THE SEPARATE FINANCIAL ENTITY OF IRELAND.
THE financial relations debate has been a very useful one, and will, in our opinion, show that only those who bold to Home-rule for Ireland,—who are likely to be fewer with every year both in and out of Ireland,—can ultimately hold to the doctrine that after the final con- solidation of the two Exchequers, Ireland can have any claim to separate financial treatment, except such claim as the poorest parts of England and Scotland have to treatment of the same kind. Undoubtedly the great principle of union is that, so far as is possible, every man under one Government should be treated like every other man of the same means. A rich man in Ireland should be taxed on the same footing as a rich man of the same wealth in Scotland or England. A poor man in Ireland should be taxed on the same footing as a poor man of the same means in England or Scotland. That is the rule of equal financial justice, and that is the rule which not only Unionists accept, but which even Radicals like Mr. Whittaker appear to accept. So long as there is a case for the self-government of Ireland for all those to whom it appears that such a case exists, there is also a case of course for the separate financial treatment of Ireland, which is indeed one of the main aspects of separate political treatment. But so far as that claim to separate political treatment is denied, and for those by whom it is honestly denied, it is impossible to suppose that such a claim can be isolated, and taken out of its proper rela- tion to the other and larger claims of which it is in truth a constituent part. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed in his admirable speech, those who claim to have Ireland treated as a separate financial entity really go far beyond that, and wish to have her treated as a separate political entity altogether. First they seem to hold, and very probably really do believe that they hold, that Ireland ought to coetribute her fair share of the common expenses of the Empire. But the moment you go into the question of what that common share ought to be, you find that it is a mere vanishing quantity, that the Irish people being deeply convinced that England has been the source of all their miseries and none of their happiness, that she virtually caused their rebellion in 1798, and ruined them by the Act of Union, and caused the diminution of their population by emigration, and was at the bottom of the great famine, and deprived them of their trade, and is responsible for their having no mineral wealth and no coal, but has had nothing to do with the accumulation of their savings in the savings-banks, or the rapidly increasing value of their tenant right,—in fact, that England has been their evil genius all through, and has done nothing for Ireland by her great Imperial policy except rob Ireland of her men of genius and turn them to the account of the British Empire,—they necessarily hold that there is such an enormous debt due to Ireland in the past in the shape of indirect claims for all this burden of calamity, that it is simply idle to talk of any present contribution from Ireland towards the common cost of the Empire. For decades,—nay, centuries,—England will be, in Irish opinion, in Ireland's debt, and if England goes on accepting even the whole burden of what is called ttie Imperial Government for generations, she will not even then have repaid the huge cost of her iniquities towards Ireland, so that to propose any contribution of Ireland towards the common cost of Army and Navy and other expenses of the United Kingdom, is not to be thought of till all this almost infinite accumula- tion of just claims against England for injury inflicted on Ireland has been paid off. That is the real view which the Irish party take of the financial relations of the two countries. The origin of the recent Commission of Inquiry was due to Mr. Gladstone's wish to know what ought to be fixed as the fair contribution of Ireland towards the common expenses of the two countries. But this was precisely what the Com- missioners found it impossible to consider. They went off into the question of "taxable capacity" in order to avoid it. The Irish party evidently did not believe that any contribution from Ireland is due, or could be due, for an indefinite period. They were so filled with the notion of the tremendous damages due from England to Ireland, that their minds refused to grasp such a conception as that of any contribution due from Ireland to England. Mr. Gladstone's comparatively humble and moderate financial problem was lost in the great waste of con- siderations which established to their minds that the debt was all the other way ; and that is the real explana- tion of the Report which Ireland now asks Parliament to consider.
Now, is it not perfectly obvious that it is really Home- rule for Ireland which is at the bottom of this financial Commission's conclusions ? It is true that a few of the more moderate of the Irish Unionists have tried to put the case on the special exemptions which were still promised to Ireland at the time of the Union if even the Exchequers of the two kingdoms should be amalgamated as they were amalgamated in 1817. But as the Chancellor of the Exchequer conclusively showed, that question is not in the least ripe for consideration without a good deal more investigation than any Commission has effected as yet. As he showed, there is no pretence of a claim for the special exemption of Ireland as regards direct taxation. Already she pays a less proportion of direct taxation than Great Britain, even on the standard accepted by her own advocates. It is only on the indirect taxes, —the tea, tobacco, and spirit duties,—that she claims to have a special case for exemptions, and there the difficulty is as to the kind of remissions for which she asks. Nor does she actually ask for any at all. What she does ask for is some equivalent grant that shall be taken in lieu of her claim for exemptions, and shall go towards a, fund for stimulating Irish industry and commerce. Now, that is not treating Ireland as a distinct financial entity at all. It is giving up her claim to be so treated on con- dition that she is to be rewarded for giving it up. And if it is to be put in that way, it becomes a very difficult question to what equivalent Ireland can lay claim. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed, it is quite possible that by the breaking up of landed pro- perties which has been recently so much encouraged in Ireland, Ireland's landed wealth has been very much concealed from view, so that the schedules of the Income- tax on land no longer show it adequately. Then again it is almost impossible to compare the indirect taxation of Ireland at the time of the Union with the indirect taxation of Ireland now, as at that time Protection was all but universal, and now it is virtually extinct. So far as can be judged, it is very doubtful indeed whether Ireland has not gained greatly by Free-trade. At all events, in- creasing taxation no longer shows that tendency to be un- productive of gain to the Exchequer which indicates that it really presses heavily on the people. It is perfectly certain that unless tea is to be regarded as a "necessary of life," no necessary of life is taxed in Ireland, and the tax upon tea presses on Ireland very lightly. However, we entirely agree that it is not requisite to show that it is on any necessary of life that Ireland is taxed more heavily than Great Britain. If it is only on her alcoholic drinks that her poorer classes pay more heavily than England, or only on tobacco, or on both, still there is a ease for special exemptions, and no doubt that is what Irish Members maintain. But how can any one who, like Mr. Morley, asks for a million to be placed in the hands of the Irish County Councils, deny that the question of the amount of the exemptions requires further investigation. What the majority of the Commission reported was that Ireland was overtaxed to the amount of two millions and a half, and therefore what Mr. Morley asks for implies an opinion on his part that the majority of the Commission asked for too much, at least if they had passed any unani- mous judgment as to the amount of the set-offs,—which bliev did not. It is perfectly clear that if you come to in- quire into the set-offs, that point requires further and closer investigation. No one of any importance proposes to remit either whisky or tobacco duties for Ireland and Ireland alone. No one of any importance proposes to break up Great Britain and Ireland into two separate and distinct Customs areas. And if once that course be given up, it is impossible to deny that without fresh inquiry there can be no prospect of establishing what any reasonable person will regard as a system of equitable taxation as between the two countries. No wonder that Mr. Blake lost his resolution by a majority of one hundred and sixty. We only wonder that he did not lose it by a majority of two hundred at the least.
Previous page
