I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £594,295 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun Pinseann, Aois-liúntaisí, Cúiteamh, Liúntaisí agus Aiscí Truagha agus Breise, etc., fé Reachtanna iolardha; Cúiteamh fé Airtiogal 10 de Chonnra an 6adh Mí na Nodlag, 1921; Liúntaisí Truagha, Aiscí agus Pinseana Breise a deonadh ag an Aire Airgid; Tuarastal an Dochtúra Réitigh; agus Iocaíochtanna iolardha i dtaobh Pinsean a íocann an Rialtas Briotáineach fé láthair.

That a sum not exceeding £594,295 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for Pensions, Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate and Additional Allowances and Gratuities, etc., under Sundry Statutes; Compensation under Article 10 of the Treaty of the 6th December, 1921; Compassionate Allowances, Gratuities and Supplementary Pensions awarded by the Minister for Finance; the Salary of the Medical Referee; and sundry Repayments in respect of Pensions at present paid by the British Government.

The first two sub-heads of this Vote relate to ordinary pensions and allowances that are paid to civil servants retired since the change of Government. Sub-head B covers the lump sum allowances that are paid. Under the Superannuation Act of 1859 superannuation allowances were paid on the basis of one-sixtieth of the officers' annual salary, subject to a maximum of forty-sixtieths or two-thirds. By the Superannuation Act of 1909, under which certain civil servants came by opting, and under which all male civil servants employed since September, 1909, come automatically, a change was effected and civil servants were paid on a basis of eightieths with a lump sum allowance, called an additional allowance, which may amount as a maximum to one-and-a-half times the annual salary of the civil servant retiring. It also provided that in the case of the death of a civil servant while serving, a sum not exceeding the annual amount of his salary might be paid to his legal representatives. Under this sub-head also provision is made for gratuities that are paid to established female civil servants who resign on marriage. The amount paid is one month's pay in respect of each year of service, the maximum being twelve month's pay, and it is only paid in the case of a civil servant who has a minimum of six years' service.

The next sub-heads, C and D, relate to pensions allowance and gratuities payable under the Treaty. Awards under the Treaty have been held up for a considerable time, first because the Chairman of the Committee, Judge Wylie, who had made the assessments, resigned. Then, before a successor had been found, civil servants, who had been in litigation with the Minister for Finance, carried an appeal to the Privy Council, and it was found, while that case was pending, impossible to obtain any judicial officer who would act as chairman of the Committee. A certain decision was given by the Privy Council in the matter which, in the opinion of this Government, was an unfair and incorrect judgment.

The British Government agreed that the judgement given by the Privy Council did not carry out the intention of Article 10 of the Treaty, and they agreed with the Government of the Free State that the burden which that judgement would have thrown upon the taxpayers of this country did not rightly fall upon them. The British Government themselves subsequently referred the general matter that had been at issue in the case to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and so far no further action has been taken in regard to it. The sums, therefore, that are voted under Sub-head D are, to a considerable extent, a re-Vote.

Sub-head E—"Compassionate Gratuities" are paid in the case of unestablished civil servants not eligible for pensions under the Superannuation Acts. But Section 4 of the Superannuation Act of 1887 authorises the Minister for Finance to pay gratuities, not exceeding £1 or one week's pay, whichever is the greater, for each year of service to whole-time officials paid from voted moneys who retire on the ground of ill-health or who are discharged from their office. The provision under Sub-head F for "Extra Statutory Grants" covers payments made in certain rather exceptional cases where acute distress exists. For instance, in the case of a Gárda killed in the execution of his duty payment might be made to his dependents. Sub-head G is "Injury Grants." Sub-head J covers pensions made to resigned or discharged members of the R.I.C. under the Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1923. The number of pensions is shown on page 74 of the Estimates. Sub-head L shows ordinary pensions of the members of the amalgamated police forces. It includes the old Dublin Metropolitan Police. Sub-head LL includes the Treaty payments to members of the D.M.P. who resigned or were discharged since the change of Government. The numbers discharged were two, a Chief Commissioner and an Assistant Commissioner. In addition to those who were discharged, 576 members resigned in consequence of change of Government—13 inspectors, 129 station sergeants and sergeants, and 434 constables.

Sub-head M includes repayment to the British Government in respect of civil pensions. As Deputies will see in Part III of the Estimate on page 75 the exact portion of the expenditure repayable by the Saorstát has not yet been fixed, and the payments set out in the Estimate are provisional. It includes for Inland Revenue pensions £5,250 roughly, for Customs and Excise £41,700, and the remainder for other pensions. The last item is the repayment to the British Government in respect of the ordinary pensions and disbandment pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Saorstát payment is based on a proportion of 75 per cent. of the total. That figure was arrived at after consideration of the proportion of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were serving in the Saorstát during the period of 19 or 20 years prior to the change of Government. For instance, in 1901 the number serving in the Saorstát area was 78.59, in the next year 77.68, then 77.65, 76.86, 76, 75, 76, 77, 77.3, 77.4, 77.05; in 1912, 74; in 1913, 73; in 1914, 74.15; in 1915, 74,68, and so on, rising up to 77.86 in 1920.

On previous Estimate discussions the question of the auditing of these pensions was raised. So far the position has been that we accept the certificate of the British Comptroller and Auditor-General, but there is a right. It is admitted that the Comptroller and Auditor-General here may himself or by his officer inspect the accounts and documents and test the accuracy of the British certificate. The Comptroller and Auditor-General so far has not judged it necessary to do so. It was really a matter for him whether he would, as a check, conduct himself the audit of the ex-R.I.C. pension payments.

To what is the decrease under Sub-head N due?

Are you certain of that?

I do not know. I assume they are deaths.

Would it not also include certain pensioners holding positions?

It might, but I do not think it would be attributable to that.

I think the answer which the Minister for Finance has just given ought to determine the course of this debate. This is one of the most important Votes the House is called upon to pass. I think it is the fourth largest Vote in the Estimates. The Vote for Superannuation and Retiring Allowances in this little country of ours amounts to £1,794,295. It is proportionately very much larger than the amount which is voted in respect of similar services in a very much wealthier country which is our neighbour. In Great Britain the amount which is voted, including War pensions, in respect of annuities and pensions only amount to something like 2.46 of the actual income of the taxpayer, as assessed for revenue purposes by the Revenue Commissioners. In the Twenty-six Counties, this poor and impoverished country unable to pay its way, this country whose revenue at present falls far short of what it was this time last year, the proportion we are called upon to vote in respect of superannuation and retiring allowances is 3.4 per cent. of the actual income of the taxpayer, as assessed for income tax purposes by the Revenue Commissioners. We are called upon, therefore, to pay, in this poor little country of ours, almost 50 per cent. more proportionately than they are called on to pay in Great Britain in respect of this service.

This Vote, as well as being important from the point of view of size, is also worthy of very serious consideration from the point of view of its economic effects. This Vote differs from practically every Vote in the Estimates in so far as it is the one from which we get the least return. In respect of all the other services, practically all the money granted by this House is expended in this country, passes from citizen to citizen and helps to maintain the whole population, but in the case of this Vote an appallingly large part of it is paid to people who do not live in this country, and who have rendered no services to this country. It is not possible to give exact figures in respect of this Vote, but the Minister, in reply to a question which I addressed to him early last month, said that the British Government estimated that out of the total amount paid by way of pensions to the ex-R.I.C. only something like £960,000 are paid to people who were resident in Saorstát Eireann, and of that £960,000 it was estimated that the Exchequer of the Saorstát had to repay something like £700,000. Now, the total amount to be repaid to the British Exchequer in respect of disbandment and ordinary pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary is something like £1,205,000. Therefore, since of that £1,205,000 only £700,000 is paid to residents in this country the total amount of this Vote which is exported is something like half a million.

Will Deputy MacEntee put against that the £2,000,000 paid by the British Government in war pensions to this country every year?

I will not, because the war pensions are paid by the British Government to Irishmen in respect of services rendered to the British Government defending the British Empire. These pensions are paid by Irishmen to the British Government in respect of services rendered to the British Government and of which the British Government reaped the sole advantage. In one case, Great Britain pays for services rendered to her, whereas in the other case we are asked to pay for services rendered against us. I think the difference is sufficient to justify Irishmen accepting the British pensions and to justify us denying pensions to the R.I.C.

I would like, before going further, to point out that the total amount of this Vote does not represent the total amount which we pay by way of pensions. In respect of other services we pay an additional £600,000, so that the total amount paid by way of pensions in this State amounts to something like £2,394,000, and, estimating on the basis of the figures which the Minister for Finance furnished to us at the beginning of the month, it is possible to form a very rough and approximate idea as to the total amount of money paid to pensioners who are not resident in the Saorstát. I think we could roughly place that figure at £1,000,000, but it is, more or less, beside the point, and I only mention it in order to draw attention to the gravity of the situation which these pensions are creating. We cannot afford to continue to pay pensions to people who are not resident in this country. That is one problem we will have to face. This country, whose industries, we are told, languish for want of capital, cannot afford to withdraw each year £1,000,000 from productive processes and export it without securing any commensurate return. But the very fact that under this Vote something like £500,000 of Irish money is to be exported or, if you like, allowing for the fact that the British Government estimate that they pay £900,000 by way of pensions to ex-members who do reside in the Saorstát —something like £300,000 is exported from this country to people who never rendered any service to the country, who do not render any service at this moment, and who, in fact, are only a drain upon the industry and thrift of the community—would indicate that if the Minister were to discharge his duty properly to the House he ought to have a more searching investigation to see whether that money was properly due before he paid it.

As the Minister has told us in his statement, in 1926 Deputy Esmond raised this very matter in the House. He asked the Minister for Finance if it were not possible that a more effective check could be kept over this expenditure. Remember, this is a payment which, according to the Minister, will have to be made for a very long time as, he himself admitted, most of the people to whom it is paid are comparatively young. Are we to continue to pay £1,200,000 without satisfying ourselves, without even making a cursory examination to satisfy ourselves, that that money is rightfully due, that, in fact, Great Britain does pay pensions to that amount, and that she pays them to people who, from her point of view, but not from ours, have earned them?

In 1926 the Minister admitted that we had the power to make the examination for which I am pressing. He informed Deputy Esmonde, I think, that the British Government were aware that we had that power, that we claimed it as a right, and that within a short space of time the Minister proposed to exercise that right and have that examination made. Why has he not fulfilled that promise? What has happened in the meantime? The other day, speaking upon Deputy Tadhg Murphy's motion in regard to allowances to destitute widows and orphans, the Minister told us that we could not afford the sum necessary to provide these allowances and that, therefore, he asked the House not even to consider the matter in the present state of the country's finances. Yet, though we cannot afford to make that provision for destitute widows and orphans, we can, with lavish and careless hand, fling millions away to able-bodied pensioners who have no claims on this State, most of whom, in fact, are not even citizens of this State, and we allow the poor and destitute in our midst to go without bread and sustenance.

The Minister in this matter has attempted to shelter himself behind the Comptroller and Auditor-General. In the question to which I have already referred, he stated that it is no part of the functions of the Minister for Finance to examine and check the lists of persons in receipt of pensions or other moneys payable, directly or indirectly, from the Exchequer of the Saorstát. If that is the Minister's attitude I would ask him to turn to page 70 of the Estimates, and there in Part II. of the Estimate he can read, as I am going to read, sub-heads under which this Vote will be accounted for by the Office of the Minister for Finance. Accounted for to whom and where?— accounted for to the representatives of the people in this Dáil. If it is the Minister who is responsible for checking that expenditure, for disbursing that money, and before a singe penny piece is paid away, it is his duty to see that that money is not spent unless the people who claim it are rightfully entitled to it. How can the Minister satisfy himself that the claim made by Great Britain for repayment in respect of these pensions is justly due unless he has had some check and examination of the lists of persons to whom it is paid? I should like the Minister to deal with that aspect of the question. He is responsible in this House for the expenditure of this money. He has come to the Dáil in a moment when we are poverty-stricken, when we are faced with a situation that before another Budget passes we must raise another loan, when we are faced with the fact that next year, unless we can secure some reduction in expenditure, there must be an increase in taxation, he comes to this House and asks you to vote £1,205,000 in respect of an item which he has not even taken the trouble, during the five or six years that he has been asking you to spend that money annually, to ascertain whether that money is due or is not due. The Minister, in this instance. cannot shelter himself behind the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He is responsible, in the first instance, for paying out that money. Before a penny piece of it is paid he ought to have the list of pensioners presented to him, and in order to satisfy himself that that list is a correct one he ought to check, examine and analyse it in detail.

That is the case that I put to the Minister, and that is what I had in mind when I said that the answer which the Minister gave to my question would, I hoped, be the key-note to this debate. I asked him what was the reduction under sub-head N due to, and he told me that he did not know. Death, I suppose. That indicates the extent of the care with which the Minister handles the finances of this State. Here is an item in which there has been a reduction. An account has been presented to him. He knows that it is possibly somewhat lower than last year's but he has not even taken the trouble to ascertain why it is less and why, if it be less this year, it should not have been less last year. He does not know in what way the British Government account for the fact that last year the amount which they were demanding under this head was greater than this year. That is the point. The Minister imagines it might be due to death. It might be due to an outburst of generosity on the part of the British Government. They recognise that our revenue is £1,100,000 less than it was this time last year, notwithstanding the fact that, I think, we have imposed almost one and a quarter millions extra taxation this year. Therefore, out of the goodness of their heart they are going to be satisfied with something like £40,000 less than last year, and so far as the Minister is concerned that might be the explanation, but that is not an explanation that is going to satisfy this House. Is death going to be sufficient answer to those who want to see the social services in Saorstát Eireann equal to the social services provided by the neighbouring Governments? Is that the answer which is going to be given by the Minister to the Deputies sitting on the Labour benches? Are the Deputies on the Labour benches going to be satisfied with that answer? Is Deputy Anthony going to get up and fling his usual bouquet to the Minister for Finance? If the Deputy is as good at paying his taxes as he is at paying tributes to the Government, then he is an exemplary citizen. That, I think, goes to the root of the whole matter. I want to put it to my friends who sit on the Labour benches that they cannot pursue, in regard to this Estimate, the attitude which they have adopted in regard to some of the others, if they really want to see their social programme carried out. I am not saying this because I wish in any way to antagonise them or to be held as antagonistic to them, but I wish them to take our view of the present situation and to realise that we cannot, and that they cannot, fulfil or carry through their social programme unless there is very close scrutiny of every penny piece, and particularly of every penny piece spent by way of payment of pensions to those who do not reside inside this State.

The Deputy has indicated, I think, that there is grave probability that we are being overcharged in this matter, grave probability that the British Governments is shall we say, faking the accounts, and that the British Comptroller and Auditor-General is giving deliberately false certificates. I simply refuse to believe for a moment that the Comptroller and Auditor-General in Great Britain is giving deliberately false certificates when he knows, to put it at its very lowest, that we claim, and that the British Government have admitted our claim, to examine the accounts and to check them. The British Comptroller and Auditor-General occupies the position in that country that our Comptroller and Auditor-General occupies here, and it is conclusive evidence, apart from the possibility that error might occur, that the amounts that he certifies as having been paid to certain classes of persons were paid to those classes of persons. Remember, to send people over to check those accounts involves expenditure, and while I think that at some time or another—it is a matter really for the Comptroller and Auditor-General—there ought to be a check account, no matter how much confidence we have in any person who is doing it, but as to being deliberately misled, there is not, I believe, any ground for thinking that.

Rumours have been put around occasionally that certain people were being paid by the British Government pensions to which they were not entitled. I remember, I think, a Deputy from the Labour Party bringing to my notice the case of a man who alleged that he served in the Royal Irish Constabulary as a constable for a long period, that he left the force as a constable, and that he was being paid a sergeant's pension, which was being charged up to us. Immediately that particular instance was brought to my notice I had investigations made. It is quite true that the man had been going around Dublin making such statements. On investigation we found that he had served in the force for twenty years, or something like that; that he had left as a constable, and that he was being paid a constable's pension, and that the cause of his discharge from the force was insanity. No doubt that particular man, who was not right in the head, may have caused large numbers of people to believe that all sorts of tricks were being played by the British Government in the matter. That was one instance that was brought to my notice. I think there were one or two other instances. When the rumour took concrete shape, and was referred to a particular individual so that we could fairly easily conduct an investigation, we found that the rumour was entirely incorrect. If we were to send over a staff to examine all the relevant documents, and to test the work that is being done by the British Government; if we were to insist on taking the attitude that they were sure to be cheating us and that we must keep this matter up, we would spend a great deal of money and get no return. Remember that whenever a check test takes place, if it is found that anything is wrong, the whole matter can be re-adjusted, with interest paid.

The position is that the British officials, including the British Treasury officials who are responsible for making these payments, will do the work in the ordinary course of their duty. They will take all the ordinary precautions. Their work is subject to the check that is provided for ordinary expenditure, the audit by their Comptroller and Auditor-General. He gives us a certificate, and he again is subject to the check of any audit that our Comptroller and Auditor-General may carry out. When we hear it alleged that Treasury officials are going to pay out pensions which are not due under the statute and under the regulations to people, and that their misdeeds are going to be overlooked and not reported upon by their Comptroller and Auditor-General, we are really asked to believe too much. It is a proper thing to take all necessary precautions, but it is not a sensible thing to go to considerable expense when we have no good reasons to believe that the accounts and certificates presented to us are wrong. So far as the Department of Finance is concerned, the certificate we get from the Comptroller and Auditor-General is sufficient evidence upon which we can pay out the money claimed.

If the Comptroller and Auditor-General here entertains any doubt, if there is anything at all that leads him to suspect something is wrong or something undisclosed, it would be his duty at once to undertake a test audit. If he has no grounds whatever for suspicion I think it would be his duty some time to carry out a test check himself, but that is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I believe that perhaps some of the reasons why a test check has not been carried out so far are that, one way or another, there has been a good deal of pressure on that Department; a good many of the members of the staff were new to the work they have to do, and in addition to that, as Deputies are aware, a great deal of time was spent by the officers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Department in dealing with the old Army accounts, and other matters of the kind. There was really an abnormal pressure of work in that Department. They had to detach officers to take part in a great many investigations along with the officers of the Department of Finance. I think now that the abnormal inquiries in which they had to engage are no longer likely to occupy them they will find some early opportunity of carrying out an examination into that particular matter. In the meantime, I am quite satisfied that everything is in order. If there is any loss due to an error or bona fide mistake, or if any such thing be found, the Saorstát Exchequer would suffer no loss, for the amount wrongly charged would be repayable, and repayable with interest.

Would the Minister consider the case of Mr. McInerney who was formerly a magistrate and who owing to his very loyal attitude to the national movement of the time was really victimised by the British Government, and subsequently owing to that victimisation got into a state of poverty, really? He is an old man now and in ill health. Applications were made to the Finance Department in this matter before, but apparently they are unable to do anything in the matter. I would like to know would the Minister in some way or another bring him under one of those heads, for instance, the compassionate gratuity head, or otherwise give him technically an appointment and then give him some pension? It would not be a matter of a great deal of money. It is rather a slur on our gratitude to one who when we were all together fighting against the common enemy was with us, and who is now left in a position of poverty.

I have not personally seen the case. I doubt whether such a man would come in under the sub-head for compassionate allowances, for these allowances as I indicated are intended for minor unestablished civil servants and there is a very narrow limit to the amount which may be given. I do not know the merits of this case. Of course, if a case were sufficiently meritorious, and if there were a general desire to have it done it is always possible to find some means. It is possible to insert a special sub-head in the Vote, if the case were such as to demand that treatment. The matter was not personally before me and I cannot answer the Deputy.

Perhaps the President will throw a little light on the subject, because I think he is familiar with the case?

I am not in a position to deal with the matter now.

Surely the President remembers the case of Mr. McInerney and his action at the time, and his present position?

Perhaps the Minister for Finance, who has spoken sympathetically in the matter, would go into the case and see whether there are any outstanding merits in it.

I would like to add my voice to what has been said by Deputy Little with regard to the case of Mr. McInerney, K.C.—or S.C. It is a long time ago since he was forcibly retired from the Bench. He was a magistrate in the city; I am not quite sure of the year, but it was during the fighting and was previous to the Treaty. He took up a strong attitude with regard to certain actions of the Government police, and plainly told one superintendent, according to my recollection, that he did not accept his word. The next day he was retired as a magistrate, and he was never given any compensation or allowance, and he did that without any thanks when we were sustaining the national fight.

It was a great hardship on him. I do not think he was many years on the bench, but he was a very distinguished lawyer. I have no personal acquaintance with him, but I recollect his career all my lifetime since I was able to recollect anything of the kind. He took up our side in that way while on the bench and suffered severely for it. If the Minister can find any means of trying to meet the situation that has arisen owing to his forcible retirement, I would be very glad.

I gather from the point of view of the claim that it was parallel to that of resigned and dismissed R.I.C. men, and on that basis I am prepared to examine it and see if it would be possible to do anything.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 61.


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


  • Allen, Denis.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Kerlin, Frank.
  • Killane, James Joseph.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Mullins, Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Holt, Samuel.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Leary, William.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Tubridy, John.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Question declared carried.