Nelson Pillar Bill, 1969: Second Stage.

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

Tugann an Bille éifeacht do na socraithe a deineadh le hIontaobhaithe Cholúin Nelson tar éis don leacht a shéideadh ar 8 Márta, 1966, agus iarsmaí an Cholúin a thógaint as an áit ina dhiaidh sin. Tar éis comhrátaí idir Bainisteoir na Cathrach agus na hIontaobhaithe socraíodh go dtabharfadh na hIontaobhaithe suíomh an Cholúin do Bhárdas Átha Cliath ar choinníollacha áirithe. Siad na coinníollacha sin ná go n-íocfaí suim áirithe cúitimh leis na hIontaobhaithe agus go mbeadh slánaíocht reachtúil acu in aghaidh aon éileamh a b'fhéidir a ndéanfaí orthu de bhrí go bhfuil siad ag aontú sna socraithe seo.

The Bill gives effect to arrangements made by Dublin Corporation with the trustees of the Nelson Pillar following the blowing up of the monument on the 8th March, 1966, and the subsequent removal of what remained of the monument. It was agreed, following negotiations between the Dublin city manager and the trustees, that the trustees would hand over the site of the pillar to Dublin Corporation in consideration of an agreed amount of compensation and a statutory indemnity against any possible claim arising out of their actions in accepting these arrangements.

The payment by the Dublin Corporation of the agreed compensation to the trustees is provided for in section 2. Section 3 provides that the site of the pillar shall be vested in Dublin Corporation and empowers the corporation to appropriate it for any of their purposes. The section also terminates the trusts of the trustees. Section 4 contains the indemnity for the trustees to which I have already referred and validates the actions of the trustees in accepting the compensation provided by the Bill and in not restoring the monument.

No part of the compensation to be paid to the trustees under section 2 of the Bill will be borne by the Dublin city ratepayers. I have obtained the approval of the Government to the recoupment from the Exchequer of the total amount involved and provision will be made accordingly in my Department's Vote for the current year.

I commend the Bill to the Seanad.

The Minister concluded his statement by saying that no part of the compensation to be paid to the trustees under section 2 of the Bill will be borne by the Dublin city ratepayers. That is correct but there is an omission here. When the pillar was destroyed there was divided opinion among the citizens of Dublin. Many felt that the removal of this monument, peculiar to Dublin city and a wellknown landmark to visitors was a loss; on the other hand there were people who regarded the pillar as a symbol of the past which had unhappy memories for them and they were glad to see it destroyed. It has been completely removed now and I think that the beautiful vista of O'Connell Bridge makes people feel it was a good thing for the city that the pillar was removed. We have a very fine view of the main street in Dublin city now and this creates a good impression on visitors here.

There were all kinds of allegations as to the cause of the destruction of the Nelson Pillar but the facts never came to light. It is extraordinary but a fact that the first explosion, which was illegal, caused only £1,600 worth of damage. However that apparently is not finally decided yet, but this amount has been quoted at the moment. The ratepayers of Dublin city will have to pay compensation for malicious damages resulting from the first explosion. A figure of £1,622 has been mentioned but there are still other claims pending and as far as the ratepayers are concerned they do not yet know what the full amount will be.

Apparently the taxpayers will pay for the second explosion. That was an explosion at ground level, carried out by members of the Irish Army, and people who saw that job on film agree that it was carried out in a very scientific way. Of course when the explosion took place at ground level a considerable amount of damage was caused as compared with the illegal explosion which occurred half-way up the column. Although the first explosion involving 22 claims amounted to only £1,622 the second explosion involved 14 claims costing approximately £17,200. The Department of finance also paid out approximately £8,000 in respect of the second explosion.

The purpose of the Bill is to legalise the agreement which was made between Dublin Corporation and the trustees, who apparently are to get £21,750 in respect of the pillar. I suppose that figure of compensation was worked out by accountants and arrived at on a fair basis. Thousands of visitors and, indeed, Irish people and citizens of Dublin, climbed the pillar for a charge of approximately 6d. One climbed up a winding stairway to the platform on which the statue was located and from that height one certainly had a wonderful view of the city. In the days before we had Liberty Hall, Hawkins House and O'Connell Bridge House the top of the pillar was the only place from which one could get such a view of Dublin.

I should like to raise another point with the Minister which he may not be in a position to clarify at this stage. Apparently there are still claims coming in as a result of the second explosion. If it is in respect of the second explosion I assume that the Minister will be responsible because the question of malicious damages arises only in connection with the first explosion. A sum of £39,000 has been paid out so far with the exception of the malicious damages which have yet to be paid by Dublin Corporation. I am making a suggestion to the Minister, considering he has gone so far as to bring in this Bill for the purpose of legalising the agreement between the trustees and Dublin Corporation to pay compensation to the trustees, I suppose on behalf of Dublin Corporation who are now the owners of the site and, of course, in lieu of the monument which has disappeared. We should have regard to the origin of the malicious injury code and the Malicious Damages Act, which was designed to penalise people in the immediate locality and damages were usually paid by the ratepayers of the locality. Apparently, in the case of the pillar the ratepayers of Dublin city are required to pay the compensation on principle but the Minister has already recognised that the taxpayers in general should be required to pay the amount agreed between Dublin Corporation and the trustees. When the Minister has involved the taxpayers to such an extent, he should take over the remainder of this compensation, that is £1,622, in respect of the first explosion in addition to the cost of any further claims which may arise, resulting from that first explosion.

I should like to support some of what Senator Rooney has been saying about Nelson's Pillar. Nelson, I think, had no relevance at all to Dublin either good or bad, except that the shopkeepers of Dublin in the early years of the last century decided to express their gratitude to him, as they saw it, for keeping, or helping to keep, Napoleon out of the country, and they put up this pillar. Obviously, Nelson never did any good to Dublin nor did he do any harm. There is no special animus against him.

In the years between our gaining political freedom of this portion of the country and the blowing up of the statue there was ample opportunity for anybody who was concerned and in a position of authority, to replace the statue of Nelson with anybody they pleased. I mention no names; but there would have been obvious candidates. Mammon would have been a good candidate, or perhaps the Golden Calf, or one of his more modern disciples, but without necessarily deciding what statue best typifies or symbolises our modern society, nobody would have shed tears if the statue of Nelson had been taken down publicly and some other statue had been put up. I think it would have been too much to expect that a statue of somebody like Pearse or Connolly would have been put up there, but almost any statue publicly approved could have been put up. However, the corporation did not do anything about it, nor did the Minister for Local Government, or the Government. There was, in fact, no action taken.

When in 1966 the pillar was half blown down by a person or persons unknown, I, as a Dubliner, felt a sense of loss, not because of Nelson—one could hardly see Nelson at the top— but because this pillar symbolised for many Dubliners the centre of the city. It had a certain rugged, elegant grace about it, apart from the kind of little cage at the top which was there to prevent people jumping off. It had a rugged, elegant grace about it which marked the city as something different from a city which had grown mushroom-like in the last few decades.

The pillar went back to the early days of the 19th Century and most people would agree, when looking at prints of old Dublin showing O'Connell Street, Upper O'Connell Street or Sackville Street, the old O'Connell Bridge, which was first called Carlisle Bridge, with the pillar in the background, they see the city and O'Connell Street with a grace which is sadly lacking today. The only thing of elegance left in O'Connell Street now—apart from the statue of O'Connell, and one can argue about that, although I personally have rather an affection for it— is the General Post Office. O'Connell Street now has a ring of Piccadilly Circus about it, with the new buildings, which have been erected to replace the destroyed ones, covered in advertising matter. The man who destroyed the pillar made Dublin look more like Birmingham and less like an ancient city on the River Liffey, because the presence of the pillar gave Dublin an internationally known appearance.

I remember being taken by my father, who was an Ulster man brought up in County Down, to Belfast. I was about six at the time and I remember asking him where the middle of Belfast was, and he told me that it was "that kiosk over there". I looked with childish Dublin pride perhaps at something which seemed to me to be totally inadequate in the light of my six years of experience, at what was the centre of this big city, because I remembered Dublin's Nelson's Pillar. I remember the look of the pillar; I remember climbing the pillar; I remember the view from the top; I remember the way in which it stood in front of the General Post Office and it was something I admired even at the age of six without knowing why. I suggest that most Dubliners, and many who are not Dubliners, had this kind of perhaps irrational affection for this monument.

I saw recently a poster about Ireland, I am not sure by which organisation it was issued so I shall not mention the name, in a shop window in a provincial town. It was a new poster advertising Ireland, with a picture of Dublin and O'Connell Street, including the pillar, and I think that is not without significance. Some people say they like the vista, the blankness, because more cars can be parked there, but I feel that is the rising of a materialistic civilisation, a utilitarian view, which would wipe away anything which gets in the way of the money-grubbing which has become such a powerful influence in our society today.

Those who are advertising our country by showing fine colour pictures of O'Connell Street with the pillar are showing a sense of the value and the rugged, elegant grace of something we have lost.

The Government removed with indecent haste the remaining half of the pillar, the base and half the column, which remained standing after the attack by a person or persons unknown. They did so without consulting the public, the corporation, the Arts Council and without taking the advice of any responsible body in the city or in the country. They simply rushed in to complete the work of the vandals who had knocked off the top. Why did they do that? I should like to hear from the Minister, who I think is in a position to answer such a question, why were the Government in such a hurry? I can imagine some sort of case being made on account of structural uncertainty, but why the rush and why the lack of consultation? Why were they so eager to get rid of it so fast, when for 40 years or more they had not done anything to replace the statue of Nelson by the statue of somebody more in keeping with Irish aspirations or Irish history?

In section 2, subsection (1) of this Bill I notice it says:

The Corporation shall pay to the trustees the following sums by way of compensation.

I suppose this is a common form of legislation but it seems to me a little bit arbitrary. It seems to me the Dublin Corporation might well ask the Minister: "Have you, even with the best intention of recouping us, really got the power to legislate and say: `The Corporation shall pay' ?" I am aware the Minister is strongly of the opinion in certain other matters that he has power to force the Corporation to do things. I wonder have we the right to say that "The Corporation shall pay the following sums". I know, of course, the Minister says in his speech and I quote from it:

No part of the compensation to be paid to the trustees under section 2 of the Bill will be borne by the Dublin city ratepayers. I have obtained the approval of the Government to the recoupment from the Exchequer of the total amount involved and provision will be made accordingly in my Department's Vote for the current year.

This is the Minister's statement that once we say "The Corporation shall pay" he commits himself to the promise that the Exchequer will recoup the Corporation.

There is nothing about that in the Bill, however. I cannot help wondering why there is not any section in the Bill to say "The Minister shall recoup the Corporation" or "The Exchequer shall recoup the Corporation for the total amount involved". After all, on the one hand, we have the Bill demanding, writing it down, instructing the Corporation to pay this compensation, and, on the other hand, we have just a speech by the Minister, a few words by the Minister.

I am not suggesting he is not telling the truth, and I am prepared to recognise that in the Estimates for his Department such an item appears, but I should feel happier if it were also to appear in this Bill just as the requirement placed on the Corporation appears in this Bill. Possibly there is some legitimate explanation for this but, unless the Minister can satisfy me on this, I should like to see it included in this Bill as a promise of his intention or, better still, of our intention, the intention of the Oireachtas, that the Exchequer shall pay. I feel it should be decided and laid down in this Nelson Pillar Bill and not merely included in an Estimate for his Department.

In section 2, subsection (1), paragraph (a) the sum of £21,750 is mentioned. This is to be paid by the Corporation to the trustees for the damage caused to the Pillar on the 8th day of March, 1966, and the subsequent removal of the pillar. Senator Rooney has pointed out that this is really two items, the damage done by persons unknown and the damage done by persons known. I should like a breakdown of that figure. How much of the £21,750 is to compensate the trustees for the damage done by persons unknown and how much is to compensate the trustees for the damage done by persons only too well known? What is the breakdown? Is it 50/50 or one-third/two-thirds? How does it go? How much of that sum does the Minister regard the Government and the Army as having been responsible for? What proportion of the damage was done by them?

I think this is an important point because, in trying to assess damage to other property round about, it would be interesting to be able to apportion the amount that could be attributable to malicious damage by persons unknown and theoretically non-malicious damage done by Government authority. I should like, therefore, to have a breakdown on this figure. I should also like something more specific than the words "the subsequent removal of the Pillar". There should be some wording in this clause which indicates that the Government went in and directed further demolition and removal of the not inconsiderable portion of the pillar which remained standing after the initial attempt of partial destruction. I think that there is here a bit of covering up, that it is made to seem just as if a few stones were left and the Government went in and had them removed. There was a lot more left than a few stones. There was the whole base of the pillar and about half of the column was left on top of it, quite easily repairable. Quite a number of buildings in a worse state have been repaired.

Would the Senator have left it there?

I would have re-built it, and if really necessary I would have put even almost any Government Senator on top rather than see the pillar disappear.

What about yourself and the internationalists?

I would feel quite safe in putting even Senator Ó Maoláin up.

I think yourself or chairman Mao would be better.

It was quite sturdy still. I do not think it would bend and it was sufficiently high for Senator Ó Maoláin to be distant from the passer by, and I do not think there would have been any occasion for fright or the disturbance of traffic. I would prefer, therefore, to have seen it rebuilt, and would have put up almost anybody, because it is the pillar which seemed to me to have the elegance and the early 19th Century grace, not the statue on its top. I feel there is a sliding over in this paragraph of the fact that a lot of the damage was done by Government direction. I have already adverted to the fact it was done, as it appeared to the public at any rate, without due consultation with either Dublin municipal representatives, the Arts Council or any advisory body.

There is one other point I want to make for clarification. I think the Minister should be prepared to give us some kind of explanation of section 2, subsection (2) which says:

The sum referred to in paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection is such sum as bears to £1,500 the same proportion as the number of days in the relevant period bears to 365.

This is some kind of supplementary payment. I am not quite sure on what basis that is reached. It is a minor point, but I should like to hear the Minister on that. I should like also to have the opportunity of the Committee Stage next week or at some future session for the purpose of putting down one or two amendments on the lines I have mentioned.

(Longford): I did not intend to say anything on this measure but, having heard the previous speaker, there are a few things I should like to say. In the first few sentences of his opening remarks he mentioned the relatives, or was it the relativity of Nelson?

I made no such reference.

(Longford): I think the Senator mentioned either the relatives or the relativity of Nelson.

I said he had no relevance to Ireland.

(Longford): I will accept he meant relevance rather than relatives. I know it is not too long ago at all since the British Government passed an Act to cease paying a pension to the relatives of Horatio Nelson. It is in the last ten years. I understand some of those relatives were resident in Ireland.

I do not see the relevance of this.

It is as relevant as some of the things the Senator said.

(Longford): That is a matter for the Chair.

That is why I address my remarks to the Chair.

(Longford): Senator Sheehy Skeffington dealt with points on which he should have informed himself. He suggested that the demolition of the statue by the Army authorities was not necessary. I do not attempt to set myself up as a demolition expert but I suggest that there were factors involved which necessitated the action taken by the Army. With Senator Sheehy Skeffington, I regret the demolition. It seemed a senseless thing because it might have taken the lives of people and I think it was sheer luck that human lives were not lost in the original demolition by a person or persons unknown.

People had got used to the statue and I do not think people in Dublin were bothered whether Horatio Nelson had one eye or two eyes or one arm or two arms. The column had elegance and it added grace in its own way to O'Connell Street. The only thing it ever did for me, apart from climbing it when I was young, was that it helped to teach me to write dates in Roman numerals. That, probably, is one of the reasons why I am sorry it was demolished.

Going back to the relatives, I am one of the people inclined to suggest that the British Government were paying pensions to the wrong people. As most people who read history, I have become aware of the relative relationship which existed with Emma Hamilton—I think that was her name. However, that does not arise now. We are dealing with the compensation proposed to be paid under this Bill.

Amateurs are more ardent than experts and as an ardent amateur I am inclined to take the view that the first explosion was carried out without any great knowledge of the use of explosives. I take the view that the intention of the person or persons unknown was to destroy the statue only, foolish as that may seem because Horatio Nelson at that time was not doing any harm. He was a man one could admire in many ways. However, the person or persons unknown failed to realise that they were causing a detonation at the top of a tube and when the detonation took place there was a rush upwards which caused a vacuum underneath which sucked in the doors. Then there was the compensating force in one direction and, as Isaac Newton put it, the force upwards and the force downwards met somewhere about the middle of the tube. That is my view and I propounded it at the time. I was pleased to learn that the experts in the Army and in the police—I heard it from a Minister— held that view. Of course, experts can be dangerous people who may not always be right. However, the column was then in a dangerous condition. Senator Sheehy Skeffington may be a patient and a benign person but I am sure he has turned off a tap in a hurry and that he has heard the knocking of the fellow with the hammer who appeared to be inside the tap——

The Chair is attempting to be patient and benign also.

(Longford): The effect was the same in the whole pipe of the column supporting Nelson. It could be regarded as dangerous and that was sufficient justification for the Government to give an order to the Army completely to demolish it. The second explosion was at a lower level and even with a milder explosion there was bound to have been a more serious shock effect. I agree with Senator Sheehy Skeffington that it was a pity the pillar had to be removed because it had become a part of Dublin. It made Dublin different. It was the centre of Dublin. If another statue had been put on the pillar, even of Senator Ó Maoláin——

Thank you kindly.

(Longford):——or of Senator Sheehy Skeffington——

(Longford):——it would have been a monstrous thing from an aesthetic point of view. Therefore, the sensible thing at that stage was to remove the pillar. It was dangerous, and human beings are more important than statues. As Senator Sheehy Skeffington is aware, the person or persons unknown could come back again and demolish the pillar completely. Whether the compensation is evenly spread as between one explosion or another I will leave that matter for other people to argue, but I am of the opinion despite the fact that I was sorry to see the pillar removed that the right thing was done.

I do not know where Senator Rooney got his figures with regard to the expenses arising out of the two different operations on Nelson Pillar. They certainly do not tally with my figures.

I read the Minister's speech.

Then the Senator did not interpret it properly. He did not get those figures in it. It is a fact that a total of £1,622 has been paid by the corporation in respect of malicious injuries claims and that there are some further claims pending. There were 36 claims and of these 22 have been paid. It is true that it is not known exactly what may be involved in the settlement of the other 14 claims.

With regard to the damage caused by the second explosion, the claims arising from that have been completely dealt with. There were 29 claims and the payments were £2,283. In addition, there were payments to Dublin Corporation in recoupment of the cost of services rendered in respect of demolition work—£8,038. There were some expenses incurred by the Department of Defence amounting to £139. It is not right to say there may still be new claims. Claims had to be submitted within seven days of the event. Therefore, we are reasonably certain that the total cost of the whole operation will not be substantially more than what we know at present.

Senator Rooney dealt with the principle of the malicious injury code. I do not intend to deal with that. That is a matter for the Minister for Justice. When Senator Sheehy Skeffington was complaining about the removal of the remains of the pillar and waxing eloquent about the beauty of the original monument, I did not for a long time know what he was really getting at. I found it hard to believe that he was really suggesting or implying that the Government should have rebuilt the monument. It was only as a result of an interruption from this side of the House that the Senator finally did make it clear that that was, in fact, what he was advocating. The removal of the remains was the obvious thing to do. With regard to the complaint about the hurry in doing it, I suppose the Senator would have preferred if the Government had left the remains there and waited for the inevitable development of a crank pressure group to advocate the replacement of the monument. I cannot see why the Government should be in any way blamed for the removal of the monument. It was inevitable after the first explosion for which the Government had no responsibility. There is no question of the Bill compelling the corporation to pay, as Senator Sheehy Skeffington implied.

The Bill is, in fact, as I explained in my opening statement, giving effect to an agreement entered into between the corporation and the trustees of Nelson Pillar. It is not correct to say that there is no undertaking with regard to the recoupment of the amount of compensation payable by the corporation to the trustees, except a few words in my opening statement. The Book of Estimates has been published and the Estimate for my Department for the coming year provides for this payment to the corporation. I have not gone through the operation of trying to separate the amount of damage caused to the monument by the first and second explosions. That would be a futile and rather silly operation since the whole thing was the result of the first explosion. The question of the removal would not have arisen only it was the obvious thing to do in view of the condition in which it was left. There is, of course, no question of this Bill glossing over, as the Senator alleged, the manner in which the final removal was effected.

This is a Bill to give effect to the agreement made between Dublin Corporation and the trustees of Nelson Pillar and nothing more. It does not purport to be a description of the whole operation. I am prepared to leave that to people like Senator Sheehy Skeffington. It is quite obvious from the total cost of this that the ultimate removal of the remains of the pillar was carried out in the most efficient and least expensive way, and in a way which caused the least inconvenience to the citizens of Dublin. I do not think there are any other points I want to deal with.

The question of whether or not the majority of the people would have preferred to have kept Nelson Pillar is something that is not very relevant at this stage. So far as the Government was concerned, once this damage had been done there was no question whatever of rebuilding it. In so far as Dublin Corporation is concerned it is true that they have to pay a certain amount in respect of malicious damages but they have, as a result, this valuable central city site transferred to them. It has resulted in a freer flow of traffic. We have heard it said that some people think that the city has been improved as a result. I quite recognise that others think the city would have been better if the monument was allowed to remain there. I cannot make an assessment as to the relative numbers of people in these two groups. It is irrelevant. Once the substantial damage had been done to the monument its removal was inevitable. I am quite satisfied the Government did this in the most efficient and least expensive way.

Would the Minister give me some clarification about subsection (2) of section 2? How is this £1,500 related to the days of the year?

That would be for a period after the sum for the main damage had been assessed, to compensate for the loss of income from the date of the explosion until the time the compensation was actually paid over by the Corporation.

Is there agreement to take the remaining Stages now?

I ask the House to allow Committee Stage to be postponed until the next sitting as I should like to put down at least one amendment, or possibly two. I do not think the Minister would feel that this is a Bill which needs to be rushed through.

I agree there is no particular need to rush it through, but I would point out to the House that this Bill is to give effect to the agreement made between the Corporation and the trustees and its terms have been drawn up in such a way as to satisfy both parties. In those circumstances obviously any amendment could well upset this agreement and defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. As far as I am concerned, I am always happy to pay a visit to the Seanad and, if the Seanad does not want to deal with this matter today, I cannot help that. I think it is unnecessary to bring either the Seanad or myself back on a second occasion to deal with this very simple Bill which merely gives effect to an agreement made between the Corporation and the trustees.

I would press for the normal treatment of Committee Stage, leaving it for a week. The amendments I have in mind will certainly not wreck the agreement, which I feel should be an agreement not only between the trustees and the Corporation but approved of by this House of the Oireachtas, and accordingly I ask that Committee Stage be deferred until the next sitting.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington is very innocent. We all know this is a publicity gimmick; there is no sense in the amendments which he proposes. I press the motion that the remaining Stages be taken.

I do not want to get the Leader of the House into trouble by referring to Standing Orders, which say that the attributing of base motives to a Member of either House shall be strictly out of order, but I deplore the attitude which simply says this is merely a publicity gimmick. My request expresses the desire on the part of a Member of the Seanad to have the Committee Stage taken in the normal way, with due pause to consider all the points made on the Second Stage. There is the possibility I may put down amendments and, for all I know, I may not be the only one.

I press the motion to take all remaining Stages.

On a point of order, I feel this is a most unusual procedure. When there is no urgency pleaded by the Minister it is customary for the House to accede to a request expressed by any Member to have Committee Stage taken at the usual time. I am surprised that the Leader of the House is trying to bulldoze this through.

We are all aware of Senator Sheehy Skeffington's little gimmicks and this is just one such example. I do not see any reason in wasting public time and money in delaying this Bill.

Acting Chairman

The position of the Chair is that it is a matter for the House to decide when to take the next Stage.

On a point of order, may I mention to the Leader of the House that the time involved in Committee Stage does not necessarily increase because it is at the next sitting rather than now? It merely gives us time to frame amendments and to have them considered. This is the normal procedure in a democratic assembly.

It is a question of the Bill having to go back to the Dáil with consequent further delays, assuming that the amendments were carried. I do not see the point and I therefore press this motion that Committee and remaining Stages be taken now.

Is the Senator suggesting that the Seanad should never pass any amendment?

The Senator knows very well what I am suggesting.

I am afraid I do.

Acting Chairman

The motion is "That the Bill be considered in Committee and Final Stages taken today."

Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 10.

Tá.

  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brennan, John J.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Cole, John C.
  • Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Fitzsimons, Patrick.
  • Flanagan, Thomas P.
  • Honan, Dermot P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • McElgunn, Farrell.
  • McGlinchey, Bernard.
  • Ó Conalláin, Dónall.
  • Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
  • Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Patrick W.
  • Teehan, Patrick.
  • Yeats, Michael.

Níl.

  • Conlan, John F.
  • Davidson, Mary F.
  • McAuliffe, Timothy.
  • McHugh, Vincent.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Mannion, John.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Cavan).
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • Rooney, Éamon.
  • Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.
Tellers:— Tá: Senators Browne and Farrell; Níl: Senators Sheehy Skeffington and Rooney.
Question declared carried.