Business of the Dáil.

Before we proceed with the ordinary business I want to say that I raised a question last night about the Committee Stage of the Widows' and Orphans' Bill and I asked if the House would be willing to have the date changed. The Committee Stage of the Bill was fixed for the 18th of June. If it could be taken on next Wednesday it would convenience me very much without causing much inconvenience to the House.

If that is agreed to, will the Minister indicate up to what time he will be prepared to receive amendments?

Up to the latest possible date, Tuesday as far as I am concerned.

If the Committee Stage is taken on Wednesday next can the Vice-President say when the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will be taken?


If we are not to meet on Tuesday will the Second Reading of the Finance Bill give way to the Widows' and Orphans' Bill and so take the Finance Bill on Thursday?

Since Deputy Mulcahy has raised this question of the Finance Bill, I want to say that most of the main clauses in the Bill have been fully discussed already in the House and anything new can be said on the Committee Stage.

Ordered: That the Order of the 4th June for the consideration of the Widows' and Orphans' Bill in Committee of the whole Dáil on Tuesday 18th of June be discharged; the Bill to be considered in Committee of the whole Dáil on Wednesday next.

With your permission, Sir, I would like to raise a point of order in connection with the discussion in this House last night. Speaking in the House yesterday evening on the Land Commission Estimate, Deputy Dillon asked you whether it was parliamentary to describe a Deputy of this House as a cheap fraud and you quite promptly informed the Deputy that it was not permissible so to describe a Deputy of this House. Notwithstanding that very clear advice, Deputy Dillon said that in view of your ruling he would refrain from describing Deputy Murphy as a cheap demagogic fraud. I submit to you that that is a slanderous statement, that it is grossly insulting to Deputy Murphy, and in view of your first ruling I submit that it is grossly offensive to the Chair. For the guidance of other members of the House I would like to know, as Deputy Dillon was not asked to withdraw that, whether you should rule that that expression should be repeated in this House and whether similar expressions will also be regarded in order in the future?

I might also add my expression of opinion as to the statement made by——

One definite point has been raised. In purporting to refrain from directly using certain expressions in the course of debate yesterday, the Deputy referred to resorted to a subterfuge of which the Chair disapproves and the repetition of which the Chair strongly deprecates.

May I take it from that, that you, Sir——

The Deputy has to take what the Chair said as said. There should be no comments on the Chair's ruling.

Would the Chair also consider Deputy Dillon's remarks yesterday when he described as rambling——

There can be no more discussion now on that matter.