I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £14,658 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 Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Airgid, maraon le hOifig an Phághmháistir Ghenerálta.

That a sum not exceeding £14,658 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Finance, including the Pay-master-General's Office.

The change in the amount required this year is principally due to the fall in the bonus.

In column 1381, Vol. XII., of the Official Reports of the Oireachtas the Minister stated that it was the duty of his Department to keep demands for money within bounds. We are, therefore, I presume, upon this Vote entitled to consider how the Minister's Department has fulfilled the Minister's conception of its duty, "to keep demands for money within bounds." Within what bounds? Obviously within the bounds of our people's capacity to pay. Has the Minister's Department even to that extent, an extent which is the lowest criterion of its achievement, discharged that which he himself says is its own particular duty? Let us consider. For the year ended 31st March, 1928, the receipt into the Exchequer from the revenue was £24,329,406. Of that sum £20,396,000 was the product of taxation. In compiling his Budget the Minister estimated that £26,889,000 would be required to defray the expenditure which he was prepared, after having made a deduction for overestimation, to justify to the Dáil. He proceeded then to make further deductions. Some of those deductions were very questionable. He divided that expenditure into two categories, one of which he proposed to regard as normal expenditure and the other as abnormal expenditure. I do not wish to go into that at the moment; possibly I am not entitled to do so, because it might be regarded as a matter of policy, and I do not propose, therefore, in a discussion on the Vote to deal with it. But at any rate, after making certain deductions, the Minister came to the conclusion that he would require £24,062,000 to meet the expenditure for the current year. In order to provide that sum he imposed a tax on sugar, and he adopted a number of other expedients which Deputy Flinn likened to eating his seed potatoes. As the result of these the Minister calculated that he would get from the taxpayer an additional revenue of something like £1,151,000.

I think that we are entitled to ask ourselves how the Minister's expectations are being fulfilled. Last year the Customs, Excise and other taxes and duties produced, from the 1st April, 1927, to the 12th November of that year, £11,987,000. This year in the same period those same taxes and duties have produced only £11,311,000. I would ask the Minister to consider the significance of that, in the light of the exposition which he himself has given of his conception of the duty of his Department. The Minister proposed to obtain £1,151,000 from the taxpayer, over and above what was obtained last year. We presume that the Minister has been endeavouring to collect that sum. If one-tenth of the things which were said in this House in the debate upon the Vote for the Revenue Department be true, he has been endeavouring most strenuously to collect that sum, and yet, despite those most strenuous endeavours of his, the Minister has failed, not only to collect the extra revenue, but has failed even to collect as much revenue as was collected last year. That is a signal failure. The Minister sets out to secure in twelve months £1,151,000 more than last year. Seven and a half of those twelve months have already elapsed, and, so far from securing that £1,151,000, he finds that his tax revenue to date is actually £676,000 less than last year. There are the results.

I do not intend to keep the House very much longer, but I feel that we are entitled to ask what is the conclusion that must be drawn from that. There must be some conclusion to be drawn from these very significant figures, and I suggest that the conclusion is that the people are now being taxed beyond their capacity to pay, and that therefore the Department of the Minister for Finance is not discharging its proper duty and is not keeping the demand for money within bounds. I do not think that that conclusion requires any further enlargement. I think the fact that can be drawn from these official figures is a condemnation of the whole administration, not only of the Department of Finance, but of the Government of which the Minister is a member. I leave it at that, but I suggest that every single Deputy who is charged with a personal responsibility, and a personal trusteeship for the people's money, is entitled to ask whether he is going to vote to continue in office a Minister for Finance and a Government who have already, as the figures clearly show, taxed this people beyond its capacity to pay, and are not discharging what is the primary duty of every Government, to keep the demand for the people's money, the money which is collected from the tax-payers, within bounds.

I would like to hear the Minister.

The Minister to conclude.

No sir, we would like to hear the Minister's explanation. Otherwise it means that we have to get up and go on with the same story until the Minister decides to conclude, and I suggest calling the Minister to conclude is a closure.

The Deputy has made that suggestion before. If he is prepared to make a speech on this Estimate I will hear him. If he wants to make a speech on the Ceann Comhairle I will not hear him. That is the option, and I warn him it is the only option he has. This procedure has been already dealt with, and I will not hear the Deputy on it now.

I feel a very great and a very deep sympathy for the Minister for Finance. He has been called on by this country, or by, I think, point one of one per cent. of the majority to occupy a position for which the figures in the Estimate, and the other surrounding conditions in relation to finance, which have been exposed in this House, suggest that he is not fitted for. I do not blame him in any way for that. It is not his responsibility. We are all as God made us— some a good deal worse—and the Minister did not choose himself for the particular responsibilities that have been thrust upon him. But the fact remains that this particular Budget, as far as we are dealing with it at the moment—I ask for a count of the House.

Is it necessary to have a quorum when the House is in Committee?

It is.

House counted and twenty members being present,

Evidently the Minister for Finance does not desire to be present during this discussion on matters in relation to his own Department. The Minister for Finance is capable, during the discussion of the Ministry of Finance's Vote, of leaving completely unoccupied the Ministerial Bench. The Minister for Finance to-day has told us that not merely is the condition of this year's financial position bad, as shown by the figures, but he has told us that he will not be able to balance his Budget next year. He has told us he cannot balance his Budget next year except by borrowing at a high price. One of my indictments of the Minister for Finance is that he is responsible, by a calculated policy, for degrading the credit of this country to such a condition that he can only borrow at a high price. He is responsible in the extraordinary method of finance which this existing Budget represents. No man can borrow money who is doing the thing which, in an ordinary commercial concern, would be regarded as dishonest. You cannot build the credit of this country upon the basis of using assets as income. You cannot build up the credit of this country on the basis of taking into this year revenue which does not belong to it. When you are going into the money market to borrow money and say in your balance sheet that you have put in two items of that kind you are asking for the Shylock's price for money; you are asking for that price of money which is exacted from a man known to be in a bad condition. You have got to pay the penalty price of your default.

If the Minister for Finance or any other Minister upon these benches was in the hands of moneylenders and those facts were known to the moneylenders what would be the price they would charge for accommodation? What would be the price if, in his personal capacity, any man or Minister in this House chose to put himself in the hands of moneylenders under those conditions? That is his responsibility and his sorrow. But if any man speaking for this House, for the Twenty-six Counties in this country, does choose deliberately to put the country into that position, when going into the hands of the moneylenders, it is not his misfortune; it is his shame. What did the Minister for Finance do in relation to the credit of this country? When he was going for a loan he stumped up and down the country, telling the world, in a stunt election, the horrible position in which the country was and demanding for the carrying on of the ordinary law of this country penal laws of a character that would shame an uncivilised State. He was not satisfied with that. When the election was over, when the people, in their folly or in their wisdom, had decided other than he had expected and calculated on in his stunt election, he actually made this statement—a man who was going for a loan, who was going to buy money—to those from whom he was going to buy the money on behalf of this State: "The position of the country will mean that we will have to pay £300,000 more for our loan."

Imagine the condition of any business man who, going into the market to buy anything, would declare first to the seller that conditions had been produced which would make him have to pay more. The statement was untrue. What would be the position of the managing director of any firm, faced with his shareholders who, before he had gone into the market to borrow money, had said that untrue thing in relation to the condition of his firm? In spite of the defeatist policy, in spite of the slander upon the credit of this country, consistently indulged in by the Minister for Finance, the credit of the country rose, as is illustrated even by the very unsatisfactory indication of the price of existing National Loan. In spite of that, and at a moment when it ought to have been the policy of the responsible Minister for Finance at least to show a price which was a fair price for National Loan, although he buys some hundreds of thousands of pounds of National Loan in a year, he leaves the market for National Loan be depressed on the Dublin Stock Exchange 1½ points on a ridiculous little parcel of stock that could have been bought by any man in this House.

We are going to have another loan, and how I know it is by what has been said on these Front Benches to-day. I heard a speech in this House the other day, and I turned to my colleague, Deputy Carney, and said: "They must be going for another loan." The next day one particular organ of the Press of this country sent out to 80,000 people in this country the declaration that a Minister in this House had made a startling speech—a speech which, in the opinion of the Press, was good enough to be placarded as a sign and a proof that in the opinion of the Ministry there were causes in this country for fear, and for apprehension of danger. How on earth can you expect to borrow money at a reasonable price if the policy of the Ministry itself and, above all, of the Minister for Finance, for Party purposes, for the purpose of attacking his political opponents, is to say, first, to the people who are lending the money that their security is insecure, and, secondly, to the lenders of money that, due to that insecurity, the price must be higher. That is the sort of thing which would get any ordinary commercial man laughed out of commercial life as an utter incompetent. My charge is more than incompetency. I do not blame, I say deliberately, any member of the Front Bench for the incompetency which is natural there, but I do blame them in so far as they refuse to learn to improve, and in so far as they deliberately use their position for the purpose of damaging the assets in their hands.

Deputy O'Connell to-day said that the Ministry was in possession of the resources of this country. They are in possession of certain resources and they have a considerable influence over the value of some other resources in this country. One of the things which they do not possess, but over whose immediate and exchangeable value they have a direct influence, and their conduct has a direct influence, is the credit of this country and the policy of the Minister for Finance and the policy of his colleagues for party purposes has been to debase and degrade that credit so that in a party sense they may get advantage from it. The position as disclosed by the state of the revenue is bad. The Minister for Finance has been quite frank. I like to give him credit for anything I can. I like to give every opponent credit for everything I can. The Minister for Finance has been frank enough to say that he does not see the corner being turned within the financial year. I had hopes that possibly there were things known to the Ministry of Finance, that they had worked out their rate of revenue accretion in certain conditions, that the Minister was calculating that there were certain conditions in relation to the artificial £1,150,000, which he has taken in as income and which is not income, which would lead him to believe that in the remainder of the time he would get a much larger proportion than we on these seats know anything of, or that Deputies could envisage. He says he will not. Frankly I sympathise with him in that fact, and I am disappointed. But is the Minister for Finance entitled to get away with it on that ground? Have we tried, has he tried, to reduce avoidable, overhead, and non-productive expenditure within the limits which would enable him to balance? Has he kept that restraint over his colleagues and over their actions and incitements which would enable him to do it? He has to include under two single heads of enforcement expenditure, namely, the Civic Guards and the Army, somewhere about £3,000,000 of money. Has he tried to enforce upon his colleague, the Minister for Justice, that conduct which would enable him to reduce that amount? Has there been any protest from him when in his presence the Minister for Justice has stated things which will directly cause an increase of expenditure under those heads, namely, when the Minister for Justice has defined as a good and a reputable member of one of these forces a man who keeps his assaults upon the general public within that degree of atrocity in which it will not be awarded more than £40 valuation in one of his own Circuit Courts?

That is quite irrelevant to this Vote.

Has the Minister for Justice kept those supervisions over his colleagues to the extent to which the Minister for Finance does control money going into those Departments which would keep the costs down? Has he controlled other Departments which were capable of producing productive activities? We went through his last Budget here with great care, and, I think, with great kindness. It was a Budget which was treated with every possible consideration in this House. We pointed out that there was nothing in the Budget which would enable production to be helped, but what we know is that money is being provided by him and allowed to go out, and his officers are functioning in Departments who are not using their activities for the purposes of developing production but for the purposes of preventing it being started. The indictment of the Minister for Finance is, in his own words today:—"I cannot balance my Budget. I cannot live out of my means. I have to borrow money to pay ordinary out-of-pocket expenses. I have to borrow money at a high price, and I have to borrow it because my conduct"—the conduct of the Minister for Finance, in co-operation with that of his colleagues —"has been to debase instead of enhancing the credit of this country.'

When Deputy Flinn began in his lugubrious and almost religious tone, I realised that he had come to bury Caesar and not to praise him. And the corpse is still alive. Deputy Flinn is deeply concerned for the credit of this country, and is concerned that the Government are crying down the credit of this country, but what is Deputy Flinn's contribution? Has he enhanced the credit of the country? I read a report of a speech delivered by Deputy Flinn in the country during the week-end, in which he said that those on the Government Benches had not even good second-class brains. I do not know whether the Deputy meant everyone on the Government Benches or merely those on the Front Bench. I accept Deputy Flinn as an authority on second-class brains. I do not know any Deputy in the Dáil who has a more intimate knowledge of second-class brains than Deputy Flinn. Does he think that by that public remark he is enhancing the credit of the country for which he is so deeply concerned to-night? He spoke somewhat irrelevantly, I think, of penal laws of a character that would shame an uncivilised State. I do not know if Deputy Flinn has noticed that yesterday the Minister for Justice, being well assured that Deputy Flinn is not going to put on his trench-coat and take to the hills again, is bringing in a Bill to repeal those penal laws that would disgrace any civilised State. Deputy Flinn might have referred to that. He might have enhanced the credit of the country by pointing out that we no longer require those penal laws, and thank God we do not.

We never did.

Deputy Flinn with great perspicacity informed Deputy Carney a few days ago that the Government must be going for another loan. A year ago the Minister for Finance informed everybody in the Saorstát that he was going to take the present loan in halves; that he was going to raise half of it at once and was going to come, in about a year's time, to raise the other half if still in office. Deputy Flinn did not notice that. I would like to congratulate Deputy Flinn on having found someone more ignorant than himself to whom he would give his piece of news. Deputy Flinn challenged the Minister for Finance and asked him if he was trying to reduce overhead expenditure. With regard to a reduction in overhead expenditure, if Deputy Flinn looks at this Vote which we are discussing he will find that, in spite of automatic increments, which he knows and which all of us know must occur in the Civil Service, because after a service of a year or so every civil servant becomes entitled to a very small rise in his salary, this Vote has been decreased by £2,700. In other words, it has been decreased by 4 per cent. This is the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance. He has shown the example, and I believe from my knowledge that the control of overhead expenditure is going on and will be continued. The credit of the country? Deputy Flinn is anxious for the credit of the country. Would it not be better if Deputy Flinn were to refer to some facts that are well known to him? The credit of the country? The first National Loan was issued at 95. It sunk in a time of crisis to 91½. I was wise enough to buy some. It is now over 99. The second National was offered at 98. The credit of the country is high, and will remain high.

In spite of the Minister for Finance.

It has risen in this way—under the auspices of the Minister for Finance and under the conviction that this country will be firmly and fairly governed. The credit of the country is high. The indebtedness of the country is low. I wish that Deputy Flinn, when he was deprecating our financial position, had referred to the financial position of other countries. We can raise money in the United States of America at, I think, five and a quarter per cent. What was the price which France had to pay for a loan in the United States? Does Deputy Flinn know? My information, which is subject to correction, is that they had to pay seven per cent.

I think it was 6¾ per cent.

It was at least one per cent. higher than the price we had to pay. Our indebtedness compared with New Zealand, with half our population, is ridiculously small. The credit of the country is high and will remain high because it is based on facts and on security, and because it is based on sound administration, and it will not be affected by speeches, whoever may deliver them.

It may seem strange to step down from the regions of high finance in which we have been for the last ten minutes. I desire to ask the Minister a question in regard to the last item in the Vote. It refers to the sum of £1,100, repayment to the British Government in respect of agency services performed by the British Government actuary on an actuarial Investigation into the Teachers' Pension Fund. I want first to ask the Minister why it was necessary to go to the British Government for an actuary to enquire into this purely Irish fund? That is not the main question I want to put to the Minister. My reason for rising is to try to find out from the Minister what exactly is the position with regard to this investigation which was promised over two years ago and which the Minister himself, about eighteen months ago, said would be ready last November. Shortly before the adjournment for the summer recess, the Minister undertook to make a statement to the House as to the result of this investigation. Up to the present we have heard nothing except the hint contained in the speech of the Minister for Education on the Education Estimates to the effect that the result of the investigation was likely to prove that this fund was not solvent. That is a rather serious matter. This fund does not belong to the Government. The teachers, who are contributors to it, have a share in it. They are interested in it, and are very anxious to have, at the earliest possible moment, a statement from the Minister as to the results of the investigation, or to be furnished through their organisation with a copy of the actuary's report. I think as part-owners of the fund that they are entitled to have that at the earliest possible opportunity so that they may take steps to examine into the findings of the actuary and to look after their own interests in the fund if they deem that their interests are in any way involved. I hope that the Minister, when replying, will make a statement on that.

Deputy MacEntee occupied himself largely with the budgetary position and with his ideas about the revenue yield for the year. As I have already said, it is impossible yet to say how the revenue will turn out because there are one or two factors which might make a very substantial difference in the amount of payment. I would say this, however, that practically all the heads of taxation are likely—I might say are as certain as anything can be—to yield the amount estimated. As regards the heads under which the amount obtained may be less than was anticipated, I have no reason to believe that it is because of a fall in consumption. When we get nearer to the end of the year and can foresee what the expected yield will be, we can go further into an explanation in regard to the matter. I would say this: that there is nothing at all in the revenue position to indicate that the yield of taxation is seriously falling off. The Deputy is well aware that, so far as the liquor taxes are concerned, there has been a steadily diminishing yield since the change of Government. Perhaps the diminution was going on before that, but in no other branch of the revenue have there been any indications of a drying-up of the sources. There has been no indication, if you like to put it that way, that the rate has been so high as to cause such changes in the habits of the people as to diminish substantially the yield.

May I put a question arising out of that? Dealing with Excise. I think one of the Minister's proposals was to shorten brewers' credit. I think that by doing that he estimated he would get in, in the current year, something like £300,000 more. Does that mean that if the yield were at the same rate as last year the Excise returns should be £300,000 more than last year, whereas in fact they are £300,000 less at this date?

No, you cannot say that, for we have here one very large brewery with a very large export trade which amounts to about double the home trade. When beer is brewed the duty becomes payable, allowing for credit, and when it is exported a drawback has to be paid. The course of trade of that firm may frequently cause variations in the stock of beer in hand, amounting to as much as 60,000 barrels between one quarter and another. It has been our experience that from time to time, for trade reasons, there have been great fluctuations in the stock of beer in hand. If the stock is reduced it means in effect that the beer is exported and the drawback is paid. On the other hand, if beer is not being brewed at home and the tax is not coming in, there is the greatest possible fluctuation. It would be impossible to deduce anything from one quarter or another.

It has been consistent the whole year up to date. There is a margin of £600,000 between this year and last year, and that is what it amounts to.

I have said all I want to say on that, and I cannot go into anything I may have learned in the way of revenue inquiry about a business firm. It does not follow that because you expect more revenue in a year you will have more revenue at a particular point before the end of the year. There is no use in continually talking about the capacity of the country to pay, and then advocating all sorts of new expenditure. That is what I find happening from the opposite side of the House. It seems to me that practically every proposal for increased expenditure meets with support from the opposite side of the House. If Deputies believe the country is taxed beyond its capacity to pay then they ought to behave in a different way when proposals for increased expenditure are before the House. Deputy O'Connell asked why a British actuary had to be employed. We have not a great number of actuaries in this country, and there was no suitable alternative to the employment of the British Government's actuary. We hope we will be able to put a report in the hands of the teachers' organisation and in the hands of the public at a very early date. As the Minister for Education indicated, the fund is in an insolvent condition, and whatever proposals may be made for bringing the fund into a solvent condition we will certainly give every opportunity to the teachers' organisation to examine the whole report before any decision is taken on these proposals. The Deputy need not fear that there is going to be simply a Government consideration of the report and then the formulation of a set of proposals for bringing the fund into a state of solvency, and the laying of these proposals before the Dáil, without the teachers' organisation having a good opportunity of studying the whole matter and advancing their views with regard to it.

Would the Minister say why his Department refused to give permission to the British Government to pay the Irish scale of cost-of-living bonus to Irish pensioners of the Irish Lights?

Under the Treaty the Irish Lights service should have been transferred to us. The transfer has not been effected, because it is obvious that, concurrently with the transference of that service, there must be some arrangement to transfer to us portion of the Lights revenue which is collected at British ports, and Lights dues collected at Irish ports. These Lights are maintained for the benefit of ships that go to Southampton, Liverpool or other British ports. They are largely for the benefit of those ships. Lights dues collected at Irish ports are of a trivial amount. If we were to accept a transfer of the service without having any financial arrangements made at the same time, it would mean that out of the Exchequer we would have to provide large sums for the maintenance of the Irish Lights service. The service has not been transferred, for we have not arrived at any financial arrangement about the share we should get of the general Lights fund. We cannot agree to any increase in the charges that may be paid to the men in the Irish Lights service until we have completed a financial arrangement with the British Government in regard to it. When that arrangement is completed we shall know exactly where we stand with regard to the service.

Does not the Minister admit it is unreasonable that these men living in Ireland would not get the Irish cost-of-living figure in view of the fact that the English Government are prepared to pay if the Irish Government consent?

I would draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that there are in the County Mayo about 2,000 subscribers to the old Dáil Loan who have not been repaid by the Government. As the Minister knows, documents have been lodged in his Department proving that money had been subscribed to the Loan by certain people, and declarations were sworn that they had paid it. The Minister stated he would require the original documents showing that the money was paid by the people to the Loan. Many claims for repayment have been put in. I would like to know if any steps would be taken by the Finance Department to see that these people will be paid in a short time? The President promised some time ago that some tribunal would be established at an early date to inquire into such cases, and there are thousands of them throughout the country.

I cannot answer the Deputy with regard to these cases. I do not remember the facts. The Deputy should either write a letter or put down a Parliamentary question on the matter. Good progress has been made with regard to the repayment of the loan. We have not reached the position where the present machinery cannot carry us further. We are making good progress with repayments with the present machinery. When we reach the stage that we cannot get either forward at any reasonable speed, or get any further with the present machinery, then we will have to consider what can be done. I have myself, as well as the President, said it may be that we will reach a point when we may have to appoint a tribunal that will deal with a thing by way of hearing evidence in a rough and ready way. I do not know about that yet. We are continually getting further evidence, adding further names to the register and completing arrangements for payment. So far as individual cases are concerned the Deputy will either have to write to me or put down Parliamentary questions, because I could not give him any information now.

Would the Minister reconsider that? If the British Government are prepared to pay, it is only a matter of agreement, and nothing should stand in the way of these people getting their rights.

The Deputy did not give me any notice of the point. I only happened to know of it. Personally, I dealt with certain applications from the British Government to give increases, and we definitely informed the British Government that, in our opinion, increases should only be given on a temporary basis. I know the reason why we refused to allow them to make permanent increases. Beyond that I do not recollect anything personal about the conditions of these men.

It is not an actual increase in wages. It is the cost-of-living bonus on the pension.

I will look it up. I am sure it is a year since I saw any file or any document in connection with that matter.

The Minister will promise to look it up?

I will look it up.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister for Finance to the fact that there is considerable difficulty in getting these certificates. The Minister will remember that in the last Finance Act he accepted the principle of an amendment. The difficulty has been found in getting these certificates. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there is that difficulty.

I would like the Deputy, for the purpose of enabling me to make an inquiry, to give me specific cases, because it is hard to make an inquiry on a general allegation.

In the matter of these Dáil Loans, I asked a question the other day about a man who undoubtedly put money into the Loan; and because I called him "Edward" instead of "Ned," which is the name he usually goes by and is probably the name on the register, I got a point-blank answer that he is not on the register. My own impression is that I saw his name on the register myself. Simply because of the technical difference in the name, I was told he was not on the register.

I explained the reason for that once before.

How on earth is a man to remember whether ten years ago he signed his name "Ned" or "Edward"?

There was one matter mentioned in connection with the Budget last April. The Minister suggested that the Government would consider the rates at which Imperial Preference would be allowed. I do not think that there was any announcement made since as to the result of that.

The matter was raised with the Department of Industry and Commerce, which is the Department which would make the variation as to the amount of British labour that would be included. I cannot tell at the moment whether they actually made an order changing it. I know the Department was considering it. I could not, in the absence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, tell the Deputy how the matter stands now.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 60.

  • Aird, William P.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cole, John James.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • 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.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • 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'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Shaw, Patrick W.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.


  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Broderick, Henry.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Colohan, Hugh.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Holt, Samuel.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • 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.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Leary, William.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • 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.