asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware of the fact that Mrs. Cronin was refused leave to visit her husband, who is a prisoner in Arbour Hill, in spite of the fact that she had a permit for such a visit from the Adjutant-General; and, if so, if he will state the reason for this refusal.

According to prison regulations prisoners are allowed one visit at the end of each period of three months for which they are incarcerated. The visit in question, which was subsequently refused, was a special visit allowable under discretionary powers vested in an officer appointed under the prison regulations. The cancellation was made consequent on the failure of the prisoner (Cronin) to comply with prison orders.

Was that particular special visit cancelled because the prisoner in question claimed the right under prison regulations, to wear his own clothes, and was the prisoner in question, in defiance of prison regulations, manhandled for a second time by your emissaries within Arbour Hill?

The cancellation was made because the prisoner Cronin broke prison regulations.

In what respect were prison regulations broken? Was the cancellation made because the prisoner claimed his right to wear his own clothes, and was it through the Minister's extra definition of what was contained in the regulations? Might I further ask was the prisoner manhandled for a second time because he pointed to the regulations and claimed his right under those regulations?

That particular prisoner and all other prisoners in Arbour Hill are treated strictly according to regulations.

Was the prisoner deprived of that visit because he refused to attend Communist lectures? You have already laughed at the murder of a man in Dunmanway. No wonder you laugh at the half-murdering of another Cork man in Arbour Hill.

I ask the Chair to insist that the Deputy will recall that remark.

There were prisoners in Arbour Hill when we came here.

Might I ask if this special visit to Commandant Cronin was cancelled because he refused to attend Communist lectures in Arbour Hill?

The Deputy has made a statement that a man was halfmurdered in prison.

That is my belief. He was beaten to the same degree as the other man died of in Dunmanway.

The point on which I wish the Chair to rule is this: the Deputy has suggested that members of the House laughed at the death of a man down in Dunmanway.

I have not only suggested it but I have stated it.

It is an untruth.

I have stated it.

It is absolutely true.

I refuse to withdraw the statement.

It is a disgusting attempt to make political propaganda out of it. If you want to talk about murder in Cork or anywhere else we will talk about it, and we may or may not say on whose soul that crime is.

You laughed at the Dunmanway victim.

How many did you murder?

That suggestion is false and I think the Deputy should be asked to withdraw it.

I was a witness to it and it is not false. Everyone in this Assembly was a witness and knows it is not false.

And everyone in this Assembly knows that it is a damned falsehood.

We heard you laugh.

I challenge Deputy O'Higgins. Did I laugh? Did I laugh at the murder of a man in Dunmanway? I am asking you a question.

The whole Party laughed.

It is a lie. I did not.

I am asking you did I laugh.

You are trying to make political propaganda out of the unfortunate man's death. Mr. Con Daly was a supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Get up and say if I laughed, for one, and that will settle it.

Deputies opposite might be surprised very soon as some of their own supporters may be charged with robbery from this man.

It would be much better if somebody would get up on behalf of that Party and apologise.

That side up there right around laughed.

It is a damned lie to say that the Labour Party laughed. You are trying to make political propaganda.

It is a lie. We did not laugh, and it is in keeping with the propaganda through the country.

The Labour Party were not mentioned. I said from there to there—look behind you at those benches.