Private Deputies' Business. - The Agricultural Industry—Motion (resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion and amendment:—
That, in the opinion of Dáil Eireann, it is essential that special long-term loans be provided for farmers at easy terms; that rates on agricultural land be completely abolished; that a moratorium be granted on the payment of land annuities, and that the payment of arrears outstanding be spread over a number of years in order to promote the recovery and expansion of the agricultural industry.—(Deputies Cogan and Thomas Burke.)
Amendment.—To delete all words after the word "essential" and substitute the following:—
"to increase the production and profitable sale of agricultural produce and to that end a loan should be made available to agriculturists at a rate of interest not exceeding 3 per cent.; that a commission of inquiry into the agricultural industry be set up consisting of—
1 agriculturist to be nominated by the I.A.O.S.;
1 agriculturist to be nominated by the Royal Dublin Society;
2 farmers to be nominated by the Minister for Agriculture, one whose valuation is £30 and not over, another £50 or over respectively;
1 person to be nominated by the Federation of Irish Industries;
1 person to be nominated by the Banks' Standing Committee;
1 person to be nominated by the Minister for Agriculture, and
1 person to be nominated by the Minister for Finance;
3 members of the Dáil to be appointed by Committee of Selection. The chairman of the commission to be a judge of the High Court or Circuit Court;
the terms of reference of the commission to be to recommend proposals for increasing the volume and value of agricultural production in all its branches, and that pending a report of the commission of inquiry the rates on agricultural land as and from the 1st April next be met out of the National Exchequer."— (Deputy Dillon.)

I was explaining on the last day of this debate that the setting up of this commission is, in the opinion of the majority of farmers, a means of shelving the issue, of enabling the Government to evade their responsibility for doing justice to the agricultural community. A number of Deputies have dealt with this motion, and it has been claimed that my action in declining to withdraw my motion was delaying the setting up of this commission. If those Deputies who spoke in this strain were sincere, they would, in order to facilitate the setting up of this commission, have avoided taking any further part in the debate. But I, for one, do not accept the view that my action in refusing to withdraw my motion had any such effect. I hold that if the Government had come to a decision to set up a commission that there was absolutely nothing to prevent them from going ahead with the setting up of the commission.

If, on the other hand, we were to accept the view that, because a motion dealing with agriculture was before the House, a commission could not be set up, it would follow that, when this commission has been set up this House will be debarred from discussing any question in relation to agriculture. I presume that is the intention of those who are so strenuously advocating the setting up of the commission. They want to have all questions connected with agriculture shelved completely. So far as I am concerned, I hold that there are questions connected with agriculture which cannot be shelved. In fact, the whole position with regard to agriculture cannot be shelved.

Only to-day I received a letter from a farmer whose entire stock of cows had been seized in respect of annuities. He was left with only one old cow. That farmer was supplying milk to the City of Dublin. How is that farmer to carry on his business while the commission is in session? How is he to continue for the next four or five years? In this particular case the man is a struggling farmer who owed money to the Agricultural Credit Corporation and under pressure paid that money. He owed rates, and under pressure from the rate collector, met the demand for rates. Then, on top of that, the Land Commission came down and demanded their pound of flesh. They demanded the full arrears due, and insisted upon collecting them by seizing his entire stock and putting him completely out of business. That farmer has absolutely no means of saving himself. Many pitiful stories have been told to-day about the condition of ex-Ministers and people of that kind, but there seems to be no sympathy whatever for an unfortunate farmer, with a wife and family depending on him, whose cows, upon which he is depending to earn his livelihood, are taken from him and probably will be sold for a small price, so that he will still be alleged to be in debt to the Land Commission.

The Minister for Lands, when dealing with this question of annuities, stated that a deputation, of which I was a member, waited on him and that he refused to fund the arrears over a number of years. I think the Minister's recollection of what happened is a little at fault. What really happened was that Deputy Moore and myself had an interview with the Minister, and we put up a case for the spreading of land annuities over a number of years. Deputy Moore made a very strong case in support of this claim. He pointed out that a farmer who is at present in arrears might be in a position to pay his current annuity; that if his arrears were spread over a number of years, he might be in a position to pay something to the Land Commission. But, when he is confronted with a demand for the entire arrears and faced with the fact of his entire stock being seized to meet that demand for arrears, he is put completely out of business and cannot pay the current annuities.

What does the Land Commission or the State gain by seizing a farmer's entire stock and putting him completely out of business? They cannot get money out of a derelict farm; they cannot get money out of starving children. In this particular case which was brought to my notice to-day, one of the children is actually dying. What use or benefit is it to the Government or to the State to press unfortunate farmers so severely? Surely, they must realise, leaving out of consideration altogether the economic war or anything else, that since 1930 the farmers have passed through an abnormal period. You have had an abnormal period of agricultural depression all over the world. Even without considering what farmers were forced to sacrifice in connection with the dispute with Great Britain, it ought to be recognised that the abnormal conditions through which farmers have passed entitle them to some measure of relief. Surely the minimum measure of relief would be the funding of arrears of annuities, and yet even that has been refused.

The Minister for Lands said that he gave us a definite refusal. I can say that the Minister did not give us a definite refusal. He told us that he would sympathetically consider our demand, that he would have it investigated by his officials and would put it before his fellow Ministers. I think that was not a definite refusal. It was only afterwards that I was informed that the demand for a general funding of the arrears of annuities had been turned down. The Minister, in his statement, offered, I think, to meet the claims of individuals in arrears if they were brought before him and to make some concessions in regard to arrears. That is not a business-like method of dealing with the question. It is not business-like to put the majority of the farming community— the majority are in arrears, to a certain extent—in the humiliating position of having to go hat in hand to the Minister or his officials and ask for some concession. In view of the sacrifices the farmers have made during the past five or six years, the least the Government should do would be to have a general system of spreading the arrears over a number of years. That demand is contained in my motion and I think it is a very reasonable demand and one against which no fair-minded person could go.

It might be said that numbers of farmers who could pay refused to pay. If there was any farmer who could pay, the intensive pressure brought to bear during the past year or two would have extracted any money he could possibly raise. In the case I mentioned to-day, there was absolutely no means by which the farmer could raise money. There was nobody to whom he could go for a loan. He had already exhausted his credit completely in trying to meet the demands of the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the rate collector. The Minister for Agriculture has told us that the benefits derived from the halving of the annuities more than counterbalanced the refusal of the Government to meet the demand in regard to de-rating. A moment's consideration will show that that is not true. Take the total amount of rates paid in 1932 or 1933 and the sum of less than £2,000,000 required for de-rating. Surely nobody who knows anything about agricultural conditions would say that during the past five years the rates have not been doubled in most counties. They have been more than doubled in County Wicklow.

But they do not amount to £2,000,000.

I can produce Governmental figures to show that the rates have doubled in County Wicklow.

But they do not amount to £2,000,000.

They should be very near £2,000,000. If the progress made in increasing the rates during the past three or four years continues, the rates will, in a few years, far outbalance not only the halved annuities but the total annuities. It is quite clear that the policy of the State and of the Government is directed to increasing local expenditure in every direction. There seems to be absolutely no means of checking that tendency. We know that the local government franchise has been extended to every adult. This means that in every county the ratepayers who are perhaps in a minority at present will be in an absolutely insignificant minority in the future. We must remember that the ratepayers are not the largest section of the community nor are they the most powerful or the most influential section. They may have been 300 years ago when, as Deputy McGovern pointed out, rates were first introduced. At present, we have a large- influential and ever-increasing section of the community who are, to a large extent, exempt from liability for local rates. We have the official classes, the professional classes and, to a large extent, the commercial classes—an increasing section of the community who are exempt from any contribution to the upkeep of local services. These are the people who are for ever agitating for increased local expenditure, for better roads and better social services of every kind— simply because they have not to make any contribution to the upkeep of these services. The whole system is antiquated and should be abolished as speedily as possible. The first step to the abolition of that system is the derating of agricultural land, because agriculture and agricultural land are the chief victims of that system. The greater part of the rateable valuation of every county is represented by agricultural land and it is only by de-rating agriculture that an important step will be taken towards the financing of local services on a sound basis.

Everybody recognises that it is his duty to contribute to the upkeep of local as well as national services according to his means. Surely it will also be recognised that if a man can possess an income of £5,000 and make no contribution to the upkeep of local services while a man whose family are hungry must make a contribution, the system is unsound. The farmer to whom I referred to-day was left with only one old cow. Some members of his family are ill and others are young and helpless. If that man is compelled to contribute a large amount to the upkeep of local services while a person with a large income or pension is exempt, surely the whole system is rotten and should be abolished as soon as possible and a sound system of financing local administration introduced. I think it was Deputy McGovern who said that the intentions of the Minister for Agriculture were good. Nobody will dispute that. I should be prepared to go further and say that the Minister for Agriculture is incapable of either a malicious or mean intention——

Or a sensible one.

I am not disputing that point. We must remember that many a man who is sleeping in his peaceful grave to-night would be alive and, perhaps, quarrelling with his neighbours if it were not for the ministrations of some medical practitioner whose intentions were good but whose methods were amateurish. The Minister for Agriculture has made many tremendous blunders with regard to agriculture. He has been taken seriously to task in regard to the admixture scheme——

Are you in favour of the admixture scheme?

I am in favour of the farmer getting a fair price for anything and everything he produces on his holding.

Then, shut up about the admixture scheme.

The Minister has abandoned the admixture scheme, and he appears to be floundering from one blunder to another. I understand that, when the admixture scheme was first suggested to the Minister, he did not altogether approve of it. He said it was the best scheme he could think of at the moment. Now, he has abandoned the admixture scheme and has publicly announced that anybody who grows oats or barley will grow it at his own risk—at the risk of failing to get a satisfactory market.

I think if the Minister for Agriculture looked into this question a little more carefully he would see that he was inflicting a very grave injustice on people who cannot grow wheat. He has suggested the growing of wheat as an alternative to the growing of oats. Had he considered the question more carefully, he would have seen that he was inflicting a grave injustice on the people whose land is not suitable for the growing of wheat. Moreover, what is going to happen is this. Perhaps next year, if a large quantity of oats is grown and there is no market for it, the farmers will be forced to give it away practically for nothing. The result will be that possibly in the following year a very small acreage of oats may be sown and the price may be excessive. That again may tend to increase production in the subsequent year, and thus you will have a violent fluctuation in acreage and in the price of oats and barley. There is certainly a limited market in this country for oats and barley. If the Minister considered the question more carefully, I think he would have deemed it necessary to substitute some scheme for the admixture scheme. In my opinion, there is only one solution that will meet the case, and that is that we should operate a system of State purchase of oats and barley. Some Deputies might be inclined to criticise that suggestion a few weeks ago, but in view of the fact that the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition has taken up the position that the State is justified in entering very largely into industrial and commercial undertakings, I am sure that this suggestion will receive fair consideration from every section of the House. There is absolutely no other means by which the price of oats and barley—and it may happen also in the case of wheat, in the near future— can be stabilised. The State should take upon itself the task of providing storehouses or granaries through the country, and of collecting the surplus supplies of oats and barley. These surplus supplies could be stored, and released on the market whenever required. That is the only way by which prices can be stabilised. The action the Minister has taken will only lead to violent fluctuations in the price of oats. It is going to injure unfortunate farmers in occupation of inferior land who must grow oats and who may find themselves without a market for it.

I think Deputy Corry suggested that the only remedy for agricultural depression and the only hope for the agricultural industry lay in the drastic reduction of public expenditure. I am afraid that to-day he has not practised what he preached, because he voted in favour of a Bill which was absolutely unnecessary, and which is calculated to increase public expenditure.

It was calculated to promote a weeding out, too.

If you agree that national economy is necessary, a reduction of public expenditure is absolutely necessary. If you are going to achieve that, you must begin at the top. Those who have control of the administration of the country's affairs must set a very definite headline before the officials of the country generally, in being satisfied with what perhaps is less than adequate for what they consider to be their needs.

An echo of 1932.

A Deputy

It will not help the poor farmer to have all this talk about it.

I have been subjected to a certain amount of criticism for raising the farmers' grievances in the form of a motion and for having continued this debate after it had been decided by the Whips of both political Parties to bring this debate to a conclusion on the last day. As far as I am concerned, I have absolutely no use for Parties or Party Whips. I do not believe in a system of Party government, or I do not believe in a system under which members are tied to support a political Party or to vote according as they are directed by their Party. I believe that Deputies elected to this House come here as representatives of the people, and they should have a certain amount of freedom and liberty to advocate the rights of the people they represent. They should be treated as ordinary human beings, given a certain amount of discretion, and not tied down as the Party bosses dictate.

In practice, that does not work out well.

I have said that this motion has been subjected to a good deal of criticism but it has also, I think, been favourably received by a good many members of the House. I must say that many members have spoken altogether in favour of the motion. Deputy Fagan, I think, made a very strong case in support of the motion. He made a very strong case in support of derating of agricultural land and in support of some relief in regard to the pressing burden of annuities. I hope that when the question goes to a vote, he will vote in support of the motion.

Mr. Morrissey

He has been making that case for the last seven years.

I cannot understand the attitude of Deputies who come into the House and say that they are in favour of derating, that they are in favour of a moratorium for land annuities, and who, when the question is put to a vote, refuse to vote for these things.

On a point of order, I did not say that I was in favour of a moratorium on rents. I said that I was in favour of funding the annuities. I agree with Deputy Cogan's motion so far as funding the arrears of land annuities and derating agricultural land are concerned, but I do not agree with the demand for a moratorium on rents.

I accept Deputy Fagan's explanation, but the remarkable thing is that there is nothing in the amendment proposed by the Fine Gael Party in regard to arrears of annuities. In my motion it is definitely stated that arrears of annuities should be funded. I think that anybody who has the interests of the farmer or the interests of the country at heart will not be prepared to oppose any of the suggestions contained in the motion which I have proposed. I think that no argument has been put forward——

What about Deputy Dillon?

As far as Deputy Dillon is concerned, I do not think he raised any matter of serious importance. As I think, we are all anxious to have this debate finished and to hear the last word——

Oh, go on.

I do not think you want to hear any more about the farmers. I think you seem to be more or less anxious to push unpleasant people like the farmers out of the way——

May I appeal to the Deputy to go on? We enjoy listening to him.

Where is the leader of the Farmers' Party that was?

——and to have it conveyed to the people that we have at last turned the corner, that we are in a more prosperous condition, that we can afford to vote increased salaries to Deputies and pensions to Ministers, and that, after all, the country has become wealthy. If anybody asks about the farmers' position he will be told that the matter is receiving the consideration of a commission. I do not think that is going to deceive anybody. The farmers have no objection to the Government setting up a commission, or as many commissions as they like, but they are not going to release the Government from their responsibilities towards agriculture. They are going to insist and continue to insist on their demands being heard and considered. They are going to continue to agitate for their lawful rights, and they are quite entitled to do so, whether a commission is in session or not. They are not going to accept the setting up of a commission as an answer to their claims.

Deputy Brennan, I think, referred to the Banking Commission, and he seemed to have a very great opinion of the majority report of that commission. I sincerely hope that the Opposition Party are not going to adopt that majority report as their guide in the future. If they are, I am afraid they are hitching their waggon to a dead horse, because I do not think the Banking Commission——

Do not let the Deputy get on to the Banking Commission at this hour.

The Banking Commission has been dealt with by some of the speakers, and it was suggested that it was a solution of all difficult problems. I should like to know what problems that commission solved. Did it solve the housing problem by declaring that there should be no more houses built, or the problem of the congested districts by suggesting that there should be no further land division? I do not think it solved any economic problem.

Mr. Morrissey

It solved the economic war.

The people of this country have absolutely no faith in commissions, and they are not going to be deceived by the commission which it is proposed to set up to inquire into agriculture. The only hope for the improvement of the farmer's position lies in the farmers' own intelligent co-operation for the achieving of their rights. There is no very difficult problem in connection with agriculture which requires a commission to sit down and solve over a period of years. The whole question of agriculture revolves around the simple fact that the farmer is not getting sufficient for his produce to make the cost of production and enable him to live. Deputy Dillon suggested that the solution of the farmer's problem lay in the reduction of his costs so that he will be able to sell his produce at the world market price and make a profit.

Hear, hear.

Deputy Dillon appears to be very enthusiastic in his support of that solution, but I do not think it is any solution.

Rub it into him. He is the fellow who gave you the commission.

I hold that it is not possible to reduce the farmer's cost of production to such a figure as will enable him to compete with the Chinese, Japanese and other people who supply the British market with their surplus produce, perhaps at a price lower than that which they are getting for it in their own home market.

What agricultural produce do the Japanese supply?

I am not referring to any particular one.

Deputy Hurley says rice. What county in Ireland is rice grown in?

Wicklow.

I hold that the principal market for the produce of this country is the home and British markets jointly. These two markets will absorb all that the agricultural industry can produce. I do not hold that the price which the farmer gets for his produce in the home market should be governed absolutely by the price that prevails in the British market. I do not think that is a solution of the farmers' problem. Take the average price of agricultural produce at present. It is slightly higher than in 1913, perhaps by 10 per cent. Take, then, the average cost of production and you find that it is at least 100 per cent. higher, and, in some cases, 200 per cent. higher. I should like to know how Deputy Dillon proposes to reduce the cost of production to the 1913 figure, because you must do that if you are going to leave the farmer any margin of profit. I do not believe it can be done. I do not believe you can force the agricultural labourer to accept the wages that he was prepared to accept in 1913, which was one-third of what it is to-day, and I do not think that any of the various items of expenditure on the farm can be reduced to the 1913 figure.

A good deal has been said about what has been called "blind industrialism" and I think it is time that the farmer's attitude towards industrial development generally should be made clear, because many people have got up in public places to speak on behalf of the farmer and have represented him as being opposed to industrial development in this country. The farmer is not opposed to industrial development. It must be remembered that industrial development places a certain additional burden on the farmer. Yet the farmer is not going to say: "Because industrial development places a certain additional burden on my shoulders, I claim that industrial development should be discontinued and that any industries which have to be aided by the State, or by the general community, should be closed down at once." I do not think the farmer would take that view, and that means that he is definitely in favour of continuing the industries at present in existence, and of endeavouring to advance still further in the direction of industrial development.

Any attempt to put the farmer in the position of being hostile to the industrialist in this country is not in his interest. He realises that the existence of this nation as a nation depends on the continuance of industries and their continued development and expansion; that the country cannot be absolutely dependent on agriculture alone, and that the industrial arm of this nation must be developed. Otherwise, you will have a lopsided. crippled nation and no farmer wants that. He wants a well-balanced and properly developed nation and he is prepared, I think, to stand in with the Irish manufacturer in helping to achieve that ideal. The State, on the other hand, must recognise that in its endeavour to establish new industries and extend existing industries, a certain burden is being placed on the farmer's shoulders.

The farmer must be assisted to meet that burden. There must be sound economic planning as between industrial and agricultural development. The farmer must not be compelled to face increased burdens for everything he has to buy, while at the same time only getting for his produce practically the same as he got in 1913. He is now paying more than 100 per cent. over the 1913 prices for his requirements, while he is only getting 1913 prices for what he produces. In those circumstances how can farmers hope to continue.

It is obvious that the farmers whom the Deputy knows have lost their patience.

If the farmers were not the most patient people in the world they would not continue to have lived in the conditions prevailing here during the last seven or eight years.

It is very obvious.

If the farmers have shown such patience, I do not see why this House should not have a certain amount of patience also.

Make the people opposite suffer for all they did during the past six years.

The farmers are suffering very severely.

And it is time that the people opposite suffered, too.

The Government are making very generous allowances for themselves, their dependents and everybody remotely connected with them. I hope they are prepared to listen to what I have to say with regard to the farmers' grievances. The farmer's case is absolutely unanswerable. The agricultural population has declined. The output of the agricultural industry has declined steadily during the past 30 years, or more, in spite of all that has been done by governmental action. Tillage, which is supposed to be such a pet of the Government, has declined to an enormous extent. I do not think that at any time in the history of agriculture has tillage been so unpopular as it is at present. That is an alarming state of affairs, and the Minister for Agriculture should take serious note of it. Tillage has been pushed to such an extent, due largely to the fact that the market the farmer had was closed to him, that the fertility of the land has been exhausted. In that way farmers have suffered very severe losses. The growing of wheat requires fertile land, but the land is now in such an impoverished condition, because of the intensification of Government policy, that it is not able to give any return. I think if the Minister makes inquiries he will find that the average yield per acre of millable wheat this year has been exceedingly low. That shows that there is urgent need for the Government to come to the assistance of the farmers. You cannot farm without capital. A man requires capital to buy cattle, but that in general a man can grow wheat or beet without any capital has been proved, to the grief of thousands of farmers, to be false. You cannot carry on tillage without ample capital, to provide manures, the best possible seeds, machinery and other implements required.

The idea prevailed in this country many years ago, when control was in the hands of the landlord class, that the best way to improve land was to fertilise it with high rents. I am afraid that in the minds of Ministers at the present day the same idea seems to hold good. They seem to think that the best way to get the farmer to get the most he can from his land is to impose on him high burdens by way of rates and taxes. If you compel the farmer to exhaust his capital completely, then you are not leaving him in a position to improve the output of his farm.

On a point of order. The Deputy is not talking to the motion before the House at all.

That is a matter for the Chair to decide.

I was about to make the point that you are not going to get more out of the agricultural community by harassing and hunting those who are engaged in it. Deputies know that if you turn a cow out into a field and send two logs after her, and if these keep chasing her around the field all day, she is not likely to produce a big pail of milk in the evening. That is the way the farmers are being treated. They are being harassed by flying squads with various types of inspectors who come after them with smiles on their faces and some of them with processes in their pockets. While you have that situation, you are not going to get a full output from agriculture. The great need at the present time is to get the last ounce of production out of every acre in the country, because it is that production that is going to support the whole population. So far as I know, the League of Nations has no fund to provide pensions or other forms of assistance for the farmers of the country. If this country is not able to produce enough wealth mainly out of the land to maintain its present population, then the present population are going to starve and die. I hope there is not a Deputy in the House, who has the interests of agriculture at heart, who is prepared to vote against the motion.

May I ask the Minister a question?

No, this is a motion by Deputy Cogan and Deputy Thomas Burke. The Minister is not to be subjected to questions on this motion.

When I was about putting down a question I was told I could ask a question in the House while this motion was being discussed.

Well, if the Minister is prepared to answer——

My point is that Deputies here do not know how the position stands. I want to know if the Minister is accepting the amendment. Some of us are in favour of accepting the amendment in preference to the motion. If the amendment is not accepted then I will favour the motion.

The motion is in the names of Deputies Cogan and T. Burke. The amendment is in the name of Deputy Dillon. I am putting the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 37.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Martin.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cleary, Mícheál.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • Munnelly, John.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • Coogan, Patrick.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowly, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Tubridy, Seán.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William J.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • Linehan, Timothy.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
  • Rvan, Jeremiah.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Main Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá: 35; Níl, 67.

  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William J.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Thomas.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Coogan, Patrick.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • Linehan, Timothy.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, Jeremiah.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Martin.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cleary, Mícheál.
  • Conney, Eamonn,
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • Munnelly, John.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice Brigid M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Tubridy, Seán.
  • Victory, James
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Cogan and T. Burke; Níl: Deputies Smith and Kennedy.
Question declared lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.15 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 24th November.