I am not discussing the value or the extent of Communism, but the extent of Communism elsewhere and the danger of it here constitute one reason for our opposition to this motion, which, on the plea of urgency, asks us to allow this Bill to be steam-rolled through in a day, to allow all the concluding stages to be taken. Because of the situation created generally by Ministers, because of the evidence we have that that situation is largely accepted by the Government's followers—not by all of them, but by many of them, and I merely adduce, as evidence of that position, the campaign of the Irish Press—it is necessary for us to explain our attitude. I will admit that they are not responsible as Ministers—I made that quite clear—but that this House can hurriedly discuss a Bill of such import as this, that it should be asked to give freedom to the President to dispose of all remaining stages in a single day— that we could intelligently discuss that without any reference to the wishes of the country on the matter and the campaign in the country, I find it diffcult to understand.
I can only attach one significance and one meaning to the attitude taken up by the Government—that, despite everything that has been said, despite, as I believe, the feeling prevalent in their own Party, in the country, amongst many of their followers, and important followers at that, they are determined not to give way; having taken the wrong course, they are determined to continue on the wrong course. There is no explanation otherwise of a motion of this kind being tabled to-day.
We have been accused of misrepresentation. If there was any misrepresentation, it was not ours. If anybody misrepresented the President, it was himself in his attempt to explain away what he said. That was the real misrepresentation. If there has been any doubt as to his attitude on the questions raised by this Bill and by this motion, there is only the one person to blame, and that is the man who refuses to give a straight answer to a straight question. I am not going into the question of misrepresentation. I, amongst others, have been accused of misrepresenting the President. I leave it to anybody who reads the report of the proceedings of this House to determine which of us gave the truer interpretation of his meaning. A man who can give a harmless inter pretation to a statement attributed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance which that Parliamentary Secretary never made, and which he denies is true, but which the President shows is quite harmless— that man can do anything in the way of explanation, and he has done it.
How can we give to the Government what they want in this particular matter? How can we trust the Government? What right have we, even if we wanted, to give powers to the Government to pass in a single day a Bill of this kind when one of the principal Ministers of the Government, the Minister for Finance, speaking last Sunday, said:
"This land required the service and sacrifice of every son of Ireland and had no blood, no zeal, and no enthusiasm to spend in any other cause or in any other country"?
After that statement by the Minister for Finance last Sunday, we are accused of misrepresentation and we are asked by that same Government of which he is such a prominent Minister to give these facilities to-day. I think it would be degrading if for a moment we considered anything of the kind. There are certain aspects of the Minister for Finance's speech last Sunday into which I do not intend to go. Events have occurred quite recently that make me avoid some particular parts of that speech and I shall not deal with them. But from that speech alone you know, Sir, and the House knows the views of the Government, who are asking us to do this to-day.
What must be the atmosphere in which these Ministers move if the Minister for Finance was able to make a statement of that kind? Why talk of misrepresentations about "isms" when the Minister for Finance states: "This land required the service and sacrifice of every son of Ireland, and they had no blood, no zeal and no enthusiasm to spend in any other cause or in any other country"? We all love this land of ours and are proud of it. We are proud of this land, of her traditions, of her history, and of her steadfastness to ideals. I hope everybody here, each in his own particular way, tries to serve that land and these ideals. But despite the Minister for Finance, and despite some other Deputies, such as Deputy MacDermot, I suggest that there is a higher cause even than the particular ones mentioned by the Minister for Finance. I think it is a shocking thing that a Minister for this State should make a statement of that kind. High as we rate and deeply as we respect the interests of this country, there is an even higher cause than these. And yet a Government of which that man is a Minister come down here to-day and ask this House to display their confidence in that Government by passing this guillotine resolution. The same enlightened Minister said: "There was a civil war being waged in Spain, and why should Irishmen fight on one side or the other?" Let me point out that it was not whether, as part and parcel of an international agreement, this Bill should be forced through, but that it was the merits of the case that were being argued.