Earlier in the debate, I drew attention to a statement made by Senator L'Estrange. You said at that time, a Chathaoirligh, that you would send for the official transript of the speech. I should now like to know the result.

The passage to which exception has been taken reads:

Mr. L'Estrange: We were trying to build up the country when the people on the other side were shooting down Irishmen, among them Kevin O'Higgins.

Was that in reply to an interruption? Perhaps if the Chair read the interruption, it would clarify it.

The remark by Senator Mullins?

Yes.

It reads:

What were you doing in 1931 after ten years of the first Cumann na nGaedheal Government?

I want to point out that is wrong. I did not say "What were you doing?" That was in relation to wheat. Senator L'Estrange was talking wheat and I asked what was left in 1931 after ten years Cumann na nGaedheal Government? Further, in regard to the statement "on the other side", the words "Fianna Fáil Party" were distinctly mentioned by Senator L'Estrange—the Fianna Fáil Party were shooting down Irishmen.

The Chair makes the admission it did not hear these particular words, but it feels that Senator L'Estrange might indicate that he was not referring to Senators on the other side of the House. I think that is due to the House.

I want to say the Official Report is correct. I was asked a question by Senator Mullins. I made the answer that is there and I am not withdrawing that answer. I do not think there is any reason or any necessity for doing that. It is a correct report of what I was asked and the answer is correct.

May I say to Senator L'Estrange that the question he was asked had reference to 1931?

About wheat.

I was not here, Sir, and I am only endeavouring to straighten this out.

We were here and heard him.

I am only going by the report read by the Cathaoirleach. Reference was made to the year 1931 and the answer of Senator L'Estrange, the words "to the other side" were presumably in reference to 1931. Is that not so?

Yes—to the question I was asked.

Therefore, there is no reflection on anybody here.

He referred to murderers.

It is very wrong. I know Senator L'Estrange and I know that his mind runs on murders from Ballyseedy to Fidel Castro. I am sick listening to it and I shall not listen to it in future. I shall insist he did allege the Fianna Fáil Party were shooting down people, Kevin O'Higgins and others. The time has come when a stop must be put to that.

I support that. I was the person who drew the attention of the Leader of the House to it and asked that you, Sir, have it withdrawn. I insist that the question by the Leader of the House was to the effect: what did they do up to 1931 for the wheat scheme when Fianna Fáil had to come in and develop it up to 300,000 acres. That was the inference. Senator L'Estrange's reply was that we people were shooting down men like Kevin O'Higgins. I insist, if the rules of the House allow me, that he be made withdraw it.

May I say nobody can insist on anything? That is the trouble about this. Senator L'Estrange was answering a statement which was made about 1931. I agree at once that the words "the other side" may be taken sometimes to have reference to the people on the other side of the House now, but I do suggest, in this particular case, as I have heard it now for the first time, the answer refers to 1931 and to the other side—the people who were opposed to the Cumann na nGaedheal Government in 1931.

Nothing so vague.

He was quite definite.

He was more positive than that.

I object to the interpretation being put on it by Senator Hayes.

People can object to anything. The words were before us with the reference to 1931. It has been made clear that is so, and if that is so, it is a reference to a great variety of people in 1931.

That is not so, and the Senator knows it.

You do not get a Senator to withdraw by accusing me of deliberate lying. The fact that some people here do not talk in the particular way in which other people want them to talk, does not mean they are out of order, and that people can insist on their talking in a particular way. The only way to settle this is to accept Senator L'Estrange's statement that he was referring to the state of affairs in 1931 and that is that.

Did he not refer to some people——

There must not be a debate on this. The Chair is lenient and wants to get this matter peacefully adjusted. I did ask Senator L'Estrange to indicate he was not referring to the members on the other side of the House.

I was answering the question I was asked.

You were not asked any question.

The reporters are independent people.

Answer the chair.

The reporters are independent people and I do not believe they are bullied by Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. Senator Mullins accused me that my mind was running on murder and things like that.

I said blood and murder.

I escaped all that. I was asked a certain question by Senator Mullins. I answered that question. I have nothing further to add to it or to take from it. If some people have guilty consciences as regards that, it is not my fault.

That is out of order.

It is quite obvious Senator L'Estrange is making the same type of character assassination as he has got away with in this House up to now. Up to now, we have turned the other cheek, but I personally do not intend to turn the other cheek any longer. I have nothing on my conscience that I am ashamed of, from 1922 to the present time, and I shall not sit here and allow Senator L'Estrange to remain in this House as a member in good standing, while defying the laws of decency and good order.

This matter must come to an end. May I once again draw Senator L'Estrange's attention to the wording of what he said: "We were trying to build up the country when the people on the other side were shooting down Irishmen, among them Kevin O'Higgins." The Chair has no doubt in its mind that there is an ambiguity in that statement and feels that Senator L'Estrange ought to indicate that he is not indicting people on the other side of the House. I think the issue is a very simple one.

I answered the question I was asked and it is the people who were on the other side in 1931.

The reference is not to the members now occupying seats on the other side of the House?

What is the reference to Kevin O'Higgins then?

The Senator was not referring to Senators on the other side of the house.

I think I answered the question and I am not prepared to give any further answer.

I want to be very helpful to the Seanad and to the Senator. The Senator is not accusing the members on the other side of the House of being guilty of the murder of Kevin O'Higgins.

I did not make that indictment against anybody on the other side of the House.

I wish to move that, unless Senator L'Estrange gives an unqualified withdrawal of that statement, he be suspended from the service of the House.

You cannot do that.

This is a political smokescreen. They do not want wheat in the papers tomorrow—that is quite obvious for the past five minutes.

May I put this—

The matter is now closed.

May I put a general point of order? Nobody can slander a class of people.

It has been done.

We were told by the Minister for Agriculture that the members of the Fine Gael Party in this House were character assassins. Being experienced and being calm and having a clear conscience, I did not say anything.

If the Senator checks that with the Official Report, he will find that the Minister did not say that.

He did.

He did not say it in the way the Senator put it. He referred to "certain" character assassains.

The matter is now closed. As the business on the Order Paper has been concluded, I am now taking the motion on the adjournment by Senator Quinlan.

What exactly was the end of the matter?

I have ruled that the matter has been disposed of.

So the Senator gets away with it.

Senator Quinlan.

All that you want is that there will be nothing about wheat in the papers tomorrow. It is just a political smokescreen.