Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 May 1929

Vol. 30 No. 1

In Committee on Finance. - Additional Financial Motions. Resolution No. 6—Woven Tissues.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe)

I move:—

(1) That sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Finance (Customs and Stamp Duties) Act, 1929 (No. 5 of 1929), shall, in respect of woven tissues imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 23rd day of May, 1929, be construed and have effect as if the words "two shillings and sixpence" were inserted therein in lieu of the words "one shilling and sixpence" now contained therein.

(2) 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).

Deputies are aware that there was a considerable amount of discussion as to the effect of the woollen tariff on the ready-made clothing manufacture which has grown up, and which has been stimulated as a result of the tariff on apparel. Representations were made by the Wholesale Clothing Manufacturers' Association, through their advisory committee, and the matter was referred to the Tariff Commission, who made a report which I hope will be in the hands of Deputies this evening. The difficulty which the Tariff Commission were up against in fixing the exemption limit for cloth in their original report was the point at which it should be fixed. It was admitted by the representatives of the woollen manufacturers who went before them that the very cheapest cloth would not be made here, but the Tariff Commissioners found that there were certain firms here which were making cloths, at any rate of a fairly cheap variety; that there were firms in the Free State which were making use of reclaimed wool in the manufacture of cloth, and that as a matter of fact a firm had installed a rag-pulling machine. They were anxious to fix the exemption limit low enough to encourage manufacturers who were inclined to develop that particular end of the business to proceed, with the result that they recommended in their original report that the limit should be 1/6, that cloth over 1/6 should be liable, and that cloth valued at 1/6 or under per square yard should not be liable to duty.

They have considered the representations of the wholesale clothing manufacturers and the views expressed by the representatives of the Irish Woollen and Worsted Manufacturers' Association, and as a result of that further consideration they are satisfied that cloths valued at 2/6 per square yard, or about 4/- per trade yard, should not for the present be liable to duty. The manufacturers have admitted that for some time ahead they will not be able to supply cloths of that value, and while in certain lines of business the wholesale clothing manufacturers would still have a fair margin of protection, in some other lines of business, if they had to pay duty on the cloth which they use, they would not have the margin of profit which is necessary to carry on business. The recommendation of the Tariff Commission is that the extension of the exemption should be for a period of five years only, and at the end of the five-year period we should revert to the original limit of 1/6 per square yard. It is one of these matters which the Tariff Commissioners indicated they found it extremely difficult to make up their minds about. It is one of the matters in which it is exceedingly difficult to get entirely reliable evidence. Different people who have been before them at different times have slightly differed in their views. For instance, the woollen manufacturers began by stating in the first instance that if the tariff were granted the whole needs of the consumer could be supplied. Then a little later they said that at the end of one to one and a half years they would be able to meet every class of stuff that would be required to clothe the people of the country. Later on they said that they could not manufacture cloth for ready-made clothing for sale at 1/6 or 3/- a yard. Now their admission is that, for some time at any rate, they will not be able to produce the cloths for the ready-made clothing trade. The alternative, therefore, that the Tariff Commission had before them on reconsidering the matter was to decide whether they would recommend some raising of the exemption limit, or recommend an increased duty on ready-made clothing. They have recommended that there should be for the five years' period an increase in the exemption limit from 1/6 to 2/6.

Mr. Lemass

It is difficult for Deputies to discuss this Resolution until they have actually received the report of the Tariff Commission upon which it is based, but the Minister will recollect when the original Resolution imposing the duty upon woollen cloth was before the House, Deputies on this side were at great pains to point out to him that the particular manner in which it was done would result in decreasing the effective duty on ready-made clothing. We argued then, however, that the way to escape that situation was not the method he now proposes to adopt. The effect of this increased exemption limit from 1/6 to 2/6 will be to encourage the importation of shoddy cloth into the country. There can be no doubt whatever that that will be the effect. There will be a very strong inducement to manufacturers who formerly imported cloth of a better quality to import the cheaper cloth now, because they can get that in tax free. We have given this matter careful examination, and have had an opportunity of discussing it with those whose interests are primarily concerned. That and other sources of information open to us convinced us in our belief that the way to deal with the situation was to increase the duty on ready-made clothing. If you increase the duty on ready-made clothing you will be maintaining an effective protection, and you will be giving to ready-made clothing manufacturers at the old limit. You would be increasing the market available for Irish cloth and encouraging the use of a better class of cloth in ready-made suits. I think we will be under an obligation to oppose this Resolution. It is the wrong way to go about dealing with the situation which the mistake of the Tariff Commissioners has created. The introduction of this Resolution at this stage is, in fact, a vote of censure on the Tariff Commission.

They have been considering this application for a duty on woollen cloth over two years and despite the very long time they took on it the final report which they submitted to the Dáil was one which they found, on reconsideration, they could not stand over and consequently they come here to amend their original proposition. The whole situation with regard to the protection of Irish industries appears to have been seriously muddled and the Government is open to very severe criticism on that ground.

I wonder would there be any use asking the Minister to ask the Tariff Commission again to reconsider their decision. Perhaps if they did they might get additional information to induce them to change their minds and to take the course which common sense indicates is the obvious course in regard to a duty on ready-made clothing. As I said, the effect would be three-fold and there would be no ill effects except perhaps a slight increase in the cost of the suits made out of shoddy. To increase that price is to the national good in order to discourage the use of shoddy and to encourage the use of the better cloth produced in the Irish mills.

Mr. Good

Would it be possible to defer consideration of this Resolution until we have the report of the Tariff Commission before us? I feel it very difficult to discuss a matter of this kind and of this importance without having the evidence that was before the Tariff Commission. I think it is only fair to the members of this House that they should have this information before resolutions of this character are brought forward.

Mr. Anthony

In the original discussion on these financial resolutions I asked if the Irish woollen millers could not, in some way, meet the situation by manufacturing a cheaper class of cloth, which I thought would at least go some way towards meeting the demand that existed at that time and which still exists—that it would be a sound business proposition for some woollen miller in this country to engage in the manufacture of a cheaper class of cloth, the trade name of which is shoddy. I suggested then that there was apparently in this country a demand for shoddy, and whilst that demand continued, and while it was profitable for somebody outside the Saorstát to manufacture shoddy, that it might also be considered profitable for someone within the Saorstát to manufacture shoddy. I am giving expression to an individual view when I say that some attempt is made in this Resolution to meet that point. I think the term used by the Minister was "reclaimed wool." An attempt is made here by reducing the price per yard to 2/6 to meet the situation. As one who comes from a district in which there are many woollen millers, I believe that we have enterprise enough in this country to meet the situation that at present exists.

I think it was Deputy Lemass who spoke of the better class suit. Deputy Lemass must remember that there are thousands of people in this country who cannot afford the better class suit, and who will feel not at all thankful to him or to anybody else for such a suggestion. I speak as one who believes largely in protective tariffs. In some industries we need protection—selective tariffs, if you like. I do not think these people will be at all thankful to Deputy Lemass for suggesting that the tariffs on ready-made clothing should be increased to such an extent that it would be far beyond the purchasing capacity of the poor person. Such person has to purchase not one suit or two suits, but several suits of clothes in the year. I am considering the family man who has to clothe himself, his wife, and possibly three or four children. I do suggest that here is an attempt, at any rate, to meet this case. I do not care whether the solution comes from a Fianna Fáil Government or a Cumann na nGaedheal Government, notwithstanding the fact that I may be labelled as having voted Fianna Fáil on one occasion when it suited me and Cumann na nGaedheal on the next when it suited me. That is very likely a charge that I will lay myself open to. Here is an honourable and decent attempt to meet the situation. We cannot have it both ways, we cannot hold out that we are all out for tariffs, and when there are certain reactions, when the ready-made people approach us, say we are not. We cannot have our money on the two horses.

We have the position created in this country that whilst many of us are out for tariffs, we find after a bit that there are certain reactions. We cannot square our consciences by going back to these people and saying that we will do our best. There must be some finality as far as tariffs are concerned. I think this is the via media; it is meeting us half way, those of us who still believe that the woollen industry in this country as a key industry requires protection. We found, having supported a woollen tariff, that there were certain reactions and I think this is the way to meet the reactions which many of us did not anticipate. I for one, did not anticipate, when supporting this tariff, that it would have the reactions which I found afterwards it did have. I discussed this matter with people in the ready-made trade. Whilst they felt that it might adversely influence their trading for many years to come, I do believe, having discussed it with many of them, that this will meet their case. I am prepared to go back to the people whom I represent, at any rate, and discuss it with them. I intend to support this Resolution. I may say that I am speaking on this as an individual. I have not consulted any member of my Party in relation to this matter. We did not get a chance of discussing it. But I do believe that it is a decent attempt to meet the situation created by the tariff on woollens.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I intend to support this Resolution, not because it is a tariff resolution but because it demonstrates clearly that those people who ask for tariffs are not doing it for the sake of giving employment on all occasions, but for the sake of getting profit. It is an admirable illustration of that fact that we have it stated in the Tariff Commission's report that this woollen industry has idle capital to the amount of £300,000. They have got their tariff and they are not prepared to use any of the £300,000 to instal machines to produce cheap material for the working man. I think it is proof, if proof were necessary, that all this is done by back stair methods to get profits for manufacturers, irrespective of the amount of employment they are to give. If this £300,000 were used in making cheap material for which there is undoubtedly a market, as many people cannot pay the higher prices for clothing, there would be a good case for the manufacturers. I would agree, to some extent, that they had justified their request for a tariff, but here we have a set of rich manufacturers who have deliberately withheld their capital from developing their business for years for the purpose of getting the Government to guarantee them an extra 25 per cent. profit on their goods. The working man wants a cheap suit but they refuse to make cheap material to meet the demand. I will have to support the Resolution. I hope that other reactions will so develop that this tariff on woollens will be taken off in a year or so.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know whether the Deputy who has just sat down, or I, heard the Minister for Finance aright. I understood him to say when he was introducing this Resolution that at least one woollen manufacturer had invested in a rag-pulling machine and intended to manufacture the cheap quality of cloth which is required for the making of ready-made clothing. I may be wrong, but I thought he did say that. I think the Minister also admitted in the same breath that the Tariff Commission were very anxious to encourage manufacturers to develop this new line of business. If that is so, then I think the recommendation of the Tariff Commission is a rather paradoxical way of giving that encouragement, because one of the effects of the Resolution which the House is asked to consider will be to stifle that industry at its birth. If hitherto the woollen manufacturers in a free market in Ireland have not been able to develop that end—if there is no inducement to do that— what inducement is this Resolution going to offer them? Possibly we could understand a proposal of this sort if it were intended to have effect only for a very limited term. Admittedly the manufacturers say that at the present moment, and possibly for some time, they cannot meet the whole demand for the cheaper cloth. But surely they are going to be able to meet it in a much shorter period than within five years? I understand the proposal the Minister has in mind is to grant this exemption for a term of possibly five years. I submit that is much too long a period. If he is sincere in his desire to encourage manufacturers who are prepared to embark upon the manufacture of a cheaper quality of cloth, I submit that he should introduce this Resolution and make it effective for some period not exceeding twelve months. That would give enterprising manufacturers a clear indication that at the end of a limited period they would have a chance here in their own home market.

Mr. Moore

It is rather amazing to observe not so much the suggestion as the repeated assertion in Deputy Anthony's speech that a tariff on woollens necessarily means an increased price for ready-made clothing. That statement is not borne out by the result of any tariff imposed in this country up to the present.

Mr. Good

What about boots?

Mr. Moore

It is not borne out by the results of any tariffs in Great Britain, so far as one can observe. It is amazing to find a Labour Deputy seizing hold of the favourite argument of the importer to make a case against a tariff in operation. Here is a proposal to give away work that this State stands very much in need of—to cancel the effect of the woollen tariff passed here quite recently. It is to say, in effect. "Let us, instead of encouraging the manufacture of woollens for the clothing of the Irish people, encourage the importation of shoddy for clothing the Irish people." Yet that is supported from the Labour Benches. I do not think this country can afford to give away work. I think it is far too much in need of work at the moment. The effect of this Resolution will be to give a great impetus to the manufacture of shoddy suits in this country. Naturally, when they are manufactured here the sale of them will be pushed. That is going very seriously to effect the attainment of the ideal that everybody had in mind—that Irish people would be clothed from native materials. Deputy Anthony evidently is not too keen on that ideal. We here are keen on it, and I think anybody who believes in it, anybody who sees the necessity for retaining work in this State by providing for the people's requirements, must vote against this Resolution.

Mr. Anthony

Does Deputy Moore suggest that we have no wool to retain in this country? Does he suggest that this would not be a useful industry? Does he suggest that it will keep money in this country if the people cannot afford to buy the class of woollen material which is at present turned out by our Irish mills? Here we have a concrete case where a miller is prepared to turn out the stuff. Is not that keeping the money at home?

Mr. Lemass

When the Resolution was originally proposed it resulted in a situation where a suit made out of Irish cloth, costing three shillings a square yard, could be sold at the same price as a suit made out of English cloth at 2/6 a square yard, upon which duty had been paid. The effect of this Resolution is to reduce the price of the English suit in order to enable the manufacturers to sell that in preference to the suit made of Irish cloth. It will have even a greater effect; it will encourage the manufacturers to import the cheaper cloth and sell the cheaper suit in order to expand their business. We will by passing this be in fact encouraging the use of shoddy in preference to the cloth produced in Irish mills—better cloth which can be sold at a cheap price.

Mr. Moore

I have said practically all I want to say. I can only repeat that it is a very wrong policy that Deputies should assume as axiomatic that prices necessarily rise with a tariff. I think it is wrong that those who may have very many tariffs coming before them in future should approach them with the certainty that they are going to raise the price of the goods affected. It is not borne out in practice. As a matter of fact, it is a contradiction of the theory which should guide us in the matter.

Mr. Byrne

Can the Deputy say that boots are now as cheap as before the tariff was imposed?

Mr. Moore

I am not going to enter into any controversy with regard to boots.

Mr. Good

The Deputy must have had his head in the sand for the last few years.

Mr. Moore

I can assure Deputy Good I have had my eyes opened just as much as he has had. I defy him to prove that any tariff has been the means of increasing prices. As a matter of fact, in one of the tariffs —the margarine tariff—it is expressly laid down——

Mr. Good

Let us keep to boots now.

An Ceann Comhairle

On the contrary.

Mr. Moore

I wonder why Deputy Good wants us to keep to any particular thing if he holds that as a general rule prices increase?

Mr. Good

We all use boots; we do not all use margarine.

Mr. Moore

What a silly argument! I was saying the prices ought naturally to reduce as the mills increase their turn-over and as they have a more secure market. There must be some curious reason when this method is proposed of meeting the requirements of the ready-made manufacturers. The obvious method would seem to be to increase the tariff on ready-made clothing. One would like to hear a more elaborate explanation from the Minister for Finance as to why this method is adopted. The method proposed is an extremely harmful one, and one which those interested in industry should oppose.

Mr. Cooney

Does Deputy Anthony mean to imply that because he is a member of the Dáil there is a demand for shoddy in the country?

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Lemass announces that this is a criticism by the Tariff Commission of itself. He has not studied the Tariff Commission report on woollens very carefully. If he had he would have observed the statement that they did not get the assistance they were entitled to receive either from the applicants or the opponets of a tax on woollens. In the addendum to the report it is set out that they were given misleading evidence. They were told by certain people when the application was being considered, and before it was granted, that the Irish woollen mills in a very short time could supply cloth of all grades. It is only now when the tariff is granted and when the manufacturers have had what they consider to be the big bulk of the trade thrown in their way, that more accurate statements are being made. We now find statements from them that for some years to come they do not see themselves able to manufacture, under the exemption spoken of, the type of clothing used in the cheaper suit worn in this country.

Mr. Lemass

What price?

Mr. McGilligan

There have been statements made that numbers of suits sold in the country are made from this cheaper kind of cloths. That bears out somewhat the contention spoken of by the retail people that their business was going to be seriously hampered if the Saorstát mills could not supply cloth of a particular type, and if the demand for these suits continued. We are taking this way of dealing with the situation on the advice of the Tariff Commission. The alternative is to increase the retail tariff all round and to give the public the benefit of a higher price on certain articles which the Free State manufacturers do not see they will be able to manufacture for some time.

We are asked by another Deputy what is the incentive to the Saorstát miller to get into this type of clothing. And another Deputy says that the result of the tariff will be that a greater amount of shoddy will be imported into the country for the manufacture of a type of cheap suits. Surely, that is the incentive to the manufacturer to get into this lower end of the trade if he has capital for new machines, or if he can get a better business and look for capital for machines hereafter. And if the manufacturer finds his trade in the good types of clothing is ruined because a bigger amount of shoddy stuff is being imported and, therefore, that his business is being eaten into, surely he will have the incentive immediately presented to him of going into this end of the business. Manufacturers know very well from the previous report of the Tariff Commission, that when they can show under different circumstances that they can deal with this end of the trade their application is likely to be favourably received. They have the suggestion that the exemption point was fixed very low.

There is the difficulty that Deputy Anthony spoke of, that people in this country want a certain grade of suit. The manufacturers of woollen fabrics say that they cannot get the raw material for that type of suit. There are two alternatives—leaving it open to the manufacturers to find if they can manufacture the lower grade cloth or allow this type of cloth to be imported, thus giving business to the maker of ready-made suits in the country, and leaving it open to the woollen manufacturer hereafter to come along and claim that the exemption point should be put down to the limit previously fixed by the Tariff Commission. It is the sane and sensible way of getting over the difficulty, if one bears in mind to any extent the consumer. Deputy Lemass's rough-and-ready way of dealing with the situation is a marvellously good one, if one did not care what happened to the consumer.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Minister say how an increase on the tariff on imported ready-made clothing could increase the price of the suit made out of Irish cloth?

Mr. McGilligan

It would increase the price of the suits which have to be bought, seeing that the woollen manufacturers in the Saorstát say they cannot make this particular type of cloth. That would be certain to increase the price of the suit. If there is going to be a demand for a particular kind of suit, the cloth used in which the Saorstát manufacturers say they cannot manufacture at the moment, then it is clear that shoddy suits are going to come in and the shoddy suits are to be at a higher price. Surely that is clear to the Deputy.

Mr. Flinn

I would like to ask the Minister for Finance the question already asked by Deputy Good. Is there any particular reason why this Resolution could not have waited until the House was in possession of some of the evidence that was given by the manufacturers? Is there any technical difficulty about the time? I am merely asking for information.

Mr. Blythe

I would have no objection to the postponement of the Report Stage of the Resolution until Friday and introducing the Finance Bill that day only that the Finance Bill cannot be introduced until these Resolutions have been disposed of, because we propose to have sections in the Bill giving effect to these Resolutions. It is desirable to have the Bill circulated as soon as possible. This report can be in the hands of the Deputies this evening or to-morrow morning. It will certainly be in the hands of the Deputies in the morning and there would be time between that and Friday morning for the consideration of the report.

Mr. Flinn

Could not the Minister have left these Resolutions over until then? It does seem a very loose sort of procedure that we should be asked to consent to this Resolution, which is founded upon evidence which ought to be produced to us and which is not being produced to us until after the House is supposed to have come to some decision on the Resolution. I do not want to say anything unkind at the moment, but it is rather difficult to find a word that is not unkind to describe a proceeding of the kind. It is a proceeding that ought not to be followed in the future. I thought that the reason for this procedure was that the time at which this Bill had to be introduced had expired, or something like that, and that there was a technical reason. But, on the face of it, when we are asked to give this decision before we have the evidence and when no reason whatever is given for that, then I think it is unreasonable. It is perfectly obvious that the House is being asked to express an opinion on this Resolution, which has been drawn up by the Minister for Finance on certain evidence, and that that evidence will not be in the possession of the House until the House has expressed its decision on it. I suggest to the Minister for Finance that that is a method of dealing with financial matters which is really an objectionable one.

Mr. Blythe

In reply to what Deputy Flinn said, there is really, for all ordinary cases, no alternative to this procedure. When it is proposed to impose or remit taxes, the only fair and reasonable method is to have a resolution brought into the Dáil without notice and to have it given effect at once. Otherwise you would have disturbance in trade, perhaps abuses. You would have, for instance, serious forestalling if it were known that taxes were going to be increased. It is necessary, when a tax is going to be imposed for the first time, or increased, that the House should go into it and give it a First Reading and then the matter can be considered later on Report. In regard to remissions, very much the same thing will apply. If notice were given that there were going to be remissions, then you might possibly have business held up and factories closed.

On a previous occasion, when the sugar duty was reduced, the reduction did not take place for a week. In that case, a factory closed down and the hands were paid off, I think; therefore, in cases even of remissions the most suitable practice for the responsible Minister is to bring the proposals to the House and then the House, unless the proposals seem to be so objectionable that it will not consider them at all, can give them a First Reading. The Resolutions are then taken back and the House can consider them on Report. On Report, the House can reject them if it seems wise to it to do so. But I think the procedure followed—and a good deal of attention has been given to it—is, on the whole, the best procedure, and in most cases is the only possible procedure. It means, of course, that the House shall allow a matter to go through without very serious consideration in the first instance.

Mr. Good

If he wanted to adopt the procedure we adopt on ordinary Bills, why could not a resolution of this character be introduced and then discussed at a subsequent date? We came here this afternoon and found this Resolution put before us. A discussion takes place on a matter that has been before the Tariff Commission. We have not got the facts that possibly were before the Commission, with the exception of what the Minister desired to mention. To my mind, that is most unfair, and I must protest against this constant chopping and changing. The way we are changing tariffs is practically the same as selling apples. We passed this tariff only a few weeks ago and now we are making a serious alteration in it. On previous occasions I protested against the want of stability in our tariff policy. If we want to have trade at all, we must have settled conditions and stability. We cannot be chopping and changing tariffs from week to week; yet that is the policy the Minister asks us to support. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to give due consideration to the proposals of the Tariff Commission, when I have these proposals before me, but to ask the House to adopt resolutions binding itself to a decision before the evidence is before it is, to my mind, unfair.

Mr. Blythe

My view is that this matter should be dealt with in the same way as ordinary financial resolutions are dealt with, that the House need not discuss it at length and can hardly do so to-day as it has not the report of the Tariff Commission before it, but should give it the First Reading that is given to financial resolutions when they are put before the House. They will have the report to-morrow morning at latest, or probably this evening. Deputies will have an opportunity of reading it, and the Report Stage of the Resolution can be taken on Friday, when the matter can be fully discussed. One of the reasons why I desire the Report Stage to be taken so soon as Friday is that, pending the passage of this Resolution, the introduction of the Finance Bill is held up.

Mr. Flinn

Could the Minister not arrange in future that if this procedure is to be adopted we should get the report of the Tariff Commission at the same time? This particular report must be a very brief one, and the House is looking at this question as a very special problem. The very nature of tariffs is illustrated by this particular tariff. The Minister having regard to his knowledge of that fact, and the spirit in which this House has examined that tariff as a problem, most certainly should have gone out of his way to see that as much information as possible was in possession of the House at the moment that Deputies were asked to discuss it. As far as I can see, there does not seem to be the slightest difficulty in giving the House that report immediately after the Minister has formally moved the Resolution. On another occasion I hope the Minister will try to treat the House, in these matters of finance, a little more respectfully.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 42.

Tá

• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Broderick, Henry.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Cole, John James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Colohan, Hugh.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir 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.
• Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James E.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony,Dermot Gun.
• O'Reilly, John J.
• O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Shaw, Patrick W.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, George.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carty, Frank.
• Clery, Michael.
• Colbert, James.
• Cooney, Eamon.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• French, Seán.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Jordan, Stephan.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Kent, William R.
• Kerlin, Frank.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Maguire, Ben.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Leary, William.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.

Resolution declared carried.