I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. It is a small and not a very important Bill but one which practical experience has shown to be necessary. Under the Courts of Justice Act at the present moment if a Circuit Judge is incapacitated by illness a substitute can be appointed for him, but only in the case of illness. It has been shown in actual working that sometimes the services of a Circuit Court Judge are required to do other work and there is one of them, as Deputies know, at the present moment, who is chairman of a commission and that will take him away from his work as Circuit Court Judge for some little period. The Bill is to enable, whenever circumstances arise which prevent a judge sitting wholly or in part to transact the business of his office, a substitute to be appointed for him.
Courts of Justice Bill, 1929—Second Stage.
I am perhaps happy in the position of not knowing very much about courts. I suppose one should be congratulated on that. It is a disadvantage sometimes, certainly a disadvantage to me at the moment in trying to discuss a Bill of this kind, but having read the Bill it occurs to me that the principle which is enshrined in it is not one which we ought to adopt. I do not think it is at all wise or proper that we should have what I might call temporary judges. That would especially be so if these judges were to deal with cases in which the Government of the day would be involved. It is certainly a practice to which, in my mind, the House here ought not to give its assent. Anybody who considers the matter seriously and thinks of the consequences, must realise that it goes to the very roots of law, that a judge, when law is practised as it is practised in these countries at any rate, ought to have permanency of office and, that judges who are removable by the Government of the day are exactly free men.
took the Chair.
Naturally a barrister, having left his practice and being nominated to a temporary judgeship, runs the risk of losing whatever practice he may have had, and therefore it is up to him to endeavour to hold on to the temporary position that he has been promoted to, the temporary judgeship. In order to do that it is possible, human nature being what it is, that men would be influenced in dealing with cases where the Government had an interest, without adverting to other types of cases, in their decision in favour of those by whose word their employment is to be continued or otherwise. Now, that is not a desirable practice. The Minister, in introducing the Bill, said he thought it was not very important, but I am afraid I cannot see it in the same light. The principle is entirely wrong, and I think it is not one we ought to countenance. The Minister referred to the instance in one case of a Circuit Judge being needed to be chairman of a commission. I have no doubt it is a wise thing to have a man who has a training in law and is of a judicial type of mind to be chairman of commission which the Government might set up. That is desirable, but surely there is a fairly large number who have had a long experience at the Bar, the older members of the profession, and there could be found men of judicial mind and of legal practice and experience who would be as efficient as a judge to act as chairman of any commission which the Government might set up for any purpose. It is not to my mind sufficient excuse for taking a man away from the important position of Circuit Court Judge, or any other type of judge, from his ordinary court work and putting him in as chairman of a commission. It is not sufficient because the Government needs a man for that type of work that they should be given permission by this House to appoint temporary judges. Some of us are old enough to remember the removable magistrates and their history in this country. It is not one I would like to see repeated here. I am not suggesting that the professional gentlemen who will be appointed will act as a number of these removable magistrates did for the Government of the day in their time, but the risk is there, and the temptation is there, and I think the Government would be well advised in withdrawing this Bill and finding some other way to complete the arrears of work that have accumulated, and the other work which they think it is desirable to put Circuit Court Judges on to do. Other ways should be found of doing that work.
It is entirely wrong if we are to consider the question of justice, the question of the authority of the Courts and if we are to believe in the impartiality of the Courts and have confidence that those who are acting as judges will not and cannot be influenced by those in authority in the country. The suggestion will be there at all times that where temporary judges are concerned they can be influenced because the term of their appointment may be brief and if they have to come for renomination the men themselves run serious risks in their profession by cutting themselves away from practice. On the whole, I think the principle is wrong and I hope this House will not agree with it.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this Bill changes the form of law. Formerly if a Circuit Court Judge was ill the Attorney-General could appoint a substitute for the time being and arrange accordingly for his payment. Now, according to this Bill, the power is given to the Governor-General, and the powers are extended somewhat in this way, that it is not merely a matter of sickness but also for any other reason that might occur. If the Circuit Court Judge is taken off to do other work, then the Governor-General can appoint someone to do his work. Now the reasons against having this arrangement in principle have already been put forward by Deputy O'Kelly, and there is really not a great deal to add to what he has stated already except this that the vacations of the Circuit Court Judges are very long. The Circuit Court Judges get 19 weeks' holidays in the year. It would be well to go into that matter. I think the Minister will find that I am correct. I imagine that 12 weeks ought to be ample holiday for men. I do not say that Circuit Court Judges are not hard worked or do not give value or that the work is not satisfactory, but I think 19 weeks is a little bit excessive.
I do not like interrupting the Deputy, but is he prepared to say that all Circuit Judges have the same holidays or vacation?
I am not.
I think the Deputy had better revise his statement, because, with some knowledge of Circuit Court Judges and their work, I certainly say I could not make any such statement.
I know that there are some who get these holidays. On the other hand, there may be others who do not get such a long period of time, but I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there are cases where they do, and possibly they may be brought in to do a certain amount of work instead of appointing substitutes. The principle of appointing substitutes is harmful to the unpartisan character of a court; it is harmful to the dignity of the Bench, and injurious to the individuals who are appointed. We know that men have been appointed for a time, and when they have gone back to the profession they have found a considerable part of their practice cut off. Solicitors get into the habit of employing certain counsel. If one of these counsel is appointed to a temporary position and holds it for some time the solicitor would have to employ somebody else and will not want him back again. Once a connection in a business is broken it is very hard for temporary men to get back to their profession again. Supposing the man who is appointed to a temporary position is hearing a case where the solicitor who has employed him for many years is engaged. If he fails to employ him when he goes back to his profession he is in a very awkward position. The judge is in a more awkward position. He will be more sensitive in dealing with a case of that sort.
I have two suggestions to make to the Minister—one that it might be better for him to hold over this Bill until the matter is discussed and dealt with by the Committee which has been appointed to examine the whole of the Courts of Justice Act. I think he might very well wait and let that matter come up for discussion and solution by them. Then I would like to point out that if a man is appointed to the position of a Circuit Court Judge he should do the work of a Circuit Court Judge and should not be taken off to do other work. Other men can be got to do that work. Appointing a man to do Circuit Court work, and then taking him away to do other work which is not identical with that duty, is a little bit Gilbertian. It would be better to appoint a man and leave him on that work, and not be taking him away to other work.
If the Minister persists in going on with this Bill before the Committee has had time to deal with it, I think he should accept an amendment that such temporarily appointed judges should not deal with cases where the State is a party, because naturally they will not be in a position of independence. They will not be on the footing of any other judge. Constitutionally, the principle involved is that a judge stands as a protection to the citizen from all and especially from the State, and the independence of the judiciary secures the rights of the individual as against the State. So that when the State comes into Court, it comes in on an equal footing with any individual citizen. Where the man is appointed temporarily he cannot maintain an attitude of independence. The man himself has nothing to do with it. The independence of the judiciary as a principle is not maintained because it is merely a temporary position.
This measure might be used also for the purpose of appointing a man who would be used like the removable magistrates, as has already been pointed out by Deputy O'Kelly. Even to allow the possibility of such a thing would be a great evil. I would, therefore, suggest that the Minister, when replying, should indicate to us whether he would be willing to accept an amendment excluding any case where the State is a party being tried by one of these temporary judges, or whether he would not allow this matter to stand over until it has been dealt with by the Committee.
With the general purport of the remarks made by the last two speakers I am in complete agreement. I have always opposed the creation of anything in the nature of temporary judges for the reasons as mainly outlined by the last two speakers. This Bill, as far as I can gather, merely proposes to extend the provision that already exists in Section 45 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, in case of the illness of an existing Circuit Court Judge, to cases where that judge or other judges may have had to do duty or service temporarily imposed upon them by the Executive Council or Government of the day. I would certainly like to support the argument put forward by Deputy O'Kelly that there are plenty other good fish in the sea and that there are many capable people outside the existing Circuit Court Judges who could be called upon to discharge, and would discharge, all the duties in as able, efficient and impartial a manner. There is no lack of talent, if I might say so with all due modesty, and experience at the Irish Bar, and if the Minister for Justice requires efficiency, impartiality and ability I think he will be able to find all these outside the existing Circuit Court Judges. I say that with the greatest possible respect to the Circuit Court Judges.
I was also impressed by the suggestion made by Deputy Little. I think it is a very reasonable one. We have now set up a Joint Committee of the Dáil and Seanad to consider practically the whole working of the Courts of Justice Act, and surely this is not an expedient moment, at any rate, to introduce a Bill such as this, even if the principle contained in this Bill were a proper one, which personally I entirely dispute. At the time of the passage of the Courts of Justice Act I ventured to say that the number of Circuit Court Judges would not be sufficient. I made the same remark in regard to High Court Judges. I think when the Committee comes to consider these matters, and when their recommendations come before the House, that the House will discover that I was not far wrong.
I say it is better to create more permanent judges if they are required than go in for, I think, the unconstitutional expedient of creating temporary judges. It is better for all concerned. It is better for the State. It is better for those who attend the courts and for the judges themselves. I think it places a practising barrister in a most invidious position to put him upon the bench and to expect him to act with such a degree of impartiality as would be expected of him if he were made a permanent judge of the State and yet all the time have him there in a temporary capacity. From his point of view, and more especially from the point of view of the public and from the point of view of the State, I think the principle is entirely wrong.
But, apart from the principle being wrong, I do suggest to the Minister that this is a most inappropriate and inopportune time to bring in this Bill. Why not let this Committee which has been set up investigate these many other various subjects that are germane to the working of the Courts of Justice Act, bring in their reports and recommendations? We are now proposing to have an adjournment at the end of the week. We are told that the Recess is to last for two and a half months. This Bill, even if it gets a Second Reading, will not very likely become law before the House resumes in February. Where is the hurry and where is the haste to pass legislation such as this, especially when in the meantime you will have this Committee sitting to consider the whole working of the Courts of Justice Act? By the time we resume in February we hope, at any rate, that we will have the recommendations of that Committee before us.
I would therefore seriously suggest to the Minister that taking everything into consideration it would be far better if he would see his way to withdraw this Bill now. He will lose nothing by doing so because as I have said it is not possible it will be passed into law before the Dáil resumes in February. Let the Minister withdraw the Bill now. Let us see what the Committee are going to recommend in this respect, because surely the matter must come before them, and if they do not satisfy him in their recommendations he can bring forward the Bill again when the Dáil resumes. I think that is a very reasonable and a very sensible course and I think he would be doing the wise thing if he were to adopt Deputy Little's suggestion and take that course. Before I sit down I may say that if the Minister does insist upon going on with this Bill now, I for one, if a division is called in the matter, will feel constrained to vote against it, as I have always voted and spoken against the creation of temporary appointments of this character which, I think, are injurious to the Constitution and to the State.
I am prepared to support this Bill on one ground only. I am satisfied from what the Minister has stated and from what I know of the facts that the Bill deals with an absolute necessity and with a matter of extreme urgency. I share the same dislike to the appointment of temporary judges as Deputies O'Kelly, Little and Redmond have given expression to. I agree that they should only be appointed where it is absolutely necessary and that there is rather a serious objection to these continual appointments from day to day of temporary judges. I noticed that in lieu of the appointment of temporary judges as proposed by the Bill introduced by the Minister for Justice, Deputy Little said something as regards the curtailment of the holidays of the existing judges. I do not think that he could have entered into the facts when he made that suggestion. I cannot speak of other circuits, but I can speak of the City and County of Cork and there I know the present position. I do not think that that present position can have been before Deputy Little when he made the suggestion that the present circuit judges were getting too many holidays.
Let us see how it works out. Take the Cork Circuit Judge. What has he to do there? He has to do first with the work done by the late Recorder of Cork and with the work done by the late County Court Judge of the West Riding of the County of Cork. He has to do the work thrown on him by the increased jurisdiction in contract cases and in cases of tort, which means, being translated into nonlegal language, that his work so far as time is concerned is increased by about half as much as formerly. He has to deal with increased criminal jurisdiction, inasmuch as he discharges nearly the whole of the work that it took five judges in the spring, summer and winter assizes to discharge formerly. He has now to discharge that work and he has, in addition, to discharge the increased jurisdiction thrown on him in the hearing of appeals from the District Justices, which have now become a very serious matter so far as time is concerned. It is true that his work has been slightly lessened by the transfer to the District Courts of some work formerly done by the County Court Judges. But on the whole it works out that the present Circuit Judge has to do, at practically the same salary as the former County Court Judge, four times as much work. If you take it as regards the importance of his work, you can see that he is doing higher work. In other words, one man does now what four men did formerly, and I think that in all fairness and having regard to what we all must look to—the preservation of the efficiency of the Circuit Court—it would be impossible in any way to increase that task, and any attempt to increase it will only result in failure. That being so, I would like, when looking for a remedy——
Might I interrupt the Deputy for a moment to ask him a question as to the holidays of the Circuit Judges? My opinion was that the Circuit Court Judges get three weeks' holidays at Christmas; three weeks' holidays at Easter; three weeks' holidays at Whitsuntide, and ten weeks' holidays in the summer——
There is no fixed time.
There is no fixed time. Their circuits are fixed.
Mr. Wolfe
I am afraid that Deputy Little has not studied the subject or he would not have made the suggestion that he made. I know that a considerable portion of the time supposed to be spent on holidays, or on what the Deputy calls holidays, has to be spent by the Circuit Court Judge at home or elsewhere discharging the duties of his office or discharging those many duties which have to be performed out of court in the case of the Circuit Judge. In the case of the Supreme Courts these duties have not to be performed. I do not think the facts can have been before Deputy Little or he would not have made the suggestion that he has made. That suggestion amounts to this, that the Circuit Court Judge at present gets holidays which can afford to be cut down as a remedy for the want which does exist of an additional judge. The other alternative which I gather was suggested, and which I must say appeals to me, was that the Minister for Justice should take his courage in his hands and appoint an additional Circuit Court Judge forthwith.
It is absolutely imperative for the proper carrying out of the Courts of Justice Act, no matter what the findings of the Committee may be, that an additional judge be appointed. At the present moment the Courts of Justice Act deals with three courts. It deals first with the High Court, and in the High Court, for the want of a judge, a shocking state of affairs has resulted. The hearing of appeals is backward to the extent of one and a half years. It was only last week that the High Court was able to get rid of appeals that were lodged one and a half years ago. The Minister for Justice will have to face the difficulty sooner or later that our present judicial system cannot continue with the existing staff. I hope the Minister for Justice will take this criticism in the spirit in which it is meant. In the District Court, the Minister has, during the current year, strained the machinery of his office against the appointment of temporary justices. The result has not been altogether a success. I know he has made money by it. Money has been saved that would otherwise have been expended, but the result has been inconvenience and delay, and loss has resulted to litigants of a kind which I hope will not be repeated in future years.
While I am prepared to vote for this Bill rather than have the Circuit Courts which, with one or two exceptions, are in arrears, getting into the same state of chaos as exists in the other courts, I would ask the Minister to employ the necessary labourers to do the job. We cannot be running the thing for ever with handy men. The present High Court, the District Court and the Circuit Court will require some additional appointments, and while I agree it would be wise to have those appointments permanently made rather than continue appointing journeymen, at present no harm could be done by allowing this Bill to pass. At the same time it is well to bring under the notice of the Minister for Justice the desirability of appointing permanent judges.
With a great deal of what Deputy O'Kelly and Deputy Redmond have said I am in agreement. I am no lover of temporary judges, and I think I have already proved that. Deputies must be aware that I introduced a Bill to get permanent assistant District Justices in order that we might as far as possible do away with temporary District Justices. Nor do I, on the other hand, like that there should be temporary judges of any kind. But there are certain emergencies which can only be met and countered in a certain fashion. One of those emergencies, as I briefly explained to the House, has already arisen. This Bill is urgent. One of the Circuit Judges in Dublin will not be available, as is known, for the purpose of carrying out his entire work. On the other hand there are two circuits which are in a very bad way; one, indeed, in a tremendously bad way. Unfortunately, one of our unattached, if I may use the expression, Circuit Judges is at the present moment recovering from a very long and tedious illness. Possibly Deputy Little may know that. This judge is not well, but he is able to sit in Dublin. He is not able to go down to transact business in the midlands and the north-west, where there is a terrible pressure of work, and where there are very heavy arrears indeed. I can see no conceivable way of clearing up these arrears and giving litigants the consideration they are entitled to. Deputy Wolfe has put it more forcibly.
At any rate, litigants are entitled to have their cases disposed of with reasonable expedition. There should be sittings of the Circuit Court arranged for each county during the autumn. There is no judge available to go there during the autumn. That is what has happened, and unless the position is remedied there will not be a judge there for the spring. It is not fair to the people there.
Why not appoint a permanent judge?
I will deal with that in a moment if the Deputy will give me time. I do not see any alternative at the moment. The question is urgent, and I do not see any way in which it can be dealt with except by appointing assistants. No suggestion came from the opposite side with regard to that existing principle which was the principle in the days of the old County Courts and which has been the principle down to the present. No one has suggested that that should be swept away.
Would it not be more advisable to use the law as it exists? The Minister has power under the existing Act in the case of illness to appoint someone as a substitute. Would it not be better to operate under the existing law and wait until the Committee reports?
I have already told the Deputy that the only power we have is to appoint during illness. There is not at present any vacancy due to illness. There is one Circuit Court Judge who is not in a sufficiently good state of health to go down to the country.
What do you call that—illness?
Yes, but this judge is in a condition physically to sit in Dublin, and he is doing so. While he is sitting in Dublin it is not possible to appoint a substitute for him. Therefore we cannot appoint a substitute to do the arrears which it is necessary should be cleared up. That is the position. At the moment there are very heavy arrears, and there is no way under the existing law in which we can appoint another judge.
I do not like interrupting and I do not wish to make another speech, but may I throw out this suggestion as an alternative? What I object to about the Bill is its permanent nature for the appointment of temporary judges. Why not introduce ad hoe legislation, if necessary, and name the particular judges whom you require to relieve? If that is done, I, for one, on the statement made by the Minister as regards the immediate necessity for the appointment of temporary judges, would have no objection, but what I object to is the permanent nature of a Bill to appoint temporary judges. It is setting a precedent and it will be there for all time. If there is necessity to relieve the judges mentioned let him introduce ad hoe legislation.
This is completely ad hoe because it is brought in for this particular purpose.
It is a permanent measure which will be on the Statute Book for all time. It is giving power permanently to create temporary judges. If the Minister were to introduce and hoe legislation to relieve the two cases mentioned, I would support him, but I cannot support a measure which is altogether permanent.
Does the Minister not consider that it is interpreting the statute in such a narrow sense as really to misinterpret it by saying that you cannot appoint a temporary assistant when a judge cannot do his own work owing to illness?
He must be totally incapacitated.
How do you make that out? Does that mean legislation?
It is the law. I am advised that there is no question about it. It is obvious that you cannot have a man sitting as a judge and at the same time have a substitute sitting for him because he is too ill to sit. That is what Deputy Little suggests. It has been suggested that there should be a permanent judge appointed. I think that we will be able to carry on the Circuit Court without an extra permanent judge. It would, of course, require legislation to appoint another Circuit Judge, but, apart from accident, we will be able to carry on the administration of the Circuit Court with the present staff. That is, of course, unless rare occasions occur like the present crisis. I do not think that at present there is any necessity to bring in legislation to appoint another permanent judge. A good deal has been said against the appointment of temporary judges, but I would point out that some of those arguments were mutually destructive. While I say that I am no lover of temporary judges, at the same time I must say that I think the arguments put forward were not quite fair. In the first place, it has been said that a temporary judge would lose his position at the Bar. I do not think that that would be so to any great extent. If a judge is doing temporary work for a month or two I do not think that he would injure his position at the Bar very much.
I completely grant you that if someone leaves the Bar for a year or two he would have to begin his whole work at the Bar again when he returned, as he would be out of touch with all the offices with which he was previously in touch. I do not think that that will happen in the case of a judge who is appointed only for a short period as a temporary judge during the illness of a judge or for some other cause. I do not think that those short periods would materially interfere with the Circuit Judge. Deputy O'Kelly asked why we would not get the Chairman of the Committee from the Bar. To appoint him as Chairman of the Commission would take him away from his work at the Bar just as would appointing him Circuit Judge. To put it bluntly, if you say that he is going to be corrupt and in favour of the Government because he is hearing cases as a judge, could not that argument be pressed further? It might be said that because he is Chairman of a Commission, giving his time voluntarily, "Oh, he was influenced because he wants a job from the Government."
Could not the argument which Deputy O'Kelly put forward in the first instance be used much more strongly in the other case? I have great belief in the honour of the men in my profession. As a body of men the Irish Bar, in my opinion, contains men of as great personal honour and as of high principle as any other profession in the world. I personally think, whether permanently or temporarily appointed, that the men who are appointed from the Irish Bar to do work for this State will always be found to be men of honour, doing their work as work should be done. It was suggested that this measure should be allowed to stand over until after the findings of the Committee dealing with the operations of the Courts of Justice Act. There would be a good deal to be said in favour of that if it were not a question of urgent pressing importance. If the Bill gets a Second Reading I propose to ask the House to take the Committee Stage to-morrow and to pass the Bill, which really involves no new principle, although Deputy Redmond said it did, because the principle of having a substitute Circuit Judge is not new, as it is in the Courts of Justice Act. You are not establishing a new principle by extending it only to such cases where a judge is taken away from urgent public business. That is not establishing a new principle.
I submit you are creating a new principle. Does the State make the judge ill?
But the State takes him away and puts him on a Commission?
Only for a very short time.
I think it is a very different principle.
No, he is unable to do his work. It seems to me exactly the same principle. You fill the place which is vacant owing to the temporary incapacity of the judge to act. If this Bill gets a Second Reading, I purpose to take the Committee Stage to-morrow. As far as the new Committee which has been set up is concerned, it, of course, can explore this Bill as it explores every other aspect before bringing in any suggestions. If this Bill is inconsistent with its findings, and if these findings are embodied, as I suppose the bulk, at any rate, of its findings will be embodied, in legislation, whatever substitute the Committee may find for this Bill will then come into force. If the Committee come to the conclusion that there is any other way in which you can fill up temporary gaps except by temporary appointments, that can be embodied subsequently in legislation, but I think it is unfair to litigants that they should not have judges at the present moment to hear their cases. I have explained to the House that a very unusual situation has arisen, and I would ask the House to pass the measure.
The Minister has stated that this is an ad hoe measure. Will the Minister be prepared to bring in an amendment to this measure to limit its operation to six months or twelve months?
I will meet the Deputy by saying I will limit it, if he likes, to two years. That will give full time for consideration by the new Courts Committee.
I must admit that that is something on the road, and that it does away with part of my objection. My principal objection to the Bill is that it is a permanent measure to create temporary judges. The Minister has gone so far as to say that he is prepared to bring in an amendment limiting the operation of the measure to two years, but I ask if the matter is one of extreme urgency, as he states, would it not be sufficient to have this measure for one year?
I do not think so. I would like to have the measure in existence until such time as the recommendations of the Joint Committee of the Dáil and the Seanad are embodied in legislation. I do not want this Bill put on the Expiring Laws Continuance Act because the other legislation is not finished. Certain aspects of the Courts of Justice Act may be reviewed by the Committee. I do not suggest that they will find any other expedient for filling up temporary gaps except through permanent legislation.
There are two hundred other expedients to be found in the Law Library. Apart from that, the Minister has met me to a certain distance and he has given an undertaking, I understand, that he will limit this measure to two years. I am prepared to accept that undertaking on the part of the Minister. My real objection to the Bill is that it gives a permanent right to create temporary judges.
On a point of order, it will be impossible to bring in an amendment, as we propose to do, on the Committee Stage, if the Committee Stage be taken to-morrow.
Would the Deputy say why?
The usual practice is that a certain amount of time is allowed to put in amendments, and how can we put in amendments if we are not allowed that time?
If the Committee Stage is going to be taken to-morrow, of course, that order would not apply, and amendments from the Deputy would have to be accepted without the usual notice.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Coburn, James.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peader Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenny, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, William Archer.
- Reynolds, patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl, Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
|
Aiken, Frank.Allen, Denis.Anthony, Richard.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Gerald.Boland, Patrick.Bourke, Daniel.Brady, Seán.Briscoe, Robert.Broderick, Henry.Buckley, Daniel.Carney, Frank.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.Everett, James.Fahy, Frank.Flinn, Hugo.Fogarty, Andrew. |
Gorry, Patrick J.Goulding, John.Hayes, Seán.Hogan, Patrick (Clare).Houlihan, Patrick.Jordan, Stephen.Kennedy, Michael Joseph.Kent, William R.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'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.O'Kelly, Seán T.O'Leary, William.O'Reilly, Matthew.Powell, Thomas P.Ryan, James.Sexton, Martin.Smith, Patrick.Tubridy, John.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C. |
When will the Committee Stage be taken?
I propose to ask the House to take all stages to-morrow.
What arrangements have been made for amendments?
Amendments will be taken without notice.
We will not have to have them in the office to-night.
Not necessarily. The Deputy can put them in to-morrow, but he will want to have them in in time to be typed and circulated to Deputies.