Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Apr 1928

Vol. 23 No. 4

No. 9—CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

(1) That in lieu of the present customs duties, drawbacks, and allowance in respect of sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin there shall be charged, levied, and paid as on and from the 26th day of April, 1928, the duties specified in the second column of Part I. of the First Schedule to this resolution, and there shall be paid and allowed the drawbacks and allowance set out in Part II. of the said Schedule, but subject both as respects duties and as respects drawbacks and allowance to the provisions, so far as they are applicable, set out in Part III. of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1925 (No. 28 of 1925).

(2) That in lieu of the present excise duties, drawbacks, and allowance in respect of sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin there shall. as on and from the 26th day of April, 1928, be charged, levied, and paid the duties specified in the third column of Part I. of the First Schedule to this resolution, and there shall be paid and allowed the drawbacks and allowance set out in Part II. of the said Schedule, but subject both as respects duties and as respects drawbacks and allowance to the provisions, so far as they are applicable, set out in Part III. of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1925 (No. 28 of 1925).

(3) The duty imposed by this section shall not be charged or levied in respect of sugar or molasses made from beet grown in Saorstát Eireann, and the provisions of Section 6 (except sub-section (1) thereof) of the Finance Act, 1922, shall apply and have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say:

(a) the word "non-dutiable" shall mean "exempted by this paragraph from the duty imposed by this resolution," and

(b) the expression "Saorstát Eireann" shall be substituted for the expression "Great Britain or Ireland."

(4) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

FIRST SCHEDULE.

SUGAR, MOLASSES, GLUCOSE, SACCHARIN: RATES, DUTIES, DRAWBACKS AND ALLOWANCE.

PART I.

DUTIES

Articles	Customs Duty	Excise Duty
				s.	d.	s.	d.
Sugar which, when tested by the polariscope, indicates a polarisation exceeding ninety-eight degrees	the cwt.	11	8	11	8
Sugar of a polarisation not exceeding seventy-six degrees	the cwt.	5	7	5	7
Sugar of a polarisation:
Exceeding	76 and not exceeding	77 the cwt.		7	9.4	5	9.4
,,	77,,,,,,	78,,,,		7	11.6	5	11.6
,,	78,,,,,,	79,,,,		8	1.9	8	1.9
,,	79,,,,,,	80,,,,		8	4.1	8	4.1
,,	80,,,,,,	81,,,,		8	6.4	8	6.4
,,	81,,,,,,	82,,,,		8	8.6	8	8.6
,,	82,,,,,,	83,,,,		8	10.8	8	10.8
,,	83,,,,,,	84,,,,		7	1.4	7	1.4
,,	84,,,,,,	85,,,,		7	3.9	7	3.9
,,	85,,,,,,	86,,,,		7	6.4	7	6.4
,,	86,,,,,,	87,,,,		7	8.9	7	8.9
,,	87,,,,,,	88,,,,		7	11.7	7	11.7
,,	88,,,,,,	89,,,,		8	2.5	8	2.5
,,	89,,,,,,	90,,,,		8	5.9	8	5.9
,,	90,,,,,,	91,,,,		8	9.2	8	9.2
,,	91,,,,,,	92,,,,		9	0.6	9	0.6
,,	92,,,,,,	93,,,,		9	4.0	9	4.0
,,	93,,,,,,	94,,,,		9	7.3	9	7.3
,,	94,,,,,,	95,,,,		9	10.7	9	10.7
,,	95,,,,,,	96,,,,		10	2.0	10	2.0
,,	96,,,,,,	97,,,,		10	5.4	10	5.4
,,	97,,,,,,	98,,,,		10	8.8	10	8.8
Molasses (except when cleared for use by a licensed distiller in the manufacture of spirits) and invert sugar and all other sugar and extracts from sugar which cannot be completely tested by the polariscope and on which duty is not specially charged by reference to the other provisions of this Part of this Schedule:—If containing 70 per cent or more of sweetening matter	the cwt.	7	7	7	5
If containing 70 per cent or more of sweetening matter	the cwt.	7	7	7	5
If containing less than 70 per cent. and more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter	the cwt.	7	4	5	4
If containing more than 50 per cent of sweetening matter	the cwt.	4	7	4	7
The amount of sweetening matter to be taken to be the total amount of cane, invert and other sugar contained in the article as determined by analysis in manner directed by the Revenue Commissioners.
Glucose:
Solid			the cwt.	7	5	7	5
Liquid			the cwt.	7	4	5	4
Saccharin (including substances of a like nature or use)
	the oz.	3	9	5	9

PART II.

DRAWBACKS AND ALLOWANCE.

A.—CUSTOMS DRAWBACKS.

Nature of Drawback.	Amount or Rate of Drawback.
(1) Drawback on the export or on the shipment or deposit in a bonded warehouse, for use as ship's stores, of duty-paid sugar or molasses (including sugar or molasses produced from duty-paid sugar or molasses) and which has passed a refinery in Saorstát Eireann.	In the case of molasses produced in bond an amount equal to the duty paid and in any other case an amount equal to the duty which would be chargeable on the importation of the like article.
(2) Drawback on the deposit in a bonded warehouse for export of beer in the brewing of which duty-paid sugar or glucose has been used.	An amount equal to the duty paid in respect of the sugar or glucose.
(3) Drawback on the export, or on the shipment, or deposit in a bonded warehouse for use as ship's stores of goods (other than beer) in the manufacture or preparation of which in Saorstát Eireann any duty-paid sugar, molasses, glucose or saccharin has been used.	An amount equal to the duty chargeable in respect of that quantity of the sugar, molasses, glucose or saccharin which appears to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to have been used in the manufacture or preparation of the goods, or, in the case of residual products, to be contained in the goods.
(4) Drawback to be allowed to a refiner on molasses produced in Saorstát Eireann from sugar, on which the import duty has been paid at the current rate and delivered to a licensed distiller for use in the manufacture of spirits ............ the cwt.	s.2	d.7

B.—EXCISE DRAWBACKS.

Nature of Drawback.	Amount of Rate of Drawback.
(1) Drawback on the export, or on the shipment, or deposit in a bonded warehouse for use as ship's stores of duty-paid sugar, molasses, glucose or saccharin.	An amount equal to the duty paid.
(2) Drawback on the deposit in a bonded warehouse for export of beer in the brewing of which duty-paid sugar or glucose has been used.	An amount equal to the duty paid in respect of the sugar or glucose.
(3) Drawback on the export, or on the shipment, or deposit in a bonded warehouse for use as ship's stores of goods (other than beer) in the manufacture or preparation of which in Saorstát Eireann any duty-paid sugar, molasses, glucose or saccharin has been used.	An amount equal to the duty paid in respect of that quantity of the sugar, molasses, glucose or saccharin which appears to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to have been used in the manufacture or preparation of the goods.
(4) Drawback to be allowed to a refiner on molasses produced in Saorstát Eireann from duty-paid sugar and delivered to a licensed distiller for use in the manufacture of spirits the cwt.	2s. 7d.
(5) Drawback on the deposit of duty-paid glucose in a warehouse approved by the Revenue Commissioners under Section 2 of the Manufactured Tobacco Act, 1863, for the manufacture of cavendish and negrohead tobacco.	An amount equal to the drawback which would have been payable on the export of the glucose.

C.—ALLOWANCES TO REFINERS ON MOLASSES PRODUCED IN SAORSTÁT EIREANN AND USED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FOOD FOR STOCK.

Nature of allowance.	Rate of Allowance.
Allowance on molasses produced from sugar on which duty has been paid on importation or on which the excise duty has been paid the cwt	s.2	d.7

This is the sugar duty, and the effect of it is to raise the total tax on sugar from one penny to 1¼d. per lb. As I have already said, that will bring in an increased revenue of about £200,000. We will not actually get that sum into the Exchequer, but as the subsidy to the Carlow Beet Sugar Factory is made up partly of actual cash and partly of remitted excise duty, we will pay the Carlow factory a farthing in the pound subsidy less on any sugar they produce in the present year. The result is that the Exchequer will benefit to the extent of £200,000. The yield of one farthing in the pound is £200,000, and that amount will be obtained either by a saving on the subsidy paid out or by actual payment into the Exchequer.

I have dealt to some extent with the reason why this particular tax was imposed. For three or four years sugar has been charged here at a lower rate than in a neighbouring country. We reduced the sugar duty from 2¾d. to 1d. The reduction made in the neighbouring country was only to 1¼d. It is felt that it is more satisfactory, if revenue has to be obtained, to obtain it by an increase of an existing duty rather than by a new duty. If you increase an existing duty by a small amount there is every possibility that you can obtain the sum which you set out to obtain without having any addition paid by the consumer which does not reach the Exchequer. On the other hand, if we were to impose any new tax there is no doubt that more than the amount the Exchequer would receive would be taken from the consumer. If we put a tax of 2d. on tea—although tea perhaps is a bad example, because what happens as a rule in the tea trade is that the prices remain constant and the quality is changed—but if we assume that the effect is the same, what would happen is that perhaps 3d. would be charged to the consumer to supply the Exchequer with 2d. If we put, say, 2d. per gallon on petrol and paraffin, something more than that would be charged to the consumer—perhaps 2½d. As a matter of fact, in the case of paraffin, which is bought in quarts, it might amount even to more, and that extra 2d. might mean the addition of 1d. per quart. So that we came to the conclusion that as a sum of £200,000 was required it was better to obtain it by a small increase of this sort on an existing tax, rather than by levying a tax on some article not at present dutiable.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

I take the first possible opportunity of protesting against this increase in the sugar tax. In the interests of the poorest taxpayers, and in order to equalise the incidence of taxation generally, we rather expected that even the existing tax on sugar would be removed. We certainly must protest against what we can only regard as a reactionary policy on the part of the Government in putting on this extra farthing. In practice it will mean, just as the Minister remarked about tea or petrol, more than one farthing in the pound to the consumer. Especially will that be the case where sugar is bought, as it must be bought by the very poor, by the pound. I am quite certain that in practice the consumer will be charged more than the farthing extra per pound. If anybody will get any advantage in that respect it will be the person who can afford to buy in large quantities.

There will be another opportunity of testing the feeling of the House by a division on this particular increase. I take it that this includes not only the farthing, but the penny tax that was on sugar already, so that a vote against this particular resolution would not indicate exactly what I am anxious to secure, namely, that this farthing should not be put on. If the Minister found that he had to get £200,000 he should have searched around for some other way of raising it besides this particular one. If he were forced to do it I would prefer that he should put it on tea rather than sugar. That may seem strange, but it is my own personal opinion, as sugar is such an important article of food and enters into so many articles of our daily food. This is only another instance of what I referred to in my earlier remarks, that in its incidence taxation generally falls more heavily on the poorer taxpayer than on the person who is better able to afford it. For that reason, and for the reason that it indicates a reactionary attitude on the part of the Government, I protest against this proposal.

Mr. DE VALERA

As I indicated in my first statement this afternoon, we also are opposed to this tax, and our reasons are precisely the reasons indicated by Deputy O'Connell. We think that this extra burden of £200,000 by way of taxation ought not to be imposed upon the poorest section of the community. It is quite obvious that it is going to fall upon the poorest section and will affect particularly the poor people with large families. It is also true, as stated—I think everybody will agree with it—that it means more than a farthing in the lb. Again it is the poor that will feel that, because they have to buy in small quantities. Those who buy in large quantities will probably be able to see that the retailer will not add a halfpenny, but to the poor people it practically means a halfpenny in the lb.

We are also very glad to find ourselves in agreement with the Labour Party in the idea that if extra taxation has to be imposed there are other directions to which one could look for it. In considering this whole question of taxation even we are able to see, without having the time and the machinery which the Minister for Finance has for examining these matters, directions in which there could be an increase of taxation without affecting the general economic conditions of the country. We believe, for example, that motors could be taxed. The sum required is a pretty large sum. The yield of the motor taxes here at present is going to be pretty large, even though we only intend them as a customs duty, or as a tariff, at present, in the hope that the Irish motor industry will be built up. But we believe that if we had even to put a tax on petrol to supply the deficiency it would be very much better than putting a tax on the poorest section of the community. We also think that, for example, there ought not to be remissions upon racing or anything of that kind, at the same time as we put this increased burden upon the poor. The moment one thinks at all of it the reasons against it are apparent to everybody, and I do not think it necessary to stress them now.

Mr. LEMASS

As Deputy de Valera has said, there are numerous other channels from which additional revenue could be obtained if it was necessary for the Government to secure this £200,000 extra for the coming year. I do not want to initiate a discussion at this stage on other matters not directly concerned with this resolution; but I would like to point out that, without increasing taxation, it should have been possible for the Government to secure this £200,000 in another way. Most Deputies will have read in this morning's paper, for example, that in Great Britain they have embarked upon a policy of the reduction of the number of civil servants and that they hope, in a period of five years, to reduce the number of civil servants by 18 per cent. I do not want to go into the matter in detail now, but I would like to point out to the House that there are approximately 60,000 civil servants in Great Britain, for 20,000 civil servants in the Free State. In other words, the Civil Service here is one-third of that in Great Britain, even though our population is only one-fourteenth of that in Great Britain.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not think the Deputy is dealing with comparable figures.

Mr. LEMASS

I am dealing with the figures given in the Press in the report of Mr. Churchill's Budget speech last night, in which he said they were going to reduce the Civil Service by 18 per cent.—a reduction of eleven thousand.

Mr. BLYTHE

The Deputy said that there were one-third as many civil servants here as there are in Great Britain. I do not think the figures are comparable.

Mr. LEMASS

The number, 20,000 civil servants in the Free State, was the number given in reply to an answer to a question.

Mr. BLYTHE

So far as Great Britain is concerned, the Deputy is not giving comparable figures.

Mr. LEMASS

That may be, but when we cannot get information of a more accurate nature we must use the information we have. The information supplied was that we have 20,000 civil servants here, and the British say they have 60,000.

Mr. BLYTHE

By far the greater proportion of our 20,000 are postmen, and I should imagine that postmen are not included in the British figure at all.

Mr. LEMASS

That is so, but even assuming that the number here is not one-third, but one-sixth or one-tenth, even then I should say the number is excessive. Our population, as we know, is only one-twentieth or one-fourteenth of the population of Great Britain, and our revenue is only one-thirtieth, and I think the Minister has discovered that our taxable capacity is only one-seventy-fifth. If we find that the British Government considers the number of civil servants is excessive, or so excessive that the actual proportion is to be reduced by 18 per cent., I think it would be found here, even by the "Axe" Committee, of which Deputy Heffernan is Chairman —a Committee in which nobody believes and in which even Deputy Heffernan himself does not believe— that a similar reduction of at least 18 per cent., if not more, should be possible. If that was carried out, by far the major portion of this £200,000 would be secured.

Dr. HENNESSY

What about a reduction in the number of T.D.'s?

Mr. LEMASS

That is a suggestion which, if made by any Deputy, would have the support of the Fianna Fáil Party. We will reduce the number of T.D.'s if Deputy Hennessy will include the abolition of the Seanad. Let us take both organs of administration and find out what economies are possible. We will find that we could get this £200,000 without putting an extra farthing per pound on sugar. That is the point that I want to make. It was not necessary to impose this fresh taxation, which will fall on the poor. If the Government wanted that money urgently they could have got it without this additional impost by practising economy in the direction which I have indicated, and also in the direction which Deputy Dr. Hennessy has mentioned.

Mr. LITTLE

I wonder does the Minister realise the food value of sugar, especially for children? For others besides children it is not only a food, but a stimulant and a substitute for alcohol. In some aspects it is, in fact, as valuable, if not more valuable, than bread; but what an outcry there would be if there was a tax on bread! The tax apparently is put on sugar because we have adopted the English attitude and because we want to conform with the English tax of 1¼d., and there is no outcry; but if people realised the food value of sugar there would be an outcry against a tax which will hit the poor, especially at a time when there is great unemployment.

Mr. CASSIDY

One of the surprises in the Budget has been this tax of a farthing per pound on sugar. This tax as Deputy Lemass has mentioned, is not going to affect the wealthy classes, but it will affect the poor, the unemployed, and the underpaid employee. Instead of the Government introducing something which would be of advantage to the small farmer, who is in a state of poverty, and which would help the unemployed, we find them attacking the most helpless class, the poorer class, and we also find them attacking the very breakfast table of the poor. It has been mentioned that sugar is a valuable food asset, but this tax means that the poor will have to purchase less sugar. I agree with Deputy Lemass when he said that there are other ways in which the Government could have increased their revenue. Take, for instance, the travelling expenses of Deputies. If the Government were sincere in trying to effect economy they could give Deputies third-class instead of first-class travelling vouchers. The Minister also referred to the fact that they intended to take off the entertainment tax in connection with racecourses. This means that they are going to allow people to frequent racecourses, but who is going to help them to pay for it? It means that the poor man is called on to do so. I think that this additional tax, so far as the unemployed, the poorer classes and the underpaid employee are concerned, is most unfair, and we on these Benches are going to oppose it as strongly as possible.

Mr. BRISCOE

In introducing this farthing tax per pound on sugar the Minister said that he saw no reason why anything more should be charged to the consumer. Is that a pious wish or can the Minister guarantee that the consumer will not be charged anything in excess of that farthing of which the Government is in such need to augment its sources of revenue? It may be a case of softening the blow by expressing the hope that traders will not charge it. The fact that this additional tax of a farthing per pound means a sum of £200,000 as revenue shows how much sugar is used by the people. The trader will have to pay a certain amount to the importer, the importer will have to pay a certain amount to the Customs authorities, and as I suppose the consumer will have to pay the trader I can see a poor man paying a halfpenny a pound more for sugar, notwithstanding the fact that we are told it will only be a farthing extra. I would like the Minister to explain his statement that the consumer will not have to pay more than a farthing. Is that a pious expression or can he guarantee that nothing further will have to be paid?

Mr. CORRY

I wish to protest very strongly against the sugar tax. In other years the excuse was given that heavy taxation was necessary owing to the large number of representatives of the people who were outside this assembly and who were a danger while they were outside. On that account it was said that taxation had to be raised to keep up the Army and Civic Guard. Now, however, there is no occasion for that and we naturally expected to see large reductions in taxation, but instead of that the Minister is looking for more money from people who, according to him, should not be paid more than 27/- a week, people who he says are bound to rear families on that wage. I could suggest a few ways by which the money could be found if the Minister really required it but I do not believe that he does. I suggest that he start with those who are paid more than 27/- a week— that he start with his own front line trench. I find that officials with £1,700 a year are getting a war bonus of £211, while a man with 27/- a week has to pay a farthing extra for his sugar. I expected to hear something in this Budget towards giving relief to farmers who are unable to pay their way, some relief on the rates which have gone up 300 per cent. owing to all the promises given by the Government regarding salaries and bonuses of officials. I gave an instance to-day of a high salaried official, an inspector who went to Cork and fixed an inclusive salary of £750 which on the representation of that official and the paid Commissioner was increased by £190. That money has now to be found by increasing the cost of sugar to the poor. If that is to be the policy of the Government I wish something would take them out of it.

Mr. G. BOLAND

I would like the Minister to state whether he has considered the effect of the imposition of this farthing in the pound on the sliding scale on the cost of living bonus. Is it going to mean an increase in the cost of Civil Service salaries? Probably he has not allowed for that.

Mr. BLYTHE

I have not allowed for that, and I hope it will not have that effect. I think that perhaps I should not reply to Deputy de Valera's question about the remission on racing until we come to that. I could just say in one word that I believe very soon we would have got very little tax as a result of it, and we would, perhaps, have lost the betting duty. Deputy Lemass, and I think Deputy Hennessy collaborated with him, suggested a means by which expenditure could be reduced, but we could not take any such proposal as a reduction of the number of Deputies or the abolition of the Seanad into account in framing this Budget. I should say, even if everybody were to agree that that should happen, there is no possibility that it would happen this year. On the general question of economy, I think we can discuss that question better on the general resolution, but I would emphasise what I did say in the main statement. You cannot reduce the number of officials unless the duties that we want discharged are also reduced. There is a theory that all sorts of people spend their days with their feet on the mantelpiece and draw salaries for it.

Mr. BOLAND

Picking out winners.

Mr. BLYTHE

That is not so. I do not say that when you have a big machine you can have the position where every man is working hard, or I would not say that such a thing would not be possible, but I do say that the main body of officials work hard and do their duty well and that you cannot get the work that is put on the machine done with a lesser number. We might eliminate some of the work, but when we come to consider that we are up against difficulties. There is no member who has been in this House too short a time not to realise that there are continual demands from every side of the House to have more things done. We have got to strike a balance, and I think the fact that it is no longer possible to increase services and at the same time reduce taxation, brings us up to a point where it will be, perhaps, easier for us to consider how that balance is to be struck and how much we want done if it means increasing taxation. However, that is a matter we could not discuss on this resolution.

Deputy Briscoe asked whether I could give any assurance that not more than a farthing per pound would be passed on to the consumer. The Deputy is, no doubt, well aware that it frequently happens, when there is a small increase in the price of a commodity, that traders do not pass on the amount of the increase. When you have a big increase the big increase is and always must be passed on. If you have a new tax which involves trouble to the importer, and perhaps delays in the provision of bonded accommodation, you undoubtedly have more than the tax passed along. It was with reference to the fact that certainly a great deal more than twopence would be charged to the consumer, if we put a tax of twopence on tea, that we decided in favour of a farthing tax on sugar. Sugar has a food value, as Deputy Little pointed out. Tea has not the same food value, yet a large number of the people make it as much a necessity as sugar. It may not be as valuable as food, but it is as much a necessity, and the tax on tea would have been no less a hardship. At any rate this tax on sugar that is proposed is doing very little more than paying the cost that arises from a measure which gives a great deal of relief to the very poorest of the people.

Question put.

The Committee divided. Tá, 74; Níl, 59.

Tá

• William P. Aird.
• Ernest Henry Alton.
• James Walter Beckett.
• George Cecil Bennett.
• Ernest Blythe.
• Séamus A. Bourke.
• Michael Brennan.
• Seán Brodrick.
• John Joseph Byrne.
• Edmund Carey.
• John James Cole.
• Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
• Martin Conlan.
• Michael P. Connolly.
• Bryan Ricco Cooper.
• William T. Cosgrave.
• Sir James Craig.
• James Crowley.
• John Daly.
• Michael Davis.
• Peter De Loughrey.
• James N. Dolan.
• Peadar Seán Doyle.
• Edmund John Duggan.
• James Dwyer.
• Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
• Denis J. Gorey.
• Alexander Haslett.
• John J. Hassett.
• Michael R. Heffernan.
• Michael Joseph Hennessy.
• Thomas Hennessy.
• John Hennigan.
• Mark Henry.
• Patrick Hogan (Galway).
• Richard Holohan.
• Michael Jordan.
• Patrick Michael Kelly.
• Myles Keogh.
• Hugh Alexander Law.
• Finian Lynch.
• Arthur Patrick Mathews.
• Martin McDonogh.
• Michael Og McFadden.
• Patrick McGilligan.
• Joseph W. Mongan.
• Richard Mulcahy.
• James E. Murphy.
• James Sproule Myles.
• Martin Michael Nally.
• John Thomas Nolan.
• Richard O'Connell.
• Bartholomew O'Connor.
• Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
• John F. O'Hanlon.
• Daniel O'Leary.
• Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
• John J. O'Reilly.
• Gearoid O'Sullivan.
• John Marcus O'Sullivan.
• Patrick Reynolds.
• Vincent Rice.
• Martin Roddy.
• Patrick W. Shaw.
• Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
• William Edward Thrift.
• Michael Tierney.
• Daniel Vaughan.
• John White.
• Vincent Joseph White.
• George Wolfe.
• Jasper Travers Wolfe.

Níl

• Frank Aiken.
• Denis Allen.
• Richard Anthony.
• Neal Blaney.
• Gerald Boland.
• Patrick Boland.
• Daniel Bourke.
• Seán Brady.
• Robert Briscoe.
• Henry Broderick.
• Daniel Buckley.
• Frank Carney.
• Frank Carty.
• Archie J. Cassidy.
• Michael Clery.
• James Coburn.
• James Colbert.
• Hugh Colohan.
• Eamon Cooney.
• Dan Corkery.
• Martin John Corry.
• Fred Hugh Crowley.
• William Davin.
• Thomas Derrig.
• Eamon de Valera.
• James Everett.
• Frank Fahy.
• Hugo Flinn.
• Patrick J. Gorry.
• John Goulding.
• Seán Hayes.
• Patrick Hogan (Clare).
• Samuel Holt.
• Stephen Jordan.
• Michael Joseph Kennedy.
• William R. Kent.
• James Joseph Killane.
• Mark Killilea.
• Seán F. Lemass.
• Patrick John Little.
• Ben Maguire.
• Thomas McEllistrim.
• Seán MacEntee.
• Séamus Moore.
• Thomas Mullins.
• Timothy Joseph Murphy.
• Thomas J. O'Connell.
• Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
• Seán T. O'Kelly.
• William O'Leary.
• Matthew O'Reilly.
• Thomas P. Powell.
• Patrick J. Ruttledge.
• James Ryan.
• Martin Sexton.
• Patrick Smith.
• John Tubridy.
• Richard Walsh.
• Francis C. Ward.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and Doyle. Níl: Deputies Dolan and Allen.

Motion declared carried.