Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Apr 1948

Vol. 110 No. 6

Local Elections Bill, 1947—From the Seanad.

I move:—

That the Order for the consideration of the Seanad amendments to the Local Elections Bill, 1947, be discharged.

We are advised that this is in accordance with parliamentary procedure. The Local Elections Bill of 1947 is a Bill which has come with two amendments from the Seanad. The Minister for Local Government has intimated his intention to the House just now of introducing another Bill to supersede the Bill which is the subject of this particular motion. We are advised that the practice has been, in that state of facts, where there is a Bill pending before the Oireachtas which has not yet become law and where it is intended to pass legislation in any way connected with it, to discharge the Order for dealing with the prior Bill.

It is perhaps right that I should draw attention to difficulties that would in any event exist and which would probably necessitate the action which has been taken by the Minister for Local Government. This Local Elections Bill of 1947 was sent by Dáil Éireann to Seanad Éireann on the 4th December, 1947. From that date, the stated period of 90 days, which is referred to in Article 23 of the Constitution, began to run. That period of 90 days expired on the 2nd March, 1948. The Dáil was dissolved on the 12th January of this year and the Bill, with amendments, was passed by Seanad Éireann on the 18th December, 1947. The reassembly of Dáil Éireann was on the 18th February, 1948, and there was an Order on the 9th March, 1948, that the Seanad amendments be set down for consideration to-day. On that state of facts, serious difficulties in connection with the interpretation of the Constitution arise. There are different views held as to the interpretation and as to the effect of the dissolution of Dáil Éireann on the facts to which I have adverted. I do not think it necessary for me to refer to those differences of opinion but everyone knows, at all events, that the period of 90 days having expired on 2nd March, 1948, the Bill could be automatically killed—I suppose that would be the expression to use—or, alternatively, put into limbo. At all events it would be difficult to know precisely what should be done in the circumstances, having regard to the difficulties of interpretation of the Constitution. Accordingly, the course was adopted of bringing in another Bill, the First Reading of which has now been granted, and of moving that this Order should be discharged. That will meet the situation far better than trying to square the facts with the constitutional position and the difficulties of interpretation.

The Government action in regard to this matter seems to be based on the fact that more than 90 days have elapsed without the Bill having been considered by Dáil Éireann. The only basis for assuming that the Bill has automatically lapsed is that the words "within the stated period" qualify "passed by Seanad Éireann" as well as the words "with amendments to which Dáil Éireann does not agree". It seems to me that Article 23 of the Constitution must be construed as providing that all cases that could arise should be dealt with and that a construction, which would mean an omission, should not be favoured.

The relevant sub-section of Article 23 is sub-section (1) and that sub-section deals with, I think, three cases (a) Bill rejected by the Seanad within the stated period, (b) Bill amended by the Seanad within the stated period in a manner of which the Dáil later disapproves, and (c) Bill in respect of which the Seanad takes no conclusive action—a Bill which is neither passed nor rejected within the stated period. Surely the Bill which we are now considering falls within that category. It seems to me that the Dáil is competent to consider a Bill which has come back from the Seanad and to determine whether it is going to agree or disagree with the Seanad in the amendments which have been inserted in the Bill in the other House. That, it seems to me, would be a more reasonable way to approach this matter.

This Bill went through Dáil Éireann practically without opposition. I think there was only a minor amendment introduced on the Committee Stage, or rather on the Report Stage, to meet a point which had been raised by Deputy Alfred Byrne on the Committee Stage. The Bill received the unanimous approval of the last Dáil. In the Seanad the principle of the measure was not challenged. Two minor amendments were inserted there, neither of them of any substance, amendments which, because they were not of any great substance, did not touch on the principle of the Bill and amendments which it seemed reasonable to accept. These amendments have now come back to Dáil Éireann. I think it is implicit in the constitutional relationship which exists between the two Houses that a Bill which was passed by this House, and amended in good faith by the Seanad, should be considered by this House in the light of the amendments which have been made by the Seanad. What is proposed here is to overthrow the whole principle of the Bill, to repeal the Bill really by a sidewind. The measure is a continuing measure and is still in existence and this House is competent to consider it. The amendments are not of substance. The principle of the Bill has been approved by the two Houses of the Oireachtas.

The motion of the Taoiseach is not, of course, ultra rires, but I am submitting that it is quite outside the general spirit of the Constitution and is not, if I might put it that way, in the temper in which a matter of this sort should be considered by the House. We have had virtual unanimity in both Houses in regard to the Bill. Why, then, is the Government proposing to kill the Bill in the manner in which it has been suggested we should kill it to-day? When the Taoiseach was on the Opposition Benches he did not oppose the principle of the measure. None of his Party voted against it. It was acceptable to them then. What is the reason for the change?

In view of the fact that there is a motion now to the effect that the Order should be discharged, I think I am competent and within the limits of order in discussing the principles of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill was to secure better representation of the people on local authorities, to ensure a closer connection between the representatives of the ratepayers and the districts which they represented. If the Bill becomes law, as I submit it should, it will adjust the electoral areas, upon which local representation is based, to the resources of the ordinary ratepayer who is ambitious to represent the interests of himself and his neighbours on the local authority. It proposes to replace the existing system—under which representation on the local authorities is based upon constituencies, some of them even larger than many of the constituencies upon which representation in this House is based—by areas more suited to the resources of the ordinary individual who seeks election. Under the existing system it is quite clear that very few people could hope to represent their constituencies on their local authorities unless they are backed by large, powerful and wealthy organisations, or are themselves wealthy men who can undertake the expense of contesting a local election over areas covering in some cases as much as 2,000 square miles of territory. It is because these electoral areas are much too large, it is because the demands which are now being made upon local representatives are much too exacting that we have witnessed a decline in the standard of representation upon the local authorities, that we have experienced a grave diminution of interest in the activities of these local authorities, and, particularly, a grave diminution of desire to participate in the work of these local authorities and to secure election to them.

We all of us have had experience here in this House and we have heard it stated from time to time that local government is not what it was. I believe that one of the reasons why it is not what it was is that unless a person is prepared to devote virtually the whole of his time to looking after the large scattered electoral areas upon which local representation is based to-day, you will not get a representative ratepayer to sit on or to seek election to these local authorities. If you do, as it was proposed to do in the Bill which is now before the House for consideration again, if you reduce the electoral areas so that they would be convenient in size, so that the man of standing in any particular neighbourhood will not be called upon to devote his special attention to much more than the concerns of his immediate neighbours, while, of course, having regard to the concerns of the county as a whole, then I think you will get a better type of representative in general. I am not saying that about them all, but you would get a better type of representative in general and a much livelier interest in the affairs of the county council. Moreover, the people who are ratepayers in the several districts would have a feeling that there was one man who was elected to represent that district to whom they could have resort if they wanted to have the particular interest and concerns of the district attended to and to whom they could appeal and hold responsible for making representations in relation to the particular district in which they reside. Under the present system, you have five, six, seven, and, in some cases, as many as nine people representing very large areas. Very often you find that these local representatives are concentrated in one particular portion of the area which they represent and that there are people living 20, 30, 40 and, in some cases, even as many as 50 miles away from the nearest county councillor. How can you expect to have any active or intense interest in the election of a local authority so long as that position exists?

This was the condition of affairs which the Local Elections Bill of 1947 was intended to remedy. I am not going to say we had found a perfect remedy, but I believe that in the proposals in the Bill we had something which at least was worth a trial. We have endured and suffered the other system here since 1918, I think—almost 30 years— and it has not produced any improvement in the existing local representatives. This Bill was an attempt to deal with that situation. I put it to the House that, after 30 years of disappointing results under the existing system of election, it would be worth while giving this a trial. That is all that was involved. That seemed to be the view of virtually every Party in this House prior to the year 1948. It was the view of virtually every Party in this House when the Bill, which it is now proposed to drop, was before this House and, as I mentioned, there was only one minor amendment proposed. That was an amendment proposed by me in response to representations made by Deputy Alfred Byrne. But upon the large principle of the Bill there appeared to be no difference of opinion. There was no difference of opinion in the Seanad either in relation to the principle of the Bill.

What, therefore, is the explanation for the change? What is the reason why this Bill is not allowed to pursue what would be the usual course? When a Bill has been enacted by Dáil Éireann and goes to Seanad Éireann, if it is amended there this House has always done the Seanad the courtesy at least of considering the amendments, either accepting or rejecting them. When the principle of a Bill has been accepted in both Houses, by the Seanad as well as by this House, never before has it happened that the Second House of the Oireachtas has been so rebuffed as is proposed in this case. In every case we have said: "The Seanad has concurred with Dáil Éireann in the principle of the Bill, the Seanad has accepted the principle of the Bill, and we will do the Seanad at least the courtesy of considering its amendments and asking Dáil Éireann either to accept or reject them."

The Taoiseach has taken an unprecedented course in relation to this Bill, a course which I think is contrary to the public interest, a course which I do not believe, bearing in mind the previous history of this Bill in this House, has been willingly adopted by him or by those who support him as members of his own Party. I do not believe that that course has been willingly adopted by many of the members of the other Parties in this House who support this Government. Before we proceed to accept the motion which the Taoiseach has proposed to the House I think we are entitled to have from him a categorical justification for the course which he is asking the House to adopt. As I have said, I think it is contrary to precedent. I am certain it is contrary to the public interest and I will draw this deduction from the previous history of the Bill in this House: that the Taoiseach and those who are associated with him in the Fine Gael Party are taking this course under coercion.

If they are not, why this belated opposition——

I thought it was the other way round.

——to the principle of the Bill, because that is what is at stake here? If, in fact, the Taoiseach is not being coerced and those who are associated more particularly with him and his own Party are not being coerced into the course they adopted, then why did they not oppose the principle of the Bill in this House? Why did not those associated with the Fine Gael Party in the Seanad oppose the principle of the Bill there? They did not do so. Neither did the members of Clann na Talmhan and neither did the Independents oppose it. Why are they going to be led into the Lobby to-day to kill this Bill, the principle of which they approved of prior to the year 1948, the principle of which they approved of when it was last before this House?

I submit that it is contrary, as I have said already, to all precedent. I think it is not in the public interest. I think that the principle of this Bill was one which was worth a trial in view of the fact that we all wish, if we can, to revivify the interest of the local people in the operations and activities of their local authorities. I think this is a measure that, at least, ought to have been given a trial. The two amendments that were put down in the Seanad were not amendments of any great substance. If they had been resisted there very strenuously, no doubt they would not have been made. Nobody wants to try to undo now what was done then. At least we can do the Seanad the courtesy of considering its amendments.

I think that we should consider the amendments, and should allow the Bill to become law. It may be, of course, that those people who want to see the local authorities made, if you like, the monopoly of the big political machines will want to oppose this Bill, will want to kill this Bill. But those who would like to see in the local authorities men of independent views, men who might represent more specifically the interests of their neighbours and of their neighbourhood rather than any political party or principle, will stand for the Bill of 1947, because under that Bill the man who has limited resources, the man who has very little perhaps to commend him to the electorate except the respect of his neighbours, the man who will not have at his disposal the political propaganda which large political organisations have, will have some chance of election. Of course, those who want to continue to have local affairs made the sport and the plaything of Party politics, those who want to see the servants of county councils a dominant factor in local elections, those who want to see the officers of county councils playing a substantial part in local politics, those who want to see machines like the Labour Party machine and others dominate the elections, will, of course, try to kill this Bill; but the people who want to get the local authorities out of politics, the people who want to ensure that the local authorities will concentrate upon what were formerly described as parish-pump politics, which are all important and of abiding concern to the local authorities, will try to carry the Bill of 1947.

When you took away their powers and put the county managers in.

I would like to get a little more information from the Taoiseach concerning the motion which he has submitted to the Dáil. As I understand it, he is moving to discharge the order of the Dáil for the consideration of the amendments submitted by the Seanad. What the effect of that motion is, is not clear. The position, as I understand it, is that the Bill is alive, but that the Government want to kill it. It is, however, alive at this moment, and it is competent for the Dáil to consider the amendments which were proposed to that Bill in the Seanad. The Government's difficulty, as I understand it, is that if the Dáil accepts the amendments to the Bill it automatically becomes law. They want to kill the Bill. If they reject or refuse to consider the amendments to the Bill, then the Bill remains alive for a period of 180 days after the expiration of the original period of 90 days and then lapses. If that interpretation of the constitutional position is correct, I think it would be a better device to reject the amendments and refuse to pass the resolution which would bring the Bill into force—allowing the period of 180 days to pass and the Bill to lapse —rather than refuse to consider the amendments passed by the Seanad. The refusal to consider the amendments appears to me to be establishing an undesirable precedent, whereas the rejection of the amendments for the stated reason of killing the Bill would not have quite the same consequences.

I do not know if I understood the Taoiseach's motion correctly, but if I did it is that this Bill should remain in a state of suspended animation, and that after 180 days it would automatically die because of the refusal of the Dáil to consider the Seanad amendments. I think it would be much better to deal with the matter in a positive way, even if that means rejecting the amendments, and then allow the 180 days' period to operate. I do not think that there is much use in pleading with the Government for the life of the Bill. When the Taoiseach allowed it to pass last year he did not then visualise himself as the leader of a five-Party coalition. We know the Bill has to be killed because it is not possible to work a five-Party coalition arrangement in single member constituencies, and no doubt none of the Parties in the Coalition would agree to an arrangement for the contesting of local elections by coalition candidates as such. Even the holding of local elections at all would put a bit of a strain upon the solidarity of the Coalition and they are therefore being postponed for two years. These party considerations have decided the fate of the Bill so that there is not much point in putting forward arguments based on its merits. I rise merely to question the method of execution. I think a decenter method of execution would be to proceed, as I have said, by formally rejecting the amendments, and then to decline, for the reasons stated by the Taoiseach, to pass the resolution contemplated by Article 23 of the Constitution, thus to let the Bill die. A refusal to consider the Seanad's amendments would be an undesirable precedent to establish.

I listened very attentively to the impassioned speech of the treble ex-Minister——

You mean the next Minister.

The treble ex-Minister. I would like to have an assurance that he is the same gentleman as the gentleman who actually pushed the 1947 Bill through this House from this side.

The ex-Minister for Local Government has seized upon this opportunity of making an impassioned, or an artificially impassioned, speech in reference to certain principles dealing with local administration and the amelioration of conditions under Local Government. Deputy Lemass appears to be more interested in the machinery of executing this particular Bill than he was in the principles embodied in the Local Elections Bill of 1947. Both these ex-Ministers wasted public time—valuable time—that we could have had at our disposal in doing far more constructive work for the people than speaking of Party considerations, of the Coalition, of a five-Party Government and all the rest.

In moving this motion, I am speaking for all groups in the House who are supporting me, and no amount of insinuation or the sort of malicious propaganda that these two ex-Ministers indulged in can affect us in the path that we intend to walk.

The ex-Minister for Local Government made an impassioned speech about the relations between the two Houses and of the rebuff that the Seanad has got from this House. Both these ex-Ministers appear to have forgotten that there has been a dissolution brought about by the precipitate decision of the last Government, and they are now having the results of that precipitate decision.

Had that precipitate decision not been taken, or had it been postponed for a short time, Deputy MacEntee, as the then Minister for Local Government, would have been enabled to listen to and consider in the last Dáil the amendments sent down from the Seanad. If there has been any rebuff to the Seanad, that rebuff was given by the previous Government in not taking notice of the situation as it presented itself last Christmas and shortly before the dissolution. Why, if these principles which are supposed to be embodied in the Bill of 1947 were so sacred and so urgently required in the interests of democracy and the amelioration of the local government machine, did the previous Government not wait, postpone their decision to dissolve the Parliament for a week or two, in order to bring this measure into effective law? It is difficult to resist any other conclusion than that the time of this House was used and the words of these ex-Minister utilised for the purpose merely of Party propaganda on their own side. We have no use for that at present.

Five-Party propaganda is very difficult.

We will be judged by our results, and, on that basis, we have no doubt what the result will be.

Mr. Boland

We will see.

This motion was put down after consultation with the experienced officials of the Dáil and Seanad and it is following their advice that this particular method has been adopted. While I occupy this position, I cannot, in spite of the position I have occupied for some 35 years, give a legal opinion on the Constitution. I speak, therefore, of what I am advised. Both the ex-Ministers who have spoken have overlooked the fact that there has been a dissolution and that it is not yet authoritatively known what the effect of a dissolution is on pending legislation in both Houses. It would appear to be a reasonable inference to be drawn from a dissolution that any Bills or measures which had not been enacted into law before the dissolution die with the Parliament which has been dissolved.

There is no foundation for that.

I do not know whether there is or not. I take it that the ex-Minister for Local Government is setting himself up in this House as a constitutional expert. I am not.

No, but the constitutional position has been considered.

What I am saying is that this is a view of the position under the Constitution. I do not know whether it is the correct view or not. There is another view, that, if these amendments had been considered and rejected because of the fact that the 90 days have elapsed, the Seanad cannot again consider the position. I do not know what is going to happen as regards the President giving his signature. I do not know where the power is to meet that situation. These are two of the difficulties, and there are others, that faced us after the dissolution brought about by the previous Government. In that set of facts, we had to decide what we were to do. It would not appear clear that the road is open to us to let this measure be brought into law and then, if we wanted to, to repeal it again by a separate measure. I do not know what the constitutional position is. Nobody has stated it authoritatively, and, in the absence of any authoritative decision, in the absence of any precedent, this course was adopted in consultation with the expert officials of the Dáil and Seanad.

Deputy MacEntee has stated that this course we are adopting is contrary to precedent. That was an entirely inaccurate statement. The course we are adopting is without precedent because there is no precedent for the situation with which we found ourselves faced. If Deputy MacEntee wishes to convince the House that this course is contrary to precedent, I ask him to produce the precedent. We have not been able to find it. There is no precedent for the position we found ourselves in in connection with this Bill, and we had to adopt whatever course appeared to us to be in the best interests of parliamentary practice and procedure. This is the course we have adopted. I do not intend to give any opinion as to whether either of these two views is correct. Deputy Lemass has produced another view that may or may not be arguable, but, if it is a view which is arguable, it is a third view. Which of these courses are we to adopt with any security that we are adopting the correct constitutional practice? This is the course which we have adopted, at all events, and which we recommend to the House.

I do not intend to discuss the merits or demerits of any principle embodied in the Bill of 1947. Both these ex-Ministers have stated that we on this side, or some of us, did not oppose the Bill, and, according to Deputy MacEntee, the Bill went through all stages without opposition and the principle, this wonderful principle he is so eloquent about to-day, was accepted by the previous Dáil. I think it is a principle which has been well established that subsequent Dáil are in no way bound by any decision of their predecessors; but, leaving that aside, Deputy Lemass and Deputy MacEntee conveniently overlooked entirely the fact that when this Bill came before the previous Dáil on 26th November, 1947, it was then known that there was going to be a dissolution. So far as I personally was concerned, from that on I took no interest in the Bills that came tumbling down on top of us from November until Christmas. It was utterly impossible to read these Bills, not to speak of giving them any consideration. That is the reason there was no discussion and no amendments were put down, and, for whatever use he may make of it, the Deputy may have a present of that. So far as this principle is concerned, if it is such a wonderful principle as the ex-Minister says, I repeat that if he wanted it put on the Statute Book of this country, the previous Government could have waited another week or ten days before fixing the date of the dissolution and have it passed into law. I ask the House to adopt the procedure outlined here which has been devised as the best course to adopt in a difficult constitutional situation.

Mr. de Valera

May I ask the Taoiseach if this is to be regarded as a precedent for legislation which would be in a similar condition—Bills to which amendments coming from the Seanad and not considered by the old Dáil would come before the new one? It seems to me that there are two cases to be considered, one in which there might be a genuine difficulty. But, when the intention of a majority is to kill the Bill, it seems to me a much better precedent to establish if the amendments which come from the Seanad be considered by the new Dáil. If there is a change of public opinion, the new Dáil can express it.

I cannot bind the successors of this Dáil any more than we are bound by our predecessors. Whether this is a precedent or not, I cannot say. It is put forward here as a solution for a constitutional difficulty which is without precedent.

Mr. de Valera

It is not a necessary solution.

May I suggest to the Taoiseach that he is basing his argument upon an assumption which appears to be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, namely, that it is not competent for this Dáil to consider a Bill returned from the Seanad and passed by a previous Dáil.

I am not basing it on any such assumption.

Is it not better to assume, in so far as the Constitution makes no provision to the contrary, that the Dáil is competent to consider the amendments? The Government can kill the Bill anyhow. If that is their main purpose, it can be done in the manner I have suggested; but, if we accept the theory that we are entitled to consider the amendments, it will be the better precedent to establish. Without raising controversial issues, may I say that the previous Government was entitled to assume from the manner in which the Local Elections Bill, 1947, was considered in the Dáil that it was a non-controversial measure and that its consideration by the Dáil would not be prejudiced no matter what the outcome of the general election might be? It may be that other occasions will arise where non-controversial Bills will be with the Seanad during a dissolution and it would be a better plan that these Bills should be completed by the new Government if they wanted to complete them rather than to assume that the Constitution debars that consideration by the new Dáil and to put the obligation on the Government to re-enact them completely if they want to put them into force. I suggest that if that is a precedent it is a wrong one and that the Government could get the same result and establish a better precedent by formally rejecting the amendments and then declining to pass the resolution contemplated by Article 23 of the Constitution.

What is or is not a desirable precedent is a matter of personal opinion in so far as it is not controlled by the provisions of the Constitution. If I were expressing my own personal opinion I would say that the reasonable and proper attitude to adopt pending the dissolution of the Dáil is that Bills or measures pending should forthwith be liquidated.

If that were the intention of the Constitution, it would be stated in the Constitution.

I do not know what the intention of the Constitution is or how it should be interpreted.

There is no written authority for the attitude of the Taoiseach, but, however, I think that the Taoiseach is in error if he assumes that the last Dáil adopted the attitude which he states was adopted towards the legislation which was introduced at the end of the last session. Other measures were before the House; amendments were put down and divisions were taken. This Bill did not go through the last Dáil because people were apathetic about it, but because they were in agreement with it.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 56.

  • Beirne, John
  • Belton, John.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Joseph P.
  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Esmonde, Sir John L.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finucane, Patrick.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, Joseph.
  • Keane, Seán.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kinane, Patrick.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Lehane, Con.
  • Lehane, Patrick D.
  • MacBride, Seán.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Commons, Bernard.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Davin, William.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Madden, David J.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick J.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.)
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Palmer, Patrick W.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Roddy, Joseph.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Sheehan, Michael.
  • Spring, Daniel.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Timoney, John J.
  • Tully, John.


  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breathnacb, Cormac.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Davern, Michael J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • De Valera, Vivion.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lahiffe, Robert.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lydon, Michael F.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McCann, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McGrath, Patrick.
  • Maguire, Patrick J.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Keyes; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Motion declared carried.