THE NEW IRISH MOVEMENT.
HERE appear to be signs of a new movement in Ireland. Wearied of the perpetual wrangles of yites, Dillonites, and Parnellites, a large number of ions who are not definitely attached to any one of the factions seem to be ready for a new political pro- me, and the outward and visible sign of their ude is to be found in the revolution accomplished in Dublin Express, which, from being an organ of a hilarly obscurantist Toryism, has become, under the trship and inspiration of Mr. Horace Plunkett, an of somewhat vague Nationalism and a much more ite economic propaganda. What this propaganda is be inferred from a letter of Mr. Lecky's, who has his benediction to the transformed newspaper. Mr. says : "The probabilities of a cordial co-operation lasses for strictly business purposes have mani- increased, and if this co-operation continues, it o much to diminish the hatreds, the divisions, and .sunderstandings that have so greatly retarded the ess of Ireland." We find the pith of the new move- in these words of Mr. Lecky: "a cordial co-operation ses for strictly business purposes." In other words, diem plus business,—that appears to represent the h movement. It is evident that this movement or the present drop the vexed question of what is (Ally known as Home-rule,—it will not take up the d threads of the Parnellite tradition. Nor will it, esnme, interfere in any way with the organisation of ome-rule factions, but will, so to speak, leave the bury their dead. It will assume that the mass of en who are neither Fenians on the one band nor men on the other are tired of barren agitation, and Lou for increased prosperity, which can only come h the channels of internal peace. It will not im- br seek to influence the Government in behalf of a in the Dublin Castle methods, but it will be sly vague on the political side, and trust to the 1 institutions doing their work well.
, we take it, is a fairly accurate representation of s of a movement supported by a Nationalist-land- an and the co-operation of so patriotic an Irishman Lecky. It seems at first sight promising in spite agueness, but, in the light of Mr. Lecky's interest- ter, we must ask what, from the economic point of view, it will really mean. "Don't make a union with us, we shall rob you," said Dr. Johnson to an Irishman, and the phrase has often been quoted in Ireland and in England alike to suggest that the Union of 1800 did actually despoil the Irish people. But now, unless we misread the uncertain language of the Dublin Express, the new Irish movement is practically a, kind of Irish national joint-stock association for the exploitation of England. It is all founded on two corner-stones,—first, the Financial Relations Report with all its implications, and secondly, on the idea of taxing England in order, in some mysterious way, to " develop " Ireland. Now, we have more than once dealt with the subject of Anglo-Irish financial relations, and have shown, we think, that Ireland as a whole has been in no way exploited by an unjust system of taxation. We may admit that the cost of the Irish establishment has been excessive, but that is a quite different question. Taxation, of course, falls on individuals, and it is almost meaningless to speak of the taxation of Ireland as a whole ; but if we are to do so, we must say that the elaborate case of fiscal injustice to Ireland as a whole concocted by the Financial Relations Commission is not only not proven, but not probable. So far as par- ticular individuals and classes are concerned, we believe so thoroughly in the essential solidarity of the social whole that we are perfectly willing to consider cases of hardship alike in Ireland, and the poorer districts of England, Wales, and Scotland. Where it can be shown that the burden of taxation bears heavily, we think the richer portions of the -United Kingdom should in the future, as in the past, come to the relief of the poorer, in order that a general substantial equality should be reached and maintained. But we say again that this is a quite different thing from wiping off the greater part of Irish fiscal obligation from the ledger, as we understand many of those who are now talking on the subject of the financial relations—though not, of course, Mr. Lecky, for he has always admitted the necessity for fiscal unity—would have us do.
But now, to turn to the policy of "cordial co-operation of classes for strictly business purposes," or, as a very unfriendly critic might call it, a Nationalism based on raids upon the English taxpayer, we want to know what it is Mr. Lecky and his friends have in view. In what way is the Treasury to assist in the development of Irish industries ?' For it is the industries, not the agriculture, of Ireland which are now stated to need external aid. The proposal seems to us to savour of a kind of Protectionism, and few who know Ireland will doubt that the majority of Irish- men of all political opinions are more or less favourably disposed towards Protectionist doctrines. Mr. Parnell himself was an avowed Protectionist, and it was found necessary in the Home-rule Bills to insert clauses to prevent a Dublin Parliament levying a tariff, as, left to itself, it would certainly do. The industrial position of Ireland, the Dublin Express asserts' "has within recent years entered. upon an acute crisis." Severe competition is complained of, and it is asserted that unless that competition is artificially stemmed, "Ireland will be as industrially bankrupt as Jamaica." The public and Parliament are to be helped "to realise the urgency of this question," and Ireland is to be provided with "a business programme for business men, whose goal is a creation of an industrial popula- tion." Now, we confess all this reads to us very like the thousand and one appeals of Colonial Protectionism which we have read from time to time. Industries are to be "stimulated" by Government aid where they could not be expected to grow by natural processes, and that in face of the fact that the chief industries of Ireland—linen and shipbuilding—have not grown by either tariff or bounty, but by prudence and energy. Belfast has never been "fostered." or developed by Government aid, and yet Belfast is the one place in Ireland that has a really satisfactory industrial development. We may be wrong in our inference that Protection is the object aimed. at, but we say that if it is, it will certainly be resisted, arid it ought to be resisted, by the industrious taxpayers of England and Scotland, out of whose pockets the money for galvanising new Irish industries into a sickly existence is to come. We do not grudge Ireland the money, and would spend it in millions if it would really help bai. Fostering industies would do her far more harm than good.
In saying this, however, we by no means intend to imply that all kinds of Government aid are to be con- demned. We do not hold that doctrine at all. With all contrivances for better communication in Ireland, or betweeen Ireland and the rest of the world, we are in full sympathy. Galway ought, for example, to be the natural chief port of communication with America. The passage can be made thither in four days by a great liner, the natural advantages of the port are great, and any neces- sary means of developing these advantages is so obviously a work of the first magnitude and of the first importance to Ireland, that it should be undertaken by Government aid. The question of a submarine tunnel between Ireland and Scotland where the dividing sea narrows to a brief distance is, as we have often pointed out, not only an important, but a probably practicable undertaking, the preliminary survey for which should be made by the Government. This kind of task is the legitimate work of G-overnment, for it provides the routine conditions under which society can be kept together and developed. Again, we would give Ireland everything she can desire in the way of dairy schools and technical education. But a broad line of demarcation separates such works as these from a purely Protectionist policy, by which we mean either creating or bolstering up industries by public taxation without any reference to economic supply and demand. The former we can support, the latter we must condemn. We shall be glad to learn that we are mistaken in thus interpreting the economic aims of the new Irish movement; but its published language so far appears to us to connote a doctrine of Protectionism, and a desire to "make business" for Ireland by the exploitation of the sister-island.
Previous page
