dáils for six years to come, well, at any rate, if we do not make this provision they will not have that control for five years to come. What extraordinary harm the adding of an extra year is going to do, I am afraid I cannot see. As far as I am personally concerned — unless there is a Party decision to the contrary — I certainly am entirely in favour of having a six years' life for future Dáils, in the hope that we shall at least have Parliaments with a life of five years.

I would like to appeal to some of the Deputies who have spoken to reconsider their view in regard to this Bill. Unfortunately, I was not here when the matter was being discussed, and I was greatly surprised that there had been opposition taken to the Bill because, honestly, I thought that the attitude of the Deputy who has just spoken would represent, generally, the attitude of most experienced Deputies in the House. My own connection with this matter, and my thoughts on it, go back to the time when we were considering the present Constitution here. At that time Deputies may remember we extended the period of six years, which was the period prescribed in the old Constitution, to a period of seven years. I think I pointed out that while we had no desire to extend the legal life of Parliament, as determined by the ordinary law, beyond the period of five years which was prescribed, that if a crisis should occur making, it extremely desirable to do so, that Parliament's power should not to unduly restricted by the Constitution: that there should not be hard and fast lines drawn by the Constitution at six years. Accordingly, we put it into the Constitution that the constitutional length beyond which it would not be permissible for Parliament to prescribe as the interval between Parliaments should be seven years. Now, I have to confess that at the time what has been brought up very clearly during the present emergency did not occur to me. Although I thought that in a crisis it would be desirable that Parliament should be able to extend its own life, it did not occur to me how extremely difficult it would be for Parliament to do that.

I think that most people in the country would agree with the remarks made by the last Deputy and regret very much that we should have an election at this particular time. Personally, if I did not see the great danger that would result from not having an election I would be of that opinion myself. We are passing through dangerous times—there is no use in blinking the fact — and it gives a wrong impression, at first sight anyhow, to people to have an election in times like these. They will think there are no dangers when the Government and all the activities of the State can be thrown into what they regard for the time being as a contest between Parties. The position in which we found ourselves then was this, that if the Government, for instance, was satisfied that it was in the national interest that there should be an extension of the life of Parliament and attempted to have that put through against the will of the other Parties in the House, there would be the immediate feeling that the Government, in its own interests and not for the national good, was trying to lengthen its life. And even if all the Parties agreed to extend the life of Parliament, even that was going to bring dangers with it because there are other groups outside who would say: "It is the representation of Parliament as a whole that we want to have changed; we are not satisfied with the representation of the existing Parties."

There may be other Parties outside who will say: "We believe it is we who represent the people and that we should have representation in the Dáil. It is not satisfactory from our point of view that the Parties in the Dáil should agree amongst themselves that they will keep on as representatives of the people without consulting the people." When we were bringing in the Constitution, although I thought of the possibility of a crisis in which it would be desirable not to have the power of Parliament limited too narrowly, I had not thought of the great difficulty of any Parliament extending its own life. Having decided here that we were to have an election because of the dangers attaching to not having an election, we were discussing some question — I forget exactly what it was—and it occurred to me that nobody knows how long the present war may last. We do not know how intense and how dangerous the immediate emergency just after the war may be. I thought it would be desirable, now that we have had the experience of what can happen, that we should at least not put the coming Parliament in perhaps the same predicament that we find ourselves in, and that therefore we should provide, in so far as we reasonably can provide, that the next Parliament would not have the same difficulty that we have and that at least they would be in a position to have a six-year period. You may say: "Why not make it a seven-year or an eight-year period"? or something else like that. First of all, I think that for Parliament to extend the period mentioned in the Constitution would be disastrous. I agree with Deputy Mulcahy that you cannot do that. But, within the period in the Constitution, I think you can.

I must say that I was not thinking of this merely because of the emergency because, although it is the emergency that brought it very forcibly to my mind, I have been thinking on exactly the same lines as Deputy Lynch has been thinking. I did not go back so far as he did, but I counted up how many general elections we have had here since 1922. We had one in 1923; we had two in 1927; we had one in 1932; we had one in 1933; we had one in 1937; we had one in 1938; and then we have the forthcoming election. That works out, I think, at about seven in a period of 20 years. In other words, the average length of Parliament determined, not by the figure put in the statute as the maximum length of Parliament, but by the ordinal political position, has worked out at about three years. I do not think that anybody would think it was desirable to have it as short a period as that. Therefore, with the idea of trying to lengthen out the average somewhat, it seemed to me that to extend it from five to six years would probably bring about something between four and five years as the average; that is, that the people would be consulted in a period between four and five years.

Most of us are experienced in the business now and we realise that if there is an election due definitely within a certain period, as it is due this June, from the moment the election year comes in a certain amount of disturbance takes place. You have the various Parties thinking in terms of Party, much more, in my opinion, than they are thinking of it at any other particular period of time, and there are measures which will not get the same type of consideration in Parliament in an election year that they would get in another year. I think that there is always a portion of the year, anyhow, when a definite election is due as the result of Parliamentary provision, which is bad from the point of view of the conduct of business. The result is that a Government having the interest of the people at heart try to anticipate that period, and you find that they do in fact go to the electorate earlier than the time provided for. I can say for ourselves that if this had been an ordinary period we would have gone to the country and got the opinion of the people at an earlier period than the present. It is the prerogative, I think, of the Taoiseach to decide matters of that sort, and I can say for myself that I certainly would have decided to appeal to the people earlier were it not for the emergency. I felt, however, that during the emergency it would not be justifiable to go to the country any considerable time before the time we were bound to go by law. That consideration would not have held in ordinary circumstances. I do believe that the result of having a five year limit inevitably means that you never will get a longer period than about four and a half years, if you get that; and that for the other elections which are likely to take place, as they have taken place, as the result of the political situation in the country, the average will be very much less than four years. If you do agree to put this in the statute, on the law of averages I certainly would be willing to wager that over a period of years the life of Parliament would not be five years, even when you have agreed to six years.

This Bill was agreed to by the Government and was introduced. As I say, I was rather disappointed to find that the attitude adopted towards it had not been such as was indicated by the last Deputy, which was my anticipation, because it seemed to me that all experienced Deputies would take that point of view. Again I ask Deputies to reconsider their attitude towards it. It is naturally the sort of measure upon which one would like to have agreement. As was pointed out by Deputy Lynch, it cannot affect the life of the existing Parliament. It has to be done in advance. If this were an ordinary period, with the experience I have got as the result of this crisis—the experience we have all got —I certainly, for the ordinary public good, would introduce this measure as a measure, not for the emergency alone, but generally. Even if it were to be introduced from that point of view, surely with the experience we have just had about the emergency, it would be desirable that it should apply to the emergency also. Therefore, it should be introduced now to apply to the next Parliament rather than be introduced in the next Parliament to apply to the subsequent Parliament, because it has always to apply to the subsequent Parliament. Again I would ask Opposition Deputies to look at it from that point of view and to see whether the objections which they have indicated could not be waived. I feel very strongly that it is in the public interest that the period of time should be lengthened by a year.

Mr. Byrne

I support the view expressed by Deputy Lynch as I think it is very proper that the present Parliament, at the end of its days, should prolong the life of future Parliaments. No Party here can be accused of prolonging its own life, because nobody knows what is going to happen at the coming election. Having heard the Taoiseach's views on this question, and his references to the present emergency, I appeal to him to reconsider the whole position, and with the leaders of other Parties in the House, see if it is not possible for all of them to sink their differences in the interest of the country as a whole. Nobody wants an election at the present time. There is absolutely no doubt about that. If the leaders of all Parties would sink their differences they might form a National Government. As I pointed out previously the Taoiseach could look around and select the best brains in the House, in the Seanad, and even outside amongst business men—I am not saying that there are not plenty of good business men in the House—who cannot win an election but whose services to the country would now be very valuable.

They are men whose views may not appeal to the country, or who may not have a national record to suit the area that they would wish to contest, and who would not be elected, but there are many big business men in Dublin and elsewhere whose services could be procured in view of the present scarcity, men who realise how essential it is to keep the attention of workers directed to the production of food and to the securing of materials to carry on industry. I think it is a sin against the country to have an election during the present emergency. That has always been my view since the emergency started. I stated previously that no matter what Government is in power there will be certain elements outside who will say: "Oh, you are afraid of the electors. You are saving your own seats." Big men in charge of the country's affairs should not allow that kind of talk to influence them. It is right to postpone an election now in order to have 100 per cent. production of food, so that the attention of those engaged in such work should not be diverted from the serious dangers that face the country.

The Taoiseach has said here, and many others have said it outside and in the Lobbies, that an election now will arouse bad blood amongst some elements. I feel that if there is an election in June, there will be another in November or December. As no Party is going to secure a majority, there will have to be a combination whose life will not be a very long one. If the Parties are in favour of a National Government after the election why not now? Why not give the country this message, that the big men in the Dáil—and the leaders are big men with a broad outlook—will at least sink their differences for the time being. There is an atmosphere in the Dáil that one does not like to contemplate in regard to small matters. At college debating societies one hears this view expressed by youths: "Ah, we are more interested in where we are going to get a living; what our profession is going to do for us; what appointments we can get." One hears fathers and mothers asking about the future of their boys or girls. They are not interested in elections. Sometimes they say: "Will you politicians stop talking and give us some hope by telling us what we are going to do with our children?"

If that is the attitude of people with sons from 22 to 25 years of age who have not yet earned 1/-, why should it not be heard in this House? Why should I be afraid to talk about what might appear to be a small matter in the National Assembly? In reality it is not a small matter, because it concerns the life that young people have to live when some of us will be gone, and when their security may not be safeguarded. At the eleventh hour I earnestly appeal to the better sense of all Parties to agree to form a National Government in which every section would have representation. In the first Great War Great Britain brought in as food controllers and coal controllers men who were not members of the House of Commons, and who were not the elected representatives of the people. I want to know why we are not big enough to do that. When the emergency is over, when the food supply is guaranteed, and when materials necessary to carry on industry are available, then six months after the emergency it could be said that the time had arrived to ask the people for their views, and to announce an election in which all Parties could go to the country and let it send back representatives of the people's will. I hope it is not too late to appeal to the Taoiseach, to Deputy Cosgrave, to Deputy Norton and other Deputies who differed in the past to come together and to announce to the people the happy message that there will be no election.

When Deputy Byrne was speaking he said that nobody wanted an election. I want to disillusion Deputy Byrne at once, and to say that I am one person who wants an election. I believe that those who want an election are in an overwhelming majority and that the reason why an election is wanted is because the Government has not been a success. I believe that the affairs of this country are not being competently carried out at the present moment and, in consequence, I want the people to have their choice. If the people think that the present Government is a good Government, it is for them to return that Government; if they think that the present Government is a bad Government—as I think—then it is the duty of the people to put the present Government out of office and let new men with fresh ideas discharge the duties which are now being discharged by those in office. That is, I think, distinctly and entirely irrelevant to the matter under discussion, but when I heard the expression of opinion put forward by Deputy Byrne, I could not refrain from expressing my views, differing as they doin toto from his.

As far as the Bill before the House is concerned, I am opposed to the lengthening of the life of Parliament beyond its present term of five years. We have wandered a very long way since the great democratic ultra-radical idea was embodied in the people's charter 100 years ago, which set England on fire and in which "An Annual Parliament!" was one of the great cries. The radical idea in those days was that the people should have the opportunity every year to change the Government and that, when a Government showed itself incompetent to carry out its work, the people should be able to change it. It is perfectly obvious that an annual Parliament was the view of doctrinaires. An annual Parliament would not allow any Government to do its work: it would mean that the eyes were on the coming election every minute and not on doing solid work for the State.

The idea that Parliaments should not be unduly prolonged is, in my opinion, a sound idea. A Parliament that has had five years of life has had every opportunity to show the electorate whether it is a good one or a bad one. It has had plenty of time to evolve its policy and to put that policy into force. On the other hand, when in this country a Parliament loses the confidence of the people, experience has shown us that there is never a swing round inside the House itself, as there is sometimes in the British House of Commons.

I use Great Britain as an example, because that country evolved the theory of Parliamentary government and all other representative Governments are more or less moulded upon that model. In the British Parliament, when a Government begins to lose the confidence of the people, it loses the confidence of its own supporters in the House. Governments which have large majorities on paper are beaten in the House and are compelled to resign. Anybody who reads through the Parliamentary history of the 19th century in England will see many examples bearing out the truth of my words. In this country, no matter what grave blunders the present Government might have committed—and I am taking a suppositious case now, for the purpose of argument—I do not believe that one single member of the Fianna Fáil Party would vote against them on a vote of confidence. For that reason, the case for prolonging the life of Parliament in this State has nothing to be said in its favour and has a great deal to be thought and said against it.

Surely, five years is quite long enough for any Government to be in office. Allusions have been made to the fact that this is a time of crisis, that it is bad to have a general election in a time of crisis and, therefore, that there ought to be a lengthening of the life of Parliament in order that, if another period of crisis arose, Parliament would not have to be dissolved at the end of five years. There is nothing in an argument of that nature. The crisis might arise at the end of the sixth year as easily as at the end of the fifth or at the end of the third year. We never know when crises will arise. Please God, in our time there never will be another emergency. I have lived through two great wars. Unfortunately, the second great war is not yet over, but I certainly do not want to see another great war or another emergency.

I cannot see the disadvantages of holding a general election during the emergency. We are told it will arouse a lot of bad feeling. There was a time when elections were very "hot" in this country. That is not so now. Were not the last two or three elections fought here the quietest elections that could be? I have spoken already from the platform at several election meetings and have found everything quiet, peaceful and orderly, and not one sign of bad blood or of any undue arousing of the passions. I have not seen passions aroused anywhere and until this election campaign is over I am perfectly satisfied that there will be no quarrelling and no successful incitement to passions. When this election is over, the people having been given their choice and having selected those persons whom they think most fit to carry on the duty of government, the overwhelming number of the citizens elected to this Dáil will, I believe, give the Government a very fair chance. There will be very little, if any, danger of what Deputy Byrne seems to visualise—another election following close upon this one.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the view expressed by Deputy General Mulcahy in aiming at the continuance of the five years' life of Parliament. Personally, I think five years is a reasonable and happy medium to strike for a democratic parliament. While we cannot have elections occurring frequently and hope to do any constructive business in between, it would be much worse to have an extension. That would be against the best interests of the democratic system. I would personally favour the three year election of local bodies and I believe that any deterioration that has taken place in recent years in local government is directly traceable to the fact that there have not been sufficiently frequent infusions of new blood into those bodies. That cannot be related to the national Parliament.

While I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed by Deputy Mulcahy, we must have regard to the speeches made by the Taoiseach and Deputy Lynch, that this is the only Dáil of the ten that has run its normal period of five years. The average that has been mentioned shows Dála to have a life of less than three years. The Taoiseach argues, and so does Deputy Lynch, that the addition nominally of another year to the life of a five year Parliament might give us a prospect of an average of something round four years. I do not know by what mathematical system we could work out what the tendency in future would be because I am not inclined to think that the nominal term of five years had very much to do with the calling of elections in the past. We had elections after Dála had been in existence for a few months—12 months, nine months or ten months— and it would be very difficult to relate the reasons for the calling of these speedy elections to the stated life of the Dáil as set down in the Constitution or in Acts of the Oireachtas.

I am not inclined to think, from the history of the Dáil since it was first set up, that the adding of one year to the statutory period would result in giving a four years average as the Taoiseach expects it might. One thing reasonably sure is that if a six years' life is permitted, you are not going to exceed an average of five years. I think that is a reasonable assumption. While I am anxious to preserve the right of resort to the electorate within a reasonable period, I do not think that the proposal to extend the life of the Dáil to six years should frighten Deputies because I do not think that it is going to be realised except in very special circumstances. At the present time we have facilities in the Constitution to extend the life of the Oireachtas to seven years, but I think it would be most undesirable to operate that machinery because it would have to be operated by an existing Dáil to extend its own life. That must be held to be objectionable. I might mention that Deputy Byrne started off by stating that it was most objectionable for a Dáil to extend its own life, but he immediately asked the House to extend the life of the present Dáil indefinitely.

Mr. Byrne

I said if we had a National Government.

I thought the Deputy urged that this Dáil should do something to extend its own life, that it should continue until the end of the emergency.

Mr. Byrne

I said we should form a National Government now.

I think it is much more desirable that a Dáil which is about to go out, feeling from experience, perhaps, that it would be a good thing if another year were added nominally to the life of Parliament, should extend the life of an incoming Dáil rather than that any future Dáil should attempt to extend its own life on the ground that an emergency was in existence. For that reason I have no objection to this Bill. I am speaking personally on this matter; I am not expressing a Party viewpoint. It seems to me that the principle of the Bill is less objectionable than a proposal by an existing Dáil to extend its own life, in that it permits a future Dáil to carry on its work for a longer period than is now permitted, if the interests of the people should appear to make that course desirable.

Mr. Brennan

I do not think that any case can be made for extending the life of the Dáil to six years. Personally, I think that the weakest case that can be made for it is a case based on averages. For the life of me, I do not see what averages have got to do with this question. After all, it does not matter whether the life of the Dáil is a five year or a six year one. Elections have been held in the past on short notice, and they would have been held at short notice irrespective of whether the statutory period of the life of the Dáil was five years or seven years. Why then should we lay so much stress on averages? If the case could be made that there was some occasion on which a certain policy had been put before the country, that it had been proved that a five year period was not sufficient to bring it to fruition, and that, therefore, on that score there was good reason for this proposal, something might be said for it.

But let us take the case of the present Government. They have been in office since 1932. I think the Taoiseach made the remark himself some time ago that he thought it desirable that the life of the Dáil should be extended so that the Government would have an opportunity of completing its programme in some period of years over five. The present Government however has been in office for 11 years. Surely in that period it should have been possible for it to complete its programme? The country is about to judge that in the near future. I do not want to go into that now, but I do think that the Government has not made a success of its administration in 11 years, much less in six years.

Although I do not agree with the proposal, an endeavour might be made to make a case for this proposal on the ground I have mentioned, but the extension of the life of Parliament for a further year does not appear to me to be sensible. As the Leader of the Opposition stated here when this Bill was first introduced, there is always the great danger that when a Government is in office for a lengthy period, you will have a violent change at the end of that period. If, as he pointed out on that occasion, there was a gradual change and if the people had an opportunity every four or five years to change the personnel of the Dáil, you would probably have much more of the old members coming back to resume the reins of office where they left off than if they had been in office for a lengthy period before.

Deputy Keyes has mentioned that the addition of one year would not matter very much but taking two successive Dála, it would mean the addition of two years, an extension from ten years to 12 years, and if an unpopular Government were in office towards the end of that period, the electorate might be very glad to have an opportunity of expressing their views at an election at the end of, say, eight years or ten years at most. If they had to tolerate that Government for another two years, you would probably have a very abrupt and violent change at the end of 12 years. By this type of legislation you would probably create in the minds of the people a reaction against Parliamentary institutions altogether. Under our present laws the people have a right to change the personnel of this House within, at most, five years and I think that right should not be taken from them. Deputy Byrne urged that we should have a National Government here and now but I think Deputy Keyes is right in stating that to do that you would probably have to extend the life of the present Dáil and that is a step which we are not entitled to take except in very extraordinary circumstances. Nothing that I have heard in support of the proposal to extend the life of this House beyond five years convinces me that a case has been made for it. I think a period of five years is quite sufficient. If the Government in office during that period feel that they are entitled to a further period in office they can go to the country and if the people think that they are entitled to another period they will elect them for a further five years period. I think five years is quite long enough and I do not see any virtue or merit in the proposal to add another year.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 36.

Tá.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Martin.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William J.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davin, William.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Ryan, Jeremiah.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.