Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Jun 1935

Vol. 57 No. 6

Wicklow Mining Lease—Appointment of Select Committee.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move:

That a Select Committee consisting of eleven Deputies, to be appointed by the Committee of Selection and with power to send for persons, papers and documents, be established publicly to investigate and report to the Dáil on the following allegations made by Deputy P. McGilligan:—

That the demise of the State Mining rights in respect of certain lands in County Wicklow, made on 1st November, 1934, by way of take note or prospecting lease, to Senator Michael Comyn, K.C., and Deputy R. Briscoe by the Minister for Industry and Commerce was—

(a) made to Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe because they were political associates of the Minister,

(b) made under conditions of secrecy, and

(c) made at a time that the Minister was aware that another party or other parties were proposing to seek a demise of the same rights, on terms more advantageous to the State;

and that the action of the Minister in making such demise was improper; and further, publicly to investigate and to report to the Dáil on all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the application for and the grant of the said lease, and all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the agreement made by the lessees for the assignment of their rights and obligations under the said lease.

The motion proposes the establishment of a Select Committee to investigate certain allegations, set out in the motion, made here last week by Deputy McGilligan and also to investigate and report to the Dáil on the facts and circumstances surrounding the application for the mining lease in question and the facts and circumstances surrounding the agreement made by the lessees for the assignment of their rights and obligations under that lease. I do not know if it is intended to have any discussion upon this motion at this stage. I have framed this motion in the widest possible terms. It covers wider ground than that covered by the motion in the name of Deputy Cosgrave. I do not know if the motion in the name of Deputy McGilligan is to be taken seriously.

Before, however, dealing with that matter, I should like to make one or two corrections which, I think, it is necessary to make. In the course of the Dáil discussion on Wednesday last, I stated that the company known as Irish Prospectors, Limited, approached the Department of Industry and Commerce in 1930 concerning certain gold prospecting plans and that Mr. Joseph McGrath was a member of that company. I find now that while Mr. McGrath was associated with the group which included Mr. Summerfield and Mr. Heiser, now members of Irish Prospectors, Limited, and which contemplated the registration of a company under the title of Consolidated Goldfields of Ireland, Limited, and which approached Deputy McGilligan, as Minister for Industry and Commerce in that year, he has no connection with the company called Irish Prospectors, Limited, which latter company was only formally registered quite recently. In fact, I am informed that when certain action, taken early this year by Irish Prospectors, Limited, left the impression on the minds of certain people that Mr. McGrath was associated with them, he took definite action to remove that impression.

The second matter relates to a report which appeared in the Irish Times yesterday and which created an impression that, I think, in the public interest should be removed. The report is as follows:—

"Further prospecting in what is rapidly becoming known as the ‘Wicklow Gold Rush' has just been revealed.

"Borings are now being made in the townland of Glenogue, on the borders of the Counties Wicklow and Wexford. It is understood that they are being made on behalf of Captain H.P. Mahon, of Strokestown, Co. Roscommon, and the work is being directed by an Australian mining engineer.

"The prospectors are reticent about their activities, but it is believed that they are hopeful of striking gold in the southern end of the Wicklow lode, most of which is controlled by the licence granted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to Senator Michael Comyn, K.C., and Mr. Robert Briscoe, T.D.

"The townland of Glenogue, where the shaft is being sunk by the new group, is south of the townlands and south of the mountain where the deposits are located in which Senator Comyn and Mr. Briscoe are interested."

Captain Packenham Mahon made application for a prospecting lease on the 15th July, 1930. He repeated that application on the 23rd December, 1931, and the prospecting lease was issued to him on the 30th June, 1932—that is, four months before the lease was issued to Senator Comyn and to Deputy Briscoe. With regard to the statement that most of the Wicklow lode "is controlled by the licence granted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to Senator Michael Comyn, K.C., and Mr. Robert Briscoe, T.D.," that statement is entirely incorrect. The licence granted to Senator Michael Comyn and Mr. Robert Briscoe covers three townlands in the vicinity of Woodenbridge in the County of Wicklow. The licence granted to Captain Packenham Mahon covers eight townlands and part of 19 townlands in the County of Wexford, and part of one townland in the County of Wicklow, an area of about ten times the size of the area covered by the lease given to Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe.

The allegations which are stated in this motion which appears in my name as having been made by Deputy McGilligan were not, of course, made in so many words. Deputy McGilligan did not, in fact, make any specific allegation, but merely implied that charges of this nature could be laid against the Department of Industry and Commerce. Now, I gather from the terms of his motion, in which he repeats, not his allegations but his insinuations, that he is disposed to deny that he made these charges at all. I am afraid, however, that I cannot be satisfied with a denial expressed in that form. In the interests of the country, in the interests of the Government and in my own interest it is desirable that the implications of his speech should be definitely cleared up. Deputy McGilligan's speech definitely implied, (1) that I gave this licence to Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe because they were political associates of mine; (2) that I gave it under conditions of secrecy; and (3) that I gave it when I knew that other parties might have taken a lease of the same property on conditions more advantageous to the State.

The only circumstances under which I would agree to the Committee not being set up for the purpose of considering these allegations would be a very explicit statement made here by Deputy McGilligan that not merely did he not make these charges but that nothing which he said is to be taken as implying these charges. Unless we get a clear and explicit withdrawal of these charges, or of these implications, by Deputy McGilligan I must insist that the Committee be set up to investigate the allegations.

It is true that when I first circulated my motion it contained only a reference to these allegations. My intention at the time was to confine this inquiry to the allegations made by Deputy McGilligan, but as we have had here in the past a number of allegations of that description unsupported by evidence made against different members of the Government, I felt the time had come when the baselessness of these allegations should be definitely exposed. I felt that Deputy McGilligan had gone one too far, and that it was desirable that he should be given the opportunity of proving his allegations or withdrawing them. Since then, however, I have been approached by Deputy Briscoe and Senator Comyn, who urged me strongly that I should agree that the investigation should cover not merely the actions of the Department of Industry and Commerce in relation to this lease but also matters with which I as Minister am not concerned, namely, the circumstances surrounding the agreement made by them with another party for the demise of the rights and obligations under their lease. I felt it was fair to these parties that no implication should be given by confining the inquiry that they had anything to conceal. I felt, as they had urged, that it was in their interest that all the facts surrounding this matter should be made public so that the members of the Dáil and the public would have a full opportunity of judging for themselves whether there were any circumstances in relation to this that either they or myself or the officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce dealing with this matter had reason to be ashamed of. I am quite satisfied that the investigation will show that their conduct throughout was most honourable, and I, therefore, decided to amend the terms of my motion, and on their representations to widen the scope of the inquiry to cover these other matters: that is, the circumstances connected with and surrounding the application for the lease and the granting of the lease, and also the circumstances surrounding the agreement which they inform me that they had made with other parties for the assignment of their rights and obligations.

I am rather disappointed that Deputy McGilligan did not avail of the opportunity which that motion afforded to him, either to state his charges in specific terms or to withdraw them. He has done neither one nor the other. Instead of doing that, he has put down a motion purporting to contain extracts from his speech here on Wednesday last, and by doing so makes it clear that he is insinuating certain things and not alleging them. It is, I think, the most disgusting motion that has ever appeared on the Order Paper in the House. It is possible, of course, for anybody to make insinuations, but it takes somebody with a little more courage to make allegations and to offer to prove those allegations to be correct. Deputy McGilligan did not do that. Insinuations, however, can be made in a manner in which they can be met, but there is one method of making insinuations which it is almost impossible to meet, and that is by making them in the form of a question. That is what Deputy McGilligan is doing in his motion. It is the old example that has so often been quoted in this House. If you ask somebody "has he stopped beating his wife?" he obviously cannot give a "yes" or "no" answer without admitting the implication contained in the question. These are precisely the tactics which Deputy McGilligan has resorted to: of making allegations in the form of a question to me. In doing so, he shows conclusively that he does not wish to be put in the position of having to produce any proof in support of his charges.

There is just one matter that I want to deal with in connection with this question here and now. One of the allegations made was this: that a lease was issued by me under conditions of secrecy. Now, that allegation caused me a certain amount of amusement, because this is not the first occasion on which we had a debate here as to the amount of publicity that should be given in connection with leases made under the Mines and Minerals Act. When the Mines and Minerals Act was before the Dáil in the form of a Bill in 1931, Deputy McGilligan was Minister for Industry and Commerce and I was a Deputy in Opposition. On the 19th November in that year, according to the Dáil debates—Volume 40, No. 5, Column 1893—I proposed an amendment to that Bill, which afterwards became an Act. The amendment read: "That no lease should be made until each House of the Oireachtas had, by resolution, authorised the making of such lease." That amendment, which I moved in 1931, was vigorously opposed by Deputy McGilligan. In the course of his speech in opposition to it, he contended that, in the case of a prospecting lease, secrecy was essential. He said:

Trading of any kind by the method of a lease being laid before this House, not to be passed unless there is a vote of acceptance—trading in respect of anything under that method would be impossible. When you come to a matter which must be secret, such as mines and minerals— a lot of matters material to such a discussion must be concerned with a discovery somebody has made and is trying to keep the fruits of—trading under these circumstances would obviously be impossible.

I did not fully agree then with the arguments advanced by Deputy McGilligan. I do not agree with them now, but it is obviously ridiculous that Deputy McGilligan should be making allegations against me—allegations of corruption—because I am doing in 1935 precisely what he said must be done in 1931. The lease in question was issued in strict accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act. That Act was not proposed by me. It was proposed by Deputy McGilligan, and whatever safeguards he, in 1931, considered necessary in the public interest were presumably inserted in that Act. It was in accordance with that Act that the lease was granted. The Act does not provide for publication of the terms of a prospecting lease. Deputy McGilligan stated, on Wednesday, that if I had made the lease for two years and one day, instead of for two years, I would have had to publish it——

An Ceann Comhairle

If the merits of this question were to be gone into, the debate would, in the first place, be out of order, and, in the second place, of long duration. The matter for decision is whether a Select Committee should be set up and which of the proposals on the Order Paper should constitute the terms of reference. It is not permissible to enter into the merits of the question which the Committee is being set up to investigate.

Mr. Lemass

I bow to your ruling. In these circumstances, I have not much more to say. It is obvious that this Committee must be asked to investigate the charges made by Deputy McGilligan, even though those charges were made by way of insinuation rather than by way of allegation. The impression left upon the minds of members of the public and members of the Dáil was that these charges lay against a Department and that impression must be removed in one of two ways—either by their complete withdrawal by Deputy McGilligan or by this method of investigation by a Select Committee. Furthermore, at the request of the lessees in this case and certain other parties who have been interested in the matter, I have agreed to extend the scope of that inquiry to cover all the facts and circumstances surrounding the making of the lease and the making of the agreement under the lease. I think that that inquiry should take place as quickly as possible. It is obviously not in the interest of any Party in this House, and much less in the interest of the country, that there should be any general impression that charges of this kind can be made, with any foundation, against a Department of State. Therefore, I would urge on all the Parties in the House who will be associated with the setting up of the Select Committee that it should be established as quickly as possible and that the members of it should be asked to carry out their investigations and report at the earliest date, so that the full facts will be available and the foundation for the allegations made clear.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister had before him a motion in my name on which he might have given his views. Taking his own statement and his own conduct in connection with this motion, it would appear that he drafted a motion last week and circulated it to members of the House. He has since amended that motion on, as he has just told us, the representations of the lessees. If I interpret his speech correctly, his original intention was to have an examination into the implications of certain statements or insinuations made in this House by Deputy McGilligan. Is the Minister the best judge of what was insinuated or implied in that connection? He belongs to a Party that has not been free from the making of insinuations or implications in respect of other people. It has battened upon them for a number of years and now it is developing a very thin skin. It is not creditable to the Minister or to the members of his Party, who have been so glib in that respect in the past, that they should feel so much upset when there is a case made against them in this House. What answer does the Minister make in reply to the implications or insinuations or allegations? Where in the course of the various allegations that have been made is the statement that this lease was given to Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe because they were political associates of the Minister? I am at a disadvantage in this case. Most of my information has come from the Press. The Official Report will not be published until to-morrow. I happened to see an early issue of the Report, but I could not read that in the space of a few minutes. If the statement to which the Minister alluded is contained in the Report, it escaped my notice.

The Ministry take a rather serious view of this question. On the first day the Minister for Finance said that it was a matter the seriousness of which was evident. Obviously, it is regarded as serious by the Ministry, If it be regarded as serious, what is the proper method of dealing with it? The Minister's first proposal was to have an inquiry into the insinuations or implications and not into the allegations. At the behest of the lessees, he enlarged his proposal. May I suggest that the Minister, in his handling of this business, has been signally unfortunate. The Press report contained the statement by the Minister that some of the people who were, in the first instance, interested in this mining question got into temporary financial difficulties. It would appear that, at least, one of them subsequently appeared in connection with the sub-lease, if I am not mistaken. It is a very serious thing to make statements of this sort in the House regarding anybody's financial position. Then a certain qualification must be made in respect of a statement affecting a former Minister of State and a very reputable gentleman. The correction of these statements never reaches all the people whom the first statement reached. I suggest to the Minister that, in these cases, he should address himself impartially to the subject of his Department and see what is the best method of settling this question.

Can the Minister say for what reason the motion tabled in my name is objectionable, and if in the answers that would come from this committee there is not all that might be expected from examination in his particular case? In his motion as it stands we have certain items set down, (a), (b) and (c). I will admit that the Minister has added on other things at the behest of the lessees. It so happens they were added on also after my motion was handed in. Was this motion handed in in time at all? There is extraordinary haste and amendment in connection with the whole business, which does not reflect well on the Ministry in this case. It will have to learn that with the responsibility of office it should not be excited; it should do its business without excitement and haste. If there are allegations and insinuations and so on, they were pretty slick themselves, when they were not in a responsible position, about making allegations and insinuations. The Minister might have given the House his views on the amendment. The case he has made in respect of (a), to my mind, is not clear; it is not convincing. It is a sort of case in which he wants to have something dealt with which was not raised here. Naturally, in any case of this kind, public confidence and the public mind must be set at ease with regard to the lettings. If lettings are made to members of the House more than usual care should be exercised. It is a principle of local administration that contractors are not allowed to be members of local authorities. That has been dispensed with in connection with this House. Ministers and the Administration generally should be extra careful in these matters if a situation should arise in which a member of the House gets either a contract or a lease or anything of that sort. In order to get the Minister's explanation of what his objection is to my motion, I formally move the amendment:

To delete all after the words "Select Committee" to the end of the motion and substitute therefor the following:—

"consisting of eleven Deputies, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection and with power to send for persons, papers, and documents, be established publicly to investigate and to report to the Dáil upon the facts and circumstances generally connected with and surrounding the application made by Senator Michael Comyn, K.C., and Deputy R. Briscoe to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the grant to the Senator and Deputy aforesaid by the said Minister in respect of the exclusive rights of mining vested in the State in or under certain lands in County Wicklow, and, in particular, so to investigate and report upon the following:—

(a) the area in County Wicklow covered by such applications and/ or grant;

(b) the evidence produced to the Minister as to the mining experience, technical equipment, and financial resources of the Senator and Deputy aforesaid:

(c) the other applicants, if any, for such or similar mining rights in or about the same area;

(d) the procedure adopted in considering and granting the concession;

(e) the terms and conditions on which the concession was granted;

(f) the subsequent developments as to the agreement by the Senator and Deputy aforesaid for assigning their rights and obligations under the said grant;

(g) the consideration to be received by the Senator and Deputy aforesaid and the consideration to be given by them;

(h) the necessity for ‘middlemen profits' in relation to this concession and the number of members of the Oireachtas found to be placed as such ‘middlemen' in this transaction."

The following amendment stood in the name of Deputy McGilligan:—

To delete all after the words "Select Committee" to the end of the motion and substitute therefor the following:—

"consisting of eleven Deputies, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection and with power to send for persons, papers and documents, be established for the purpose of investigating and reporting to the Dáil on allegations made by Deputy P. McGilligan in regard to the granting by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to Senator Michael Comyn, K.C., and Deputy R. Briscoe of the exclusive rights of mining in respect of certain lands in County Wicklow in the following words:—

(a) ‘That under conditions of secrecy a valuable piece of State property was parted with to members of the Oireachtas belonging to the Minister's Party, and that those members of his Party, known to him, are going to get £12,000 and 2¼ per cent. in return for the giving by them to an outside company of State property... That the Minister knows of it; that he knows it is intended to be done; and that he will not tell these people that he will not allow it.'

(b) ‘Does the Minister consider it a proper thing that men should be allowed to traffic in property that is not their own, the value of which they have not enhanced to any degree by their activities, and that they should be enabled, if the transaction works out rightly, to get their 2¼ per cent. over and above the money they have to pay, as long as the stream of gold lasts, and that they shall get shares worth £12,000 in a company, with whatever these shares will yield to the shareholders after this 6¼ per cent. has been paid?"

I suggest that those simple facts indicate a scandal.

Mr. McGilligan

What is the procedure?

An Ceann Comhairle

The procedure is to put the question "that the words stand." If that is defeated the House will have an option between the two amendments.

Mr. McGilligan

What has been covered?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister's proposals.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister's proposals are not the ones set up under ordinary rules. Which one is to be put?

An Ceann Comhairle

The motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. McGilligan

May I ask if it was received in time?

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy had put that question before the motion, and one amendment had been moved, the Chair might have had something to say on the point raised. It is too late now.

Mr. McGilligan

On the point that it was not raised by anybody, then the motion can be discussed and put as a substantive motion to the House. Is that the situation?

An Ceann Comhairle

The situation is exactly as stated. If the Deputy had put a question earlier the Chair might have expressed some doubt as to whether this motion had been handed in in time. The motion and one amendment having been under consideration, no answer can now be given.

Mr. McGilligan

Apart from the question of order——

Mr. Cosgrave

On a point of order, I want to say that I was interested to hear the Minister's statement. The Minister went on to explain that he had a notice of motion and he described the reason for it. At the earliest opportunity it occurred to me I made it.

An Ceann Comhairle

No point of order was put to the Chair.

Mr. Cosgrave

I did not want to interrupt the Minister when he was speaking.

Mr. McGilligan

Then the whole matter is in order? If it is in order, the motion is grossly unfair, and has been drawn to be unfair—deliberately. I suggest that if we are going to discuss a motion framed in terms of reporting on allegations made by a Deputy we should see whether these are the allegations made. I have been able to survey part of the debate. The only part of that debate in which I can find these words occurring is when the Minister was speaking—not when I was speaking. The Minister, very near the concluding portion, said:—

"Of course it would be a serious charge if it could be contended that the Minister for Industry and Commerce had given to certain political friends, for the purpose of enabling them to re-sell it, State property that could be disposed of more advantageously elsewhere to anybody else."

That is his summing up. Will the Minister attend to what follows:—

"Nor did Deputy McGilligan say that in so many words. He left it to be inferred."

I gather the statement was that I simply implied this. Why take the Minister's views when what I implied in my direct statement is now proved? The chairman of Kerry County Council is conversant with the Minister and his capacity for twisting statements. I am appealing to him as a political associate of the Minister, who has found him out. That is a good thing. As one dissociated, I found him out often. Here is an opportunity of finding him out and I asked for a committee to go into the allegations made. I was asked at one time would I state my allegations. "What is the allegation against the Department?" said the Minister. Later in the debate he said: "I do not know it yet." I retorted: "I shall tell you." It is:

"That under conditions of secrecy a valuable piece of State property was parted with to members of the House belonging to the Minister's Party."

"House" is wrong. It should be "Oireachtas."

"and that those members of his Party, known to him, are going to get £12,000 and 2¼ per cent. in return for the giving by them to an outside company of State property. That is a serious charge and it is against the Minister I make it."

The Minister retorted: "What is the charge?" and I continued:

"That the Minister knows of it; that he knows it is intended to be done; and that he will not tell these people that he will not allow it."

That is my charge. The Minister asked for it and got it. He got it in the words I quoted which are taken from my motion. Why must the Minister hide remarks in the debate said to be mere inferences and which to-day he said were simply left to be implied? I will give another quotation. This was earlier, when I was challenged. I put it later in my reference because it includes an important point:—

"Does this House consider that it is a proper thing, in relation to the sale of State property, that certain people should be given a concession and that these people should, to the knowledge of the Ministry, at a later stage at all events, have sold that property for valuable consideration to others, with no increased consideration to the State? If ever there was a case in which middlemen's profits should be decried and scouted, surely that is the case."

That was a very definite charge. The whole gravamen of my charge is in that.

"Does the Minister consider it a proper thing that men should be allowed to traffic in property that is not their own, the value of which they have not enhanced to any degree by their activities, and that they should be enabled, if the transaction works out rightly, to get their 2¼ per cent. over and above the money they have to pay, as long as the stream of gold lasts, and that they shall get shares worth £12,000 in a company with whatever these shares will yield to the shareholders after this 6¼ per cent. has been paid?"

I wound up that phrase by saying—I think these were the words I used— that these simple facts indicated a scandal. There is the allegation. The Minister does not want to face that one point. That is the one point, however, from which he must get away. The Minister even goes so far to-day, in answer to a question which was addressed to him as to whether or not a lease was granted, as to say, I believe, that the answer was in the affirmative. I asked him again whether or not he was aware of that, and again he said he was not. The Minister was asked was he aware of it. What has been his answer? The gravamen of the whole charge is that, being aware of the trafficking in property of the State, the Minister handed over to two members of the Oireachtas the power to deal with such property: that the Minister, knowing that that was the case, did not stop it, although he has the power to stop it: and that he did not indicate to these two people that they would not be allowed to go on with it.

The special point that I want to make is that the Minister knows that this thing is intended to be done and he will not tell these people that he will not allow it. The extra point I have added—and I think it should be added—is as to whether or not the value of the State property concerned has been enhanced to any degree by the activities of these people. Now, the Minister's challenge to me was that he wanted this whole matter inquired into. Of course, I am quite prepared to believe the Minister is not ready to stand up to that challenge, any more than he was prepared to stand up to the other challenge where the Minister said that his Department was open to investigation by anybody in this House. It is easy to see that you can issue a challenge if you know it is not going to be accepted; particularly, when, even if the challenge were accepted, you are prepared to run away from it. The proposal of the Minister was, that, with the consent of the House, a Committee should be appointed to consider this whole matter. It must be borne in mind that that is not a question of considering whether or not the Minister had at any time granted this lease, or whether it was made at a time that the Minister was aware that another party or other parties were proposing to seek a demise of the same rights, on terms more advantageous to the State. I do not believe that I ever said that other people were interested in getting the demise of this property. It is possible, however, that I said that these people finally appeared on the scene. At any rate, they have not disappeared afterwards.

Mr. MacEntee

Let the Deputy make a charge. He is not serious in what he is saying.

Mr. McGilligan

I think my allegations are serious enough. Why not check them?

Mr. MacEntee

They are not so serious.

Mr. McGilligan

I object to the Minister's refractory mind playing on suggestions of mine and putting down what he thinks are to be inferred from my remarks.

Mr. Lemass

Does Deputy McGilligan now wish that these are not to be inferred from his remarks?

Mr. McGilligan

I say that two members of the Minister's Party got this lease. That is not denied. If anybody asks whether or not it was because they were members of the Minister's Party, I shall not ask the House to decide the matter; I shall ask public opinion.

Mr. Donnelly

That is a horse of another colour.

Mr. McGilligan

I did not say that it was because they were members of the Minister's Party that they were granted the lease. I did say that they were members of the Party and that I would be prepared to ask public opinion to decide whether or not it was because they were members of the Party that they were granted the lease. I will go further now and say that I believe it was because they were members of the Minister's Party, and I will ask public opinion to decide upon that. However, as I said previously, what I want the proposed Committee to agree upon is as to whether or not the Minister was aware of what was being done. It is not denied. Deputy Cosgrave's amendment asks whether there is any necessity for "middlemen profits" in relation to this concession and the number of members of the Oireachtas found to be placed as such "middlemen" in this transaction.

An Ceann Comhairle

That question does not arise.

Mr. McGilligan

I submit, Sir, that it does arise.

Mr. Lemass

You ruled; Sir, I think, that only the terms of reference, and not the substance of the charges, should be dealt with.

Mr. McGilligan

One of the motions before the House is to demand the production of all documents, papers, etc., in relation to this concession.

Mr. Lemass

I submit to the Deputy that the number concerned is a matter to be investigated by the Committee, and that it is not a question of a number alleged in this House.

Mr. McGilligan

Very good—so long as the number is fixed. The Minister can be very happy. The Minister can laugh, just as he could laugh in the same way when he said that he challenged investigation of his Department, but when the challenge was taken up, we had a sickly smile from the Minister, and we would have the same sickly smile to-day if we asked the Minister to make good his boast.

Mr. Lemass

There is no smile there.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister's smile is rather sickly at the moment. Just hold that please! At any rate, we have these motions. I want this to be clear: that there is going to be no question as to the people additional to the folk mentioned here who are in on this thing. I gather that we have had an apology from the Minister here to-day as to some person who, according to the Press, was engaged previously. The Minister told me that that was wrong. There is not much question of responsibility in that. I am told now, that so far from there being anything considered in that way, there has been no such application. Evidently, these applications are like many other myths of the Minister. None the less, it was pushed out as a statement over the week-end, with some attempt to do good for the Minister and his Party during the week-end. Then, this is only thrown off afterwards in a debate in a statement issued by the Department for which the Minister takes responsibility. On this matter, Sir, I should like to know just what has been attempted and what does this Committee start with. The question that I put in last week, in order to give the Minister the earliest possible opportunity of answering it, has been put off until to-day. I asked the Minister was he aware of the sub-lease, and the Minister does not answer that question. That is definitely the fact. The Minister evades the question by saying that he did not sanction it, but the real question is whether or not he was aware of such a sub-lease.

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order, Sir, I suggest that we are discussing a motion and not the answers to a Parliamentary Question.

Mr. McGilligan

What I am referring to deals with the motion. In a question put to the Minister to-day, the 25th June, the Minister was asked if he was aware of this sub-lease, and his answer was that the part of the question concerned described, in general, the terms of an agreement for certain sub-leases between the lessees of the lease and the Chairman of a certain syndicate. Last week the Minister said: "It is true that the lessees have supplied us with the copy of an agreement which they have made with Risberget, Limited, for the formation of a company to carry out the commercial working of the minerals in the area." Is that this lease? Evidently, the Minister does not know even yet whether it is or not.

Mr. MacEntee

I shall reply to the Deputy later on.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister said that no application had been put before him. Later on, the Minister said: "An application in respect of a mining unit in the area was submitted to the Minister but it was not considered necessary to require his approval under the original lease." That was not before him on the Friday on which he issued the statement——

Mr. Lemass

On a point of order, Sir, I think that, if Deputy McGilligan is to be allowed to follow this line, I should also be allowed to follow it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The merits of the case may not be discussed now, nor the existence, or otherwise, of a sub-lease. That would anticipate the matters which this Committee is being selected to investigate.

Mr. McGilligan

I want to find out if the Committee are, in fact, being asked to investigate whether such a sub-lease exists, because I cannot see it.

Mr. Lemass

Read it again.

Mr. McGilligan

"To investigate and report to the Dáil on all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the application for and the grant of the said lease, and all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the agreement made by the lessees for the assignment of their rights and obligations under the said lease." I am asking the Chair if, under that term, it is possible for anybody to doubt the existence of the sub-lease.

Mr. Lemass

There is no sub-lease.

Mr. McGilligan

An agreement for a sub-lease. What is the good of quibbling about this? There is no sub-lease; there is only an agreement for one. There is a sub-lease subject to a condition. Do not make any mistake about it.

Mr. Lemass

There is no sub-lease.

Mr. McGilligan

There is a sub-lease subject to a condition, so far as two members of the Oireachtas——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not go into the merits of this case. He is entitled to ask the Minister whether certain things come within the scope of the motion submitted by him, but not to debate the question. Something might be left for the Committee to investigate.

Mr. McGilligan

What we are trying to get at the moment is the submission to the Committee. The matter has been discussed already, and, arising out of the discussion, terms of reference have been framed. They are framed supposedly on allegations made by me. They are not my allegations. I did make allegations and I have set them out in writing, and I am asking the House to substitute these, and I am asking further to have it made clear whether, in fact, this Committee is going to be free to discuss everything in connection with this, which was the Minister's first challenge, or whether it is going to be hidebound. I object to any Committee which is going to report with the pivot of its report a statement that I never made—Item (c) of these terms of reference. I never made that.

Mr. Lemass

Is it withdrawn?

Mr. McGilligan

I cannot withdraw what I never made. If the Minister will point out to me where I did make that statement, I will consider the withdrawal of it.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy will say that nothing he said here is to be taken as implying that allegation, I will take it out of the motion.

Mr. McGilligan

Would the Minister also say that nothing he said is to be taken as implying that the Deputies were not guilty of mishandling public funds or public property? It is the same sort of absurd hypothesis. Why throw out challenges on matters that are not alleged against me? Can I be shown the phrase of mine which is the foundation of this? I have said this and I repeat it, that these people had previously registered themselves as folk who were interested and these people subsequently came on the scene. The Minister can join the earlier and subsequent matters, but I have nowhere said, because I am not aware that it is a fact, that at the moment the lease was given, other parties were proposing to seek a demise of the same rights.

Mr. Lemass

Or at any time?

Mr. McGilligan

I think they were.

Mr. Lemass

In respect of the same area?

Mr. McGilligan

It is admitted that they were, of course, earlier, is it not?

Mr. Lemass

In respect of the same area?

Mr. McGilligan

I understand it is in respect of that area.

Mr. Lemass

It is true that that party earlier proposed to seek a lease of the whole country.

Mr. McGilligan

Of the County Wicklow. Let us say the County Wicklow.

Mr. Lemass

Of the whole country.

Mr. McGilligan

That, of course, is fantastic. Will the Minister put that in the terms of reference now so that we can get one falsehood nailed? That is not right; it is not the truth. The Minister will not say that it is the truth now that he is challenged.

Mr. Lemass

The whole country.

Mr. McGilligan

The whole country?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

The whole matter, I think, refers to State rights and that, of course, is a considerable lopping off from the whole country. This throwing in of fatuous interjections does not help us to get the terms of reference clear. I do not make that allegation and I never did. I do say that they were on the spot first and that they came in afterwards.

Mr. Lemass

You merely imply it.

Mr. McGilligan

Does the Minister not recognise the difference between saying that people were there first and that Deputy Briscoe and Senator Comyn were able to get that and saying definitely that they were ready to apply at that moment? Is there no difference?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy has implied that these people were there to take the lease.

Mr. McGilligan

I make no such implication. I say that they were there previously and came along later. Join those two things any way you like. I might say that the Minister for Finance was a sound financial critic before he came into office or that he might become one afterwards but that does not imply that he is one now. We can easily make analogies.

An Ceann Comhairle

Nor is that to be investigated by the Committee.

Mr. McGilligan

Debate can only proceed in a picturesque way by analogies and that, I consider, is a fairly good one on the Minister. He is smiling in a grim fashion which shows exactly what he thinks about it. I put it again that I do not want terms of reference framed on allegations of mine unless in my words. If the Minister wants to get these allegations in, let him put them in. I will accept them as such but not in my words.

Mr. Lemass

Am I to take it that Deputy McGilligan is saying that he never made the allegation that I could have made a more advantageous letting?

Mr. McGilligan

That is not what is here. I will allege that now if you like.

Mr. Lemass

That I could have?

Mr. McGilligan

That you could have. At the same time, the words clearly are "made at a time when he was aware that they were proposing to seek." It does not require an awful lot of analysis of the English language to see that there is a big difference there. My proof is, and I gave it, that a better bargain was possible as Deputy Briscoe and Senator Comyn made a better bargain.

Mr. Lemass

After they had proved the existence of minerals in the area

Mr. McGilligan

After, certainly, and that is what I said, but why, when I said that and related it to the subsequent period, put it down in this motion as "made at a time when he was aware that they were proposing to seek"? Does the Attorney-General want to say anything? I thought I was going to be questioned. Why say that when I did not say it? Who is going to prove that the Minister was aware at that time that they were so proposing? What the Committee can easily decide on is did they make application previously and did they come along afterwards or were they invited to come along at the time and what happened and was an invitation sent? There are four people named. One was within a stone's throw of Government Buildings, but the letter was sent to a firm of London solicitors.

Mr. Lemass

It was sent to him, too.

Mr. McGilligan

I should like to query the form of it.

Mr. MacEntee

That is all for the Committee.

Mr. McGilligan

It will not be before the Committee.

Mr. MacEntee

Because the Deputy will not be there.

Mr. McGilligan

It will not be before the Committee because that term of reference does not allow it; because it ties it down to the time the Minister made the lease.

Mr. Lemass

All the facts and circumstances surrounding it.

Mr. McGilligan

You have a special thing. We know very well that particular words can have a very narrowing effect on more general words that follow. The particular words are here in the first place and refer to certain dates. Cut out the date. Let the Minister put it in the terms of reference if he likes, but do not attempt to put against me allegations which I say I never made. Let him say "the following allegations"; let him say "the following inferences"; let him say anything he likes, but he is not going to put against me allegations I never made.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Aiken)

Allegations which you led the country to believe you did make and which you had not got the guts to make. Is that not it?

Mr. McGilligan

Even the peat-besodden mind of the Minister for Defence can take this in, that I did make allegations. Here they are. I was challenged: "What is the allegation?""I will tell you," I said.

"It is that under conditions of secrecy a valuable piece of State property was parted with to members of the House belonging to the Minister's Party; that these members of his Party, known to him, are going to get £12,000 and 2¼ per cent. in return for the giving by them to an outside company of State property. That is a serious charge, and it is against the Minister for Industry and Commerce I make it."

Query by the Minister: "What is the charge?" My reply was that he knows of it; that he knows it is intended to be done, and that he will not tell the people he will not allow it. Is that a serious enough charge for the Minister for Defence?

Mr. Aiken

Those charges are covered by the motion of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. McGilligan

Where is the phrase in the Minister's motion as to the Minister knowing about this and not stopping it? Point that out to me, and I will argue on it.

Mr. Lemass

Is that a surrounding circumstance?

Mr. McGilligan

Why not pick it out, rather than something which was not said? Why not get down to bedrock? Why put in the precise term I did not use, and object to putting in the precise term which I used?

Mr. Lemass

And the accusation against me is that I did not answer a question which I was never asked.

Mr. McGilligan

If that is the Minister's answer, the Minister can find it in my terms of reference.

Mr. Lemass

I was never asked the question.

Mr. McGilligan

I am not saying you were. I have never said that. That is a very serious thing—to say that he knows of it; that he knows it is intended to be done; and that he would not tell those people he would not allow it.

Mr. Lemass

I was never asked my opinion on it.

Mr. McGilligan

And the Minister will not say until he is asked? I am going to suggest that the only thing the public are concerned about is that the Minister knew of this mishandling of State property by two members of his Party, and he did not stop it. That is the only thing which the public are interested in. The concession that these men got, which is a fact, is not surprising. The conditions under which it was given really are not surprising; I mean they should surprise and shock but they do not; but the big outstanding fact is that the Minister found that State property, not enhanced in value by the efforts of those men, was being traded for their personal benefit, and he did not stop it.

Mr. MacEntee

Is not this a matter for the Committee?

Mr. McGilligan

I am suggesting that my terms of reference, which contain that, should be put before them. The Minister for Defence asked me is not that in the Minister's terms of reference, and I say it is not.

Mr. Aiken

Your charges are covered by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. You have not the guts to say——

Mr. McGilligan

Let us leave those entrails which the Minister is so fond of dabbling in. Would the Minister put the clear light of his intelligence on the official report, and tell me where did I say what is alleged here?

Mr. Aiken

You have not got the guts to say it.

Mr. McGilligan

That is a nasty Anglo-Saxon word which the Minister ought to abhor.

Mr. Aiken

It is the only phrase I can think of to describe your actions.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister, so to speak, is Shakespearian in his remarks, but what about a little intelligence? Give me the time I said that, or anything like it? There is a request from the right that the Minister should shut up. Would he attend to it? Apparently his intervention is not wanted in this debate. The Minister for Industry and Commerce wants him to stop.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy overheard me incorrectly. I said I hoped that if he did not interrupt, in due course you would stop.

Mr. McGilligan

We will take that as the Chairman of the Kerry County Council took it, when he said "it was ‘shut up' to you." There is a very narrow point at issue. I made certain allegations. I am charged to state precisely what they are. I retort in the middle of the debate. I have not to wait and fumble for a phrase. I give exact allegations.

Mr. Smith

Clever!

Mr. McGilligan

Absolutely! They bear scrutiny, which some of the Deputy's words might not. I do not seek, as the Deputy does, for wild words. I say those things in the middle of the debate. They are on record. If the terms of reference are to be phrased in my allegations—I do not know why they should be, but if you want them phrased in my allegations—phrase them accurately. They are quite serious. Why not have them? I do not see why the Minister wants to run away to a phrase that was not used. I have given two fairly lengthy quotations made in answer to the query "what is the charge?" The (a) matter is shut out. Supposing it is intended not to take this form, then what is wrong with the details of the amendment to this motion suggested by Deputy Cosgrave? We want to know the area covered. We want to know the evidence that was produced to the Minister as to the mining experience, technical equipment and financial resources of the Senator and the Deputy. The Deputy told me that he had four years' digging. I want to get evidence of it. We want to know the applications, if any, for said or similar mining rights in or about the same area. The Minister can get all the information put before the Committee on that. We want to know the procedure adopted in considering and granting the concession. Were there alternative ways of doing it, and why was this one chosen? We want to know the conditions and terms on which the concession was granted. Were there limitations? Did the subsequent conditions appeal to the Minister at that moment, or were they before him, and why did he not choose them? What were the subsequent developments as to the agreement by the Senator and the Deputy for assigning their rights and obligations under the grant? We want to know the consideration to be received by the Senator and the Deputy, and that given by them. My statement is simply that they operated with valuable State property, added nothing to it of their own, and in addition, got shares, 2¼ per cent., and so on. Finally, we want to know the necessity for middlemen or middlemen's profit, and the number of Members of the Oireachtas now established as such middlemen. I suggest, as Deputy Cosgrave suggests, that the big principle which all this has got to lead up to is whether members of this House or of the other House, put into a peculiar position because of their representative capacity here, should be allowed to trade on that position.

Mr. Donnelly

On behalf of anybody or their friends.

Mr. McGilligan

Except under conditions. Let me go on. Deputy Cosgrave referred to legislation still operating with regard to local authorities. I am not to be taken as phrasing the law accurately or comprehensively at this moment, but the late Chief Baron Pallas delivered many a lecture from the Bench on what he called "the public mischief" of those Acts. If any member of a local authority is discovered to be making a profit out of any transaction found to be connected with his position as such public representative, he is disqualified, and stands disqualified from standing for election for seven years. I think on one occasion when the County Council in Clare——

Mr. MacEntee

Is this dealing with the motion?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not.

Mr. McGilligan

I am referring to what is at the back of this. What is the use of having a discussion——

Mr. Lemass

I am quite willing to have it on those lines, but I must be allowed to do it too.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister was precluded from doing so, and the Deputy must confine himself to the motion before the House.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister has leave to answer me.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister would not be allowed to answer the Deputy, nor may the Deputy continue on that line of argument.

Mr. McGilligan

There is a principle behind this debate; I am not going to argue the principle. I have already stated two examples and I am going to give one other. The other has reference to Deputy Donnelly's point. It is a definite matter of company law that if a director of a company makes profit when he is a director of that company in his dealings with another company he is disqualified unless— sometimes Articles of Association put this in—before making that profit he gives public notice to the Board that he is interested and is likely to make a profit. That ought to be applied to members of the Oireachtas. It should be made apply to a Deputy who is going to make a profit. We can meet that. I suggest that what the country is agitated about, arising out of this whole matter, is: Have men made use of their representative positions to get concessions which they otherwise would not get, and are they being allowed to make profits which the ordinary man would not be allowed to make?

That is getting to my point, that the gravamen of all this is, when the Minister found property, not enhanced by the activity of these people, being traded by them for benefit to themselves, he had the right to come down at the first opportunity he had and say "I will not permit this; cut that sub-lease out; you will have to apply to me for sanction and I warn you it will not be given." That is the whole gravamen of this charge and if you crush this out from the consideration of the Committee, the Committee will not be worth while setting up. If you cut it out of the terms of reference it will simply obfuscate the issue. Without it, the terms of reference are not much good and your Committee will be scarcely worth while.

This appears in the Minister's proposal: "... all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the agreement made by the lessees..." So far as the terms of reference are concerned, they only talk about the facts and circumstances surrounding the application for the lease and the facts and circumstances surrounding the agreement made by the lessees. What about the previous history of the lessees? What about their digging? Will that be investigated? What about the experience they have had? The Minister told us, somebody told us, that there were three names in the application for the lease. The lease is given to two people only. The third person has disappeared. The third person is the only one who is not a member of the Oireachtas. Will we be told why he disappeared? Will the Committee be able to investigate the circumstances under which he was bought off? Does the Minister know he was bought off, that he assigned all his rights in this lease that might be coming to him for £25?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not, in the guise of a question, prolong the debate, which has already extended over two days.

Mr. McGilligan

I suggest that is an important matter for the consideration of the Committee.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy can raise it before the Committee.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy's tactics would turn a dog sick.

Mr. McGilligan

I know the Minister is sick. If I were in the mess he is in, I would be sick, too, so sick that I would be almost thinking of sending in my resignation.

Mr. Lemass

I want to get after you. There are a few things that I have to say that will make you sick.

Mr. McGilligan

There are a few general phrases used here: "to investigate and to report to the Dáil on all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the application for and the grant of the said lease" and "all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the agreement." Where does there come in in that the previous history of the applicants? Will it be in the circumstances surrounding the application for the lease? Is it intended to bring these things in, or does the Minister want to crush these things out? I certainly think that a £25 consideration for putting out this young fellow is a matter that ought to be inquired into, as well as the fact that it had to take a solicitor's letter even to get the £25 from them—a still more important matter.

Mr. MacEntee

Is this in order?

Mr. McGilligan

You are only prolonging things by these interjections.

Mr. MacEntee

If I am, it is one of the penalties we have to suffer here.

Mr. McGilligan

We have three resolutions for consideration. One is a limited one, enlarged at the request of the people who are, in my mind, accused in this matter. It will not be enlarged at the request of myself, who raised this matter first. It is alleged to be framed in the terms of the allegations made by me, and I deny that it is so. I have quoted what the Minister said, that these are only inferences from my speech. In return I give the statements I made, and I ask that they be substituted.

Mr. MacEntee

Where are they?

Mr. Lemass

One is a question, is it not?

Mr. McGilligan

They are set out in my proposal—(a) and (b). If the Minister likes I will put them in the form of a sentence.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy will have some difficulty.

Mr. McGilligan

This is how I propose to do it. I suggest that those simple facts indicate a scandal, that men should be allowed to traffic in property that is not their own, the value of which they have not enhanced to any degree by their activities, and that they should be enabled, if the transaction works out rightly, to get their 2¼ per cent. over and above the money they have to pay, as long as the stream of gold lasts, and that they shall get shares worth £12,000 in a company, with whatever these shares will yield to the shareholders after this 6¼ per cent. has been paid. A good, sound sentence! Will the Minister accept it? I do offer the two statements made by me, and if the Minister does not think they contain all the charges, let him add any he likes. Let him not, however, put down charges that are not mine.

The other alternative is, do not take these phrases; do not put them in the terms of allegations, but just take what was said. Is there anything important left out in what Deputy Cosgrave's amendment proposes? There are in that amendment eight sub-paragraphs as well as a generality. Let the generality come first so that it will not be limited by the eight paragraphs. Is the Minister not going to accept one or other of the two alternatives that are suggested, one framed in the exact terms of the allegation and the other giving the gist of everything raised in the debate, whether by way of allegation or debate or otherwise?

I suggest that the Minister ought not to hamper the members of the Committee by limiting the terms of reference. I protest against any matter being sent for consideration to a Committee framed as if it were an allegation of mine when I say it does not represent any such thing. It is not even declared to be; it is not in inverted commas and I am not going to be subjected to the Minister's version of statements of mine. I suggest that the allegations I have made are serious enough and they will give the Committee plenty of opportunity to investigate this scandal. I suggest that the Committee should be authorised to report finally on the settlement of all this type of business in the future on the lines of the public authority legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister is not to conclude this debate. This is my motion.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister will conclude the debate.

Mr. Costello

I want to make one or two observations with a view to bringing before the House what I conceive to be the real and vital issue in the present case. It is not a question of whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce scores over his predecessor, Deputy McGilligan, or whether Deputy McGilligan scores over the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The country is not interested as to whether or not the Minister for Industry and Commerce sits here to-day as he has sat looking like a snarling dog at Deputy McGilligan and anxious to get after him. The public are anxious to know— using the words of Article 11 of the Constitution—whether the "public interest" has been preserved or whether the country has been prejudicially affected by the transactions that have taken place in connection with this lease. The public opinion on this point and the public view on the Minister's conduct will not be determined by the consideration as to whether or not the Minister has scored a debating point by means of his majority, or by getting that majority to pass through this House limited terms of reference in the setting up of this Committee. The Minister can set up this Committee by that majority that he has and he can set it up with the limited terms of reference that he proposes. The only inference that would be drawn from this by outside opinion is that the Minister is trying to side-track the real issue and that instead of letting the public know whether the public interest has been prejudicially affected by this lease, he is endeavouring to score some sort of point over his predecessor, Deputy McGilligan. What the Minister's proposal is endeavouring to do is to set up a Committee with very limited terms of reference. If the Minister were desirous of having the fullest investigation into all the circumstances surrounding this, as he pretends to have, he should ask the House for suggestions as to how the terms of reference should be enlarged in their scope so as to bring in every consideration.

Mr. Lemass

My motion reads: "To report to the Dáil on all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the application for... said lease."

Mr. Costello

Why does the Minister refuse to accept the terms that are offered in the amendments?

Mr. Lemass

Because they are much narrower.

Mr. Costello

Why not put them in? Why does the Minister insist on his own terms of reference as distinct from anything else? It is clear to anybody reading the terms of reference proposed by the Minister that this is put forward as a restricted terms of reference and that the object is to enable the Minister to score over Deputy McGilligan, to come to the House afterwards and to say: "I told you so." We are not interested in knowing whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce scores over anybody in the House or not. What we are interested in is whether Article 11 of the Constitution under which the Minister was proposing to exercise his powers in the granting of leases has been departed from or whether the public interest has in any way been prejudicially affected. Article 11 of the Constitution is the foundation of the whole business. That Article lays down that all mines and minerals in this country belong to the State, "but may in the public interest be from time to time granted by way of lease or licence to be worked or enjoyed under the... Oireachtas." The governing words in that Article are the words "public interest." The issue is whether in the circumstances surrounding this lease or sub-lease—the whole transaction which has been adumbrated in this House by Deputy McGilligan—the public interest has been safeguarded by the Minister. The Minister is on his trial as regards this case. That is the real issue. The Minister, instead of limiting the terms of reference, should be asking the House to suggest the widest possible terms of reference and to have everything done in the widest and the fullest possible way. But it is not alone the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is on his trial. It is not alone the Department of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that is on its trial. It is the whole question of whether the public interest has been in any way prejudicially affected. The personality of the Minister is of little interest in the whole of that. Deputy McGilligan has given prima facie evidence of a gross public scandal. If there is an answer to that it ought to be given in a public way and in circumstances that will enable every fact to be brought before this Committee. I submit that the terms of reference are not drawn in such a way as to bring in certain evidence that should be available to the Committee. Certain evidence that will be tendered to the Committee will evoke a discussion as to whether or not that particular piece of evidence will be allowed because it is or it is not within the scope of the terms of reference. These terms of reference should be of the widest possible scope and there should be no loop-hole as to whether or not a particular piece of evidence that is tendered is or is not within the scope of the terms of reference. Having regard to the importance of this case, from the point of view of the public interest, there should be no room for discussion. The Minister's proposal in this case, put by way of after-thought, is merely an effort to score off Deputy McGilligan. The public wants the fullest and the freest discussion of what prima facie appears to be a gross public scandal.

Mr. Kent

On reading the reports of the debates in the Dáil here last week, the ordinary country reader would come to no other conclusion but that a very valuable gold mine had been discovered in the County Wicklow, and that certain Deputies in this House got concessions from the Minister for Industry and Commerce by very fraudulent and sharp practice. Such is the belief of the people at the present moment. I was very strongly under the impression myself when I rushed up here that some very hefty nuggets, discovered in the gold mine, would be flung across the House and that there was a bare chance that some would drop into the seats of the Centre Party. On the contrary, I find that there is not a particle of gold around the House to-day. As regards this Commission, I, for one, would be glad to see it set up so as to satisfy the minds of the people of the country that there is no such practice as suggested carried on in the Department of Industry and Commerce. I do not believe for one moment that there is such a thing at all as a valuable gold mine in the County Wicklow. I have had certainly too much experience of gold and diamond rushes in my time to believe anybody who stands up and says there is a valuable gold mine in Wicklow and that if it is worked properly we would be all millionaires.

Mr. T. Kelly

They are looking for it long enough, anyway.

Mr. Kent

And so am I all my life. Deputy Cosgrave suggested that we had some other ways or means of settling this dispute. Perhaps I would be allowed to make a suggestion that would be agreed to by Deputy McGilligan and by all Parties to the dispute and that is that he should go on a pilgrimage to Lough Derg and purge his mind. He may then come back to this House with a yearning and a heart's yearning to bring peace to all the people of the country.

Mr. O'Leary

And to the Cork farmers.

Mr. Kent

Yes, the Cork farmers are working out their own salvation in the best way they can. It would be well if the Cork farmers were left to themselves to do their own business without any outside interference. It is rather painful to have to listen to the disputes that go on here from time to time. A very valuable lot of time is wasted in abuse flung across the floor of the House occasionally. It is about time that a proper understanding was arrived at between all parties for a settlement of such disputes rather than discussing a motion for the setting up of a Committee to investigate these matters. I think such questions ought to be settled inside the House by the leading Deputies and Members of the Government, and indeed, the leading men of all Parties. I think that would be a more practical way of doing the business than, week after week, having a sort of "Biddy Moriarty" contest as to the existence of a gold mine and as to the presence of certain minerals. I sympathise with Deputy Briscoe and Senator Comyn in having thrown away their money on this matter whoever tempted them to do so.

Mr. MacDermot

I should like to say a few words on this question. It is a matter, to my mind, that does not involve any party principle. I do not think it is at all desirable that it should be approached in a party spirit or discussed on party lines. Deputy Costello said just now that the real matter at issue was as to whether the interests of the State had suffered, or were going to suffer by the transaction that the Committee is to inquire into. He was referring, I think, to the financial interests of the State. But there is, after all, a second matter of great importance; that is the honour of Deputies. I think both the question of the financial interests of the State and the honour of Deputies are things that can be approached, and ought to be approached, without party spirit.

I confess I am not familiar with this matter at all. I heard part of Deputy McGilligan's speech upon it the other day and that is all I know about it. I preserve an open mind as to whether or not there was impropriety. But my own feeling is, reading through these three proposals for the settling of the terms of reference of the Committee, that none of them is entirely satisfactory. I think the Minister is right in proposing that the investigation should cover all surrounding facts and circumstances, but I think he is wrong, on the other hand, in setting forth as allegations of Deputy McGilligan things which Deputy McGilligan denies having alleged. I do not think anything is to be gained, from a public point of view, in taking that course, even if the Minister chooses to consider that these allegations were implied. To put up a motion in that form can only serve to darken counsel. I suggest that a new motion should be framed in as wide a form as the latter part of the Minister's motion and that it should give the Committee some guidance by indicating the main points:—for example, the points as to whether the original lease was improper in any way; whether it was improper in the amount the State was to be paid, or improper because of the personality of the lessees or their solidity or anything of that kind. Then the question of secrecy is also being raised. I presume that that would arise with regard to the original lease. Secondly, there is the question with regard to the agreement for a sub-lease, and whether or not there was impropriety in Deputies proposing to enter into such an agreement as that. As I say, we ought not to be dealing with these matters in a party spirit. We ought to approach them with the desire to do our best for the public interest and the honour of this House.

There is one thing I would like to state, though I do not think it would ever become public property if I did not tell it. A reference was made to another lease, a lease made by the Minister to Major Pakenham Mahon, a constituent of mine in the County Roscommon. I think that that lease was made in the early part of last year.

Mr. Lemass

The 30th June, last year.

Mr. MacDermot

After that lease was made, a syndicate was formed for the purpose of financing the prospecting operations, and I, personally, took a share in that syndicate. Now gold-mining is about the most speculative operation one could engage in, and, in Ireland, it is very speculative indeed. I put £50 into that venture. I do not expect to see a penny of it again. But I think when the honour of Deputies is impugned—whether rightly or wrongly—it is fair that I should make that confession to the House, if confession it is to be regarded. I would like to stress the point, that I have never seen the lease made to Major Pakenham Mahon, and I believe the lease was granted before I became connected with the syndicate.

I think the whole matter should be approached in a judicial spirit by all parties and without unnecessary bitterness. Obviously, people who prospect in what is regarded as a wild-cat proposition, if they put money and energy into it, and if they pull off a long-shot by actually finding gold, may expect to make a considerably bigger profit than would be usual in normal commercial transactions, where the chances of success were greater. To summarise again what I set out to say: I would suggest that the Minister should try to frame a motion which would be acceptable to all parties in this House; that he should withdraw the present motion and take twenty-four hours to think over another. There is no advantage to be got from framing a motion in terms that impute to a Deputy allegations that he denies having made. An enquiry on that basis can only lead to heat and futility. I think he could have an absolutely comprehensive motion, and, at the same time, one which would indicate with sufficient clearness to the Committee the main points requiring decision.

Mr. Belton

I do not think this is as big a matter as it seems to be on the surface. Certainly it brought forth a lot of information about new investors. I may say, at the start, I invested no money in this project. I had no loose money to invest, and if I did invest, if I had money to invest, I would expect some return for it. What I would like to know at this stage is: was there an obligation on the Minister before granting this lease?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a matter for the Committee to investigate.

Mr. Belton

If there is a division on this motion and if the motion was lost there would be no Committee and there would be no chance of asking this question.

An Ceann Comhairle

There was a debate on that matter and the Deputy missed his opportunity.

Mr. Belton

I did not miss much.

Mr. McGilligan

The debate is still going on.

Mr. Belton

Paragraph (b) of Deputy Cosgrave's amendment reads: "the evidence produced to the Minister as to the mining experience, technical equipment and financial resources of the Senator and Deputy aforesaid." I should like the Minister when replying to state whether there was an obligation on the Minister to make such inquiries. I certainly did not follow all the arguments very closely but I do think that one point made by Deputy McGilligan should be considered by the Minister, otherwise I do not see much use in having these investigations by the Committee. That is the statement, the accusation, allegation or whatever you may call it, that Deputy McGilligan says he made and stands up to. If you do not get that basis of agreement for the investigation, I do not see what object there is in investigating the matter at all because the Committee cannot be asked to carry out an investigation into a charge when the accuser, so to speak, says he never made such a charge. The charge that he acknowledges that he made, and which the Minister says is, in effect, a reflection on him and on his Department, he wants to have investigated. I think that should be cleared up before anything is referred to a Special Committee, otherwise I do not see what the Special Committee would inquire into.

The O'Mahony

Having listened to this debate there is only one point I should like to place before the Minister. I accept that he is only too anxious to have a full inquiry into this matter and to have it cleared up. There is no question that the public mind is worried over the whole matter and the point I want to put to the Minister is this. If he does not set up a Committee of Inquiry that is going to satisfy the public, no matter what verdict it brings in, it is not going to satisfy the public. He must feel assured that the Committee of Inquiry which he sets up is going to satisfy the public as a whole. If that is done, whatever decision the Committee arrives at will satisfy the public. After listening to the debate I am not satisfied that the mere acceptance of the motion as proposed by the Minister, and the ignoring of the amendments, will satisfy the public that the Committee is going to have the full scope it should have to inquire into a matter of this kind.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Costello said that this Committee is not going to be set up to try the Minister for Industry and Commerce or his Department. That is quite correct. It is set up in the first instance to try Deputy McGilligan. Deputy McGilligan made a number of serious allegations here and the Committee is being set up to find out if he had any foundation for these allegations.

Mr. McGilligan

That is clearly running away from the original thing.

Mr. Lemass

This Select Committee is going to be set up to find out if there is, in fact, any foundation for Deputy McGilligan's charges or if he is able to produce the slightest evidence to justify his making them.

Mr. Cosgrave

Why not put them in?

Mr. Lemass

They are in.

Mr. Cosgrave

No.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy MacDermot said that this is not a political matter and he wants it considered apart from Party rivalries and without any partisan spirit. I never heard such nonsense in all my life. Deputy McGilligan came in here on Friday week, two days before the County Dublin by-election and four days before the Galway by-election, and he threw out a number of charges against the Department of Industry and Commerce, wild charges, charges that he is now running away from, charges that he now states he never made, charges that he made in the most vindictive and malicious manner. He was not afraid, knowing that the Dáil was going to adjourn at 2.30, knowing that no member of the Executive Council was going to get an opportunity of replying to him and knowing that the by-election was going to take place in two days' time before his lies could be overtaken. This Committee is being set up to ascertain if there is the slightest shadow of foundation for these allegations.

What are the allegations which Deputy McGilligan made on Friday, June the 15th, and which were made again to-day in the form of a question? Deputy McGilligan thinks that he avoids making an allegation because he puts it in the form of a question. He is a lawyer and he ought to know that a libel can be expressed in the form of a question. Many a successful libel action was taken by parties who felt that they were injured by questions such as Deputy McGilligan is fond of asking. The Deputy's charge was that a Deputy of the Dáil and the Vice-Chairman of the Seanad were given a concession in regard to a certain gold mine in Wicklow, "merely to hawk it round London." What is the implication there? That this concession was given to these people because they were members of the Fianna Fáil Party in the Dáil and the Seanad. Deputy McGilligan says that he did not say that. He did not say it in so many words but certainly that is what he implied. When I asked him to-day if he would now say that these words were not to be taken as implying that allegation, what was his answer? His answer was: "I believe that allegation is correct." We shall give him an opportunity of supplying the foundation for the allegation or justifying his professed belief that the allegation is correct. Deputy McGilligan will not be able to run away. I take it he sticks to his allegation that it was made under conditions of secrecy.

Mr. McGilligan

It was a matter of secrecy.

Mr. Lemass

That is not an allegation against me but against Deputy McGilligan, who framed the legislation under which this lease was issued and who resisted in this Dáil an amendment proposed by me that no lease should be made under that Act except with the prior concurrence of each House of the Oireachtas.

Mr. McGilligan

You are operating the secrecy end of it.

Mr. Lemass

In accordance with its provisions.

Mr. McGilligan

In accordance with one of its provisions.

Mr. Lemass

Very well, the Deputy can endeavour to produce whatever proof he has to support that insinuation also. Deputy McGilligan also denies that he made the charge that I could have made a demise of the same rights on terms more advantageous to the State. Is he making that charge now or is he not? If he is not this whole thing falls to the ground. What is the basis of these allegations——

Mr. McGilligan

Shall I read it to you?

Mr. Lemass

I shall read it myself— except that I have given these people the concession on terms less favourable to the State than could be got from somebody else? If it is admitted that these concessions were given on terms more favourable to the State than could be obtained from somebody else, then there is no substance in Deputy McGilligan's allegation. The implication which I have read into his allegation must be inferred from it even though he says it must not.

Mr. McGilligan

Have you any phrase to quote about it?

Mr. Lemass

I shall deal with the Deputy's phrases later. I am sorry that Deputy MacDermot made the plea that it should be considered in a non-Party spirit, because it destroys my belief in his sincerity. The allegations were made from despicable Party motives, and they are going to be refuted and all the odium that is going to result from their refutation will fall on the Party opposite. Deputy MacDermot stated that he had himself subscribed £50 to another gold prospecting venture in County Wicklow. It is a good job the Deputy is not on this side of the House or a member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. McGilligan

He would not have subscribed the £50 then. There would be no necessity.

Mr. Lemass

If he were on this side of the House he would have to meet the same kind of attack.

Mr. McGilligan

It would not be necessary if he subscribed the £50.

Mr. Lemass

I shall deal with Deputy McGilligan in a minute. Deputy Cosgrave thinks that I am a bit thin-skinned because I resented these allegations. I resent them, and resent them very much. I have one asset in life, and only one, and that is my reputation for honesty. When Deputy McGilligan is trying to take that asset away, Deputy Cosgrave is surprised that I resent it. Deputy Cosgrave was thick-skinned himself apparently. Because he was associated with Deputy McGilligan for so long he developed a crocodile hide. Fortunately or unfortunately I resent allegations of that kind. When allegations of that kind are made against me, by Deputy McGilligan or anybody, they are going to be afforded an opportunity of proving them or withdrawing them.

Mr. Cosgrave

Why not inquire into that and not into other things?

Mr. Lemass

I will deal with the terms of reference in a moment. Deputy Cosgrave also spoke about my extreme haste. I am in a great hurry to give Deputy McGilligan an opportunity of proving his allegations. I am in a great hurry to have this whole matter investigated and all the facts made available to this House and the public. Deputy Cosgrave also wants to know what objection I have to his terms of reference. My objection to Deputy Cosgrave's terms of reference is that they are deliberately framed to exclude from the scope of the inquiry the people who briefed Deputy McGilligan to raise this matter here.

Mr. Cosgrave

Add them.

Mr. Lemass

They are added. Deputy McGilligan talked last week about Deputy Briscoe crossing to London. He was wrong. But there were people who went to London and represented themselves as the owners of a sub-lease and entered into an arrangement for the sale of that sub-lease on terms which secured for them £10,000 in cash and 50,000 in shares in a company to be formed, and who came back and found that Deputy Briscoe and Senator Comyn would have nothing to do with their deal, and then threatened Deputy Briscoe and Senator Comyn that the matter was to be raised in the Dáil; and it has been raised in the Dáil. They are coming in here before this inquiry, and all the facts concerning their association with this agreement are going to be made public.

Mr. Donnelly

It is a pity it was not retrospective.

Mr. Lemass

The reason I object to Deputy Cosgrave's terms of reference is because they are deliberately framed to keep these people out of the picture. They are coming into the picture.

Mr. Cosgrave

Add them.

Mr. Lemass

I have drafted the widest possible terms of reference. I listened with astonishment to Deputy Costello stating that my terms of reference were narrow and restricted. The speech which we heard from him must have astonished anyone who had heard something of his reputation as a lawyer. It was an appalling and painful exhibition. Listen to the terms of reference which he says are too restricted and too narrow for him:—

"to investigate and to report to the Dáil on all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the application for and the grant of the said lease, and all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the agreement made by the lessees for the assignment of their rights and obligations under the said lease."

Mr. Cosgrave

Is that your first motion?

Mr. Lemass

That is what I am proposing now. My first motion dealt only with Deputy McGilligan's allegations. I thought Deputy McGilligan would take the excuse of running away from these allegations by saying that the Committee was not given wide enough terms of reference, and, therefore, when the lessees came to me and urged that in their interests the terms of reference should be widened, I agreed in my own interest also, because I am not going to let Deputy McGilligan get away with it. I am going to hang all these allegations round his neck for the rest of his life so that they will rattle in his ears on every occasion that he stands here to slander somebody else.

Deputy McGilligan tried to make a point arising out of his motion here— the point that I know an agreement has been made of a particular kind and that I will not tell the people who made that agreement that I am not going to allow it. That is the only allegation he stuck to to-day and what does that consist of? On 25th April this year the lessees sent me a copy of an agreement which they had made. They furnished a copy of that agreement, not for the purpose of asking my approval of it, but in a different connection altogether, which will become apparent to the Committee. They did not ask me to approve of it, and I gave them no reply concerning it. I have expressed no opinion on it one way or another. I was not asked to express an opinion. That is the allegation. But Deputy McGilligan's friends wrote to me and asked me for an assurance that if such an application for a sub-lease were made I would not withhold my consent, and I refused to give that assurance. That is why this matter is before the Dáil to-day.

Mr. Esmonde

Is that an allegation?

Mr. Lemass

It is a statement of fact. Deputy McGilligan's point No. 2 is this: Do I consider it a proper thing that men should be allowed to traffic in property that is not their own? That is obviously a type of question to which you cannot give a yes or no answer, because if you give a yes or no answer you imply that somebody is in fact trafficking in property which is not their own; and there is nobody doing that, that I am aware of, or doing any of the other things to which Deputy McGilligan referred here. I am saying here, although my knowledge of this agreement and the surrounding circumstances is perhaps only a limited knowledge, that such as it is, it convinced me that not merely are Deputy Briscoe and Senator Comyn going to come out of this inquiry clear of Deputy McGilligan's charges, but they are going to come out of it honourably; and that it will be revealed there that they, in fact, refused to take for their interests in this matter what was offered to them by the people who briefed Deputy McGilligan.

Deputy McGilligan made reference to the fact that I had to apologise to Mr. Joseph McGrath for having said something here on Wednesday last which conveyed the impression that he was associated with Irish Prospectors Limited. I did apologise to Mr. McGrath for having made that suggestion about him, and I think it is well to be clear that he has had no association with this particular development at all. He had association with an earlier gold project in 1930, but, as I stated already, as action taken by Irish Prospectors Limited created the impression in certain minds that he was associated with them, he took very definite action to have that impression removed.

Deputy McGilligan stated as a sort of additional charge that we had not sent notification of our willingness to accept applications for a mining lease of this property to a person who was within a stone's throw of Government Buildings, but that we sent it to a firm of solicitors in London and that is why we got no reply. On the same date that notification was sent to the firm of solicitors in London, a copy of the same letter with a covering note was sent to the individual in question —Mr. Summerfield.

Mr. MacDermot

Surely we have got back to the question of substance and away from the motion?

Mr. Lemass

I thought Deputy McGilligan was making another charge which was not covered by the terms of reference here. However, I think it is.

Mr. McGilligan

I did make one, which you neglected, about the £25.

Mr. Lemass

That is a circumstance surrounding the application for a lease.

Mr. McGilligan

It will not be ruled out?

Mr. Lemass

I am not sure whether it will or not. I am not clear as to its relevancy; but the Committee will be the judges of that.

Mr. McGilligan

I will explain if you like.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy need not bother. I do not know that there was anything else said that I need refer to now. Deputy McGilligan made statements here which, even though they did not state in so many words the charges set out in the motion, nevertheless conveyed that impression to the minds of Deputies outside his Party and the members of the general public, as the statements by Deputy The O'Mahony and Deputy Kent have in fact indicated. When I challenged him to-day to say that his words were not intended to convey that impression, he refused to do it. On the contrary, he repeated the insinuation in each case and, consequently, I must insist that these charges are going to be investigated by the Committee. They can bring Deputy McGilligan there and they can ask him to produce whatever evidence he has, if he has any evidence, to support his allegations. When they have got rid of that, they can turn to investigate these alleged charges, having at their disposal all the information available in the Department of Industry and Commerce, all the departmental records, all the officials of the Department, and any members of the public whom they may think fit to bring before them.

Mr. MacDermot

This has only occurred to my mind now; it is not the result of any conference: has the Minister faced this possibility, that if he insists on framing the terms of reference, as they are framed here, on the basis of saying that Deputy McGilligan alleged certain things which he says he did not allege, the result may be that Deputy McGilligan and others in this Party may refuse to have anything to do with the Committee?

Mr. Lemass

I am prepared to withdraw that part of the resolution now on this condition and this condition only: that Deputy McGilligan stands up here and says that not merely did he not make those charges but that nothing that is contained in his speech is to be taken as implying them. Only when he says that will I withdraw it.

Mr. McGilligan

Is there anything else which I did not say that the Minister would like me to withdraw?

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy is not prepared to withdraw that, then those charges go for investigation.

Mr. McGilligan

Whether I said them or not.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy's phrases are open to the interpretation that I have put upon them.

Mr. McGilligan

I asked the Minister to give me a phrase. He said he would give me one. Get me one now.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy said that to-day. He said in relation to the first charge that these people were members of the Government Party— the people who got the lease. He said "I believe they got the lease because they were members of the Government Party." The Deputy said that to-day. That is charge No. 1. I take it that No. 2 stands.

Deputy McGilligan

Which I had not made previously to-day.

Mr. Lemass

It is made now.

Mr. McGilligan

I have made other charges here. Why were they not put in?

Mr. Lemass

Charge No. 2 was made. Charge No. 3 was that other parties were interested in these deposits before, and that they subsequently became interested in them after the lease was issued.

Mr. McGilligan

Which Deputy Briscoe says.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy left that to be implied. That allegation has got to be investigated. The three charges are going to the Committee and let them report if they will. Deputy McGilligan made no effort to substantiate those charges.

Mr. McGilligan

Because he did not say them.

Mr. Lemass

I am prepared to do a much more difficult thing. As Deputy McGilligan, who is a lawyer, well knows it is easy to refute charges: to prove that particular charges are not true, but I am prepared, in relation to these or any similar charges, to prove a negative: to prove that they could not possibly be true.

Mr. McGilligan

What is the Minister going to prove could not be true?

Mr. Lemass

Any charge made by the Deputy.

Mr. McGilligan

But where are they? That is not one of them.

Mr. Lemass

There was no specific charge made at any time in the allegations.

Mr. McGilligan

Look at (a) and (b). They are specifically phrased.

Mr. Lemass

They are in the form of questions.

Mr. McGilligan

Take (a). Is that a question?

Mr. Lemass

The allegation there is that I did not answer a question I was never asked.

Mr. McGilligan

Let the Committee report on that. Will you put that in?

Mr. Lemass

Certainly, it is in.

Mr. McGilligan

No.

Mr. Lemass

It is in full in the terms of reference which I have prepared for the Committee. They can investigate anything and everything that is associated or connected with or surrounding the lease or agreement. Deputy McGilligan is not going to get from me an excuse for running away from his charges.

Mr. McGilligan

The dust is so thick about this that the Minister is running away.

Mr. Lemass

I will drag the Deputy before that Committee, and if he does not turn up, then we will have to consider whether we will not set up a judicial inquiry before which he can be brought on warrant either to sustain his charges or withdraw them.

Mr. McGilligan

You will find it difficult to drag me before a Committee to sustain charges I did not make.

Mr. Lemass

I will cure the Deputy of his habit of making wild charges here and then running away from them.

Mr. McGilligan

I asked the Minister to give me a phrase which would cover (c). When I called attention to the terms of the motion, the Minister said that he would give me a phrase to cover (c), but we have not got it yet.

Mr. Lemass

"All the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the application."

Mr. McGilligan

I mean paragraph (c) of your own motion. I was told that a phrase would be got for me to substantiate (c), which is an allegation of mine, and I am pointing out to the Minister that he has omitted to do that.

Mr. Lemass

The implication in the Deputy's speech was that these people were interested before the lease was given.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister said that my motion was deliberately framed to exclude certain people from this investigation. I know nothing about these people except what I gathered from the Minister in the course of his observations. I am not aware of anything in connection with this except what appeared in the Press. Does the Minister accept that?

Mr. Lemass

I accept what the Deputy says, that the motion was not deliberately framed to exclude them, but, accidentally, it has that effect.

Mr. MacDermot

I am surprised at the Minister refusing to accept my suggestion. It surely would be possible to frame terms of reference that we could all agree to. I am genuinely anxious to have all this explored in a temperate and judicial spirit. I do not believe that we should have a party fight. It would be futile, I think, if the inquiry were to proceed on the lines laid down.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is only trying to find a way out for Deputy McGilligan.

Mr. McGilligan

Do not be foolish.

Mr. MacDermot

Have an inquiry to investigate all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the transaction. That would include the propriety of the original lease and the propriety of the sub-lease which these people were proposing to enter into. Have that, and add anything else you like to it, but why bring in this controversial matter?

Mr. Lemass

The main purpose of the inquiry is to ascertain what justification Deputy McGilligan had for making these charges.

Mr. McGilligan

And which he says he did not make. Before the motion is put, may I refer to a statement I made with regard to a particular sum of money that was collected? Deputy Briscoe said it was not true. May I be permitted to read a paragraph from the letter of the solicitor who collected the £25?

Mr. Briscoe

Leave it to the Committee.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. I am sure that that can be done at the inquiry.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 31.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Carty, Frank.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Donnelly, Eamon.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Kent, William Rice.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Lynch, James B.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Cleary, Mícheál.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corbett, Edmond.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Daly, Denis.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Norton, William.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pattison, James P.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl

• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Desmond, William.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Reidy, James.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Bennett and O'Leary.

Question declared carried.