Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jun 1946

Vol. 101 No. 10

Motion for Tribunal.

I move:—

That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance, that is to say:—

To investigate and report upon the allegations contained in a letter bearing date the 22nd May, 1946, addressed to the Taoiseach and the members of the Government by Dr. Patrick MacCarvill and an accompanying copy letter dated the 17th May, 1946, referred to in the first mentioned letter as a report to Dr. Patrick MacCarvill from Mr. Darach Connolly, solicitor.

The letters referred to are as follows:—

"8 Fitzwilliam Square,

Dublin.

22nd May, 1946."

—That is the date on the letter. It was received in my office on the 28th May.

"To

An Taoiseach and each member of the Government.

A Chara,

My brother, Johnny MacCarvill, has been dismissed from his position as manager and secretary of the Monaghan Curing Company by Dr. F. C. Ward, Managing Director of the company, by powers that, I am now instructed, were self-arrogated."

Would the Taoiseach mind speaking a little louder? It is not easy to hear him.

"The manner and circumstances of his dismissal were such as to give the impression that he must have been guilty of serious misconduct, and, accordingly, there has been much local rumour and comment.

For the benefit of those who do not know my brother, I should say that he is a well-known man—perhaps one of the best-known men—in County Monaghan. He has an excellent record in both Irish wars; is an office-holder in the principal Fianna Fáil organisations in Monaghan, being vice-president of the North Monaghan Comhairle Ceanntair and joint treasurer of the Comhairle Dáil Ceanntair; has acted as Fianna Fáil election agent at all elections in Monaghan since 1932, including the Presidential Election of 1945.

So as to discover, without prejudice, all the facts, I have submitted to Mr. Darach Connolly, solicitor, the company's accounts, balance sheets, much correspondence, and memoranda, etc., for report and legal opinion. I attach herewith a copy of his report, and the astonishing disclosures therein require no comment, though I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance to paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the report.

It is reasonable for anyone to ask why my brother was dismissed, if it is true that he managed the company well. I have gone very closely into the question myself, and the reason appears to be as follows:—

Last January, when Dr. Ward took the first steps in this unwarrantable action, he was hoping in a very short time to be promoted to a Ministry in which case, I understand, he would have been compelled to resign his managing-directorship of the company. From Mr. Connolly's report it is obvious that Dr. Ward would thus have been at a serious financial loss, so he had to find some means of recouping himself. His son, an undergraduate in the commerce faculty in University College, Dublin, has already some experience of the business, acquired during the holiday periods at Clover Meats, Limited, Bacon Curers, Waterford. This young man, before there was any question of dismissal, stated to a reliable witness that he would be going to Monaghan to take my brother's position, and this was later confirmed by Mr. Corr, deputy managing director of the company. The managing directorship and the managership would have been merged, and a new plan adopted for profit-sharing, as the old one would no longer suit. My brother was an obstacle, so he must go, the only reason given being that it was ‘in the best interests of the shareholders'—a genuine enough reason when one remembers that 5/8 of the shares are held by Dr. Ward, and how better could the ‘interests' of at least the majority of ‘the shareholders' be served than by installing one of his own family.

This explanation seems more than reasonable, for it corresponds very closely with Dr. Ward's action some three or four years ago in ordering the dismissal of Mr. Matt Fitzsimons, an excellent agent of the company. The only reason in that case was to make room for Mrs. K. Ward, the lady mentioned in Mr. Connolly's report, as chief agent in the carrying out of undisclosed cash sales.

On a parallel with the system of conducting undisclosed cash sales in the curing company, is the method adopted by Dr. Ward for drawing by another hidden system, some 50 per cent. of the salary and emoluments attaching to the position of medical officer of the Monaghan Dispensary District. The system is as follows:—

A temporary medical officer is appointed by the Monaghan Board of Health to discharge Dr. Ward's duties, at the same salary to which Dr. Ward would be entitled if he were still dispensary officer there. (This rate is important from Dr. Ward's point of view, not only because of what he draws yearly from it, as shown hereafter, but also, by keeping up over the past 14 years, the higher rate of salary with the periodic increments, he has now reached his maximum salary, and therefore, as the pensionable officer, gets the benefit of it). The temporary medical officer appointed by the board of health is recommended for the appointment by Dr. Ward, who then lays down his conditions, namely; that all cheques for salary and emoluments paid to the temporary, medical officer must be endorsed by the medical officer and delivered uncashed to Dr. Ward, who then pays the temporary medical officer at a rate which has varied thus:—

1st temporary medical officer who acted from March 1932, to September 1935, at £4 4s per week.

2nd temporary medical officer who has acted from 1935 to the present date, at £5 5s per week from 1935 to 1943, but increasing since 1943 to the present figure of £29 per month.

As the salaries and emoluments have varied from, roughly, £450 per annum to £575 per annum, it means that Dr. Ward has drawn and continues to draw an annual sum of not less than £200-£250, while to all appearances the temporary medical officer is getting the entire amount. He is not ungenerous, however, for in return for the payment of this enforced tribute, he allows the temporary medical officer, after the first year, to keep the private fees earned in the district—where Dr. Ward himself has not practised for 15 years. During the first year he exacted half the private fees as well.

Dr. J.F. McGeough, Monaghan Street, Newry, filled the position for the first three and a half years. He was dispossessed in September, 1935, for lodging, in June of that year, the cheques for the April-June quarter to his own account, and informing Dr. Ward that he expected the terms of his appointment as temporary medical officer by the board of health to be fulfilled. Dr. Ward dispossessed him by the simple expedient of himself asking permission from the board of health to take up duty again. The permission was granted, and he did, nominally, take up duty (although he was then whole-time Parliamentary Secretary), until he found another doctor to consent to his conditions.

At least one doctor, named Murray, at the time refused the conditions, and this man I am trying to trace so that he may testify to the conditions submitted to him.

Dr. McGeough, who is now beyond Dr. Ward's ex-officio reprisals, is quite willing to prove, on oath if necessary, the facts governing the period 1932 to 1935. I could invite Dr. M.P. O'Gorman, the occupant of the position since 1935, to submit confirmatory evidence only if the Minister for Local Government and Public Health will guarantee him immunity against Dr. Ward's vengeance, for, in addition to acting as Dr. Ward's deputy, he has recently been appointed to a neighbouring rural dispensary district, and feels that if Dr. Ward had still official power over him, it would not be safe to disclose the position.

I hope that some means will be devised to ensure that restitution will be made to these two doctors. Until my brother sought my advice regarding his summary dismissal, I was unaware that the Monaghan Curing Company had been conducted in the manner disclosed.

Since 1932 there had been persistent rumours, widespread among the medical profession, that Dr. Ward was continuing to draw part of the salary of the Monaghan Dispensary District. I was aware that Deputies Dillon and O'Higgins had tried to get evidence of this, but it is only now that I fully understand why they did not succeed.

When the curing company affair came to my notice I decided to make a thorough and impartial investigation, for the reason that I felt that I was in a particularly favourable position to get reliable information. Having got it, supported by documentary and personal evidence, I now feel that it is my duty, before advising or taking any other steps, to submit it to the Government in the interests of the Government itself, and the country generally, especially my native county.

Amongst other matters which might profitably form the subject of inquiry, but about which I would find it difficult to get conclusive evidence, is the taking of funds—it is said some hundreds of pounds — from the Monaghan Public Utility Building Society to erect a Fianna Fáil Hall at Carrickroe, on land rented by Dr. Ward himself. I am told that it is known locally as the Ward Hall, and that he exercises the authority of a landlord over it. The funds were not returned to the society, nor any offer made to do so. This is my unconfirmed information.

I have dissuaded my brother from taking any action until the matters disclosed herein have been considered by the Government. Mr. Darach Connolly, solicitor, has custody of all the available documents concerning the curing company, and is authorised to submit them for inspection, if required. Dr. McGeough is prepared to submit evidence by way of affidavit or in person, if deemed necessary, and Dr. O'Gorman's supporting proof will be forthcoming, immediately he is assured of protection.

Mise,

le meas,

P. MacCarvill."

The other letter is as follows:—

"Darach Connolly,

Solicitor. 21 Parliament Street,

Dublin.

17th May, 1946.

Dr. Patrick MacCarvill,

8 Fitzwilliam Square,

Dublin.

Dear Dr. MacCarvill,

In accordance with your instructions, I have carefully examined the audited accounts and balance sheets, correspondence and memoranda relating to the Monaghan Curing Company Limited, placed at my disposal.

Since 1938, the company has had a share capital of £8,000, divided between the three directors, who are also officials of the company, as follows:—

Managing director, Dr. F. C. Ward, £5,000; deputy managing director, Mr. Joseph Corr, £2,250; manager and secretary, Mr. J. MacCarvill, £750—£8,000.

The audited accounts for the years 1938 to 1944 show that the company, on the average, has made extremely good profits, especially when considered in relation to the amount of the capital invested. I should perhaps, point out that the company has never paid any dividends as such, but the directors drew from the company, by way of salary and otherwise, in exact ratio to the amount of capital held by each. Since you expressly ask for a statement of the amounts drawn by Dr. Ward, the following is a summary of the amounts drawn by him in salaries during the periods stated:—

During ten months of 1938, £916 13s. 4d.; during the year 1939, £1,000; during the year 1940, £1,750; during the year 1941, £2,000; during the year 1942, £2,000; during the year 1943, £1,000; during three months of 1944, £250; total salaries during six years and one month, £8,916 13s. 4d.

In addition to the profits shown by the properly audited accounts, it is quite clear from the documents furnished, that a well organised system of undisclosed cash sales was in operation during most of the period under review. It does not appear how the bacon was made available for these ‘unofficial' sales, while the company was working on a quota basis, but it is obvious that some method must have been adopted whereby the extraction of bacon, and offal, from the pigs killed was not disclosed in full to the Pigs and Bacon Commission. If you should require specific details in respect of this practice, I could furnish dates and names of consignees in respect of some of these undisclosed cash sales, from the records to hand.

It is quite obvious that the proceeds of these sales were not passed through the accounts of the company, nor included in the audited accounts. From this you will understand that moneys derived from this source were not returned for taxation purposes by the company to the Revenue Commissioners.

It must be assumed from this, that the directors profiting by these undisclosed cash sales have not included them in their personal income-tax returns, since by doing so they would have to disclose to the Revenue Commissioners the source of this income, thereby involving the company of which they were the directors and officials. As requested, I have summarised—I think accurately—the total amounts drawn by Dr. Ward out of these undisclosed cash sales during the period under review, as follows:—

During the year 1939, £106 14s. 4d.; 1940, £12 19s. 5d.; 1941, £173 0s. 1d.; 1942, £368 10s. 9d.; 1943, £522 19s. 0d.; 1944, £1,027 9s. 9d.; 1945, £753 3s. 5d. Total during the seven years, £2,964 16s. 9d.

During the period 1938 to 1945, inclusive, therefore, Dr. Ward appears to have drawn from the company almost £12,000 exclusive of any salary which he may have drawn for the year 1945 and the nine months of the year 1944.

It is abundantly clear from the records to hand that Dr. Ward directed and ordered the carrying out of these cash sales. One of the letters sent by him to the deputy managing director, and apparently handed over to the manager and secretary for attention, reads as follows:—

‘Morven',

Nashville Park,

Howth,

13th December, 1943.

Dear Joe,

You might have two tons of Wiltshire sides dispatched to Mrs. K. Ward at Amiens Street. The consignment need not be entered up, but send her a note that you are sending her a certain quantity on a certain day. If you have more on hands than can conveniently be disposed of, you could send three tons. In calculating the quantity available you may assume that Pidgeon will not require any from us this month. I shall explain in detail when I go down. Please have these matters dealt with without delay.

I hope the stocktaking as on the 11th instant has been carried out.

Sincerely yours,

Conn Ward.

Mr. Joe Corr,

Church Square,

Monaghan.

P.S. The commission on this transaction can be paid in cash.

C.W.

(The underlining is not mine, but is in the letter, and the P.S. is written, not typed).

It would appear that the Mrs. K. Ward (Dr. Ward's sister-in-law) mentioned in this letter was one of the principal, if not the principal agent here, outside the local area, for carrying out these undisclosed cash sales.

An original memorandum, written by your brother as manager and secretary and dated the 7th September, 1942, shows that he raised objections to this practice of undisclosed cash sales. In spite of the views expressed by him, however, he was at fault in allowing himself to be overruled, and in carrying out the policy adopted, in this matter. I have discussed with your brother this matter, and its significance from his point of view, and he has intimated to me his intention of paying to the Revenue Commissioners such amount as may be due to them by him in respect of moneys thus received (which amount cannot be too great in view of his small share therein).

In this connection I would draw your attention to the fact that, in spite of the very large profits which the company paid, relative to the amount of capital therein, your brother received, as manager and secretary, a wage of £5 per week, reduced to £4 per week in October, 1945. The nature and extent of his work, and the moneys involved therein make this figure appear unusually low, though his co-directors may have considered it adequate when his small proportionate share in the profit-salaries and out of the undisclosed cash sales was added thereto. Although I am not perhaps the best judge thereof, his management of the affairs of the company seems to have been efficient and successful, if the returns obtained by the directors and the completeness of the complicated records kept by him are any indication. With reference to one of your queries, there is, in fact, no suggestion in any of these records, even in the somewhat offensive letters written to him by Dr. Ward subsequent to his purported dismissal, that he misapplied or misappropriated any moneys whatsoever belonging to the company.

With regard to his purported dismissal, the circumstances seem to be as follows:—On January 12th last, Dr. Ward telegraphed to Mr. Corr instructing him to give the manager four weeks' leave of absence with pay (your brother was then in hospital).

May I interrupt the Taoiseach to ask a question? Are we at any stage of this document going to hear of any allegation made against Dr. Ward in his capacity as a member of Dáil Eireann? If so, I can understand the Taoiseach reading it, but if not, what has Dáil Eireann got to do with the private activities of Dr. Ward or the management of his business? There are courts in this country established for dealing with such matters. If there is anything against him in his capacity as a Deputy then I can understand that the Taoiseach should read on.

The Deputy rose to ask a question.

Is there anything in all these documents relating to Dr. Ward's conduct as a Deputy of Dáil Eireann?

I think so.

Very well. If there is, I can understand the Taoiseach reading the document.

What I have read already reflects on his attitude as a Parliamentary Secretary.

Very well.

"On January 26th Dr. Ward wrote to your brother purporting to terminate his employment as manager and secretary as from the 9th February, ‘in the best interests of the shareholders', no other reason being stated. In this letter Dr. Ward offered your brother alternative employment as an account-collecting agent for the Counties Cavan and Monaghan, on the basis of a 2½ per cent. commission on all accounts collected within 14 days, a 1½ per cent. commission on all accounts collected within 28 days of the issue of invoice. Accounts not collected within 28 days were to be collected in any event, but no commission was to be paid thereon. He was also to ensure a steady supply of pigs to the factory. Remuneration was to be on the basis of this commission alone.

From the legal point of view, I am of the opinion that the articles and memorandum of association of the company do not confer on the managing director, Dr. Ward, power or authority to remove from office a person in the position your brother held. In my view, a decision of the board of directors would be necessary to dismiss the manager and secretary. This view is supported by the counsel's opinion which I have obtained from Mr. Cecil Lavery, S.C., and I would therefore advise that your brother has grounds for legal action on foot of a claim that his employment has not been properly terminated. Arrears of salary would be due to him from the company.

With regard to the reasons later given by Dr. Ward for the purported dismissal, apparently under pressure from your brother, his allegations of ‘culpable negligence' and lack of ‘sense of responsibility' etc., in the discharge of his duties, would, perhaps in the usual way, be clear and sufficient grounds for an action for libel. In this case, however, the obvious difficulty of proving any ‘publication' and the probability that these communications and the occasions thereof would be held to be ‘privileged' rule out any such proceedings. The fact that there appears to be no evidence in the records to hand that such statements were warranted, would not be sufficient grounds to sustain an action for defamation in the circumstances.

In conclusion, I should point out that nothing that has occurred affects in any way your brother's position as a director of the company. He is still entitled to notice of meetings, and in this connection, any deliberate omission to notify him of such meetings would, in my opinion, render the proceedings thereat invalid. He is entitled to arrears of salary up to such time as his employment as manager and secretary is properly terminated, which could be done by his co-directors at any board meeting.

I have dealt at length with the matters upon which you have asked for my opinion and advice. If there should be any further points upon which you desire advice or any matters in the foregoing which you would like to have clarified, I will be glad to be of any assistance.

Very truly yours,

Darach Connolly."

With the consent of the writer, Dr. MacCarvill, I forwarded these letters to Dr. Ward and received the following reply——

Again I must ask to be allowed to intervene. It is detestable that in this way we should pry into these allegations on the floor of the House. Dr. Ward is my colleague in the representation of County Monaghan, and I ask that his personal honour be afforded the protection that would be afforded to any Deputy in this House.

Would not the Deputy wait?

the Taoiseach has given way. I have heard nothing in the documents read out which would make any aspersions on Dr. Ward in his capacity as a member of this House, except a kind of general charge that has been made. Why should this House be asked to hear a series of charges and counter charges which relate exclusively to the private business of Deputy Ward, every single one of which would make suitable matter for investigation by an established court of law, where Dr. Ward and the other parties would have the advantage of the rules of evidence and procedure carried out in accordance with propriety and justice? Could the Taoiseach say where this House is drawn into the transaction?

I am not anxious to draw this House into it. I have given this careful consideration and I think the Deputy should wait until I have finished the correspondence. I appreciate the point the Deputy has made, and I was very cautious to consult spokesmen, heads of Parties and the Ceann Comhairle on procedure.

I should like to say that the heads of Parties were given no information as to the contents of the letter.

I feel strongly about this. Deputies know that Dr. Ward and I are not on cordial relations, but we are colleagues, and I am the only colleague from Monaghan, with the exception of Deputy Mrs. Rice—who will be excused from entering on such a delicate question—and I only ask for Dr. Ward what I would ask for others, justice. If he has done anything wrong, or if that is alleged this House has a function, but this House has no function about a whole lot of wild charges against Dr. Ward in his personal capacity which, I am sure, he will meet in any court of law. That has not been done.

If the Deputy would only wait until I have finished.

I think the Taoiseach might have consulted others.

I could not give letters of this sort to anybody. These will all have to be examined, if a public inquiry is granted, and I think it ought to be granted. This is a letter from Dr. Ward:—

4adh Meitheamh, 1946.

"Dear Taoiseach,

I thank you for letter with enclosures received on the 1st instant. I regard the charges made in a very serious light and I cannot adequately deal with them until I have had an opportunity of examining minutes, correspondence and records of the Monaghan Curing Company. This will take some time and I shall require to go to Monaghan for the purpose. In the meantime, from the knowledge and information at my disposal, I can with confidence assure you that I have not been a party to any business, political, or professional transaction that cannot stand the fullest public examination.

The only way a satisfactory investigation can be secured is through the machinery of the courts of justice. If I should satisfy you and the members of the Government as to the propriety of my conduct by submission of evidence that cannot be refuted I could still remain the victim of the charges and you could be accused of having hushed up a scandal. I have, therefore, decided to obtain legal advice with a view to providing myself with the opportunity of publicly exposing what I regard as a malicious libel.

I should be glad if you would be good enough to inform the members of the Government that I know my confidence is well founded."

I have a further letter of the same date:

"Dear Taoiseach,

Further to my letter of even date and following the most careful consideration of Dr. MacCarvill's allegations, I would urge that the whole matter be made the subject of a judicial inquiry with the least possible delay. The charges as to my conduct as Parliamentary Secretary in relation to the appointment of a deputy medical officer of Monaghan Dispensary District are of a most serious nature and the fullest investigation becomes in the circumstances a matter of great urgency.

Pending the setting up of the tribunal and consideration of the report, I should be glad if the Government would permit me to abstain from the exercise of my functions as Parliamentary Secretary.

Yours sincerely,

F.C. Ward."

These are what I regard as the documents necessary to enable the House to consider whether it is not proper that this tribunal should be set up. I could not take it upon myself to make extracts or to generalise the allegations made, so I felt compelled to read the letters, although there are, as Deputy Dillon has pointed out, quite a number of matters which would seem to be matters which could be investigated otherwise. Dr. Ward occupies the position of Parliamentary Secretary and there is a considerable amount of work to be done in that office, and it would not be right that we should keep the position in suspense until long-protracted actions in the courts which might result from libel actions or anything of the sort had been completed.

If the House agrees with me in setting up this tribunal, we ought to be able to get a report quickly. My idea would be a tribunal of three judges, so that the facts could be found and then the Government and the House would be in a position to decide what further action is required, if any should be required. If court proceedings are to follow, it does not seem to me that the setting up of this tribunal, and, it being a fact-finding tribunal, its finding of the facts will in any way prevent any further actions it may be necessary or desirable to take in the courts. I feel that it should be done in the public interest in this particular way, so as to ensure speed in getting a determination of the facts, and that, in all the circumstances, this is the most appropriate method.

I apologise to the leader of the Opposition if I appear to speak before him, but I submit that Dr. Ward is my colleague in the constituency of Monaghan and I feel certain that he would do as much for me as I would hope to do for him in similar circumstances. If the Taoiseach and Dr. Ward are of opinion that his conduct as Parliamentary Secretary has been gravely impugned in this document, I admit that the propriety of some special tribunal appointed by this House can be acknowledged, but unless Dr. Ward, who is at present the injured person, in that allegations are made against him which have not been proved, desires that a commission set up by this House should embark on a general inquiry into all the matters referred to in that correspondence, I think the House should be very slow to anticipate the procedure laid down by the courts of law for the settling of disputes of that character between individual citizens. Even if Dr. Ward did press for that, in his anxiety to have his name cleared at the earliest possible moment, and while sympathising with that anxiety, I think the House should still think long and well before inviting even a judicial tribunal of the kind envisaged by the Taoiseach to anticipate the work of the ordinary courts of law, which are established with all their precedents and panoply to settle such matters between individual citizens of the State.

Very grave issues, I agree, are involved, if the Taoiseach's interpretation of the allegations about the Deputy's conduct as Parliamentary Secretary is correct. Let our tribunal dispose of that, but let us not usurp, even through a special tribunal, the function of the court of attending to the other matters, unless it is the very urgent and pressing desire of the injured party in the matter to resort to that procedure. Let us above all remember that, while the charges contained in this correspondence are of the gravest possible character in regard to Dr. Ward's private affairs, it is easy to make charges, but that justice in this country establishes that no man is guilty of a charge until it has been proved true, that, on the contrary, the presumption is that all are innocent until proved guilty. Dr. Ward's honour is untarnished unless and until such time as these charges can be proved before a competent court capable of investigating them satisfactorily.

I do not think there is any need for me at present to say anything but that we approve of the setting up of the tribunal the Taoiseach asks for. As I indicated, the leaders of the Parties whom we consulted at 12 o'clock to-day had no opportunity or were given no opportunity of knowing what was the nature of the statement the Taoiseach intended to make to the House. I do not want to canvass in any way what the position of the House would be in relation to its privileges, if any of the various matters discussed in these letters actually became matters to be dealt with in the courts without an inquiry here. I think that, considering only Parliament and Parliament's work and the atmosphere in which we are carrying out that work, it may be the more appropriate procedure from the point of view of Parliament to adopt the proposal the Government has put up. Whether any other matter arises out of it later on is another matter, but I think the statement of the Taoiseach indicates that this tribunal is necessary and we intend to support the Government in that application. I suggest that the tribunal be got under way and be given the earliest opportunity of examining and reporting on the matters put before it. I therefore want to say that I support the Government's motion to set up this tribunal, but I would ask the Taoiseach to indicate to the House at the earliest possible moment the members of the tribunal. I would ask him also whether the work of the tribunal will be carried on under the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, that is, that it will have complete power to send for persons, papers and documents, that it will have complete privilege and that its proceedings will be held in public.

All of us are anxious that this matter should be clarified, but I beg you to bear in mind the precedent you are about to establish, to think of what you are doing. Here somebody comes along and makes serious allegations against a member of the House——

The Deputy has spoken already.

I feel this most deeply. We have a series of allegations about a man's private business and we are to set up a commission to inquire into the charges. If that is so, no man in this House is safe. Any blackguard can allege that I robbed the firm of which I am a director, or that Deputy Blowick defrauded a man in the sale of a cow, or that Deputy Mulcahy set fire to his neighbour's roof, and a Parliamentary Commission is set up. I beg of the Taoiseach to pause. It is not just or right.

I sympathise very fully with the Deputy. Every thought he has given expression to here passed through my own mind. The point is that I am faced with an impossible task in attempting to segregate portions of a letter of that sort, one from another, and to confine it to any particular portion. We shall have to depend upon the wisdom of the tribunal which was set up to examine into this particular matter. It is clear that this is a matter in which all of us in this House are interested. I am particularly interested as head of the Government in the aspect of that matter which casts any reflection upon Dr. Ward or upon his conduct as Parliamentary Secretary. That is to me a prime anxiety. I am also naturally anxious about anything which would reflect on him as being a person not proper to hold such a position. I fully agree with the Deputy that we may find ourselves in an impossible position. If a person sends me a letter making all sorts of allegations about a member of the House—I do not now want to refer back and I take it that the Deputy does not wish me to do so—but this was one of the considerations which I had in mind when allegations were made against another Deputy of this House and where the possibility is that there may ultimately be no substance or no foundations for the allegations that are made; at the same time a certain amount of damage is done. I assure the Deputy that nobody is more keenly alive to the grave danger of an injustice being done to an individual by allegations which may be broadcast to the entire country. But I had no other way of dealing with the situation other than by giving the letters because I dare not make extracts from them.

That is not my point. If allegations are made against any one of us of acting in his capacity as a Deputy, in a manner dishonourable or wrong, I entirely agree with the Taoiseach that he must come here and ask for an inquiry on that indictment.

But if somebody comes to the Taoiseach and says that anyone is acting dishonestly in his business or shamefully in his personal conduct then the Taoiseach is in quite a different position because he must then ask himself how does this relate to the Deputy in his public capacity: "If it is his private life I will not publish a letter in the paper; write me a letter and I will send it to the Deputy; then let the Deputy issue a writ for libel." If he is not prepared to have the matter thrashed out in the courts of justice then the Taoiseach must take up his stand. But Dr. Ward said: "I will sue this man for libel; I will put the matter in the hands of the court and I shall have it thrashed out there." Are we to come in here, before Dr. Ward has time to vindicate himself, and are we to pre-judge the issue by establishing an ad hoc tribunal of God knows what individuals. The courts are there and Dr. Ward is doing everything possible to set the law in motion. Surely, the House is entitled to say: “We decline to act in this matter until the courts have disposed of the writ for libel which Dr. Ward is about to issue.” If Dr. Ward decides that he is entitled to remain in office until the action is disposed of that is a matter for himself; but if he decides to retire temporarily until these disgusting charges are disposed of I am sure that most of us in this House would applaud such an action on his part. But, surely, we ought not to act in this matter until Dr. Ward has issued his writ for libel, gone into the courts of the country and had the matter thrashed out there. Suppose we set up a commission and that commission, rightly or wrongly, makes some adverse criticism of something Dr. Ward has done in connection with say a dispensary doctor in Monaghan, which might be very trivial and one of which we would not take a very grave view even though we might rebuke him, surely that is going to prejudice any jury of 12 men in regard to the other matters raised in this rigmarole. Surely, what we should do is to await the verdict of the courts of the land; if Dr. Ward is not cleared before those courts then we should consider what our position is. If he is cleared and any residue remains, which is obscure, we can provide then the appropriate tribunal to treat with such residue. Surely, it is unjust for us to act as between Dr. Ward and the established courts of the country, whither he wants to go himself as quickly as he possibly can to get this thrashed out as exhaustively as it can be thrashed out; and surely it would positively injure him in the defence of his character, his personal honour and his reputation if we were to establish an ad hoc tribunal to deal with this matter now. No question of expedition or expediency could induce us to put in jeopardy his minimum right to justice. I urge the House most strenuously not to set up such a commission on this occasion having been given the Taoiseach's word that Dr. Ward is issuing the appropriate writ to bring these matters before a court of law. Until such time as that is done we should suspend any action in this matter. I think in that event Dr. Ward will wish temporarily to withdraw, as he has stated in his letter to the Taoiseach, until such time as his vindication is complete. I repeat that that is the graceful and prudent course to adopt if he likes to adopt it; but we in this House have no right to ask him to adopt that course because he is at this moment as innocent as anyone else in this House and has as much right to carry on as any one of us has until such court of law finds these allegations are well-founded and he has acted as no honourable man should act. I appeal to the Taoiseach to consider the matter.

I feel as strongly in this matter as Deputy Dillon does. The main consideration before me is that there is important public work to be done and it is in the public interest that this should be disposed of with all possible speed. We all know that ordinary court procedure is slow. I do not know how long it would take to have this libel action disposed of. Consequently I think the best course would be for the House to give me permission to ask Dr. Ward the specific questions contained in the letter here. I would prefer to put it to him again and postpone a final decision until I hear from him.

What question is that?

To ask Dr. Ward whether he wished to have this tribunal even though it may prejudice him, as the Deputy has pointed out, in going before a jury afterwards.

May I submit that it is not fair to ask Dr. Ward that because if we ask Dr. Ward that question in public and he is advised by his legal advisers to say that he would prefer to have no tribunal pending the trial of his action in a court of law there are simple people in the country who would immediately take scandal at that and it might be misrepresented throughout the country that he was endeavouring to avoid bringing the matter to investigation at the earliest possible moment. We know that he is taking every step any reasonable man can take to bring this matter to issue at the earliest possible moment. I submit we should not shoulder the responsibility of doing anything which might anticipate the courts.

If when the action is disposed of there is any residue left then we can deal with that and then we can consider what we should do. I believe the country will understand and approve of that course. If we depart from that course I submit that we are establishing a precedent in this House which may prove a bitter injustice to a member of the House. The Taoiseach has spoken of the necessity of getting work done. Dr. Ward stands at the head of a splendid family. Whatever expedition may be required in business, the rights of that family are far more important, far superior and far more enduring; and the honour and integrity of the head of that family has been put in issue. This House should do nothing to deprive him of his right to vindicate himself and protect the good name of his family and I urge the House most strenuously not to ask him and to take on its own shoulders before the country the responsibility for saying that Dr. Ward is going to the courts. Again, I say when that is disposed of if anything is left we will deal with it here. Dr. Ward is entitled to rights the same as everyone else; we shall see that he gets no preference, but we shall insist that he gets the same rights that the millionaire and the postman have, as guaranteed under the Constitution.

Having heard the contents of the various documents which the Taoiseach has put before the House to-day I find myself in complete agreement with Deputy Dillon in this matter. I go further than Deputy Dillon has done and say that the Parliamentary Secretary should continue to carry out his duties on the ground that any citizen of this State is innocent until he is proved guilty. The ordinary machinery of the courts is there to deal with this matter. Very serious charges have been made against him in his private capacity. I think the charges made against him in his capacity as Parliamentary Secretary are somewhat trivial but I am afraid that it is charges like that which are sometimes held out by people who do not give proper weight to them or do not appreciate what they are doing. I do not say that that is so in this particular instance. But I do say that Dr. Ward should take the case into the ordinary courts and have the matter thrashed out there to its logical conclusion. Furthermore, I think he ought to retain his duties as Parliamentary Secretary until he is proved either innocent or guilty of these charges and that he be allowed a chance to clear the air.

Whatever the niceties of the legal position may be, as have been represented by Deputy Dillon, the fact that the correspondence has been read to-day makes it impossible for the House, having had letters read which constitute charges against Dr. Ward, two letters from him indicating that he can meet these charges with confidence, simply to leave the matter in that unsatisfactory position. Before the publication of the correspondence, if the House had been aware of it, it might have been able to give some consideration to the question whether this tribunal or the courts was the preferable procedure. But we have gone now to the stage where correspondence has been read and the charges will occupy the main pages of the papers to-morrow. There has been just an expression from Dr. Ward that he is confident that he can meet these charges, and nothing more is going to happen until the machinery of law, with all its slothfulness, is put into operation to unravel the facts and at some date in the future give us a verdict on the question whether Dr. Ward's reputation is beyond reproach. As we have gone this distance of reading the correspondence, we are simply in the position of a man who has gone half way up a ladder, the lower rungs, of which have been taken away and he cannot get back. Having read the correspondence, there is no alternative to going ahead with the tribunal. In any case, if Dr. Ward feels he can meet these charges with confidence, the tribunal is the procedure that I would prefer, if I were in his place. First of all, there would be assurance of adherence to the law of evidence, assurance of trial by three people competent to weigh, sift and evaluate evidence; secondly, there would be an assurance to him of a speedy trial of issues upon which the court feel it desirable to express an opinion. When we get the report of that tribunal, as a House, we can decide what Dr. Ward's position is to be in relation to his duties as Parliamentary Secretary.

The other aspects of a private company in which he is concerned can be dealt with in the court but I think the tribunal can at least give us a verdict at an early date on the question as to whether his actions in the matter in any way constitute an infraction of that code of conduct which we have a right to expect from persons holding a position as Parliamentary Secretary or Minister in this House. From Dr. Ward's own point of view, a speedy inquiry into the matter is much to be desired, much preferable to the tedious course of ordinary litigation through the courts, which may result in appearing in one court and an appeal possibly to two other courts, with all the hiatus of delay that is possible once one resorts to legal proceedings on a basis such as is contemplated here. Therefore, the Taoiseach would be well advised, in all the circumstances, particularly as the correspondence has now been disclosed, to proceed with this tribunal and to ask the tribunal to endeavour to give the House a verdict as soon as possible so that we will know where we are in relation to Dr. Ward's public activities as Parliamentary Secretary. His other private activities can be a matter for litigation in the courts, if Dr. Ward desires to take that course.

I want to say on this matter that I am completely perplexed by the attitude taken in this case. Dr. Ward is a citizen of this country with no more rights than the humblest citizen of this State and certain very serious criminal allegations have been made against him. Conversion of moneys not his own property for the purpose of building a Fianna Fáil hall in Carrickroe, County Monaghan—that is the least of it; undisclosed sales which, according to the auditor's reports, amount to considerable figures. We all know what these undisclosed sales mean. It means the illicit production of bacon, if this allegation is true, in the Monaghan factory.

It would be wiser not to discuss the letters.

I am dealing with the allegation. I am not discussing the letters.

I do not think it would be wise.

I made a note of the letters. The allegation was, apart from the profits he had made, under the auditor's report, that from 1938 onwards there were considerable profits made as a result——

I submit there is a proposal to set up a tribunal to which these matters would be referred.

I want to put my point of view. I want to mention these specific matters. These allegations partake of a criminal nature. There are three of them, very, very serious, one involving these undisclosed sales, one involving the misappropriation of these funds, and a third relating to income-tax. I want to say that if it was alleged against an ordinary citizen of this State that he had done any of these things, the proper procedure would be to report the facts to the Attorney General's Department and have these matters investigated by the various authorities concerned. The solicitor in reporting to Dr. MacCar-will suggested that these matters be reported to the Minister for Agriculture, who is involved in the case of the bacon, and the Minister for Finance, who is involved in the other matters. I have no prejudice in these matters but, if we set up a precedent of this kind that because Dr. Ward is a Deputy or a Parliamentary Secretary of this House, he can choose the tribunal before which he is to appear, it would be setting up a precedent which, in my opinion, would be shocking, shocking both to the civil law and to the criminal law.

Dr. Ward quite explicitly states in this matter he has no fear of the courts, and I suggest that in Dr. Ward's own interests these matters be investigated in the normal way, that the normal procedure be followed and that no such tribunal, as is suggested here, be set up. What do we get from this tribunal? Assuming that certain facts are found against Dr. Ward, we must begin all over again in the criminal court or the special tribunal. I suggest in all seriousness that the resources of the Government are not so exhausted that they could not arrange to have an early sitting either of the special tribunal or of a special court to hear these matters and to have them disposed of once and for all. But if we proceed on the lines that we are proposing now, it will appear to the country that we are going to give Dr. Ward his choice of tribunal. The other aspect has been adequately dealt with by Deputy Dillon. Assuming that there is no foundation for these charges against Dr. Ward, then we are holding up Dr. Ward indefinitely, at least for a considerable time, from exercising his civil rights against the writers of these letters. I have no doubt about it that when this tribunal is set up witnesses will have to come here from Monaghan and all over the map, and the procedure before the tribunal will be equally as involved and equally as prolonged as any sitting of our courts would be. I suggest in all seriousness that the proper course to take is to leave it to the ordinary courts of the land and the Attorney-General's Department to take the normal procedure.

I should like to support the idea that it should be left to the courts. Assuming for the moment that this tribunal is set up that the Taoiseach suggests, of three judges, they are only going to find the facts, and, having found the facts, where does it get us or where does it get them? Who is going to decide whether or not you will go on then with the ordinary procedure which Deputy Coogan has spoken about? Remember also there are evilly disposed people who, in spite of the facts being investigated by three judges, will think that there is something peculiar about the procedure adopted in this case. I should like to suggest that Dr. Ward has the right of every citizen of this country. There is a case, apparently, which ought to go before the courts and I should like to suggest to the Taoiseach that the best service he could do to a member of this House and the people of this country is to show them that the ordinary machinery of justice is adequate for dealing with any case that arises. That is the attitude in which we ought to approach it. Some people will think that it is because Dr. Ward is a Parliamentary Secretary that the procedure was shortened or more favourable. I take it that everybody here would like to facilitate the trial of these charges at the earliest possible moment before the court in which anybody else in the land would be arraigned on a similar charge. Therefore, I would ask the Taoiseach to reconsider this motion which he has proposed.

There is one point of view that has not been put forward on this which I should like to put before the Taoiseach. The probability is that it may be stated afterwards that any tribunal set up by this House was specially selected to give a favourable or an unfavourable decision as regards Dr. Ward. That is why I think there should not be a tribunal. I ask the Taoiseach to consider that very seriously, because in this country public men are very often held up by people who are not well informed; public men are despised by a section of the people of this country who love to get a chance to despise public representatives. There is the danger, no matter who selects the tribunal—this House has got to select it and the Government have got to select it, and the Taoiseach has got to select it—that it will be said afterwards that the tribunal was set up in order to whitewash the case or otherwise. It is for that reason I appeal to the Taoiseach not to set up the tribunal and to leave the matter to the courts of law.

Will the Taoiseach say if the Attorney-General has been consulted in this matter?

I consulted the Attorney-General as adviser to the Government about this particular matter.

Has the Attorney-General advised this course?

I will not say the Attorney-General has advised this course, but I consulted him in connection with the setting up of this tribunal.

He is competent to advise.

I should like to say in reference to the conflicting views and opinions that have been given expression to, from Deputy Dillon to Deputy Norton, that all these considerations have been before my mind and the mind of the Government in connection with this matter. We found ourselves in a case of extreme difficulty. Suppose we proceeded by the ordinary courts, as suggested by Deputy Coogan, who said it is a case where we ought to proceed by the criminal law or something of that sort, the prosecution and so on will take place at the instance of the Attorney-General or somebody else. There will always be suggestions, and it is possible that the three judges would be regarded as suspect and surely the others would be regarded as suspect also. We found ourselves in a position of extreme difficulty in this particular matter from the public point of view. I finally came down myself on the side of the same sort of consideration as Deputy Norton, except that the letters were not read when I had to make up my mind about it. I think that, all the circumstances being taken into account, the advisable thing is to get this investigated with all possible speed. If three judges are chosen, I do not think anybody here or in the country is likely to suggest that these three judges, who are independent of us, are going to make any report other than in accordance with the facts as they find them, that there will be a genuine and fair investigation that will be fair to Dr. Ward and to the public and to everybody concerned. We cannot leave out the fact that Dr. Ward is not an ordinary citizen. He is a Parliamentary Secretary. There are certain suggestions made here and we cannot carry on. I think Deputy Blowick suggested that Dr. Ward should carry on his functions until this is decided. We cannot do that.

This is a wide sort of thing for which I do not think there have been any precedents elsewhere. But there are precedents in which allegations have been made and examined by means of a special tribunal. I think, despite every other argument which may be put forward or has been put forward, that the balance in the public interest lies with setting up this tribunal and getting the facts in this matter.

There is an exact precedent to guide you.

I have no precedent.

I will tell you. There is the case of Sir Charles Dilke who was precisely in the same position as Dr. Ward finds himself in at the present time, except that he was found guilty, as I have no doubt Dr. Ward will not be. Sir Charles Dilke was charged with conduct in his purely personal capacity and, incidentally, the question was raised in Parliament as to whether Parliament should take action and the reply was: "Certainly not; this is a matter relating to Sir Charles Dilke's personal affairs and must be settled by the civil court", and it was so settled. Then you had the case of the Parnell Commission. But in that case the charge against Parnell was that, as the leader of a political Party, he incited people to commit murder. Parliament was forced ultimately to admit that he was impugned as a member of Parliament and a commission of three judges was set up. The British Government wriggled and twisted for a long time and the basis of their wriggling was that this was a personal charge against Parnell and that if he wanted to meet it he should sue The Times. They knew that Parnell was poor and was not in the position to do that. Parnell maintained that he was charged as a member of Parliament and had the right to a special Parliamentary tribunal and got it. It is all very well to say that we want to have this thing done quickly. We are taking from Dr. Ward——

The Deputy is going back on what he said already. This is the fourth time he has risen.

Will the Taoiseach answer why it is proposed to take from Dr. Ward what a dustman has in this country, simply because he is a Parliamentary Secretary, the protection of the courts?

He has the protection of the courts certainly. Anything that is done by this tribunal will not prevent him. Deputy Dillon's point was that it might prejudice him. We cannot have it every way. In this particular case it is Dr. Ward as Parliamentary Secretary who is impugned. I would not have got the letter and the Government would not have got the letter except it related to a Parliamentary Secretary who was appointed by the members of the Government on my nomination. I take it that is the real reason why it was addressed to us.

The man who wrote that letter in good faith——

I am not going to pronounce any judgment of any kind on the matters arising here. I take it that writing me this letter and writing to the members of the Government a letter such as that, is impugning Dr. Ward as a Parliamentary Secretary and making allegations against him as such. That is my immediate interest in it. Consequently I see no way of bringing this matter to a head and doing my duty both to the public and Dr. Ward, no way in which I can dispose of this letter once I have received it, except by doing what I am doing now. I can see there will be other lines, but each of these will be open to objections at least as strong as the objections raised against this. I do not want to say I make light at all—I do not—of any of the arguments made by Deputy Coogan, Deputy Dillon or other Deputies. I do not make light of these arguments. I have been worried about them and I have been trying to see a clear way out of the position in which I am placed by the receipt of this letter. We have come to a decision. I think, in the public interest, the best thing to do is to proceed with the type of tribunal that is proposed.

Deputy Coogan Rose.

The Deputy must not speak again.

But Deputy Dillon has spoken at least seven or eight times.

Only four times.

I merely want to put this point of view, that if we set up this tribunal now we will suggest to the people in the country that there is a certain immunity from the ordinary law of the land, the ordinary courts, for the Parliamentary Secretary.

That is the danger I see.

Surely not. He can be prosecuted afterwards.

There is the suggestion that you are putting this tribunal between the Parliamentary Secretary and the ordinary courts. This is going to be a fact-finding tribunal. Let us say that they find against Dr. Ward. What is his position then? You have to consider also the position of Dr. MacCarvill, who has his civil rights to protect and who will be faced probably with a civil action as a result of this disclosure. I think that in interfering with the ordinary processes of law, we are going completely to complicate the whole issue. It would be much better in the interests of Dr. Ward and Dr. MacCarvill that the ordinary processes of law should take their course.

The Deputy should be brief. He must remember that the Taoiseach was called upon to conclude.

We have to consider the two parties to this case. If you favour one in this tribunal, you prejudice the other. I suggest, in all seriousness, that the proper course is what I have already indicated—the ordinary legal procedure.

We have to consider the general public interest.

What are you going to put to the tribunal? Is it to consider all the allegations contained in these letters and submit a report?

Or only the charges relating to Dr. Ward in his capacity as Parliamentary Secretary?

The proposed tribunal is to investigate and report upon certain allegations.

Wait a moment——

Deputy Dillon will not be heard again in this discussion.

I merely want to know if the Taoiseach will tell us what the tribunal will do?

The terms of reference are set out there. The tribunal is:—

To investigate and report upon the allegations contained in a letter bearing date the 22nd May, 1946, addressed to the Taoiseach and the members of the Government by Dr. Patrick MacCarvill and an accompanying copy letter dated the 17th May, 1946, referred to in the first mentioned letter as a report to Dr. Patrick MacCarvill from Mr. Darach Connolly, solicitor.

Quite obviously, if that is the motion, these are the terms of reference.

Will you tell the House what the procedure will be? Will Dr. Ward be allowed to appear by counsel?

It will be a public tribunal.

Tell us what the procedure will be?

May I take it that these doctors will have immunity if they go forward to give evidence?

This will be a public tribunal and I expect they will be protected in the ordinary way. They are privileged and the tribunal will have the full rights of a High Court.

You are taking from a man his right to go to the High Court.

I will not hear Deputy Dillon again.

Have I not a right to know what we will be voting about? The Taoiseach has not told us what we are going to have at the tribunal.

It will be a tribunal to investigate the allegations contained in these letters.

Send them to the Attorney-General; that is the proper place to send them.

They will have the rights and immunities of the High Court; they can do anything they want to do.

Can Dr. Ward cross-examine?

They can do anything they want.

Is the Taoiseach in a position to announce now to the House the personnel of the tribunal?

I regret I am not. My intention was to get a judge of the Supreme Court as chairman, with two other judges, but I have not been able yet to get the necessary consents.

May I take it, therefore, that it is the Taoiseach's intention to have, as chairman of the tribunal, a judge of the Supreme Court?

And two other judges?

Yes, if I can get them.

Will the Taoiseach allow the Supreme Court to nominate a judge?

It is the intention to get a judge of the Supreme Court to act as chairman?

Are the two other judges to be drawn from the High Court or the Circuit Court, or both?

When I spoke to the Chief Justice with regard to the work of the courts he said they were very busy. I believe the judges of the Supreme Court will be less busy than the judges of some other courts. Apparently, from what I was told, that is the position. It seems desirable that a judge of the Supreme Court should act as chairman and, the High Courts being regarded as rather busy, we are going to ask two judges of the Circuit Court to sit with him.

In the meantime, will the Taoiseach say if it is intended to proceed with the Public Health Bill?

I do not think it will be possible to do that. That is one of the troubles. As long as this thing is pending, we will be held up in a very important branch of our public service.

It is proposed to hold up the Bill pending the result of this tribunal?

If this tribunal is set up, we hope to have the result in a reasonable time. We have the hope that there will not be any very serious delay.

Will the Taoiseach say whether the judges who will form this tribunal will be nominated by the Chief Justice, or by whom will they be nominated?

I intended finding out—and I am certain that there will be no objection from the House— whether a judge of the Supreme Court and two judges of the Circuit Court, whom I consider to be suitable for a trial or investigation of this sort——

I do not want to take the Taoiseach up on an observation he made, but he said he intended to get two members of the Circuit Court, whom he considered suitable.

Yes, whom I consider suitable. I will have to bear, with the House and the public, the responsibility for doing it. It is in accordance with the Act.

Will the sittings of the tribunal be public?

That is, unless they themselves wish otherwise.

I am thinking of the importance of having witnesses aware of the sittings.

It will be a public inquiry?

Surely, it will be.

Where will the tribunal sit—in Dublin?

I suppose so.

Then the Taoiseach selects the tribunal?

That is the legal position—that I nominate the tribunal.

Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 17.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brennan, Martin.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick (County Dublin).
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • De Valera, Vivion.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Larkin, James (Junior).
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • Lydon, Michael F.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • McCann, John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Shanahan, Patrick.
  • Sheldon, William A. W.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
  • Walsh, Laurence.
  • Walsh, Richard.

Níl

  • Beirne, John.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Cogan, Eamonn.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finucane, Patrick.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Keating, John.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • O'Donnell, William F.
  • O'Driscoll, Patrick F.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and O Briain; Níl: Deputies Dillon and Cogan.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share