Private Deputies' Business. - Abolition of Capital Punishment—Motion.

Debate on the following motion resumed:—
That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that a Select Committee of the House should be appointed to examine and report to the Dáil on the question of the desirability of the abolition of capital punishment.— (Seán MacBride, John Tully).

In opposing this motion that the Dáil should set up a Select Committee to examine and report on the question of the desirability of the abolition of capital punishment I gave it as my view that if capital punishment were abolished there would be a grave risk of increase of crimes of violence, and since murders are still committed in spite of the death penalty, I think that it would be imposing too much on people's credulity to try to persuade them that if hanging were abolished in present conditions there would be no more murders.

I am sure that people would not believe that and if the motion were to pass, fears and anxieties would be created in the public mind. Is there any reason why we should create these fears and anxieties in the minds of honest citizens? Equally I think that anybody who considers the effect of the setting up of this committee, were the House to accept it, will appreciate that a feeling might also be created in the minds of would-be criminals that since there was a move to abolish capital punishment they could afford to take greater risks in striking down their victims.

Deputy MacBride stated that he was influenced by his lack of absolute confidence in human judgement. If we were to pursue that to its conclusion I wonder where it would lead us? It would mean that in critical or serious issues in which we were asked to give our judgment and carry out our duty accordingly we would evade our responsibility. We are rational beings whereas, according to the Deputy, murderers are often irrational, unbalanced and not normal. They have often proved themselves, however, to be calculating and cold-blooded, and in such circumstances I can see no alternative to the death penalty as the only principle upon which we can take our stand and that the murderer should forfeit his life and that there should be no grounds to expect mercy for the supreme crime. We have a legal procedure with regard to cases where the punishment is a capital one and we have to look at history and the human experience behind these processes. I think that they rarely fail. In the long history of judicial proceedings I think that the mistakes are very few indeed. It would be strange if there were many because ample safeguards are laid down. If the law is not infallible there is even the prerogative of mercy which can be exercised by the Government in special circumstances and having regard to the considerations which they must have in mind in taking that course.

I have not time to give the full statistics, but during the past 23 years, deducting from the total the numbers who were judged insane, guilty of manslaughter and so on, 34 were condemned to death out of 176 persons tried for murder. Sixteen were executed, the other 18 having been reprieved; and there was a period between January, 1934, and June, 1937, during which I believe six persons were sentenced to death and had their sentences commuted. That shows that, in certain circumstances of peace and growing law-abidingness on the part of the people, the death penalty may possibly, as has happened in the countries mentioned by Deputy MacBride, fall into desuetude. It is very noticeable that in some of the most progressive of the countries he mentioned the last execution took place very many years before capital punishment was abolished. There was no question of trying to antedate public opinion or the ordinary evolution in this respect which had taken place in the circumstances of these countries, and I think there is some real hope for the cessation of capital punishment from allowing the death penalty to fall into disuse and from that being the case for a period than through any premature efforts to abolish it by legislation in advance of public opinion.

There is just one other point with reference to the argument put forward, an argument on which, I think, the proposer of the motion largely based his case, that is, that if capital punishment is not a deterrent, it should be abolished. This may seem to be a very humanitarian view, perhaps in line with some of the type of idealism which has been in vogue for along time past. Whether we regard it as a deterrent or not—and I certainly do—there are other reasons for capital punishment besides its effectiveness as a deterrent and there are very important moral issues involved. If we ask ourselves what is the justification for capital punishment, if we try to get down to that fundamental, we must regard punishment, whether it be capital or otherwise, from the point of view of the moral responsibility of the individual. That is how it has been regarded through the ages and that is the standpoint from which I think we must regard it.

Deputy MacBride referred to capital punishment as a doctrine of vengeance and went on to limit that to the term "retribution". So far as I know, Catholic teaching on this subject is that punishment is primarily and essentially retributive in character. A recent writer, the Rev. Dr. Hawkins, states that to take a just view of punishment, we must remember that the normal adult has a cerain ultimate responsibility for his deliberate actions and if he acts wrongly deserves his punishment. According to the late Rev. Professor Cronin in his standardThe Science of Ethics, whatever other function may belong to punishment such function depends upon and presupposes a retributive or retrospective function. “Punishment,” he states “supposes this element and would be unjust without it.” His reply to the argument that punishment may be inflicted to prevent others from wrongdoing is that he does not consider that punishment as a deterrent can stand alone and his conclusion in summing up is that he cannot agree that punishment could be inflicted unless it is mainly retrospective. This is to be found on pages 554 to 558, volume 1.

I do not think I have anything further to add, except to say, with regard to the point that the House may require information about this matter, that Deputies have all the facts. They have blue books galore, debates and discussions in several foreign countries and they have their own common sense and experience of our conditions which, as I said in my speech earlier, are the things which ought to guide us. Therefore, there is no necessity to set up a commission. Should action be necessary in this regard, the Government is obviously the body to initiate it. The Government has the necessary information at its disposal, and if anything further were needed to point to the futility of and lack of necessity for setting up this commission, it would be the statement of the proposer that he has no confidence in judges and legalists and apparently does not consider that their opinions would be worth having. What use a commission could have, therefore, beyond creating these unnecessary fears and anxieties of which I have spoken in the public mind, I cannot see.

I am afraid that most of the speakers, including the Minister for Lands, have misconstrued, or rather, have a misconception of the motion before the House. We are not debating the merits or demerits of capital punishment. What we are debating is whether an independent committee of this House should be set up to consider the merits and demerits of capital punishment. But instead of debating the motion, we have gone on to discuss the merits and demerits of capital punishment. I do not wish to follow in the footsteps of previous speakers and say that capital punishment is a deterrent to the committal of crime. We have one glorious example in this country—1916. A number of men here decided to take up arms against what was then the alleged Government of the country. They decided—according to their lights, rightly—to take up arms against what was then considered the lawfully constituted Government of the country. As a result of their rising, many of them were sentenced to death and a goodly number of them were executed. Who can say that the executions of 1916 were a deterrent to the ideals of the men who were executed?

Surely the Deputy is not equating 1916 with crime.

It was crime in the eyes of the law as then constituted. The rebels of 1916 were a very small minority of the people at the time.

I do not think it should be debated from that point of view at all—associating it with a motion dealing with crime.

I am merely trying to give an example of an instance in which capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime—crime in the eyes of the law. I do not say that these men were criminals—far be it from me to say any such thing.

I accept that.

I am merely quoting what might be described as legal examples. The very fact that we had ex-Ministers here disagreeing as to the advantage or otherwise of capital punishment, is, in my opinion, an argument in favour of the motion. Certain States in the United States of America have abolished capital punishment.

There is something to be said for and against, and all that the proposers of the motion ask is that an independent committee of the House be set up to consider whether we in this State should abolish it or not.

Let us be clear on that. Possibly only one small fraction of the Deputies have expressed their views here, but if an independent committee of the House were set up, representatives of all Parties, its recommendation could come before the House and we as a House generally could consider the advantages or otherwise of it. If there is to be a division on this motion to-night, let us remember that we are not voting for or against capital punishment: we are voting for or against the setting up of an independent committee to consider its abolition or otherwise. That is the only contribution which I wish to make to this debate.

I rise to support the motion moved by Deputy MacBride. I believe it is a reasonable one and that if the Government are anxious seriously to consider whether or not capital punishment is to be abolished the least they can do, in expressing their willingness to have the question investigated, is to declare that, in the event of a vote being taken, it will be left to a free vote of the House. It seems to be the Government's intention, from the views expressed by the Minister for Lands, that this motion should not be entertained and that no commission should be established.

It is my personal opinion that capital punishment should be abolished. When a criminal is found guilty in the courts and is sentenced to death for his deed, I doubt very seriously if his execution has any bearing whatever on future crime for or against. No greater punishment could be inflicted on a person found guilty of murder than to sentence him to life imprisonment.

The gravest punishment that could be inflicted on any human being is to deprive him of his freedom in society, prevent him from discharging his everyday duties, from mixing with his friends and from taking part in the affairs of everyday life outside the prison walls. The person sentenced to life imprisonment is so seriously handicapped by being deprived of his freedom that it is certainly a punishment sufficient for any crime. I hope and trust we will see the day when capital punishment will be abolished in this country.

There is another point—I do not know if Deputy MacBride referred to it or not—namely, that it is time that execution by hanging was ended. If we must have capital punishment and if those found guilty of murder must be executed, I seriously suggest that instead of hangings the Government give careful consideration to introducing the electric chair. Death by hanging is cruel, it is brutal, it is unchristian, and in the age in which we are living, in 1952, it is about time that execution by hanging should be cut out completely. If the present Government or any future Government determines that capital punishment must remain, there is a more humane way of having it carried out, and for that reason I would express my view in favour of the electric chair replacing the gallows for the execution of criminals.

If a vote is taken on this motion I mean to vote for it, as I think the question is worthy of consideration by a commission, for which the motion asks, to report back to the Government. For that reason I am prepared to support Deputy MacBride's motion.

I propose to vote for this particular motion. Whilst it does not commit any member of the House, nor does it commit the Government, to any definite opinion on the desirability of retaining the death penalty in certain cases of crime, I think it would give the country in general a clearer view as to what the death penalty means. Whilst the Government side of the House may have definite ideas about the use of the free vote, I do not think anyone would condemn them if they left it to every single one of their members, whether Ministers or ordinary Deputies, to decide for themselves whether this committee should be set up or not. It has been mentioned here by the Minister for Lands and others that the death penalty is a deterrent. To whom is it a deterrent?

I suggest that the only one whom it could deter or could be meant to deter, is the unfortunate fellow who committed the crime and who has been hanged. I venture to remark that the majority of crimes committed in this country are committed on the spur of the moment. I do not think any one of us could point to a substantial number of crimes in the whole history of the country where murder has been premeditated. Any of the crimes that have occurred at least in the memory of my lifetime have been committed in anger or in moods of unusual temper, but seldom have we had murderers of the type that premeditated their crime over quite a long period.

Another thing that strikes me and that must have struck the Minister for Lands and the Government in general from time to time, is that even though a man may be condemned to die by a criminal court, having had a sentence of death passed on him by the judge, it still remains open to the Government of the country—12 or 13 ordinary commonplace men, representative of the people—to decide whether or not they would recommend to the President that that man should not be hanged. In effect, the Cabinet, composed as it is of ordinary men—farmers, lawyers, workers or whatever they may happen to be—can decide by a simple vote whether or not they will recommend to the President, who usually acts on their advice, that a man be hanged. Therefore, in a lot of these cases it is merely a toss of a coin that decides whether a man would get the death penalty or not.

I do not think this House would be doing an unusually bad thing—it would be doing a very wise thing—in setting up this commission of inquiry to say whether or not the death penalty should be abolished. It was a very fine example that Deputy O'Donnell introduced when he talked about the 1916 men—Connolly, Pearse and the other martyrs of 1916 who were regarded as criminals, and criminals of the worst order, by the powers that be at the time, the British Government.

You and I can recognise, as our people did recognise in 1916, that they were not criminals, and time would have taught even the British Government that they were not guilty. If at that particular time there had not been a death penalty, it would have been discovered later by the British Government that they were not criminals.

Crime was not the impelling factor at all. There is no analogy.

Then it was a desire for vengeance on the part of the British Government. That is all I have to say on this motion. The members of this Party will support the motion in the belief that we shall be able through this inquiry to decide whether or not the death penalty should be abolished.

In dealing with this very important question, since there are many kinds of murder, one must ask oneself the question: What is the type of murder for which it is proposed to remove the death penalty? To my mind we are dealing with what might be termed the cool, calculated, premeditated murder. There is no use, in my opinion, introducing the question of Easter Week in the debate, because I do not believe there is a Deputy in this House, nor indeed any person outside the House, who would not be ashamed of anybody who described the men of Easter Week as murderers. I grant you that so far as the British Government at the time was concerned they may have been looked upon as murderers, but by us they were regarded as patriots and, undoubtedly it was the sentences inflicted on these men at that time which started the movement that has each and every Deputy in the House to-night.

Now let us consider the question of murder as such. To my mind, the criminally-minded person out to commit a murder through motives of jealousy, envy, or for some worldly gain fears nothing but death, if he is found out. Being afraid only of death, he will watch, wait and bide his time to commit the crime until he believes he cannot be caught. Up to now he has only one incentive to commit the crime, namely, his chances of not being caught. Remove the death penalty and you immediately give him three incentives to commit the crime. In the first place he commits it in the hope that he will not be caught. Secondly, the death sentence being removed, i.e. commits it knowing that, if he is caught, he will not be hanged or otherwise put to death. Thirdly, he knows that, in place of a death sentence, he will get a life sentence, and whilst there is life there is always hope. He commits it in the hope, as has happened in this country time and again, that, before his life sentence is completed, he will be reprieved. There are three incentives handed out to him. I am not a bit afraid to stand up here and say that if the death sentence is removed, this House will be tearing down the structure, or the pillars of the structure, on which social life in this country is built. Not alone that, but you might unconsciously open up the ports of this country—both our seaports and our airports—to the criminals of other countries to come in here and reap their harvest by preying on the lives of our peaceful, law-abiding citizens.

We have had an interesting contribution by Deputy Murphy, but I am afraid it is not germane to the motion at all. The motion before the House does not pose the question whether we should abolish capital punishment or not. It merely suggests that a committee should be set up by the Dáil to inquire into the advisability or otherwise of its abolition. I, at this stage, think it would be a wise thing for the House to set up such a committee, but may be not for the reason that Deputy MacBride has moved the motion. I feel quite convinced that such an inquiry, prosecuted successfully, might put a bar on future motions of this nature. There may be a need for the inquiry. Whether or not the inquiry should be limited to the narrow terms of the motion is another matter.

It might have been wiser for the proposer of the motion to suggest that if you set up such a committee it should inquire into the broader aspects of degrees and types of murder with a view to limiting, possibly, capital punishment, as distinct from abolishing it, but the setting up of the committee is, I think, undoubtedly desirable.

There is one serious aspect—I do not know that it has been adverted to in this House—which, it occurs to me, does need inquiry. There is no doubt at all that decisions and subsequent executions took place in this country in the heat of political controversy and of political circumstances which we, in the light of experience since gained, would be glad to recall and take steps to ensure that they should never happen again. There is more to this problem than the very laudable sentiments voiced by Deputy Murphy. It is an involved problem because executions in this country for the ordinary murder, as we know it in the legal sense, have not been remarkably numerous and certainly they seldom, if ever, merited any real appeal for clemency. But there is the other type of execution that took place in this country, not only in the heat of civil war but in the subsequent heat of political controversy. It would have been infinitely better if they never had happened, and they would not have happened if an inquiry of this nature had taken place.

I described the type of murder.

You need not be a bit touchy about it. You have made your speech.

I am not touchy about it.

It might be of some benefit if an inquiry of this nature were held, though I do not think it would serve any real purpose within the narrow terms of the motion. The issue is greater than a mere positive or negative statement on whether capital punishment should be abolished or not. It is very difficult to know what is the best line to take. Undoubtedly, there is a school of thought that adheres strongly to the principles as set out with regard to the type of murder envisaged by Deputy Murphy, but there is also a definite school of thought on the degree of crime, culpability, and criminal intent to justify a demand for the extreme penalty. It is true that in the present situation— to the credit of this Government and of its predecessors in Government— any reasonable case for clemency, such as the recommendation of a jury or a judge or the concerted effort of people on somebody's behalf, has always been carefully listened to.

The type of inquiry envisaged by this motion might be of immense value to the Government in a way which they do not foresee at the moment. This motion should be treated on a non-controversial basis and as indicating a desire on the part of members of this House to have a certain type of inquiry made. The result of that inquiry would have to be brought back to the House to be acted upon if the House in its wisdom considered it necessary to do so.

This motion does not seek a decision of the House on whether capital punishment should be abolished or not. It merely seeks a decision of the House on whether it would be of value to the House to have a Select Committee make certain inquiries. I would not be in favour of limiting the inquiry to the narrow scope of the motion because, if you do, you immediately clash on the question of whether you stand by capital punishment or oppose it. The question needs a deeper probe than that. The problem is greater than one which can be answered by a mere "yes" or "no" on the simple issue. I think the mover of this motion, Deputy MacBride, would be wise to enlarge the type of inquiry necessary. If it is to be limited within the four walls of the motion I feel you are narrowed down to the question of whether capital punishment should go or not. That is not the matter at issue. I feel that the motion was put down by Deputy MacBride purely on the basis of inquiry into the general merits and demerits of the whole capital punishment system—purely with a view to inquiring into what recommendations this House, in its wisdom, might make to delimit the class that might ultimately be subjected to the extreme penalty. I urge the House to take the motion in that spirit—not in the spirit of controversy on whether or not a certain form of punishment should go, but in the spirit of a worthwhile inquiry by the House, to be left as a permanent feature of investigation by the responsible committee set up by this House into whatever merits might be in the general question.

First of all, I should like to say that I would certainly accept any amendment of the motion which I have tabled if I felt that that amendment would assist the Government to accept the motion. My desire was to have the whole question examined.

I think it might be quite feasible, in connection with the examination in question, to examine the question of whether we should adopt the different classifications which have been evolved in other countries of the particular type of cases to which capital punishment is applied; though I have some doubts myself as to the wisdom of such a classification here. Certainly I should be quite prepared to agree to an amendment of the motion in any way to widen the scope of it and to enable a more general examination of the whole question to be made.

As Deputy O'Donnell, Deputy S. Collins and Deputy MacEoin have pointed out, I am only asking the House to set up a committee of its own members to examine and report to the House on the question of the desirability of maintaining or abolishing capital punishment. I think that that motion should be accepted by the House. I do not know what the outcome of the deliberations of such a Select Committee might be: I imagine that in all probability two or three different points of view would be put forward. The committee would then report to this House and it would be for the House to decide, in the light of the report of the committee, what action it would take.

The Minister has stated that the whole question had been examined in other countries and that the blue books and books of evidence of commissions that were set up in other countries are available to Deputies. In point of fact, that is not so. I searched the Library of this House for the books of evidence and they are not here. Therefore, Deputies have no way of obtaining these reports here. On inquiry from the British Stationery Office, I learned that the evidence and the report of the commission which, I think, has not even concluded its work in England, runs into something like 17 volumes at the moment. Therefore, it would be very difficult for Deputies of this House to try to examine all these books even if they were available in the Library of the House. I doubt if even the Minister for Justice or his extremely competent officials have read these reports or the evidence. However, apart from all that, I am not necessarily prepared to accept the view of a commission set up in Britain, Belgium or anywhere else. I consider that conditions here are different. I think our outlook on and approach to the question would probably be different. Therefore, I think this question should be thoroughly examined by a Select Committee of members of this House.

I brought this motion before the House because I consider that the State is entitled to take human life only when the taking of human life by the State is necessary for the preservation, or even for the protection, of society. I do not think that the State is justified in taking human life by way of capital punishment if it is not necessary to do so. If that view be a sound and correct one, then it appears to me that it is up to the Parliament to review from time to time whether conditions are such as to make it essential to maintain capital punishment, to maintain the right of the State to take human life.

I do not know whether the concluding remarks of the Minister were intended to suggest that the abolition of capital punishment would in some way, or in any way, conflict with Catholic doctrine or teaching. If that was what the Minister intended to convey, I think it was not worthy of the Minister and I think it does not represent the true position. I think it would be completely wrong if it went out from this House or any responsible person in this House that the Catholic Church was opposed to the abolition of capital punishment. That is not so. I did not think the Minister would pursue this line, but, if needs be, I can get authoritative pronouncements to bear out my view that the Catholic Church is not opposed to the abolition of capital punishment. It is unfortunate that there should be any attempt made in a matter of this kind to draw the Catholic Church into it.

Surely I have the right to say what my opinion is, as far as my inquiries have gone, regarding Catholic social teaching as regards punishment. The Deputy knows very well that what I said was that the Catholic doctrine was that punishment was only justifiable on the grounds that it was retributive—the doctrine of vengeance the Deputy calls it for his own purposes.

I do not know what purpose the Minister had in introducing the teaching or the doctrine of the Catholic Church in a debate of this kind.

Because it is opposed to the Deputy's argument that it is a deterrent. According to the Catholic Church, punishment should not be deterrent, it should be retributive in its main element.

Might we allow the Catholic Church to speak for itself? The teachings or the doctrine of the Catholic Church were not introduced by any Deputy speaking on this motion until the Minister chose to bring them in to-night.

He did not take them on the Health Act.

It is rather unfortunate that matters of this kind should be introduced in this discussion. It is essentially for the civil authorities of the State to determine whether it is necessary in any given set of circumstances to inflict certain types of punishment.

You cannot get away from moral teaching in these matters.

Is the Minister again trying to suggest that there is some moral teaching of the Catholic Church which is in favour of capital punishment? Why not leave the Catholic Church out of this discussion if that is not what the Minister stated?(Interruptions.)

Deputy MacBride should be allowed to conclude.

He should have concluded long ago.

Am I in order, Sir?

There was no agreement. When I came in I asked whether the debate had 25 minutes to go and said that in view of that I would shorten my remarks. I understood from the Chair that it had only 25 minutes to go and the Chair did not disabuse me on that.

Is it in keeping with order in this House that a Minister should sit in his chair for a minute and a-half addressing the Chair?

I inquired this evening from the office as to the time which was available for the motion and I was told it was one hour. The debate began at a quarter to nine and it is now twenty minutes to ten.

Can I have a ruling on my submission? Is it right for a Minister to sit in his chair for a minute and a-half addressing the Chair?

Deputy MacBride to conclude.

Am I right?

I understand that that is the agreement.

I explained when proposing this motion that I have certain views regarding capital punishment. I knew these views were not shared by other Deputies but I thought the matter was one which should be examined objectively by a Select Committee of this House. I outlined the various motives and reasons that were adduced for the maintenance of capital punishment. I reviewed some of the arguments for and against it which were adduced when the matter was discussed fully approximately 100 years ago, when capital punishment used to be imposed for larceny of anything over the sum of 5/-. The arguments adduced then would appear to be very similar to the arguments adduced now.

In reply to Deputy Murphy, I should like to make this point. I think that everybody would agree with Deputy Murphy if one were satisfied that the ending of capital punishment would result in an increase in the number of murders or crimes. But experience goes to show that there has been a reduction in the number of murders in countries where capital punishment is abolished, after its abolition. I know that the advocates of the abolition of capital punishment urge that that reduction in crime and in murders is due to the fact that capital punishment has been abolished. I have some doubts myself as to whether that is so. Probably, it might be largely a coincidence. But the fact remains that the crime of murder has not increased in these other countries. I do not know whether we are an exception, but most of the countries in Europe, certainly those on this side of the Iron Curtain, have done away with it, and their experience has been a satisfactory one. I think nine of the American States have done away with capital punishment, and a great many Central American States have also done away with it.

The whole question deserves to be examined, and I think we should examine it here and see whether or not the abolition of capital punishment would be likely to cause an increase in crime. If the weight of opinion is that it would cause an increase in crime, I would agree. But the point at issue is to have the whole position examined in that light. I think the matter has probably been discussed longer than it need have been in the light of the terms of the motion. The terms of the motion purely and simply ask for a Select Committee to be set up to examine the question. I appeal to the Minister, even though he has very strong views and may be annoyed at the moment, to indicate even now that he will accept the motion, either in its present form or amended in any way he wishes, so as to secure an examination of the question. I am prepared to agree to any amendment he wishes. If he has no amendment ready but will indicate at this stage that the Government will agree to an amended form of the motion, I am quite prepared to let the matter stand. Otherwise, I ask that the motion be put.

Question put.
The Dáil divided:—Tá: 24; Níl: 63.

  • Cafferky, Dominick.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Crowe, Patrick.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hession, James M.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, Joseph.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Lynch, John (North Kerry).
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • MacBride, Seán.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Hara, Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, Denis.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Tully, John.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Breen, Dan.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Michael J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • de Valera, Eamon.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Gallagher, Colm.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Lehane, Patrick D.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
  • McCann, John.
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, William.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O'Donnell and Tuily; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea.
Question declared lost.