I move:—
That the Bank of Ireland Bill, 1929, be read a second time.
Bank of Ireland Bill, 1929—Second Stage.
I rise to oppose this Bill, and in doing so I want to go into some details and to analyse the increased powers which the Bank of Ireland are seeking. I feel that on this question of banking it is inopportune to introduce any new legislation at the moment, or to extend the powers of any existing banking institution. Many of us feel that the whole banking position is one that is giving grave cause for anxiety from the social and the economic points of view. We feel, in short, that the existing system, as it is operating in Ireland at present, is in no way meeting the economic needs of this country, is not attuned to the needs of the Government of the country, or of the industrialists, or of the agriculturalists. Comparatively recently we had a Banking Commission which outlined various proposals, some of which were carried through, but we find that the banking system, as operating to-day, is, in the main, the same as it was before the Banking Commission sat. I think it is not unfair to say that in the main the Banking Commission was more a bankers' Commission than a Commission on banking, and that if this country is to progress, if the wealth of the country in the form of credit and money, which is largely concentrated in the hands of the group of bankers who are operating here, is to be fully utilised, very drastic changes indeed will be necessary to make credit more readily available, to control the resources of the country at present held by the bankers, or at least, to have a supervisory guidance in what they are doing, or in what they are going to do with these resources in the shape of credits, lodgments, etc., in their hands.
We all fully appreciate the delicacy of the banking machine; we all realise that it is a delicate instrument, where anything in the nature of drastic changes and anything in the nature of a revolutionary attitude on finance might cause temporary disabilities in the economic order of things. But we also appreciate, and perhaps even more fully, the undeveloped nature of this country, the paradoxical position in which we find ourselves, with tremendous resources held by the bankers, and the comparative difficulty, if not the great difficulty, of securing the necessary credits to carry out the drastic economic and social reforms that are necessary for the progress of the country. I feel that in viewing the economic aspect of things in Ireland we have got to keep two points of view in mind. I yield to nobody in my desire to see industry on a properly organised basis, with efficiency and with proper administration; but I also claim that there is another aspect to-day, an aspect which is affecting the present Government and that will affect all future Governments, and it is the fundamental duty of the Government to see that that aspect is properly dealt with. I speak of the position as regards human life, happiness, and such control exercised over the resources and the material wealth of the country as will enable the people to exist and to develop according to the natural resources at their disposal. Our natural resources are not infinite, but they are very considerable, and a tremendous amount of work lies at hand to be done with them. I claim that a great deal of that work is held up owing to the difficulty of finance—housing, business generally, the development of industry, even the work of government itself. We are faced with the extreme position that we have resources available, used by the banking machinery to establish credit in foreign countries—in England, in America, and anywhere else where facilities exist for investing capital, while at the same time the Minister for Finance, and any Minister for Finance who will follow him, is faced with the prospect of having to pay very dearly for any money which is required for national development.
Now, I submit that that is a very important factor in the life of the community. It is at the root of most of our social and economic difficulties and grievances, and if we view banking institutions and other enterprises mainly of an industrial nature purely from the profit-making point of view, I claim that we are not going to progress in life, in civilisation or in commercial activities. I do not propose at present to go into all the economic arguments that I might use as a result of experience in highly industrialised countries; I want to keep as far as possible to the purely banking situation and to deal with that. I do not propose to enunciate any dogmatic theory as regards what we ought to do with our banks, but I do argue, and I hope that I will have the majority of the House with me, that the present system, whereby we export anything from £150,000,000 to £170,000,000 of our available resources, while the country is starved for national development and for credit, is far from satisfactory. Money, like any other commodity, ought to be, to some degree at least, subject to market conditions, and it is absurd for us to have to pay the exorbitant rate of interest at present being charged by the Irish banks, whilst there is so much money in reserve in the hands of the bankers. I hold that the supply of money that is in the hands of the bankers properly belongs to the credit of the community, and as such ought to be made reasonably available for the people who are trying to live in this country.
It can be argued, and no doubt it will be, that a banker's function is to take every possible care of the money and resources placed in his charge by his customers. That is so. We all know that banks have to maintain large reserves of fluid capital to meet any calls that may be made on them. But I think if we examine carefully the balance sheets of the various banking institutions in Ireland we will see that they are very far away indeed from the possibility of any risks, that the proportion of the exported capital to what is readily available in Ireland is very large, that it is, in fact, out of all proportion to what they need to export, and that it is out of all proportion to what we can afford to export.
Another aspect that will probably be urged is that bankers must find a field of investment with security and with profits. That is perfectly reasonable. But I want it explained to me, if anybody can do so, why we have to float portion of our Irish loans in London or in New York at, say, 5 per cent. on an issue at 97, whilst we have these resources available, and whilst keeping in mind, mark you, at the same time the very substantial profits and reserves which these banks have accumulated. In other words, in my opinion, bankers have got to face whether they are part of the Irish nation, of Irish machinery and of Irish life, and if they are going to attune themselves to the necessities of this country, or are going to be simply vultures in their attitude, out to make money at any cost, irrespective of the Government's needs or of the economic needs of the industrial or agricultural communities.
I would direct your attention to one or two figures which epitomise the position as regards the banks. I find on analysing their last balance sheets that the total paid-up capital of the ten banks—remember, I am dealing at present with all the banks in Ireland—amounts to £8,762,000. The reserves that they have accumulated and their carry-forward, as disclosed in the same balance sheets, amount to £10,042,000. The net profits for the period of twelve months, taking their last two balance sheets, amount to £1,861,000. The dividends paid last year for the twelve months amount to £1,109,148. In other words, the total net profits, after allowing for the carry-forward and reserves—their open reserves at all events, and, I presume, quite a considerable amount of hidden reserves—on the year's working amounted to 21 per cent.; the dividends paid averaged slightly over 13 per cent., and I presume the other 8 per cent. approximately went as an addition to their reserves. This certainly seems to be the one industry in Ireland that requires no protection whatever, and it would also seem to be the one industry that has maintained its export trade, two positions which would be very desirable in every industry but banking, and which are very undesirable indeed in banking, in my opinion.
To come to the Bill itself, I do not know if there is any immediate worry or anxiety on the part of the directors of the Bank of Ireland to get the additional powers that they are seeking in this Bill. It can be argued that the powers that are sought would be available to them if they were a limited liability company, but they are not. They have their own charters, dating back to 1782. These charters are very difficult indeed to analyse, and I think we would require almost expert legal advice to guide us on them. But there are certain obvious things which stand out, and these I propose to deal with as briefly as possible. In Section 2, paragraph (a), power is sought to reduce or to increase the number of directors. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, not only for the Bank of Ireland, but for any ordinary trading company. It might be desirable at any time to increase your board, and it might be desirable to get a particular man to join your board. But there is one thing that I think ought to be laid down, not only as far as the Bank of Ireland or any other bank is concerned, but as far as every company here is concerned, and that is that we ought not to have any alien sitting on any board of control here. I submit that that is dangerous from the national point of view, and in view of our weak economic position. I hesitate very much to refer to something that was done very recently as regards the Board of the Bank of Ireland. I do not know why it was done, but certainly I take as an insult to all decent national opinion in this country the action of the Bank of Ireland recently in appointing as one of their new directors a gentleman who is well known to our people in the North of Ireland, Sir George S. Clark. I do not hesitate to name him when I have referred to him at all. His record in his anti-Irishism, in his opposition to everything decent, in his antagonism to all things that would make for the national good, to go into these matters only, without going into the worst phases of his actions in Belfast, was enough to make one man —myself—feel outraged when this man was foisted on the people of Ireland as one of the directors of the Bank of Ireland. Possibly there was a certain reason for this step.
Considerable litigation has been going on with regard to Messrs. Workman and Clark and the North-umberland Shipping Company. I do not mention this with any particular bias, but I do feel concerned about it, and I do say that, in my opinion, it is wrong and is a dangerous principle to allow any alien or any individual who is not a citizen of the Saorstát to sit on a board here. That may be a wrong view-point, but it is mine. I feel that if industry is going to be built up on decent lines we must have people of the right way of thinking, people who are genuinely Irish in their outlook. I hold it is dangerous to bring in an alien for such important positions, and particularly for the board of such an important bank. Section 3, sub-section (2), deals with additional capital stock. Here again I feel that if it is practicable—I am not going to urge this very vehemently, because I can see various aspects and difficulties—to have a majority percentage of the shares of Saorstát companies and of Irish banks held by citizens of the Saorstát, that should be done, and I hope to see sooner or later—it was one of my reasons for opposition to this Bill— certain legislation introduced which will protect its industries and not merely make them branch-agency houses for every big combine, both in England and in America. If possible, the majority of the shares ought to be held by citizens of An Saorstát. If that is not possible I want to hear why it is not. In the flotation of companies, whether in the case of a credit corporation or anything else, the Irish people ought to have the option and ought to be forced, if possible, to put their money into them.
Take Section 5, paragraph (c)—I am now coming to the important things that, to my mind, are a grave potential danger in this Bill—it enables the Bank to acquire the whole or any part of the banking business within or outside An Saorstát. That is asking for very considerable powers indeed, and whilst it may mean nothing, it will give them power to do anything. We cannot afford to risk giving these powers, to leave the country open to various mergers, amalgamations, or anything else which would be prejudicial to the business and the agricultural communities, and which might be very prejudicial even to the Government itself. That may not be the intention, but the Bill contains inherently in it power to form an amalgamation or a ring of bankers within the country, or to have a fusion of three or four banks, which would make it impossible for people to negotiate business at all, and, as I say, might make it impossible for the Government to negotiate financial measures. That is a power that I hold we should not give, and I strongly appeal to the House not to give it. Paragraph (f) of the same section seems to suggest that arrangements could be made of a similar nature on a selling basis; in other words, that on certain terms and conditions the Bank of Ireland, the largest bank in the country, could be merged either with one of the large London rings of banks or with one of the American rings. No doubt, such a thing is not contemplated, but queer things come to pass, and let us remember that at present the whole tendency of the banking machinery of the world is to consolidate and to form itself into such a consolidated force that it would become the dictator of financial policy everywhere. That has happened; do not forget that it has happened in various so-called free countries in America that are at present owned by American bankers, who dictate not only what is to be done with the money but who dictate to the United States Government what military and naval action they shall take in those countries. Such a situation is in existence to-day, and that is a position we cannot contemplate with equanimity. We must not give anybody the power to sell a banking institution.
Again, it may be argued that if the Bank of Ireland were a limited liability company, as some of the other banks are, it would have this power. Allowing that that is so, that is a power that we must at the first opportunity take from them, and we must not be in the paradoxical position of having passed a Bill like this, or having admitted that a Bill like this was desirable, or could be tolerated in the case of the Bank of Ireland, and then, eighteen months hence, come along with legislation upsetting what we had done. I hold that the danger of foreign capital is inherent in that clause, and I hope that the House will have sense enough to see the grave risk that is involved in it.
Paragraph (p) deals with bullion. Bullion, of course, and the freedom to operate in bullion, is essential to the banks, but it is a privilege or a power that should be carefully watched. At the moment I do not know how we stand as regards bullion and reserves of bullion. If, as I presume, our reserves, including bullion, are in the hands of English bankers in the Bank of England or elsewhere, I submit that the matter requires very grave consideration. After all, a crisis might develop in England, and the only security we have is to have reserves of bullion under our own control. That may be the case, but I do not think it is. I think that any powers that are granted to bankers in Ireland in regard to the control of bullion ought to be exercised under the direct guidance of the Minister for Finance of the time, and that the country ought to concentrate upon having control of its own reserves in that form. This to some extent has been covered by the Currency Commission. I suggest that the position is due for review, that it requires review, and that a very definite safeguarding attitude should be taken up by all people, irrespective of Party, on this issue. We have various other anomalies in Free State banking which do not directly apply on this Bank of Ireland Bill, but which it may not be any harm to mention. We have banks operating here with headquarters in Northern Ireland and in London. I think that is an anomalous position and that it should be looked into.
We know, for instance, that the Ulster Bank has more branches in the Twenty-six Counties than it has in the Six Counties. We know that most industrial developments in Belfast were financed by resources accumulated in the agricultural districts throughout the country, which means of course that a very considerable amount of their strength was derived from what was known in the North in my time as "the South and West." I do not know that we want to adopt a very harsh attitude on that. We have various issues to face in the North eventually, and I hope soon, and we do not want to make trade, banking, or any other line that forms a link between the North-East and this part of the world, any more difficult than at present, but I suggest, in view of the attitude that has been taken up in the North-East, that we ought seriously to consider what we are going to do about the control of the operations of these banks throughout the country, and also what we are going to do about the note issue which has already been divided between some of these banks. Speaking of note issue, we have to remember that the Bank of Ireland and all the other banks derive very considerable profit from the handling of the note issue. I do not know if that is the only way to do it or not, but it seems to me that in our present rather struggling condition we are handing away a considerable amount of the profits on the note issue that could be acquired by the State. That may be wrong. I do not think it is, and I would like to hear arguments against it. These are some views, not only of myself personally, but, I feel, of the Party I represent. Apart from Party, I hope that will be the attitude of all sane, intelligent people who are interested in safeguarding our very vital industry of banking. It is a matter that is going to affect everything in Ireland.
I hold that money ought to be cheaper in Ireland, and that it can be made cheaper. I hold that it is an absurdity for the Government of this country to have to go begging and seeking loans outside the country, irrespective of whatever Ministry is in power, while we have these enormous reserves at the disposal of our banks. The bankers may say: "We have subscribed liberally to the National Loan; we are willing to give all facilities possible to the Government, and to everyone else that wants them within certain limits." Now, I submit that they are not doing that, and have not done it, because we must remember that the banking institutions, as much as any other institution or any individuals in the country, must be subject to the laws of the State, and their security as a whole is bound up with the security of the State. If the State is insecure then the banker is insecure. If the State is secure then the banker can have no better security than the whole State to guarantee his loans. For these reasons I move that the Bill as it stands be rejected, and I hope the majority of those present will see eye to eye with me and reject the Bill.
I suggest that a continuance of this debate is likely to serve no really useful purpose. This Bill is a Private Bill and it is certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with or it would not be before us. The proper and the most convenient procedure for dealing with a Private Bill, especially a Private Bill of this character, is that it should be referred, as is the proper and regular practice, to a Select Committee, where these things can be threshed out, and the merits and demerits of the Bill thoroughly investigated. It would be explained there by counsel. It cannot be explained by counsel here. Here it can only be explained by people who have special knowledge of a highly technical question, and some of them are interested parties. Members of this House are interested parties, and if they are forced into the position of having to explain the Bill I do not think that would be a right position for them to be placed in. That is shown by the fact that they are not competent to sit on this Select Committee, showing that as a result of experience it is much better the thing should be done in another way, that is, by a committee composed of disinterested people, and that the purport of the Bill should be explained to them by counsel. If we debate it here we shall get ourselves into a very technical discussion.
Cathaoirleach
Is not that rather in the nature of a lecture than a speech dealing with the Bill?
I oppose the motion. I am prepared to move that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. I am not sure whether I am the right person to do that or not, but it is the usual practice. It is a technical Bill and, not being a person with technical banking experience, I am not going to attempt to refer to what is in it, any more than to say that all that is sought is to give the same powers and the same facilities for the conduct of business to the Bank of Ireland that are now possessed by other Irish banks. That is all that is sought, and no more. I think that what the Bank asks for is only perfectly reasonable and in the interests not only of the Bank of Ireland, but of the public, because if the Bank of Ireland are not given the same facilities in the conduct of their business that the other banks have, then they cannot serve their customers as well as they would be able to do if the Bill were passed.
One question which Senator Connolly raised I feel I should say something about. The Senator referred to Sir George Clark's appointment as a director. I have nothing to do with the Bank of Ireland, or with any other bank. Sir George Clark was a director of a company in the service of which I was for a number of years, and he was my chairman for some of those years. The real point is whether he is a useful director, and I suggest the shareholders of the Bank are entitled to decide, and are the most competent people to decide that. I am quite certain that they did not appoint Sir George Clark because he had in time past held certain political views, but because they thought he would be useful to them in their business. Sir George Clark has not been, to my knowledge, what anyone would call an active politician for a long time.
Senators
"Oh, oh!""The Black Squad.""The Pogrom."
He is primarily a good man of business. He is entitled to his political opinions, but I am quite certain he is enough man of business not to allow his political views to interfere in any way with the discharge of his duties as a director. He will only do what he considers best for the concern of which he is a director. I think, as I said, if we continue this debate we shall get involved in highly technical arguments which we really are not competent to deal with. I think it would be much better that there should be a full examination of the Bill, and that that should be done in Committee, as is the case with other Private Bills. I am prepared to move that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
Cathaoirleach
I cannot take that motion. The Bill has first to pass the Second Reading. It may be defeated on that stage. If it passes the Second Stage such a motion will be in order, but not at this stage.
I think it would be a mistake to reject the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not advocating its final passage, but every point that Senator Connolly has made has been purely a Committee point. He dealt, in so far as his speech referred to the Bill, with specific points, each of which are definitely matters for consideration by a Committee. I think it would be unwise to prevent this stage of this Bill being passed because there are defects in the banking system generally, even grave defects. I take it that this Bill is intended as a serious measure, that those responsible for it have gone to considerable expense in its preparation, and if the objections of the Senator are confined to the matters to which he made specific allusion, I think we should a least have an investigation as to whether or not those objections can be overcome in Committee before we decide to reject it. I urge, therefore, that the Senator who moved its rejection should not press that, but should allow the Bill to go through its Second Reading so that we might then investigate how far his objections to the banking system generally find a basis for continued objection to this Bill. It may be that upon consideration on the Committee Stage we may find that this Bill will in no way, if passed, stabilise these existing defects, but that the passing of the Bill may be of some convenience to those concerned. I think we ought at least subject it to the analysis of the Committee Stage before making up our minds either finally to pass it or to reject it.
I listened very attentively to Senator Connolly's speech. He gave us a long review of banking in Ireland generally. It seems to me that he had very little to say to the Bill before the House. We thought the Bill was an extremely simple Bill, so simple that it was hardly worth introducing. All we ask the Seanad to do is to amend the old charter of the Bank of Ireland, and to bring it up-to-date, so as to put the Bank of Ireland in the same position as all the other banks. Does anyone really object to that? Certainly Senator Connolly did not say that he did. He attacked the banking system generally, and made a speech that would require very careful answering, but he did not suggest that the Bank of Ireland should not be placed on the same footing as the other banks. He carefully avoided that. He did refer to one or two matters that were peculiar to the Bank of Ireland. He referred to the question of the co-option of a director. When Senator Connolly made his first speech in this House I was charmed with the way he opened, and with the references he made to what his attitude was, and what the attitude of the Seanad should be. He said: "Let us forget everything that anyone has done in the past; let the past be wiped out, and let us deal only with the present."
I do not think I said that.
I apologise if I misquoted the Senator. With regard to our co-option of a Northern director, the policy of the Bank of Ireland, and the policy of the business men of Dublin, is to show that there is no division between North and South. We do not look into anyone's politics, religion, or anything else. We try to get the best business man and the man we thought most likely to help the institution. That was the only reason which suggested our choice in this instance.
I do not think the House knows so much about Sir George Clark as we unfortunate people who lived in the North do.
Cathaoirleach
A good many people here seem to know a lot about him.
If they want any more details, while I do not want to make them public here, I can supply them, either to Sir George Clark or to any of his friends here.
Will the Senator forgive me if I say that I only pointed out that the view we took of the situation was, I believe, the right one.
As a member of the public, I was only pointing out the view we take.
I would ask Senators to banish from their minds all things that do not concern the Bill. I put this question: Is it right that the Bank of Ireland should be in a different position from all other banks? The Bill proposes to put it in the same position and to remove defects in its time-honoured charter. I hope the House will pass this stage of the Bill.
I am in somewhat of a dilemma with regard to the Second Reading of the Bill. It is put forward as a Private Bill and no doubt technically it is a Private Bill, but it has very public implications, and it seems to me that one ought to treat a Bill with so many public results dependent upon it more as a Public Bill than a Private Bill at this stage, and that there ought to be from the promoters, or from some spokesman, an explanation of the purport and intentions of the Bill, such as is given on the Second Reading of a Public Bill. Senator Sir Walter Nugent and also Senator Bagwell stated that the purpose of the Bill is to put the Bank of Ireland in identically the same position as all the other private banks. That is a defence of the Bill and no doubt that will be the result of the Bill. But there arises in my mind a considerable number of questions as to what is the present position of the Bank of Ireland under its charter, and under various enactments passed in respect of that Bank, to the Government, to the Bank of England, and to the other banks in this country. To the man in the street who is not technically familiar with the operation of the banking system, it would seem that the Bank of Ireland is in a somewhat privileged position as regards the Government, and in relation to the other banks. If that is so, then it seem to me that the Bank wants to retain a privileged position, while, at the same time, having the same freedom as the private banks, and I would like, before committing myself to the principle of the Bill, to have some general assurances in that respect, if in no other. The dilemma I find myself in is something like this: For the House to approve of the principle of the Bill, or for any individual member of the House to approve of the principle, with the feeling that it is essentially bad, but that more information is required, and that that information can be obtained in committee, might be deceiving the promoters, and the promoters of a Private Bill ought not, perhaps, to be put to the expense of following out Private Bill procedure in committee, if there is any fear that after all that expense is gone to the House is in fact against the principle.
To have formal approval of the principle is a mere formality, though the feeling of the House is probably against the principle, is placing the promoters of the Bill in a false position. If the promoters of the Bill with their eyes open, knowing that there is a considerable amount of feeling against giving the Bank of Ireland special privileges, still desire to proceed with the Committee Stage entailing all the expenses it will involve, it might be desirable that a Second Reading should be given. But I am not convinced that that is the right course. I think in a matter of this kind we ought to declare our feelings regarding the principle, and to me the principle of this Bill is that the powers of the Bank of Ireland should be considerably enlarged, making them free to enter into any agreement with any of the big banking combines, either in England or in America, to sell themselves out if they wish to any of these combines, or buy up all the small banks in the country if they wish, and generally as a matter of private interest only, to do what they wish with the banking system.
It is too late in the day to talk of these banks as merely private institutions. They are not. They are privately owned and run for private ends but they are doing public work, and to my mind we have arrived at a stage when a privately owned institution should, at least, show that it is doing a public work in the public interest, and not doing a public work in a private interest. I think that it is quite true to say that the directors of this bank, and the recently elected Northern director, are in it simply as a matter of business. Sir George Clark was mentioned and it was stated in his defence, and in defence of the directors, that he was a man who did not allow any political views to interfere with whatever he thought good for the business he was connected with. That is exactly what I object to. Here is a director appointed as representing Northern interests to the Bank of Ireland. The Bank of Ireland has undoubtedly some special relations with the State here, and that director has many business associations which are not friendly to the Irish Free State. It was stated that the interest of Sir George Clark and the other directors is in serving the institution with which they are connected, and that he is not going to allow any political influences to interfere with his business interests.
Now, that is, to my mind, the principle involved in this Bill, and in the discussions around the Bill. It is because the directors are interested only in the institution as a profit-making business and are not primarily interested in the public well-being, that they represent a bank which is a national bank in fact but run for private interest. I can confirm what Senator Connolly stated about the political prejudices of the gentleman named. I am not going to enlarge upon that now, but I know quite a lot, and I know, too, that the business interests that he is serving will be always paramount, and always were paramount, over the public interests of the community in which he is living, or the Irish Free State interests, which might occasionally run counter to the business interests with which he is primarily connected, and I think it has been confessed that that outlook is not merely the outlook of the Northern director recently appointed, but the outlook of directors generally, and that they make a boast of it. In some recent observations regarding the banking systems in other countries—perhaps it has been claimed in regard to the banks here—it has been stated that while they are nominally private institutions they are, in fact, quasi-public institutions doing public work, and have always regard to the State interests and the general public well-being. That might be so. When the public well-being runs counter to their interests, as it sometime does, then we were assured here to-day that it is always the business interests that prevail, and it is because of that that it seems to me we ought to be slow to encourage the promoters of the Bill to think that there is approval of the principle of this Bill, the principle being to enlarge the powers of the Bank of Ireland without inquiry into the way in which they have used the privileges which they have had under previous enactments. What those privileges are I am not aware.
I do not pretend to understand what the special relations of the Bank of Ireland are with the Government, and how far those special relations affect other banks and the general credit of the country. But, on the face of it, in view of the curious and otherwise unexplainable special relations that there have been since the Free State was established, between the Bank and the Government, I presume there must be some special privileges attached to the Bank of Ireland by charter and by Act of Parliament. Now, if there is going to be a Committee Stage of this Bill, I think it ought to be understood that the Bank will be expected to give a full account of its stewardship before it can reasonably ask for an extension of its powers. I think it would depend, as far as I am personally concerned, upon what may be stated on behalf of this Bill whether I would vote for it going to a Committee or that it should be rejected. But if it goes to a Committee, I think the promoters ought to clearly understand that there is no breach of faith if those who may vote for the Second Reading will ultimately vote against the passing of the Bill.
Question put—"That this Bill be now read a second time."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 37; Níl, 13.
Tá
- John Bagwell.
- William Barrington.
- Sir Edward Bellingham.
- Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
- Alfred Byrne.
- Mrs. Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- James Dillon.
- James G. Douglas.
- Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
- Michael Fanning.
- Dr. O. St. J. Gogarty.
- The Earl of Granard.
- Mrs. Stopford Green.
- Sir John Purser Griffith.
- Henry S. Guinness.
- Major-General Sir William Hickie.
- P.J. Hooper.
- Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
- Sir John Keane.
- Cornelius Kennedy.
- Patrick W. Kenny.
- Thomas Linehan.
- The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
- James MacKean.
- John MacLoughlin.
- General Sir Bryan Mahon.
- Seán Milroy.
- William John Molloy.
- Sir Walter Nugent.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- Michael F. O'Hanlon.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
- Dr. William O'Sullivan.
- James J. Parkinson.
- Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
- Richard Wilson.
Níl
- Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
- Michael Comyn, K.C.
- Joseph Connolly.
- William Cummins.
- Michael Duffy,
- Thomas Farren.
- Thomas Foran.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Seán E. MacEllin.
- Colonel Moore.
- John T. O'Farrell.
- Séumas Robinson.
- Thomas Toal.
Motion declared carried.