asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures if, in the coming election, there will be freedom of speech and freedom of the Press for all candidates.

I take it that the Deputy is referring to the rights and liberties which an individual is lawfully entitled to exercise without detriment to the rights and liberties of the rest of the community, and the answer is yes.

Will the Minister say on what ground an election advertisement, tendered a week ago, was refused publication by his Department, and in what way did that harmless advertisement interfere with the rights and liberties of the people of the country?

I take it the Deputy is asking about an advertisement which appeared in two papers here on the 30th of last month?

I am referring to an advertisement intended for publication in those papers and which was refused publication by the Minister's Department.

On the 29th April an advertisement was submitted by a Dublin daily. It was an advertisement from the Deputy, but before that was dealt with a second advertisement was submitted, and this advertisement was passed in full, and it appeared in two Dublin papers on the 30th April.

Why was the original advertisement not passed?

The original advertisement was not refused publication.

What right has the Government to interfere with the rights and liberties of a citizen on the eve of a general election and on a matter concerned with the election?

The Deputy or his agent censored this advertisement, I take it.

Keep quiet—keep your hair on. I want an answer.

On the 29th April there were two advertisements submitted.

Two different advertisements.

The Minister must be allowed to reply.

One must have been withdrawn, otherwise the second advertisement would not have been put in.

The first one was censored.

The first advertisement was censored by the Deputy.

It was censored by the Minister.

No, it was censored by the Deputy or his agent. It must have been withdrawn.

The first one was not withdrawn by the advertising agency, McEvoy's of Middle Abbey Street, who submitted it to two Dublin dailies. I was informed it was refused publication by the Minister's Department. I varied the advertisement and then it was published.

The Deputy will have to make inquiries about this matter and I think he will find that it was censored either by himself or by his agent.

I propose to raise this matter on the adjournment. It is a very serious thing to deny freedom of speech and freedom of publication.

There is evidently a question of fact at issue.

There is no question of fact at issue, with all respect. There is, however, a question of lack of fact by the Minister. It is his way of wriggling out of it.