Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 6 Jun 1929

Vol. 30 No. 8

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 22.—Stationery and Printing.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £60,995 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, 1930, chun Páipéarachais, Clódóireachta, Páipéir, Greamuíochta agus Leabhra Clóbhuailte i gcóir na seirbhíse Puiblí, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an tSoláthair d'íoc; agus chun Ilsheirbhísí Ilghnéitheacha maraon le Tuairiscí Díospóireachtaí an Oireachtais.

That a sum not exceeding £60,995 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, 1930, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the public service; to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for Sundry Miscellaneous services, including Reports of the Oireachtas Debates.

As will be seen from my statement last year, reductions in the Stationery Office Estimate have been made from year to year for several years past. The figures for the three completed years prior to 1929-30, which I am giving, show to what extent the reductions have been found practicable:

Year.

Net Estimate.

Decrease on previous Year.

1926-7

£155,325

£15,060

1927-28

137.289

18.036

1928-29

123,999

13,290

1929-30

115,995

8,004

Apart from the reductions, which have been effected this year certain sub-heads show increases, and some explanation of these increases is deemed to be necessary. Sub-head A —Salaries and Wages—increase, £343. A warehouse establishment was fixed late in the year 1927-28, and the annual advances to the wages of this staff, added to increments of salary, account for the bulk of the extra charge. No additions, other than one copying typist, have been made to the staff. Sub-head G—"Iris Oifigiúil"—increase, £500. I have referred on a previous occasion to the fact that the additional notices inserted by the Land Commission in this journal, and the amplification of other notices from the same Department arising out of the Land Act, 1927, have added to the cost of printing. The full effect of these changes is now being felt, and it has become necessary to make increased provision.

Sub-head H—increase of £13,000. The expenditure here embraces the whole of the printing work on voters lists (register of electors, electors lists, claims, objections, etc., etc.). The printing contracts for the lists in urban and county areas are normally placed for five years (the contracts which have recently expired for the urban areas printing actually ran for six years). All these contracts have now expired and new contracts to commence with the register printed in June next have been made. These "time" printing contracts have this advantage, that though the expenditure involved in setting up the type for the first year is heavy, and accounts in this case for the big increase in the Estimate, there are very favourable rates for reprinting in the four years following, as the type once set up is held at the Department's disposal for the full five years. The service for which expenditure under sub-head H is provided is only partly a State charge, as the registers of electors are not alone a record of voters at Dáil elections, but also show the Local Government electors and jurors. The State is relieved of the bulk (4-7ths.) of the charge, which proportion comes to the relief of the Vote as appropriations-in-aid.

Sub-head H H—increase £900— This is a new sub-head, the amount inserted being held to be necessary if certain newspapers and periodicals printed in Irish, which are now in danger of failing, are to be enabled to continue the useful work on which they are engaged. It is proposed to allocate the grants in proportion to the volume of printing work appearing in each Journal, other considerations being equal, where it is clearly established that a grant is necessary.

It will be noted that considerable reductions have been made in certain sub-heads, and it is hoped that it will be found that the reduced provisions made for the present years, which keep closely to the expenditure in the last completed year, modified where necessary by Departmental Estimates submitted, will prove justified. The reduction of £2,000 made in sub-head F (Oireachtas Debates) calls for mention, however, as it is largely due to the decision of the Oireachtas to forego in future the reprinted volumes of debates which in the past formed a not inconsiderable proportion of the total cost of this printing. The automatic issue of a revised and bound edition of the debates in volume form will, therefore, disappear, the weekly debates being bound up in volumes of appropriate size as occasion demands.

The anticipated appropriations-in-aid, it will be observed, show a marked increase, the bulk of which represents the added monies which it is expected will be brought to account from local authorities (supplies to local authorities for registration purposes, increase, £8,150). representing the added charges these authorities will bear as a result of the increase in printing under sub-head H of the Vote. The increase expected under the head of supplies to Repaying Departments is due to the fact that the more important repaying services, such as the Electricity Board, Agricultural Credit Corporation, Currency Commission, etc., and the Repayment Services to Education by way of paper for printing Secondary School Texts in Irish and General Readers in Irish, and supplies to Preparatory Colleges will have reached their full normal requirements in the present year.

The commission (£2,000) is not alone the commission on supplies from Stationery Office stock referred to in the preceding paragraph but also includes that received in respect of the much larger items of Printing and Binding and special purchases, &c., for all Repayment Services, payment for which is charged to "suspense" and therefore does not appear in Stationery Office Vote. (This commission is a not altogether negligible relief to Stationery Office Staff charges.) It will also be seen that a reduction in the Sale of Stationery Office Publications (£600) and in the premiums (£50) received from the agents for the sale of Government publications is anticipated. The premium varies with the sales and there has been a decline in sales for some little time. This decline is partly due to a reduction in the number of Acts and the Regulations which follow from them, and also to a certain shrinkage in the number of reports of Commissions and other documents the sales of which in the years 1927/28 and previous years accounted for much of this revenue. On the other hand there is a corresponding saving in the sub-head I (Printing).

Apart from the reduction which may be expected in the next few years under the printing arrangements for the registers of electors (sub-head H) it is not improbable that Stationery Office expenditure has now reached a point below which, it is believed, it would be found difficult to maintain the existing service. The activities of the public service are clearly on the increase; this is evident from the volume of new work which continues to flow to this Office. The heavy legislation of the past few years has accounted for much of this increase. The Live Stock Breeding Act, Dairy Produce Acts, Courts of Justice Acts, Land Acts, Housing Acts, Industrial and Commercial Property Act, and Local Government Acts, are a few examples of legislation which have considerably affected Stationery Office expenditure. As a set-off to the expenditure thus arising, there have been many savings by standardisation both of forms and records in general use throughout the service and of Stationery Office stocks of paper and supplies, and by the extension of the field of purchase from which better prices are secured. Many economies continue to be secured in existing services with the co-operation of Departments.

I have been asked to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the question of not providing in the coming year the Oireachtas Debates in the form in which they were hitherto supplied. I have been asked to suggest that the recent decision of the Economy Committee, which, I understand, has the approval of the Minister for Finance, not to supply bound volumes of the Dáil Debates in future does not meet with the approval of a good many Deputies, particularly those who do not live in Dublin. The ordinary Deputy has very little opportunity during the sitting of the House of reading the Official Reports on matters upon which he desires to keep himself well informed. It is usually when the Dáil is not in session that Deputies who take an intelligent part in the proceedings of the House require the Official Debates for the purpose of keeping themselves in touch with what is going on. I have been asked to suggest that the bound volumes should be supplied to Deputies in future the same as previously, and I should like to hear from the Minister for Finance, or the Parliamentary Secretary, the reasons which actuated them in coming to the decision not to supply these bound volumes during the coming financial year.

I rise to oppose the Vote owing to the fact that I understand the Stationery Office has control over Government advertisements. One would naturally expect, as it is the taxpayers' money that is expended on Government advertising, that the Stationery Office would give their advertisements to the newspapers which had the biggest circulation without taking into consideration the political outlook of particular newspapers. Some time ago a question was raised in the House regarding the stopping of advertisements for the "Derry Journal." I understand that the Stationery Office did not do that of their own accord. In fact, I was informed by that Department that they did it expressly at the behest of the Minister for Finance. Some time ago Deputy Carney raised the question with the Minister for Finance, and the Minister, in his reply, stated that it was owing to the fact that the "Derry Journal" was printed and had its headquarters in the Six Counties. He also mentioned that it was the policy of the Government not to insert advertisements in newspapers printed in the Six Counties. A few weeks ago I put down a question to the Minister for Finance asking for a return of the newspapers receiving Government advertisements, and the Minister supplied me with a list. I challenge him now as to the accuracy of that list, and would point out to him that, while he took the advertisements from the "Derry Journal" the advertisements were handed over to another paper in Derry, and these advertisements appeared in that paper after the Minister had made that reply to Deputy Carney. I should like to go into the matter more fully, and I shall do so later, but I should like to hear from the Minister now his reason for stating to Deputy Carney that it was not the intention of his Department to give any more advertisements to newspapers having headquarters in the Six Counties and, at the same time, taking the advertisements from the "Derry Journal" because it dared to tell the truth in regard to certain incidents that occurred, both political and otherwise. I should also like to know from him why, when he was replying to my question a fortnight ago, and giving a list of newspapers, he excluded, either knowingly or unknowingly, the particular paper to which I referred, and which I need not mention, because the Minister knows it.

With regard to the item of £140 for advertising, I should like to know is that for advertising Government publications? In regard to that matter, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what the Stationery Office is doing to make the reports that are being published widely known. There must be a very big reading public for a number of these reports such as the reports of the Banking Commission, of the Traffic Committee, of the Local Government Department, and of the Economic Committee in particular. I am sure all these would get many thousands of readers if they were widely known. It seems to me that £140 in advertising would not make them very widely known, and we should like to know whether any other agencies are being utilised for this purpose, whether school teachers or the post offices, or any other of the semi-Government concerns, are being circularised so as to bring these publications under their notice. In the debate on education here there was a lot of talk about continuation schools and about the necessity for seeing that the best advantage was got from the adult population for the four and a half millions spent on education. To people of a certain temperament it is evident that reports such as I have referred to are one of the most valuable means of education, and it would be a great pity if the people who desire to see these things and read them were not aware of their publication. It would be a mistake to think that everyone who is politically-minded is in the Oireachtas. There are a great many throughout the country who would read these reports with a great deal more care and with a more critical mind than Deputies have an opportunity of doing. If the Stationery Office is in trade, we ought to know that it is availing of the opportunity that the best trading establishments are availing of to push their goods. We would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us if anything special is being done in that respect. Deputy Cassidy has, in my opinion, brought forward a very serious matter, and we shall have to wait until the Minister replies before deciding whether or not we shall vote against this Estimate.

Deputy Cassidy has raised a matter on this Vote which was raised by me before by way of a question to the Minister for Finance. It is a very serious matter because at that time I told the Minister that he was using public moneys for the purpose of blackmailing a newspaper which happened to have the misfortune, or the good fortune, to criticise his actions. The paper I refer to is the "Derry Journal." The "Derry Journal," prior to the action taken by the Minister for Finance in depriving it of advertisements that were formerly inserted in that paper, criticised the actions of the Minister for Finance in regard to the Six Counties. Certain things were expected from the Minister for Finance because he belongs to the Six Counties, and this newspaper criticised the Minister's action in connection with the Six Counties as a whole. Some time after that the advertisements were stopped and the "Derry Journal" was penalised by the Minister on account of the action it had taken. Whether it was due to that, or not, I cannot say because the people of the "Derry Journal" are not quite certain themselves.

I have a letter here from the Managing-Director of the "Derry Journal." He is prepared to prove before any tribunal, that a certain gentleman who formerly was director of the Journal had a quarrel with the rest of the directors and made a threat to the effect that he would have the Government advertisements stopped from the "Derry Journal." I do not want to refer to that gentleman by name in this House, but he is a member of the Oireachtas. He is a Senator and he made a threat to the directors, and they are prepared to prove it, that he said, on leaving them, that he would have the advertisements stopped from the "Journal."

And he succeeded?

Evidently. Whether it was due to that action or to the fact that the journal criticised the actions of the Minister I do not know, but we want to know, before we pass this Vote, is the Minister for Finance entitled to use public money for the purpose of blackmailing—I shall put it that way—a newspaper that does not support his particular policy or views?

At the behest of two members of the Oireachtas.

The Minister when he gets money to spend on these Votes gets it from everybody, irrespective of their particular views. He does not get all his finance from members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. All the people who pay taxes in this country are not members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.

God forbid.

You have all sorts of people paying into the treasury, and if the Minister thinks, for a moment, that he is going to use the treasury and dip his hands into it in order to subsidise or to support a Unionist paper in the Six Counties, as against a Nationalist paper, the Minister is making the mistake of his life. I asked a simple question and the Minister in his reply told me he was not compelled to give an advertisement to any newspaper in the Six Counties. Of course, he is not compelled to do so, but, at the same time, when the Minister was cutting off advertisements from the "Derry Journal" he was giving them to a Unionist paper in Derry. I would like to know what answer the Minister has to make to that. He was not compelled to give advertisements to a Unionist paper in Derry if he was not compelled to give them to the "Derry Journal." But why cut off a newspaper which circulates largely in Donegal, in the Saorstát, and give them to a Unionist paper which does not? Of course, the old saying is: "a fellow-feeling makes us wondrous kind." Whether that influenced the Minister or not I do not know.

Is the Minister, in the future, going to adopt the same attitude in regard to any newspaper that does not agree with his particular views as he has done with the "Derry Journal"? Are the newspapers in this country, if they have guts enough to come out and say certain things against the Minister if they think he is wrong, to be penalised, and is public money to be used like a club to beat them down? The Minister should make himself very clear in his reply, and if he is not more accurate in his reply now than when he replied to me some time ago he will hear more about it.

Before the Parliamentary Secretary concludes, would the Minister for Finance reply to the question I put to him when I asked him a week or a fortnight ago for a list of publications that received Government advertisements and why it was that one particular newspaper was withheld from that particular list either knowingly or unknowingly?

With reference to the answer to the question put by Deputy Cassidy, that answer was prepared in the usual way and, I presume, was accurate. I have no reason to doubt that it was accurate. If Deputy Cassidy has any reason to doubt it he should put down another question. With reference to the general question of advertising. I have already stated that the policy is to give no advertisements, in the ordinary way, to papers other than those published in the Saorstát. That is sound policy, I think. The papers published here give employment here and pay taxation here, and in consequence the general rule should be as it is, that advertising should be reserved to those journals.

Occasionally it may be necessary to advertise outside the Saorstát. Occasionally, for instance, it may be necessary to advertise in a technical journal, or there may be some special case where the Department makes application to have advertisements issued in an outside paper. Apart from such special cases, there has been no recent advertising outside the Saorstát, and it is not proposed to make any special effort to spend money on the "Derry Journal."

Will the Minister say who approached him and asked him to write to the Stationery Department requesting that Department to stop advertisements in the "Derry Journal"?

The Deputy will have to try to find out for himself any information he is looking for in that respect.

The Minister has it, but he does not want to disclose it.

When was the general rule referred to by the Minister decided upon? Does he not think it an extraordinary coincidence that this general rule did not come into operation until a prominent member of his Party severed his connection with the paper and the paper proceeded to criticise his Government?

The general rule having been adopted, why was it departed from immediately afterwards for the benefit of another organ?

It was not departed from. It was a good rule. It was a little late in being made, but there is nothing wrong about that.

Mr. X made it for you.

When certain shareholders withdrew from the paper, at the behest of these shareholders the Minister withdrew the advertisements.

I will say this about papers: while the Government might not be entitled to take exception to the political policy of a paper published inside the country, inside the boundaries of the State, the policy of a paper outside the boundaries of the State is a different thing. As far as I am concerned I certainly would be quite prepared to say that no paper published outside this State which was objectionable in its references to the conduct of affairs here, should be given any advertisements.

The conduct of the Government, not of affairs.

Are we to take it from the Minister that certain members of his Party held shares in a paper in order to control the political outlook of that paper and, because they did not succeed in doing so, they withdrew their shares and at their behest the Minister ordered the withdrawal of advertisements?

No; you must not take that as representing the position.

Will the Minister explain why these advertisements were not withdrawn until such time as Senator MacLoughlin and Deputy Hugh Law withdrew from it?

Sometimes two different facts may arise from the one cause, perhaps.

Is it clear then that because the paper adopted a certain line, advertisements were withdrawn, and not because the paper is published outside the Saorstát? I think the Minister should have given some explanation as to why a particular paper published outside the Saorstát was omitted from the list he supplied. He could very easily get that information between the time when this matter was raised and when he rose to speak. There is evidently something being withheld. There is evidently some reason for not telling the truth on this occasion.

The Deputy should not insinuate that the truth is not being told. In view of that insinuation, I will not reply to the Deputy.

A case of the same kind has come under my notice. I do not say advertisements have been given for political reasons. Will the Minister say if Government advertisements are supposed to be given because of the large circulation of a newspaper as compared with a paper carrying a smaller circulation? On what grounds are advertisements being given to newspapers? Will the Minister answer Deputy Cassidy's point? Will he say why the advertisements in this case were withdrawn from the "Derry Journal," which has its headquarters in the Six Counties, and why Government advertisements are still appearing in a journal which has a far smaller circulation in County Donegal?

It is not a fact that advertisements are still being continued in any journal outside the Saorstát.

They appeared even after you made the statement.

Perhaps the Deputy will keep quiet for a moment.

I shall when I hear your reply.

When you hear a reply that suits you.

No, but when I hear an honest reply.

The Minister should be allowed to speak.

It may well happen that occasionally advertisements will be published in a paper outside the Saorstát in the case of certain purchases or for certain appointments. I believe in the case of vacancies, for instance, for a doctor, that it is customary to advertise in some British medical journals, and for a like reason advertisements such as that may occasionally appear in a paper outside the Saorstát. A Department may have some special reason—it might not be a general reason, such as in the case of doctors—for asking to have the advertisement inserted in a paper outside the Saorstát. In such a case the advertisement will be issued to a paper outside the Saorstát. There may have been one such particular advertisement, for all I know, in some Derry paper since I gave the answer to which Deputy Cassidy referred, but you may take it that there would be no advertisement in the ordinary course issued to papers outside the Saorstát. There will be no such thing as giving them advertisements every week or every second week or every month in the future.

With regard to the question of politics let me repeat what I said so that Deputies may appreciate it. I would not agree that the Government is entitled to take very much notice of the politics of a paper published inside the Saorstát. Of course if the papers were really advocating violence or something like that I think that then a paper of that sort ought not to get any public advertisements, but if the paper is a constitutional type of paper, whatever its politics are, then very little notice should be taken of it and the Departments should be allowed to issue advertisements to it practically at their discretion departmentally. So far as papers outside the Saorstát are concerned, it seems to me that the position is very different. Take the particular case of the "Derry Journal." It is, I think, very doubtful that it should ever have got advertisements in the ordinary course. There is no doubt that it has a certain substantial circulation in the Saorstát, but even that fact is a bare justification for giving it advertisements. I certainly would not continue to give that or any such paper published outside the Saorstát advertisements if it is politically objectionable.

Does not the Minister know that it is a fact that two members of his Party were shareholders in the "Derry Journal" and that at one annual meeting one of these was nominated for the Board of Directors and he was defeated in the election, and that the Minister then withdrew the advertisements? Is not that in itself a significant feature?

I do not know anything about any member of the Party being up for election or that two members of the Party are shareholders in the paper. I do not know whether they are or whether they were.

I just want to put one question to the Minister. Does the Minister think that giving advertisements to a Unionist paper is objectionable or not? The policy of that paper to which he gives advertisements is frankly Unionist and evidently it is less objectionable to give these advertisements to a Unionist paper than to give them to a frankly Nationalist paper. What does the Minister say to that?

Will the Minister say whether the Department of Finance or the Local Appointments Commissioners, in considering the question of advertisements, give any consideration to the circulation of a newspaper in the particular area?

Not a bit.

They are supposed to give attention or consideration to the circulation of the newspapers. The choice of papers in which to issue advertisements is normally left to the Department concerned, and in any particular area there may be a number of factors which may have to be taken into account. It may be that you may have a bigger paper, the circulation of which may cover almost the same area that is covered by another paper in another town in that area, and it may be preferable to publish advertisements in the smaller paper. There is a variety of reasons which operate in these matters, and it is left to the discretion of the Department concerned. The Department is expected to pay attention to the circulation that a newspaper has in the area.

What about the Unionist papers getting advertisements? Answer that question.

I do not know whether it is worth while answering Deputy Carney or not. It may well be that a Unionist paper would be less objectionable.

Thank you.

In view of the amazing statement just made by the Minister for Finance that papers which in his opinion are politically objectionable published outside the Saorstát will not get Government advertisements, it is our intention to oppose this Vote.

Mr. Bourke

Many of the points raised in this Vote are not very relevant. Many of them are very irrelevant. They are concerned with matters of policy over which we have very little control. Deputy Davin's point about the Official Debates is one for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. We have got no powers to interfere with the decision of that body. With regard to the advertisements, we act purely in an agency capacity. We simply have the advertisements that are sent to us by the various Departments inserted in the newspapers recommended. With regard to the point raised by Deputy Moore——

Before the Parliamentary Secretary goes away from that, am I to understand that his Department and the Ministry of Finance will always carry out any recommendation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges?

Mr. Bourke

This Vote has nothing to do with that. That matter is outside the question. The Deputy has made a mistake in confusing the Stationery Office with the Ministry of Finance.

Mr. O'Connell

Surely the Minister for Finance is responsible for this Vote to the House. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot get away with that.

Yes, and not the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Mr. O'Connell

The Stationery Office cannot speak here except through the Minister.

It is the third House of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Bourke

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Moore, the Stationery Office is purely an agency service. If we suffer from anything it is from too much advertisements, for the Debates and Orders that are published probably get too much publicity in the Press. The result is that unless people are specially interested, such as lawyers and officials, people do not look for these reports. The ordinary public are not interested in purchasing these publications. There really would not be any great point in going to any great expenditure in advertising those publications.

Question put.
The Committee divided:—Tá, 51; Níl, 46.

  • Aird, William P.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
  • Daly, John.
  • De Loughrey, Peter.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Shaw, Patrick W.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.

Níl

  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Broderick, Henry.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Everett. James.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Kerlin, Frank.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • 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 (Tipp.).
  • Tubridy, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Cassidy and Briscoe.
Question declared carried.
Barr
Roinn