Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Feb 1925

Vol. 10 No. 4

DAIL SUPREME COURT (PENSIONS) BILL, 1925—SECOND STAGE.

MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe)

Deputies are presumably aware that a Supreme Court was appointed during the period of the struggle with the British. The members of that Court were appointed for life at a certain rate of salary. Like other Courts which existed at that time, that Court is gone, and the Judiciary in the country is the Judiciary set up by the Courts of Justice Act. The judges who officiated under the British have had pensions awarded them on very generous terms. It is felt that the judges of the Dáil Eireann Supreme Court, who were asked to accept the appointments for life, and who did work which involved them in very considerable personal risks at the time, should not be treated in a way that would compare very badly with the way in which we were obliged to treat the judges who acted for the British Government.

There were four judges in that Supreme Court. One of them is now a judge of the High Court. Another is at present the Judge-Advocate-General. There remain only two judges who seem likely to be awarded pensions under the Bill. I think that there is a matter of public faith involved, and there is a question of the whole principle of continuity which we have been careful to preserve. We cannot simply repudiate that court and repudiate the bargain that was made when these men were taken on. The years of service that they had were short, but it must be recognised that they were years of considerable stress, and that the men who did good service in these years took risks that cannot well be estimated—risks beyond any comparison with those that a judge would ordinarily take. The amount of money involved is a very small amount and I think that the bargain which was properly entered into with these men should be carried out in a reasonable way by the present Government.

Major COOPER

The Minister has told us a good deal, but he has not told us one thing. I do not want to oppose for a moment his argument that these gentlemen who acted as judges should be provided for. I should like to know, first of all, the total annual expenditure which will be involved and, secondly, what is the age of these gentlemen to whom we are giving pensions for life. If they are comparatively young men, say, under forty years of age, it would, in my opinion, be a much better bargain for the State to pay a lump sum, say, ten or fifteen years as compensation for the interruption of their career at the Bar, and we should give them ample opportunity of restoring that career rather than placing on the shoulders of the taxpayers a burden they may have to bear for thirty or more years. I am inclined to think that the principle of lump sum compensation is, on the whole, preferable to a pension, and I would ask the Minister to tell us why that particular course was not taken.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to ask your ruling, sir, on a point of order involved in the consideration of this Bill. The basis of the Bill is Section I., which refers to the Dáil Supreme Court which was constituted under a decree made in the year 1920 by the Minister for Home Affairs, purporting to act under the authority of the First Dáil Eireann. There is not, at present, accessible to Deputies who have to consider this Bill, Acts or decrees of the First Dáil. If these volumes and documents are not accessible, I submit that it is not possible for us to consider legislation based on these Acts and decrees. I would like to ask your ruling whether it is competent for the Dáil to continue discussion on this Bill in view of the inaccessibility of these documents.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The matter is not one for me to make a ruling upon. I do not think that the documents to which Deputy Johnson refers are inaccessible. I think they could be made available, but the question, whether the Dáil will or will not proceed to consider the Bill, in view of the absence of certain documents, is one for the Dáil and not one for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Possibly I may be mistaken, but I am under the impression that printed copies of the proceedings of the First Dáil were circulated to Deputies.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Not to all members of the present Dáil.

Mr. BLYTHE

They are published as other statutes are.

Mr. JOHNSON

It is quite true that the proceedings have been circulated and published, but they are not accessible to Members of the Dáil, in the Dáil official building. They are not in the same position, for instance, as British statutes are. I think it is not correct to say that the decrees issued under the authority of the Dáil are accessible to Members. Perhaps, however, having drawn attention to this failure, it may be remedied before we come to the Committee Stage. I happen to have had access to the two documents mentioned in Section I. In the report of the proceedings of Dáil Eireann of, I think, 1919—it is not easy to see from this volume what the date was—there is a report of a motion moved by the Minister for Home Affairs. Paragraph 1 is to the effect that the establishment of Courts of Justice and Equity be decreed. Paragraph 2 says that Ministers shall be empowered, when they deem fit, to establish Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction. After some discussion these motions were put and carried. Acting under that authority, the Minister for Home Affairs issued rules and forms to parish and district courts, and I assume that it is this authority which is referred to in Section I., which speaks of a decree made in 1920. It is a provisional constitution of the Courts of Justice of the Irish Republic. Paragraph 4 states that judges of the Supreme Court and Circuit Courts shall hold office for life and shall be removable only by special decree of Dáil Eireann, for cause assigned, passed by a two-thirds majority. This Bill only proposes to fulfil the obligation the Minister speaks of in respect to judges of the Supreme Court. Are we to understand that a new Bill will be brought forward with the same import to provide pensions for judges of the Circuit Courts, who were also appointed, apparently, to hold office for life, and are removable only by special decree for cause assigned, passed by two thirds majority? Deputy Cooper might have further reason to ask what amount was involved in this Bill if he refers to the same decree. It speaks of judges of the Supreme Court and of Circuit Judges who hold office for life. Then we have a definition of what is a Circuit Judge and what is a Supreme Court Judge. A Circuit Judge shall mean a person to be appointed as such by Dáil Eireann and shall include a substitute temporarily appointed. The Supreme Court Judge shall mean a person appointed as member of the Supreme Court and shall include a Circuit Judge or a member of the Land Commission, requested to act as member of such court by the President of such court.

Are we keeping our obligation, of which the Minister speaks, by confining this Bill to Judges of the Supreme Court? If we are bound by the principle of continuity, and if we are to take, as the basis of appointment, this decree, we are bound also equally to make pensionable the other regular judges of the Supreme Court and Circuit Courts plus any temporary judges, since, by definition, they are also judges of the Supreme and Circuit Courts. Whatever may be the purpose of passing this Bill we are leaving ourselves liable to the charge that we are breaking faith with other judges not mentioned in this Bill. I would like to know whether it is the view of the Ministry that this decree is to be reckoned by the Dáil as equal to a statute, and that, therefore, we are statutorily bound to maintain these judges, either of Circuit Courts or of the Supreme Court, as judges for life, removable only by special decree, for cause assigned, passed by two-thirds majority of the Dáil. If we are going to base this legislation upon the bond which is presumed to have been entered into, and which the Minister refers to as practically a bond of public faith, then we are taking the responsibility for saying that these decrees are recognised by us as law. Why, then, are these judges not acting at present? Two of them are acting in one or other public capacity of a legal nature, and two of them, presumably, are not. What about the others? What about the Circuit Judges who were appointed for life? Are they acting? If not, have they been dismissed, and, if it is not necessary to dismiss them, why is it necessary to pension them? The Minister says that these judges are appointed at a certain rate of salary. The Bill provides that the pension shall be payable to them from the last payment on account of salary. Will the Minister tell us what was the rate of salary paid to the other judges beside those mentioned? £700 per annum has been mentioned.

Mr. BLYTHE

There was a mistake; it was £750 per annum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Is it a fact that when the courts over which they were appointed were caused by an Act of the Dáil to cease—I think it was decided by a resolution of the Provisional Government that the courts to which these judges were appointed should no longer act—the judges appointed under that Act also ceased to act? I am afraid we are bound to a good deal more than is contained in this Bill, if we are to accept the principle involved in the Minister's argument. These were judges appointed by the national authority at the time. If the principle of continuity is to be recognised, as the Minister claims, then we are bound to consider these judges—Circuit Judges as well as Supreme Court Judges—as judges appointed for life at a salary. There has yet been no mention made of the terms of the appointments, whether they were pensionable appointments after a certain number of years' service. We have been told that the appointments were for life at a salary of £750 a year. I submit that we are bound either to accept the whole of these decrees as the law in the matter at that time until altered, or we are not bound by any part of them. Therefore, we are not bound, as a matter of public obligation, to pay pensions to these judges. If we are bound to pay pensions to any of the judges we are bound to pay pensions to all of them. I imagine that it would have been quite reasonable to have kept faith with these judges and to have continued them in the public service without bringing forward a special Bill, which presumably is only going to apply to two persons. If a Bill is necessary I would suggest that it should be made specific in reference to these two persons and that we should know exactly to whom the Bill applies.

No doubt it is true that during the period of service of these judges, they ran very great risks. So, too, did the judges of the Circuit Courts, and so, too, did the judges of the District and Parish Courts; and very many other people besides these judges ran very great risks. I cannot but feel that the whole story about this Bill has not been disclosed, and that there must be other reasons which the Minister has not hinted at, even—apart from those which he has touched upon—which seem to require that such a Bill as this should be brought before the Dáil.

I think, until a full statement of the position is given, and an explanation is made as to why this should be confined to judges of the Supreme Court, the Dáil should not be satisfied. If a salary were part of the obligation, we are bound equally in respect to judges of the Circuit Courts, to keep them in office for life or only to remove them by special decree of the Dáil for cause assigned, passed by a two-thirds majority. I ask the Dáil not to give a Second Reading to the Bill unless we can have a very clear explanation as to the reason for separating the judges of the Supreme Court and offering them pensions for life of two-thirds salary in the circumstances which I have outlined.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Deputy Johnson has suggested that the whole story has not been told about this Bill. There was almost the implication that something is being consciously kept in reserve or in the background. I want to assure Deputy Johnson and other Deputies that is not the position. Information may be somewhat incomplete. That more or less arises from the circumstances of the time when this Bill had its origin and from the regrettable absence from the Dáil of the person who was then Minister for Home Affairs.

Mr. JOHNSON

Do you underline your regret?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Quite. The Deputy wrings from me one admission, and that is that the judges of our Supreme Court at that time were essentially identical with the judges of our Circuit Court. We had not then evolved to a position when we thought it necessary to make further judicial appointments than the persons indicated by the Minister for Finance when he moved this Bill. There was rather an absence of aspirants for judicial honour in those days. It may have been on that account, or it may have been that the work had not accumulated to render further appointments necessary. The fact is, there were no other appointments made than the persons for whom this Bill purports to provide; there were no other appointments for life on those terms.

Mr. JOHNSON

Were there any temporary judges appointed at any time?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

They were not appointed for life.

Mr. JOHNSON

But the definition includes temporary judges.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I am afraid I cannot accept responsibility for the definition. There are two things to be considered: the resolution of the Dáil enabling the Minister to establish courts when and if he thought fit, and the decision of the Dáil Cabinet appointing certain persons to be judges for life at a particular salary. The Deputy asks whether we consider that resolution and decision as statutory, or as binding as a statutory decision. That, of course, would simply raise an academic and unreal discussion. They were decisions of the Dáil, followed by decisions of the Dáil Cabinet. They were scarcely statutes. The circumstances of the time forbade legislation in the sense in which we understand it now. There was no formal or full consideration of Bills, such as Deputy Johnson and other Deputies can have now in those more leisured times: but unquestionably the net result of those decisions is to constitute a binding and honourable obligation which was given in the name of, and on behalf of, the people to certain persons at that time.

We are asked why these persons are not acting. One might as appropriately ask why certain other persons who held judicial capacity in those days are not acting now. The courts of which they formed part have been disestablished. Another judicial system has been set up in the country. New judicial appointments have been made. It is not, as I pointed out on First Reading, that they have been removed; it is not that they have been dismissed. The courts in which they functioned have ceased to exist by the wish of the Dáil and by the act of the Dáil, and another court system has been established. Just as in the case of other persons who were judges, the question arises of making provision for those persons who were judges in a court system which has now been disestablished. The Minister, in moving the Second Reading, has pointed out that we entered into an obligation to make certain provision for the judges who functioned in courts under the British administration. We considered it would be unwise and improper not to make similar provision for those who functioned in courts set up under the First Dáil as a part of the court system which is now non-existent. We think it does involve the principle of continuity and it involves a question of public good faith.

Mr. WILSON

The Minister has not, I feel, fully explained why those judges who, in times of stress, carried on the good work, as it was called in those days—who upheld the banner of the Republic—have not had place made for them, having regard to the fact that a new judiciary was established. If place had been made for them, the necessity for the State paying them a pension now could be avoided. We understand some of the judges who held office under the British regime have been continued. Here is a case of only four judges, two of whom are provided for. It seems strange the other two were not also provided for. If they were, the State would be saved another charge on its Central Fund, and we would be saved the time of passing a Bill in order to give those men a pension. There should be some explanation why no provision was made for them.

Mr. DALY

I would remind the Minister for Finance that he can save £2,200 to the county and city of Cork by not appointing a judge to replace the bankruptcy judge who has retired. He absented himself from duty for the last four years, and the work was carried on by his deputy. I think his abstention has established how unnecessary it is to appoint another official. Fully £2,200 could be saved to the ratepayers, who are crying out to us for economy.

Mr. DAVIN

It is very difficult to understand the unnecessary haste displayed in rushing through a Pension Bill which concerns only two individuals. It is all the more difficult when we observe there is a great deal of reluctance on the part of the same Minister to bring forward a Bill, which he promised a long time ago, to provide pensions for the dependents of those who lost their lives defending the State. I have been told—my information may be wrong—that one of the individuals this Bill concerns, who would be entitled to a pension if he looked for one, is a very disobedient citizen of the Government. I cannot conceive a man who does not recognise the present Government looking for a pension from the State. I would like to know if that is the actual position regarding one of the two individuals concerned, and what is the attitude of the Ministry going to be if such individual makes a formal application for a pension.

I think the Minister who wields the sledge-hammer so far as finance is concerned, should offer to the men who risked their lives under exceptional circumstances—qualified men, I am sure— positions under the Government. He might have saved the money that has been spent in the printing of a document like this Bill, which deals with such a small number of persons.

Not many months ago I spoke in favour of paying pensions to people who risked their lives and lost their jobs defending the State. They have not jobs even yet to go into. I was told in a callous manner by the Minister for Justice that many of those people were lucky they did not get 6 feet by 2½ feet. I wonder if his mind travels in the same direction with regard to the individuals he is now pleading for, or is his argument in favour of paying pensions to people who are professional men—and who ought, if they are qualified, to have a practice at the Bar today—simply because they are belonging to a professional class? He is, if he proceeds on that line, advocating pensions on a class basis.

The Minister for Finance really based his whole case for this Bill on the statement that these men's services to the State cannot be well estimated. Surely, the service given by the men who lost their lives, or risked their lives, in defending the State, should be entitled to greater consideration?

I think it speaks badly for the Minister, who is holding up at the present time a Bill that should have passed through this House, that he should ask the Dáil now to pass a pension Bill for one or two individuals who are in the prime of life, while we have, as many Deputies know, the widows and children of men who lost their lives in the service of the State starving or depending on charitable institutions. I think that is not a state of affairs that can be commended to the Minister. In other Bills that were brought before this House the basis of pension, so far as the mind of the Ministry went, was that no man, particularly in the case of the Local Government Bill and the Railways Act, was entitled to a pension unless he had ten years' actual service. If he had ten years, or over, of actual service, so many years were added for pensionable purposes.

I assume that the actual service of the individuals who are likely to be concerned with the passing of this Bill does not exceed two, three or four years, perhaps two years. Clause 2 of the Bill states:—"(1) The Minister for Justice may, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, grant to any person who held office as a judge of the Dáil Supreme Court a pension for life at such rate as the Minister for Justice shall, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, think proper...." I wonder what is in the minds of the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Finance as to what is a proper pension for a person with two years' actual service in these circumstances. I think we are entitled to know whether it is the intention of the Minister to give two-thirds of the salary which was given for a life position, as a pension to people who will still have their practice at the Bar and who should be eligible for positions under the Free State Government as Circuit Court or Supreme Judges. If these individuals were qualified and willing at a particular time, at great risk, as the Minister stated, to undertake these duties, surely they are equally willing and should be as well qualified to take positions under the Free State Government that they, perhaps, more than anybody else, helped to set up. I think the whole principle of the Bill is bad, and I think the Minister, if we are to rely on the statement he made on moving the Second Reading, has not justified the Bill so far as the Dáil is concerned.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I want to ask the Minister a question. I would like to know from the Minister whether his attention has been called to a statement which appeared in the "Irish Times" on February 7th, a statement supposed to have been made by Judge MacElligott at Kilrush. County Clare, in regard to the Republican Courts. Judge MacElligott stated he had never attended Republican Courts, would not recognise them, and would not admit as evidence any document purporting to come from them. I would like to know from the Minister whether his attention has been called to that, and if so, whether he has taken any steps to find out if it is correct, and, if the Judge is correctly reported, whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with the matter.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

My attention was called to the extract which the Deputy has read from the "Irish Times." I took no steps in the matter. I do not intend to take any steps in the matter, simply because I do not consider that it is within my power or province to take any steps in the matter, regardless of what I may think personally of the utterance, assuming the utterance to be correct. The judges, once they are appointed, are independent of the Executive. I have no power over them. I have no responsibility for them. They are subject only to the law and to the Constitution. Therefore, although my attention was drawn to that particular paragraph in the "Irish Times" of the 7th inst., I took no steps in the matter, nor have I any intention to take any steps whatever.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

I am glad the Minister answered that question before I rose to speak, because it more or less amplifies what he said earlier, when he told us that the decrees appointing these judges will hardly be regarded as binding as a bond. Therefore, the only bond that is upon us in dealing with these judges is a bond of honour. I was glad, also, and indeed it was refreshing to hear the Minister for Finance say such things as these: "We cannot repudiate a bargain. The years were short, but they were years of stress. They took risks which cannot be estimated." These are things that were very refreshing to hear the Minister for Finance say.

But I wonder if anybody else besides these judges had years of stress and took risks which could not be estimated, and if any other people are more in need after the stress of these years and the risks which they ran, than these two judges at the present time. For the men who, to use the phrase we hear very often now, pressed the button for revolution and who went out in the wilderness, to use another phrase, and who made it possible for these judges to function, and for the dependents of these men, we have been told there is a Bill hatching. Yet it has not been brought here. Who did the most work for the country, or who are in the most need of recompense from the nation? I am referring in particular to the Army Pensions Bill which we have been promised. Are the two judges referred to more in need of pensions than the widows and children of those men who made it possible for those judges to function?

The one thing that this Bill brings home clearly to every thinking member of this Assembly is that there are in this country, undoubtedly, privileged patriots, and that these judges belong to the privileged patriots. The sooner we get rid of the idea of privileged patriotism the better it will be for the nation. The case has been thrashed out very minutely and very generally. I only rose to call the Minister's attention to the specific case of the men who made it possible for those judges to function, the men who ran the risks. The risks which the judges ran were not in any way comparable with the risks that these men ran, and yet these men and their dependents are trying to eke out an existence for themselves.

Mr. GOOD

Might I remind the Minister that certain information has been asked from him in connection with this Bill that he has not supplied. I think it would be necessary that that information should be given before a vote is taken on this Bill. It was asked, first of all, by one Deputy, what is the length of service of the two persons referred to; also what are their ages, and it has been asked from practically all parts of the House if the claim of the two particular persons were not considered when the judiciary were being reappointed under the Courts of Justice Act. These are questions that ought to be answered by the Minister. The Minister and the Executive Council are aware that complaints are being made daily all over the country against the burden that is placed on the taxpayer by the long list of pensions that the taxpayer is called upon to pay. Before we add to that burden, the information asked for ought to be given and, as far as I am concerned, if the information asked for is not satisfactorily given I am personally going to vote against this measure.

Mr. BLYTHE

There have been references to the Army Pensions Act and the fact that an amending Army Pensions Bill has not been introduced. I would just wish to say in regard to that that the Army Pensions Bill might involve very large sums of money and that it must get an amount of consideration, and consideration extending over a length of time, that would not be necessary in a case of this Bill which does not involve any large sum of money. I myself have no particular interest in the gentlemen who are going to get the pension. I would rather see them not getting it, if I was only consulting personal feelings in the matter. But I do think that there is a definite principle involved, and that we cannot simply deal with matters on the lines of personal feelings. I think that this matter of the preservation of continuity is important in the present and may be important in the future. There might spring consequences from a failure to recognise continuity which would be serious enough. Of the two persons who are likely to get pensions under this Bill one is aged 53, the other is aged 47. It is considered that in the case of men of such years pensions should be paid rather than any lump sum. These men were considered when the new judiciary were being appointed, just as other judges were considered who would have had to be paid pensions if they were not appointed to the new judiciary. What we had got to do was to make our new judiciary as good as possible and having, at the same time, all reasonable regard to the desirability of having no pensions paid to men who could do work. I do not want to go into any sort of personal discussion about anybody. I can only assure the Dáil that there was careful consideration given to the question of the appointment of these men when the new judiciary was being selected.

Mr. JOHNSON

On the basis of continuity, will the Minister explain how the question of pensions arises?

Mr. BLYTHE

The question of pensions simply arises in this, that we acknowledge a substantial obligation. Circumstances have very much changed since these men were appointed judges. We could not be expected to continue to pay their full salaries when they were doing no work. We do not feel obliged just to continue their employment and to pay them in precisely the same way as if there had been no change in circumstances. We recognise that we undertook an obligation towards them to employ them for life at a specific salary for doing work for us. If they are no longer being employed, we feel that compensation is definitely due to them for our departure from the conditions under which they entered employment. It is simply a matter of substantially doing what we feel it is due should be done. The same matter arose in the case of the R.I.C. pensioners. We did not do exactly all they claimed. We did what we thought was substantial justice to those men.

There is this difference between the R.I.C. who are being paid pensions and these judges, that the R.I.C. who resigned left a dangerous job. The judges took on a dangerous job.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare)

The R.I.C. went into more dangerous jobs.

Mr. BLYTHE

Some of them did. Most of them went into comparative safety.

Mr. DAVIN

The ex-judges have still their practice at the Bar if they have any qualifications and the other people have no such opening.

Mr. BLYTHE

I am not concerned with individuals or as to what their practice is or to what their qualifications are. I have no interest at all in the ex-judges as individuals. I think they should be treated as if they were "X" and "Y." We appointed those judges to certain offices for life. They were asked to accept those positions and they accepted them. We have abolished the offices to which they were appointed, and we feel that compensation should be given to them, that the power of the State should not be used simply to throw them out and to say that the bargain is a nullity and that we repudiate it. We feel that there is a principle involved—that when the State enters into a bargain with individuals, if it does not keep that bargain or varies it, reasonable compensation should be paid to the parties concerned. The equity in such a bargain should be recognised.

Mr. DAVIN

Recognised all round.

Mr. BLYTHE

Certainly. I think this matter cannot be dealt with satisfactorily by talking about the individuals. The individuals really do not count. None of us is concerned about the individuals. What we are concerned about is the obligation of the State.

Mr. GOOD

What is the length of service of these men?

Mr. BLYTHE

I am afraid I cannot give an exact answer, but it would not be more than two years.

Mr. GOOD

Has any attempt been made to compound with these two officers?

Mr. DAVIN

Is it proposed to give the full allowance—two-thirds of their salary of £750—to these men, after two years' service? Is it the intention of the Minister to give a pension to any individual who may be entitled to it, as a result of the bargain to which the Minister referred, even if the individual does not recognise the State from which he would like to draw the pension?

Mr. BLYTHE

The pension will be paid to the individual who is entitled to it if he applies for payment. If he has not disqualified himself by crime or otherwise, I do not think we can have any great regard to his mere political opinions.

Mr. DAVIN

Why, then, draw a distinction under the Superannuation Act in the case of individuals who hold political views different from the present Government, and why are those officials refused pensions?

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not know what the Deputy is referring to.

Mr. DAVIN

I can give the Minister plenty of information.

Mr. BLYTHE

I would be glad to have it. I cannot answer general questions, the bearing of which I do not know. It would be open to us to compound those pensions under the Bill if we thought it desirable.

Mr. GOOD

Has no effort been made in that direction? One of these men is only 47 years of age.

Mr. BLYTHE

We have no authority to make any offer in that direction until the Bill is passed.

Mr. DAVIN

If the Minister is supplied with information showing that under the Superannuation Act he has declined pensions to people otherwise entitled to them, on the ground that their political views differ from those of the present Government, will he pay the pensions in those cases, as he proposes to do under this Bill?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

To what Superannuation Act does the Deputy refer?

Mr. DAVIN

The Superannuation Act of 1923.

Mr. BLYTHE

I would require to have some information about the cases the Deputy refers to. I do not know of any such refusal as the Deputy mentions.

Mr. DAVIN

I am talking of the ex-R.I.C. men, to which the Minister referred a little while ago.

Mr. BLYTHE

It would be necessary to refer to particular cases. We had no such definite obligation towards any R.I.C. men as we have towards those judges. These judges were appointed by us. Steps could be taken in the case of any one of them, by vote or decree of the Dáil, to terminate the arrangement with him if a two-thirds majority could be obtained. The position of these judges appointed in that way is entirely different from that of the R.I.C. men.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 18.

Tá

• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Séumas Breathnach.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• Maighréad ní Choileáin Bean
• Uí Dhrisceóil.
• M. Egan.
• Patrick J. Egan.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• Liam T. MacCosgair.
• Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
• Patrick McGilligan.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mac Sioghaird.
• Liam Mag Aonghusa.
• Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
• Séamus N. O Doláin.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Fionán O Liongsigh.
• Pádraic O Máille.
• Risteérd O Maolchatha.
• Séamus O Murchadha.
• Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
• Caoimhghín O hUigín.

Níl

• John Conlan.
• Séamus Eabhróid.
• John Good.
• Connor Hogan.
• Séamus Mac Cosgair.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
• Patrick McKenna.
• Risteárd Mac Liam.
• John T. Nolan.
• Ailfrid O Broin.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Liam O Daimhín.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Tadhg P.O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
• Nicholas Wall.

Tellers—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Sears. Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Wilson.

Question declared carried.

Bill read a second time; Third Stage ordered for Wednesday, 25th February.