There is an amendment in the name of Deputy Cosgrave which has been circulated in typescript. I have accepted it. In all the circumstances connected with this Bill, I was not prepared to turn down amendments. Deputy Corish's amendment should have been considered on the Committee Stage. We are, however, admitting that amendment.
A Deputy's Speech. - Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1947—Report and Fifth Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 3, Section 6, to insert before sub-section (2) the following sub-section:—
(2) Where a constituency existing at the passing of this Act is not identical in area and name with a constituency specified in the First Schedule to this Act, a postal voters list shall be prepared in respect of the constituency as soon as may be after the passing of this Act and such list shall be in alphabetical order of names and be numbered consecutively.
This is an amendment of which I gave notice during the Committee Stage. It is to empower us to make a new postal voters list, based upon the new constituencies.
Could we get some further explanation of this amendment? It seems to be a very unusual one.
The position is quite simple. The present postal voters list is arranged according to the existing constituencies, and if the election were held on the existing register for the new constituencies the postal voters list could not readily be adapted. A more convenient method is to prepare a fresh list in alphabetical order.
It would apply only to those who would normally be postal voters?
Certainly, only those on the existing register.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 4, in the First Schedule, in the second column opposite the mention of Dublin North (East) in the first column, to delete "to the Ward boundary" and substitute: "to the Ward boundary: and the portion of the administrative County of Dublin which lies to the east of a line drawn as follows:—commencing at the point on the boundary of that county where Killester Avenue meets Malahide Road and thence in a south-westerly direction along Malahide Road to the boundary of that county."
This amendment and the next following amendment, which is consequential, are for the purposes of meeting the point of view expressed by Deputy Martin O'Sullivan, of including in Dublin North-West the Donnycarney district which is at present being developed as a housing scheme by the Dublin Corporation.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2 (a):—
In page 5, First Schedule, opposite the mention of Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown in the first column, to add in the second column the District Electoral Divisions of Rathfarnham and Whitechurch.
This amendment would add two small electoral divisions at present in Dublin County to the Borough of Dún Laoghaire and the area of Rathdown. I understand the Minister's aim has been to keep, in so far as it has been possible, to distinct areas and not to intersect county boundaries. In addition he has endeavoured to keep urban areas intact. This particular district is in general an urban one and in my view it would be more suitable for the constituency of Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown.
It is, unfortunately, a fact that County Dublin does not lend itself easily to division and that the population of North County Dublin is insufficient to elect three representatives. Consequently, the additional area from the south county has to be added. In doing that the Minister has added a number of areas in South County Dublin in order to bring up to strength the three-member constituency. The electoral areas of Rathfarnham and Whitechurch are small in numbers — approximately 2,000 to 3,000 electors. As it is an urban area, I think it would be more suitable if it were added to Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown. In addition, portion of that area is an old part of the former Rathdown district and it is in that way in close proximity to Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown. The fact that it is largely an urban area makes it in many ways more suitable it should be attached to that particular constituency than to a constituency which is predominantly rural. A large portion of this area is in the north of the county but, due to the numerical condition of the division, it was found necessary to include additional areas from the other side of the city. If the Minister sees fit and this House is agreeable, I think that this would be an improvement to have the two smaller electoral divisions.
As far as I am concerned this is a minor amendment, and I would be prepared to allow it and to agree to what Deputy Cosgrave has said in regard to the character of Whitechurch and Rathfarnham electoral divisions.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 5, in the First Schedule, in the second column opposite the mention of Dublin in the first column, to insert "and the portion thereof which is comprised in the borough constituency of Dublin North (East)" after "Rathdown".
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Corish
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 5, First Schedule, third column, to delete the word "Four" where it appears opposite the word "Wexford" in the first column, and substitute the word "Five", and in page 8, First Schedule, third column, to delete the word "Five" where it appears opposite the words "South Mayo" in the first column, and substitute the word "Four".
On the Committee Stage, the Minister kindly consented to receive this amendment, and, further, he arranged that the question of Wexford versus South Mayo would be put before the House. I do not think that anybody looking at the figures could say that Wexford has not a case for five seats when it is compared with two other constituencies which have five seats and which have a smaller population. Unfortunately, it is a question of Wexford v. South Mayo. But the Minister said that he had difficulty with three constituencies, Wexford, Longford and South Mayo. Wexford has the biggest population. The Minister mentioned his reason that South Mayo would have five seats with its substantially smaller population—that there was a temporary decrease in the population to an extent of 13,000 people. But what the Minister is forgetting is that this means 13,000 over the whole area of the County Mayo and that it would be substantially smaller in South Mayo. In respect of the whole County Mayo, this decrease in population is certainly not of a temporary nature. In 1926 the total population of Mayo was 106,000. In 1936 it had fallen to 98,000 and in 1946 it stood at 88,579. Therefore, this decrease in the population of County Mayo has been consistent over the past 20 years. Granted that there has been some decrease due to emigration, I submit that the decrease in the whole county was between 2,000 and 3,000 people, but from the census figures it is apparent that the population in County Mayo had fallen by between 8,000 and 10,000 people during the previous two ten-year periods. Wexford has retained its population during the past 20 years. While since 1926 it has lost about 3,000 people on the whole, the population has remained fairly constant at between 91,000 and 95,000, and I do not think that speculation on the part of the Minister or anyone else in regard to the decrease or increase in the population is of any advantage. If it is true, as the Minister alleged, that there has been a temporary decrease, we must take into account the fact that the decrease has been over a period of ten years. And it would be, therefore, reasonable to assume that it would take another ten years for it to regain its former size. I would strongly suggest to the Minister that he should not try to speculate on what the population will be in the future. He should rather have allocated the seats on the present population. If the population of South Mayo increases in the next ten years, the Minister can, and should, introduce another Electoral Amendment Bill which will, if necessary, take the seat from Wexford and give it to Mayo. At the present time there is no justification for this action, as the population of Wexford is bigger by 3,000 people than that of Mayo.
This is all I have to add, but if anybody compares the figures of Wexford and South Mayo in regard to population and fluctuation of population over the past 20 years, he will see that the five seats should be allocated to Wexford. It is unfortunate that it is a question of Wexford versus South Mayo but there is no one to blame but the Minister as he should have used a little more discretion in allocating these seats.
I wish to support this amendment. As I am a native Wexford man it is natural that we should stand together. The case is overwhelming that the five seats should be retained by Wexford. The first I heard of this was when I got the Bill into my hands. I had heard nothing of it beforehand. It caused me a certain amount of surprise but I put it down to the fact that we had lost a part of Carlow.
Our case is a strong one and I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment. The figures are definitely in our favour. It is ridiculous that South Mayo with a population less by 3,000 people should be given a seat more than Wexford which has a population of 93,000. The figures are against it and everything is in favour of Wexford retaining the seats.
I also support the amendment.
Mr. Corish
If we had Dr. Ryan here now we would be all right.
This is gerrymandering.
Mr. Corish
Do not spoil it on us.
If there is any accusation of gerrymandering I must ask the Chief Whip to put on the whips, but I do not take the Deputy seriously.
You might take him seriously after the election. The Minister brought in Carlow for one purpose, and it is going back now. It would be all right if the Minister were going to reduce the number of Deputies and save the expense, but he is going to have more Deputies. He is not going to reduce taxation by cutting down the seats in certain constituencies—but he thinks he will suit himself and have a more satisfactory arrangement. He thinks he will do well.
Everybody knows that the election is being held as a result of the byelections. The whole country knows that the Minister wants the constituencies cut up to suit himself. Wexford is entitled to representation as well as Mayo or any other constituency, because it, too, will have to bear the cost of extra Deputies. It is the people not the Deputies that you have to consider.
Will the Minister ask the people of Wexford to pay extra for Deputies in other counties and take their own from them?
Is that not the same as the gerrymandering carried on in Northern Ireland by the Northern Government?
I wish to support the amendment. The Minister should be ashamed of himself for saying that Wexford had only 4 seats until Carlow was taken in. Wexford had five seats since we got this Assembly. He has no right to deprive the people of Wexford of the opportunity of having representatives in this House. It is a shame to throw a slur on the county.
A model county.
Yes, it is a slur on the county.
I oppose this amendment. If an extra member is required for the County of Wexford I do not see why they should get it at the expense of County Mayo. Deputy Corish went into great detail on the question of migration as it affects County Mayo. I wish that what he said were true. He said that we are losing a great number of people through migration to better land and to areas where there is a reasonable chance of making a living. Unfortunately that is not so. If we were losing 10,000 or 12,000 people through migration I certainly would not oppose this amendment. But what he says is not so. Deputy Corish knows that well, as also do the other Deputies from Wexford. They know that apart from the abnormal emigration of the past five or six years there has always existed so far as Mayo is concerned a yearly migration of about 12,000 people, at least. For the past five or six years most of those migrants could not come back. We all know there were difficulties—passports, visas and also the trouble of getting a place on a boat. There was always the danger that even if you could get a ticket you might not be allowed to use it. The result was that most of the migrants who usually came back to Mayo at the end of the season were unable to come back because they had all this bother and trouble of trying to get the passage back. Therefore, before they would go to all that trouble, and maybe at the end run the risk of being stranded as hundreds were time and again, and of losing their employment, they preferred to stay in Britain until travel became more normal. Those people will now, thank God, be coming back. I urge on the Ceann Comhairle and on every member of the House that it would be most unjust to South Mayo to deprive them of a member for no other reason than that Wexford seems to have a grievance. If Wexford thinks it has a grievance I am not stopping it from getting extra representation but I do not see why it should get it at our expense. Therefore, I appeal to the House and to the Minister not to accept this amendment.
I do not happen to be one of the boys of Wexford nor am I in any way directly interested in this matter. I think, however, it is rather a serious matter to take a seat from one constituency. I am in wholehearted agreement with the case that is being made for an additional seat for Wexford in view of the fact, as Deputy Keating has pointed out, that there were five seats in that constituency since the State was established. If we are to add another seat to the Wexford constituency I think we should not look to another rural constituency for that seat. I think the representation of rural Ireland generally under this Bill is being reduced while the representation of the City of Dublin is being increased. There are questions about migration and so forth. I think we ought to anticipate some migration of the population from the congested area around the mouth of the Liffey in the next few years. In these circumstances we ought to endeavour to see if it would be possible to reduce one of the Dublin constituencies so as to ensure that Wexford will not be unjustly treated. But proceeding on the lines of taking one seat from another rural constituency would seem to me to be a grave injustice. It is particularly unjust in view of the manner in which this amendment has been rushed. Very little notice was given to the people of Mayo or to the people of Wexford or to the Deputies concerned. I think undue haste in getting this change carried through would be considered a grave injustice. It was only on Friday last that it went through the Committee Stage——
The Deputy might deal with the amendment.
I think it would be undesirable to rush this at the present moment. I would suggest that the Minister should consider the possibility, since there are no means of adding to the number of Deputies of this House and since we have already strained the Constitution to its very utmost, of reducing one of the city constituencies.
It is very difficult always to appreciate the tortuousness of Deputy Cogan's mind. We have before us an amendment by Deputy Corish. It is not a Government amendment. It is an amendment which has been put down in the name of a Deputy who represents an Opposition Party. It is very specific. It proposes to increase the representation to be allocated to the constituency of Wexford from four to five and correspondingly to reduce the representation which the Bill as introduced proposed to afford to the constituency of South Mayo. I am not responsible for the antithesis which is expressed in that amendment. When the motion was first before the House Deputy Corish, quite properly—I am not contesting his right to have done it —drew the attention of the House to the fact that so far as he could see Wexford was more entitled, at first glance at any rate, to secure five members than South Mayo was. It was not suggested that Wexford at any time should secure this additional representation at the expense of any other constituency than South Mayo. Of course, Deputy Cogan has got to come in here and place responsibility on the Government for the fact that Deputy Corish, quite naturally, took South Mayo as being the constituency which in all its circumstances most nearly corresponded to that of Wexford.
Let me now say that one of the primary objectives which I had in mind when I was preparing this revision was to preserve as far as I possibly could the existing representation of rural Ireland in the Dáil. It was primarily for that reason that I took full advantage of the Constitution. I did nothing unconstitutional in doing that. I took full advantage of the Constitution to increase the size of this Assembly from 138 to 147 Deputies. The nine Deputies represent the cost which 1,700,000 of a rural population in Ireland will have to pay in order that their existing representation may be preserved in this House. We are not increasing the seats, as Deputy O'Leary suggested, from an unworthy motive. We know, of course, that Deputy O'Leary represents the urban population in Wexford. He does not mind what happens to the farmer or the farm labourer of Wexford.
Say that again.
Order.
He is not concerned with what happens to the urban population elsewhere. We, acting in accordance with the terms of the Constitution, could not possibly have preserved the rural representation without having a corresponding regard to the Constitutional rights of the people living in our cities and in our towns.
You always think that.
Because the Constitution provides that in so far as possible and in so far as practicable the ratio of population per member shall be uniform throughout the country. So far from the urban population having been favoured by this measure, the fact is that if the Constitution permitted the size of this House to exceed 147 members, the representation of Dublin and Cork would be very much greater than that allotted to it in this present Bill, if representation were to be accorded to the urban areas upon the same basis as we have given representation to the rural areas. So much for the general argument raised by Deputy O'Leary and Deputy Cogan.
We represent the whole of County Wexford. Remember that.
Let me say this: there has been no attempt at gerrymandering in this Bill. Proof that there has been no attempt to gerrymander is the fact that this Bill has been generally accepted by all Parties in this House. The proposals to amend it have in general been minor proposals, with the exception of this amendment and possibly one other. The fact that the proposals to amend it were of such a minor character indicates that the principles upon which it is based—and which I disclosed to the House in the Second Reading—are principles which are generally accepted. That is the way we want it to be. The day for gerrymandering so far as mass electorates are concerned is over.
Not with you.
Even Deputy O'Leary might occasionally be sufficiently open-minded to appreciate that. Nobody knows how Wexford votes. Nobody knows how anyone votes in any district electoral area in this country. The one thing about our electoral system is that the ballot boxes keep their secret. For good or ill, none of us know how these proposals are going to affect any one of us personally or any of the Parties to which we belong.
You are affecting the people by taking away their rights.
Mr. Corish
Wait until the voting is over.
Now, Sir, if there is anything which could induce me to depart from the undertaking which I gave to the House on the Committee Stage of this Bill it would be Deputy O'Leary's ill-mannered interruptions. However, as I said, I indicated that so far as I was concerned I was prepared to submit my judgment in this matter to the judgment and decision of the House. In fairness, however, I think there are some things which I ought to say now. Under the amendment there are two constituencies to be considered—South Mayo on the one hand and Wexford on the other. It is quite true, as Deputy Corish has pointed out, that, so far as the population on the night in June, 1946, upon which the census was taken is concerned, the stronger claim would reside in Wexford. But, as I have already pointed out, we know that a large number of people habitually migrate from Mayo. Some of them left in 1945. Some of them left in 1946. As Deputy Walsh has pointed out, because of the exceptional circumstances of the last four or five years, they have not been able to return with their customary regularity.
Mr. Corish
On the particular date on which the Census was taken?
They may have been compelled, for one reason or another, to remain away over a year instead of migrating backwards and forwards every year as they did in the past. Another point to remember is that the people of Mayo joined the Defence Forces in large numbers during the war. We know that they are expert turf cutters and a large number of them are now working in Kildare having come from Mayo. We know their sojourn in Kildare will probably be only temporary. In fact the position is that while the population of Mayo did decline very substantially between 1936 and 1946, the population of Kildare on the other hand, due mainly to these two reasons, has gone up. I think it is fair to deduce from that that the population will go back to Mayo.
Mr. Corish
Will it come back to Wexford?
Deputy Corish made a very good speech and I think he should now allow me——
To make a case.
To sum up. I am making no stronger case against this amendment than Deputy O'Leary's bad manners make against it in his endeavour to build up prejudice by preventing people who want to listen intelligently from listening.
What did your own Deputy say?
The population of Mayo has undoubtedly declined very considerably—by not less than 13,000 since 1936—whereas the population of Wexford declined by only 2,500. I think I am not wrong in the inference which I draw from the general position when I say that a large part of the declining population in Mayo will be temporary and that some of these people will come back. I was confirmed in that by another fact which I have not hitherto put before the House but which I think the House might now bear in mind. According to the current register of Dáil electors there would be in South Mayo 55,555 voters. Now, these are the people who were there on the critical date in September—three months later than the date of the census in 1946. There are now in what would be the new constituency in Wexford 55,282. That is a very small margin. The Deputy can see that even within the period from the census date in June, 1946, to the registration date—the critical date in September — there seemed to be a slight preponderance— I am not putting it any higher than that —of adult persons in South Mayo as compared with Wexford. From that I argue that there has been a flow back into South Mayo.
Another circumstance to which I think I should advert and which I did take into consideration was the relative density of the population in these areas. I told the House on the Second Reading of the Bill that in drawing the constituencies it had been my endeavour to ensure that the electors could make contact with their Deputies with the least possible inconvenience to themselves. Therefore, where constituencies tended to be large and sparsely populated, I endeavoured, within the limits of what would be regarded as practicable by reasonable men, to give a correspondingly greater representation to those areas which were sparsely populated rather than to those areas which were densely populated. The position in that regard is that in Mayo the population per 100 acres is only 11.1 and in Wexford it is 15.0. That, I submit, is a circumstance which I was bound to take into account.
In giving these figures, I do not want to sway the judgment of the House in relation to this matter, but I do think that I am bound to do it in order to refute allegations which have been made by Deputy O'Leary that, in ultimately deciding in favour of South Mayo as against Wexford, I was influenced by any ulterior, partisan motive. I do not know what will be the result of the forthcoming election in Mayo, any more than I know what will be the result of the forthcoming election in Wexford. I am relying on the wisdom and good sense of the electorate to return this Government again with a majority.
Doubtful.
So far as one constituency or the other is concerned, they are alike to me. I am, however, putting these facts before the House. Let me be quite clear that, so far as I am concerned, so far as the Government Whip is concerned, and so far as the Government are concerned, every Deputy is free to vote on this amendment in whatever way he likes, because it is an amendment that can be conveniently disposed of. It is not like some of the amendments which were put down which would cause us to recast the whole scheme of the Bill. This is mainly an amendment to transfer one seat from one constituency to another in a case where the claims of these two constituencies are very evenly balanced. On a matter like that, I am not going to allow my personal judgment to override the wishes, the judgment or the wisdom of the House. In fact, though I have felt it my duty in view of what has been said to disclose to the House the basis upon which I proceeded, in order that there may be no guidance to anyone I do not intend to vote on this amendment at all. It is entirely at the free disposal of the House and I shall let wisdom guide the House in its decision.
Mr. Corish
I should like to appeal——
Of course the Deputy has already spoken. However, I shall allow him to say a few words.
Mr. Corish
I should like to remind Fianna Fáil members that they have to remember that in so far as the Minister, with the co-operation of his officials, of course, framed this Bill, he has to make that type of speech in order to justify his action. No Minister will admit to me or to anybody else that he did not allocate the seats properly. I suggest that the matters which the Minister has mentioned and the arguments put forward by Deputy Walsh do not hold in this case. The Minister and Deputy Walsh have spoken about the decrease in the population in Mayo, which they described as being temporary. They argue that the population figure for Mayo is not a true figure. The Minister alleges that. Therefore, we do not know what the population of Mayo was from 1926 to 1946, because some of the people happened to be out of the country. Will the Minister agree that the population of South Mayo from 1926 to 1936 fell from 106,000 to 98,000? Surely you cannot blame the emergency for that. Surely you cannot blame, as Deputy Walsh would suggest, the hardship on these people who had to travel, due to difficulties with passports, travel permits, etc.
What is the population of South Mayo, if it is not as the Minister alleges? I submit that the population is as stated in this preliminary census of population—that the present population of South Mayo is 88,579 and that the population of Wexford is 91,704. Which of these constituencies should have the biggest number of seats— Wexford or South Mayo? According to the rudiments of arithmetic, you should decide for Wexford. Wexford has lost a certain number of its population owing to emigration, which we believe is temporary. We believe that these people will come back. We have practically the same population since 1922, when this State was established, and we have had five seats. The population has not fluctuated to any great extent. Therefore, I say that we should have five seats.
It is unfortunate that it should be a question of Wexford versus South Mayo. The Minister pinned it down to three constituencies—Wexford, Longford-Westmeath and Mayo South. I submit that Wexford has the best claim amongst these three constituencies to five seats. As South Mayo has the smallest population of the three, I fixed on South Mayo as the victim in my amendment. I appeal to Fianna Fáil members to discount what the Minister has stated. He has to defend what he did. He has to put up these things and, being a Minister with long experience, he is well able to advance such arguments. All I ask Deputies is to go according to the rudiments of arithmetic and they will have to vote for the amendment.
Mr. R. Walsh rose.
This is the Report Stage and the Deputy is not entitled to speak again.
Deputy Corish made a second speech. Have I permission to speak also?
No, the Deputy is not entitled to speak twice. Deputy Corish moved the amendment and I allowed him to speak a second time.
The only thing I wish to say is——
The Deputy may not speak again.
——that it is the first time the Whips were taken off. It is a record.
The Deputy must realise that he has no licence to interrupt.
I am just the same as anyone else here.
I ask the Deputy to remember that for the rest of this day.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 54.
Tá
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Beirne, John.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Burke, Patrick (County Dublin).
- Carter, Thomas.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kilroy, James.
- MacBride, Seán.
- McCann, John.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bennett, George C.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Daly, Francis J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Friel, John.
- Furlong, Walter.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Heskin, Denis.
- Hughes, James.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Keating, John.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Connor, John S.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Pattison, James P.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies R. Walsh and Commons; Níl: Deputies Corish and Allen.
Amendment accordingly declared carried.
Question negatived.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In pages 6 and 7, First Schedule, to delete "West Limerick" and "East Limerick" in the first column, and all references relating thereto in the second and third columns and substitute therefor the following:—
|
Limerick City and East Limerick. |
The County Borough of Limerick and the District Electoral Divisions of Roxborough, Limerick North Rural, Limerick South Rural, Ballyvarra, Castleconnell, Abington, Clonkeen, Ballysimon, Glenstal, Cappamore, Kilmurry, Caherconlish East, Caherconlish West, Ballybricken, Fedamore, Rathmore, Kilpeacon, Garrane, Crecora, Patrickswell, Clarina, Carrig, Ballycummin. |
Three. |
|
Limerick West |
All the County of Limerick except the portion thereof which is comprised in the constituency of Limerick City and East Limerick. |
Four. |
I voted for the principle involved in the last amendment—that the larger numbers should get representation. I put down this amendment to secure that the agricultural community in County Limerick will be assured of four seats out of seven. As the section stood originally, the rural community would be adversely affected by any change inasmuch as the proposed constituency of Limerick City and East Limerick would be dominated by the large vote in the city and what I might call the city urban areas.
I pointed out on the Second Reading that while places like Anglesboro' and Kilbeheny, almost 40 miles away from the City of Limerick, were included in that constituency, places within a mile of the constituency were included in the other constituency. If there is to be a division, it ought to be made in a fair and proper manner. I agree that, under proportional representation, proper representation for the City of Limerick could not be given without taking in some area of the county. I suggest the proper method would be to take in an area from the county that is contiguous to Limerick, in a semi-circle around Limerick.
I have looked up some records and I have taken the portion of Limerick which was contained in what was the No. 1 rural district under the old system of local government. The places I name are practically the entire No. 1 rural district, with the addition of certain areas from the Bruff district in order to make up the population. On the basis of population, a proper distribution of the seats in Limerick would be four to the county and three to the city, because the preponderance of the population is in the county. Limerick City has a population of 43,000 or 44,000 and the county has considerably over 100,000. On that basis the county would be entitled to four seats. Whether you take it on the population basis or on the basis of the distance of the proposed areas from the city, a fair division of Limerick County could be made in the manner I propose. I am not tied to the exact districts I name, but I would like to be assured that the rural population of Limerick will get four representatives.
Unlike the unanimity shown by the Wexford Deputies, I think there will not be much unanimity with regard to this amendment. I listened with interest in order to learn what argument could be advanced in favour of this amendment. I did not hear one—certainly there was no argument put forward that would convince anybody as to the reasonableness of this proposal. I do not see any justification at all for this amendment.
If the Deputy suggested that we might leave Limerick as it was he might get a certain measure of support. He persists in calling this Limerick City, instead of referring to it as East and West Limerick, for the purpose of indicating that the dominating influence of the city would have a baneful effect on the electorate. Surely he does not suggest that seriously? The total vote would be approximately 47,000, of which 23,000 would be in the city and the remainder in the other portion of East Limerick.
What about the rural areas?
I am talking about the rural areas as set down here. Deputy Bennett is apparently afraid that the rural community will be overborne because of the dominating influence of the city vote. I am suggesting that the division as proposed in this Bill would be practically fifty-fifty. The city vote would be 23,393 while the county vote would be 22,000 so there is not much fear of domination in that. That is how the 47,000 is made up. The rural community are not going to lose a seat. The rural community, by being attached to the city, do not lose any representation. Deputy Bennett wants four representatives east and west. I do not see any reason why the portion of the county which carries the capital should be deprived of equitable representation. I do not see what the point is which Deputy Bennett made in regard to lopping off the rural population or their domination by the city vote. That is not in this Bill.
I would like to point out that this division of the county has taken place on the figures, guided by the desire to keep to the Constitution in order to have the necessary number of seats with regard to the population. It is as equitable a division of the voting strength as is possible at present. The division proposed in the Bill helps to make each area more concise and more easily approachable for administrative purposes. There is nothing in Deputy Bennett's point about domination by the city or that the rural community are likely to lose fair representation. That cannot be proved by Deputy Bennett or anyone else.
I think that Deputy Bennett made a very good case, though I do not claim to have any knowledge of the problem, and I recognise that Deputy Keyes has knowledge of it.
The Minister stressed the question of convenience, so as not to have constituencies stretching a great number of miles. Our concern should be to get proper representation in the Irish Parliament, and a Deputy sent to this Parliament ought to be in a position to serve that interest.
Deputy Bennett was correct when he said that people 40 miles away would not have the same outlook as people in the city or in areas in close proximity to the city. Areas within a mile of the city have been thrown into rural constituencies and parts 40 miles away have been thrown into the city constituency.
I object to calling it the city. It is East Limerick.
I apologise that I cannot make the exact distinctions to suit Deputy Keyes's feelings, but I think that the Minister understands what I mean. The rural areas around the city share the city's interests; they supply the city with milk, vegetables and potatoes, but people 40 and 50 miles away will not share those interests.
It is not 50 miles away.
I have not measured it on the map. Deputy Bennett said 40 miles. The areas surrounding the city have an interest in the welfare of the city and supply it with agricultural produce, while people 40 miles away have not the same interest at all. Areas within a mile of the city are eliminated according to Deputy Bennett. I merely want to give the House my views in accordance with what I have listened to, and to say what I feel should be done. It is not fair to people who are within four miles of the city to throw them into a rural constituency.
That is not the case.
Deputy Keyes is going to make my speech for me.
Deputy Hughes should have regard to what he is talking about.
Deputy Hughes should be permitted to make his own speech in his own way. Deputy Keyes has made his contribution to the debate and Deputy Hughes can make his contribution now.
The shape of the constituency is the least important consideration. The case that the Minister made in defence of this proposal was that it was an awkward long narrow constituency. The most important consideration is that urban and rural interests ought not be to mixed up. If the Minister is forced to take rural areas into the city constituency they should be areas with urban interests, areas which supply the city.
I have given a great deal of consideration to everything which Deputy Bennett urged on every stage of this Bill in regard to those two Limerick constituencies. After all that, I have come to the conclusion that the arrangement proposed in the Bill would certainly not be improved upon by this amendment.
Deputy Bennett made a point about distances. I understand that Kilbeheny is about 30 miles from Limerick City. Deputy Bennett said 40 miles. Let us say 35.
Very well, say 35.
On the longest diagonal that is the greatest distance from Limerick City. One of the objectives which we set out to achieve in this revision was to have constituencies of a reasonable size because such constituencies afford the best opportunity for the electorate and the representatives to meet and consult with one another.
I have stressed the point that the longest diagonal in the West Limerick constituency to Kilbeheny is about 35 miles.
We will not quarrel about a couple of miles.
In the constituency which Deputy Bennett proposes, the longest diagonal which could be drawn from Bilboa to Abbeyfeale would not be 30 or 40 miles, or 35 miles such as the compromise which Deputy Bennett and myself arrived at, but it might be about 70 miles.
Not quite.
It might be 65 miles.
There would be a community of interests.
And there would be a corresponding diagonal from Glin to Mitchelstown. This huge, sprawling constituency would return four members, while inside, a sort of enclave, comprising Limerick City and a few areas around it, would return three. You would have Doon West and Bilboa, on the extreme east, in the same constituency as Glin, on the extreme west. This is the proposed improvement on a simple arrangement which divides the administrative area north and south with due regard to the population. There is no merit in the proposed rearrangement and I do not think that it would achieve the end that Deputy Bennett hoped to achieve, to get equitable representation for the rural population.
Of course, it would ensure four.
On the contrary, as I pointed out in a previous discussion on this Bill, the amendment, if carried, would probably mean that in that small constituency of what he calls, with what justification I cannot see, East Limerick, the rural interests would probably be completely swamped by the urban interests, so that so far from the rural interests getting representation, it is doubtful whether they would get a Deputy at all.
This proposal of Deputy Bennett's reminds me of nothing so much as the system upon which our country was partitioned because, just as Donegal, one of our most northerly counties, was included in what was called Southern Ireland, so Deputy Bennett, following in the footsteps of other statesmen now deceased, proposes to include the most easterly of the district electoral division of Limerick County in West Limerick.
In the county.
I think that demonstrates beyond yea or nay how absurd this proposal is.
Is it not that way at present?
I, with Deputy Keyes, would ask the House to reject this amendment.
Is it not that way at present? Are not east and west together at present?
They are in one county. We are now dividing the present constituency.
Might I point out to the Minister that Deputy Bennett's amendment, to my mind, looking at it purely from a geographical point of view, is a very reasonable amendment? I know some of these districts intimately and I would say that the majority of them are within a radius of eight to ten miles of Limerick City.
Every one of them.
Let us not confuse the issue as between East and West Limerick. What the Deputy really attempted in his amendment was to set up an urban constituency, calling it Limerick City, and giving it three members. I think it would be a very reasonable way of getting fair representation of the particular area because most of the districts included in Deputy Bennett's amendment in Limerick City and East Limerick are really suburban areas within eight to ten miles of the city. If I read his amendment correctly, what he is aiming at is to set up a city or urban constituency, giving a fair representation to the urban population there, and leaving the remainder of the county for rural representation. If we get away from East and West Limerick, really what is in his proposal is a city constituency with a suburban area added and the rest of the county to be represented by four members.
I think that is a very reasonable approach to the problem of readjusting this constituency and I think the Minister's proposals give an undue weight to the urban population and to the suburban population of Limerick City. I think there is identity of interest between the areas which Deputy Bennett proposes to have represented by four members. They are all at the moment in one county and all in one constituency. Kilbeheny has been mentioned here. We all know that for Kilbeheny the market town is Mitchelstown. There is no identity of interest whatever as between Limerick City and that electoral area and I think that taking it by and large it would have been more reasonable to set up a city constituency with a suburban area added and leave the rest of the county as Limerick County. I would suggest that even at this stage the Minister would reconsider the matter.
Deputy Bennett rose.
You cannot speak again, Deputy. We are on Report Stage.
The last speaker was allowed.
He was not.
I do not mind.
Since when did the Minister's predilections rule order in this House?
The Minister is helping me.
If the Chair rules, well and good, but the Minister has got nothing to do with it.
The Minister was trying to help me out in that particular matter. The nomenclature might be amended and, instead of calling it Limerick City and East Limerick, it might be called Limerick and the county. That could be easily settled. I aim at giving the County Limerick proper representation. The county comprises 130,000 or 140,000 people and the City of Limerick, with its suburbs, the area of north and south rural, comprises somewhere about 50,000, or, at the most, 55,000. Whatever way you take it, the county would be entitled to five seats out of the seven. We are not asking in this amendment that they should be given five out of the seven, but we want to ensure that they will get four out of the seven. I am also asking the Minister to provide that such a place as Kilbeheny, whose residents, if they have any inclination, are inclined towards Cork rather than Limerick, and who market their goods in the town of Mitchelstown, and the majority of whom, perhaps, were never in Limerick, should not be compelled to be associated with the City of Limerick but should be allowed to remain in the county with which they have identical interests as an agricultural community. The Minister objected to Doon being put in the County Limerick area. It is already in the County Limerick area.
No case can be made that Kilbeheny should be in the city area, because there is no identity of interest whatever between Kilbeheny and the city. There is identity of interest between Doon and Glin, even though they are 60 miles away, because they are an agricultural people. They are in the same county and if to-morrow the Minister is selecting candidates for the county of Limerick I know he will take good care that they will have representation. That matter will settle itself, but I am arguing strongly that the present method of changing seats is quite unfair, that the agricultural community are not getting a fair crack of the whip. I want to ensure that of seven seats they will be certain of at least four and they can take their chance of the fifth, to which they are entitled. Even if they do get the fifth, they will not be over-represented. I voted on the last amendment because, on the figures, I thought it fair to vote for Wexford. I ask the House to vote for my amendment because, whether you take it on the figures of population or anything else, the county people are entitled to the representation that I ask for them in this amendment.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
Division challenged.
When I called a division, I assumed that the Minister was going to give a free vote of the House, as he did in the other case; but as he does not seem inclined to do so on this occasion, I do not wish to waste the time of the House in taking a division.
Do we understand that the Government is putting on the Whip against this amendment?
Yes, there is no meaning in the amendment.
Question again put and declared carried.
Amendment negatived.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
In view of the fact that the Seanad is sitting and that I might get the Second Stage of this Bill to-morrow in the Seanad, and as everyone here is anxious that it should go through, the House might give me the Fifth Stage now.
We have nothing further to say on it.
Give it to the Minister —anything to get rid of the Government.
Agreed to take the Fifth Stage now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I wish that the method employed here earlier in the evening, in giving a free discussion on certain principles, had been employed as a general principle in dealing with this Bill. If that had been done in the beginning, the Bill might have had better consideration at the hands of a committee of the House. However, this is not the time to deal with that question and I do not intend to elaborate on it now.
I have indicated privately to the Minister that there are certain small adjustments, involving a couple of electoral divisions in the County Cork. They are now attached to certain constituencies but if the Minister examined them he might find that, for geographical and other reasons, they should be associated with the new constituency of West Cork. The matter is now outside the scope of this House, but may I ask the Minister, if a proposal of this kind is brought to his notice in another place, to give it thorough consideration? It involves the transfer of two electoral divisions, Tarleton and Castletown Dunmanway. I think the Minister will see that there is some merit in the proposal and I rose only to mention it and not to delay this measure any further.
I would like a few moments to enter my protest against what I think is the complete abandonment of proportional representation. The introduction of three-seat constituencies is not applying strictly the intention of those who for years have stood in this House in favour of proportional representation. I remember 20 or 25 years ago when we were talking in other Houses about giving protection to minorities in this country but we are not giving that idea proof that we were anxious to see minorities represented here, to protect the interests of minorities if there was any danger—which, thank God, there never has been to minorities in this part of Ireland. If those people in those days gone by thought it was desirable to have proportional representation so that they could get representation then this House has made a step in the wrong direction as three-seat constituencies will not give representation to minorities. Every member of the House who is contesting a three-seat constituency knows that. If a minority candidate goes up for election in any three-seat constituency, can anyone tell me where that candidate is likely to get in. Personally, I protest against what I think is a step towards the removal of proportional representation completely. I would not be surprised to see proportional representation being removed from our Constitution entirely in the course of another year or two.
The Minister to-day had the audacity to suggest that this was an agreed measure and that all Parties were agreeable to its terms. On the Second Reading I opposed it very strongly, first, on the grounds that it increases the number of Deputies. There is no demand in the country for that increase or for enlarging the Dáil. The people generally realise that the Government is costing quite enough without adding to it in this way.
I think, on that principle, this Bill should not be allowed to pass. Again, I object to the increased representation for the City of Dublin at the expense of the rural areas. The Minister may claim that the population of Dublin has increased. It has, as a result of misgovernment, of maladministration and of a policy which has driven the people from the rural areas into the city. Finally, I object to this Bill because it seeks to destroy, as far as it is possible to do so within the Constitution, the principle of proportional representation. That principle is enshrined in the Constitution, and it is not in the power of the Minister or the Government to destroy it. As far as it is possible it is being sought by this Bill to destroy that system by reducing as many of the constituencies as possible to the smallest possible number of seats. I think that the five-seat or the seven-seat constituency provides far more equitable representation as between the various interests in the country. As far as the City of Dublin is concerned, there is no reason why any constituency in it should be less than a seven-seat constituency. The fact is that the population is concentrated in small areas, and it would have been possible to provide constituencies of sufficient area capable of being properly represented by the Deputies elected. There is no justification for a three-seat constituency in Dublin. As a matter of fact, if the whole of the City of Dublin were in one constituency it would be quite possible for the Deputies elected to keep in touch with all their constituents, much easier than it is for a Deputy representing a rural constituency.
On these grounds I think the Bill ought not to be allowed to pass. It will add still further to the burdens on the community by enlarging the membership of this House. As I pointed out before, there is no provision in this Bill, or in any of the legislation that has gone before it, for the compulsory attendance of members in the House. We are enlarging the membership of the House, and it has been suggested we are enlarging it in order to provide that there may be a quorum. In the case of many important discussions here it has happened that we have not had a quorum of 20 members, notwithstanding the fact that there are 138 members of the House. I think that this further enlargement of the National Assembly is uncalled for and undesirable, and that it is straining the Constitution to the utmost without justification. As the Minister has pointed out already, he has had to leave it to a free vote of the House as to whether Wexford should have an additional Deputy or not. The only way of providing that additional Deputy was by taking a seat from the County Mayo. Why did that happen? Simply because the Minister has gone to the utmost limit in the provision of seats in this House. He has gone to the very utmost limit that is possible within the Constitution. The Constitution provides that the maximum number of seats shall be 147. The Minister has gone to that extreme limit, and he now finds that when a county is inadequately represented he has to take a seat from some other constituency. In view of these things, I think the House should not agree to this Bill. In view of the attitude which the Minister has taken up on the delicate question as between Mayo and Wexford, I think that he should leave the final passing of the Bill to a free vote of the House.
I believe that the evil in this Bill is the evil that it is neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. If you are going to have proportional representation, it is perfectly obvious that you should have five or seven-seat constituencies. Personally, I think proportional representation is a fraud and a cod, and that it ought to be abolished. I believe in the single member constituency, with the transferable vote, so that the man who gets the support of the largest number of people living in the constituency will represent the constituency. The constituency should be of a size to enable the T.D. to familiarise himself with all its problems. Under that system you would get a clear majority in this House, with a good strong Government, and with no doubts about it after a general election. The rag-tag Constitution that we have provides for proportional representation. I suppose that, until we can change that, we have got to abide this as well as the many other evils that have been foisted upon us by the incompetent Government that we have got. But, having got this evil, it should not have appended to it an additional fraud. Deputy Byrne has pointed out that all the talk about proportional representation—when the vast bulk of the constituencies are three-member constituencies—is just fantastic. It becomes manifest at once that the majority will get two seats and the minority will get one. The Independents, unless they are of an exceptional character, will get pushed out altogether.
I urge on the House that, perhaps, the best thing it can do is to pass this Bill in order to manifest to the people the obvious fraud that proportional representation has become in this country. That would be a valuable step towards the abolition of this system of election and the substitution therefor of single member constituencies, with the transferable vote. It would ensure that the individual who ultimately secured the support of the largest number of voters residing in the constituency would be elected to represent him in this House, and would ensure that after the general elections that may take place in the future history of this country we would have a Government in this House backed by a clear and unequivocal majority. That is very much more likely to be found from an electorate voting in single member constituencies than under the present system.
Proportional representation is, in fact, as we all know in our hearts, the child of the brains of all the cranks in creation. So far as this country is concerned, it was tried out on the dog. I doubt if any other sane democratic country in the world has put it into operation in regard to its Parliament. It may have in regard to its corporations or county councils. The single transferable vote is quite another story. I think it is true to say that the kind of proportional representation that we have operating in this country has not been adopted in any other country. It was foisted upon us by a collection of half-lunatics who believed that they had something lovely that would work on paper like a jig-saw puzzle, but like all these crank ideas in operation, it has resulted here in an election in 1931, an election in 1932, an election in 1933, an election in 1939, an election in 1943, and an election in 1944.
An election first and a blackmail campaign the second time—that was how it was worked. The public expressed their will, whereupon they were told that if they adhered to that view there would be chaos, whereupon they turned. Five years later they express their will, and again they are told that if they persist in that view there will be chaos. The people are blackmailed into changing their opinion. Therefore, I advise the House to vote for the Bill so that we may provide our people with an opportunity of getting sick of this fantastic system and hasten the day by which we will return to a normal system devised to ascertain the will of the people and, at the same time, devised to ensure that when Parliament meets after a general election there shall be a strong Government representative of the majority of our people with full authority to rule until the lapse of the life of the Parliament when it returns to the people and takes their verdict again.
First of all, I should like to refer to the suggestion which has been made by Deputy Murphy that two district electoral divisions might be transferred from South to West Cork. I will look into the matter but, to be quite frank, I will have difficulty in conceding it. Apart altogether from the merits of the case, of which I am not aware, since I do not know what the Deputy would like to urge in regard to them, there is this difficulty. If I accept an amendment in the Seanad it may mean that we shall have to come back here and call the Dáil to dispose of it. If, notwithstanding the merits of the matter, that position should arise, then I would think that, in view of the expressed desire of us all to clarify the existing position in the country as soon as possible, I should have to ask the Seanad not to accept an amendment of that sort, not to do anything which would necessitate the Bill coming back to the Dáil but to have the amendment disposed of there.
I do not want to enter at length into the issue which has been raised by Deputy Byrne. We are not abolishing proportional representation. Proportional representation is embodied in the Constitution and the limitation put upon it there and which we are observing is that constituencies should not have less than three members. Three-member constituencies are not unknown under the existing system and they are not unknown in the City of Dublin. Deputy Byrne, who raised this hare, sits for a three-member constituency, I think. I do not know what particular minority he represents but at any rate, it has not debarred them from having secured representation here. There is no reason to believe that a three-member constituency, which has not prevented the minority from expressing itself in Deputy Byrne's constituency any more than it has prevented itself from expressing itself in mine, is going to debar any minority of significant size from securing due representation here. The fact of the matter is that, as Deputy Dillon has pointed out, proportional representation if carried to extremes, with seven-member or even five-member constituencies, is likely to result, not in a more representative Dáil, not in a Dáil which would be more truly representative of public opinion throughout the country than a Dáil based on three-member constituencies would, but it is likely to give a weak and unstable executive— an executive which would not be able to give the country a lead and which would not be able to formulate and carry through whatever policy it, in its judgment, might think the interests of the country required.
As to the other proposal which has been recommended by Deputy Dillon, I would say that the inevitable result would be that we should have people standing for Parliament who would be all things to all men; who would not merely endeavour to secure the votes of the organisation which put them up but who would try to secure the vote of every other Tom, Dick and Harry, more sympathetic towards other organisations. We should have a system in which, inevitably, the policies which would be put before the country by political organisations would be watered down, so that they would make some appeal to every element in a community; and we should have here, not a Dáil composed of Deputies who have some fixed principles, principles for which they are prepared to stand and fight, but a Dáil composed of trimmers and, inevitably, a Government composed of trimmers also——
That would be nothing new.
——in which case you would not have that strong executive which Deputy Dillon believes is in the best interests of the people of this country. For these reasons I consider that if ever it is felt, and I am not suggesting that the need has arisen, that it would be in the best interests of the people of this country to substitute some other system of election to Parliament for that which we have already, the suggestion made by Deputy Dillon should be the last one we ought to consider. I want it to be quite clear that I am not denying that that system would be of very great benefit and advantage in relation to, say, the election of members of local authorities, because there we do not want to have people——
Coming events.
It is worth while trying to get out of you to-day what was in the Bill.
The situation is radically different from that which prevails in relation to the election to Parliament. There, people are returned to look after purely local affairs, with an eye to the interests of everybody in the community, with no power of formulating a political policy, but returned solely as the representatives of the ratepayers to look after their interests and to ensure that the local services are well administered. That is a position which differs fundamentally from that in which members of the Legislature find themselves. Members of the Legislature must stand for certain fixed principles in political life and affairs. For that reason, therefore, they must be men of a definite political character. The principles to which they adhere may be acceptable or repugnant to us, but at any rate they have to be not trimmers but men of some principle. That is why Deputy Dillon's suggestion is the worst that could possibly be devised.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 29.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick (County Dublin).
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Daly, Francis J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Friel, John.
- Furlong, Walter.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Connor, John S.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Skinner, Leo B.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Bennett, George C.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Pattison, James P.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Spring, Daniel.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kennedy and Kissane; Níl: Deputies Cogan and Commons.
Question declared carried.