THE FINANCE. OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
IT is to be hoped that the Memorandum which the head of the Treasury, Sir Edward Hamilton, has prepared for the Commission now investigating the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, will help to clear people's ideas on a subject which, though simple in itself, has hitherto been darkened and perplexed by a great amount of factious rhetoric and misplaced sentiment. The facts, and the whole of the facts, are what is wanted to place the true position before the public. If these are once clearly understood, there is little fear of a wrong decision being come to in regard to the financial relations between the various parts of the United King- dom. After the State of Pennsylvania had defrauded its creditors, Sidney Smith used to say that he could never meet a sleek Pennsylvanian at dinner without desiring to remind him of his financial misdeeds, and cal- culating out how much the said Pennsylvanian owed the creditors per head. Ever since the first Home.. rule Bill brought the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland into question, the patriots of the Irish party have been trying to follow this example, and to make out that not only were England's hands red. with Ireland's life-blood, but that owing to a long course of fiscal injustice every Englishman owed every Irishman a substantial sum of money. That it is England's duty to " refund " has become indeed one of the stock demands of the Home-rulers—a demand whose vague- ness has not in the least interfered with its persistency. Unfortunately, however, this comfortable belief that England owes Ireland a heap of money, and only with- holds it because she is strong and her victim weak, has in no sense the substantial basis which belonged to Sidney Smith's witty complaint. Pennsylvania repudiated debts due by her to Englishmen. In the case of Ireland the repudiation has been all the other way. A very substantial amount of the Imperial money lent to Ireland has not been repaid, and has had to be written off as a bad debt. But even in Ireland the fact that A borrows money from B and then has to be let off paying back, does not put B into A's debt.
The truth is, that the allegation that Ireland has been unfairly treated, will not hold water for a single moment, unless we mean by unfairly treated, treated with a generosity not allowed to Great Britain. In whatever way the matter is looked at, Ireland must be admitte& to have had justice, and more than justice. When the Union took place, certain terms were agreed on between the two Treasuries. If it could be shown that these terms have not been kept, then no doubt Ireland would have a grievance. But it is impossible to show anything of the kind. Instead, when in 1817 the Treasuries were amal- gamated, Ireland, it is calculated, had paid 445,000,000 less than she had bargained to pay. Further, £2,000,000 of arrears were wiped off at the beginning of the new arrangement. A common Treasury, in fairness to Great Britain, ought to have meant the levying in Ireland of the same taxes which were levied in Great Britain. It meant, however, nothing of the kind. To this day there are several taxes which Great Britain pays and Ireland does not. Again, there are in Ireland charges borne by the Imperial Government which in England and Scotland are borne locally. Lastly, money has been spent and lent in Ireland by the Imperial Govern- ment with a lavish hand ; and when it has been lent, it has often not been repaid. We do not mean, however, to blame the Irish for the difficulty experienced in several instances in collecting the interest on loans. If you lend money with a philanthropic intent to very poor people, you cannot expect the regularity in payment of a first- class mortgage. In Calverley's immortal account of a college meeting, the Bursar remarks that "there is nobody so difficult to get money out of as solicitors—except clergymen." This profound reflection is capped by the Master with "The latter probably because they can't pay." The Irish out of whom money could not be got by the Treasury, were in the position assigned by the Master to clergymen in general. They did not pay because they could not. But this fact, as we have ventured to hint above, does not make it any the less absurd for Irishmen to cherish the feeling that they are owed a great deal by Great Britain. No doubt suffranee should be the badge of all our tribe ; but even an Englishman must protest against this system of making him a constructive debtor. When the Irish Nationalist is driven by the base, brutal, and unjust logic of facts from the position that Ireland has been pillaged for a century to satisfy the greed of the British Treasury, he is apt to reply that it does not really make any difference. Even supposing that Ireland has been treated equally in the matter of taxation—a supposi- tion against which he of course declares, in parenthesis, that the ocean, and the eternal instincts of humanity, and the harp of Tam, collectively protest—she has been hideously robbed. What is fair taxation in a rich country is gross oppression in a poor one. Therefore, he argues, England, by applying to Ireland a system of taxation devised to meet the needs of Great Britain, is acting with callous tyranny. Now, theoretically, this may sound very well, but in practice it is nonsense. To begin with, if the principle were accepted, it would exclude almost the whole of East London and all Southwark, Lambeth, and the rest of South London, from the taxable area of the country. If you are to pick out the poor areas and relieve them of the burden of Imperial taxation, you will soon knock your fiscal system into fragments. The Highlands, North Wales, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, and Wiltshire will all put in pleas for exeinption, and will be able to make out quite as good. .a case as Ireland. There may be something in the -principle of equality of sacrifice when it is applied. to individuals. When it is given a geographical meaning, it becomes utterly subversive of sound finance. The truth is, as long as two countries remain fiscally united, the only possible principle for Imperial taxation is that the same taxes shall be levied over both areas. It may be necessary to exempt certain industries or classes, but the exemption of areas is almost 'certain to work unfairly. Take the case of the Income-tax, as the greatest of all our taxes. If a man has £500 a year, there is no more reason for his escaping when he lives in Dublin or Cork, than when his house is in Liverpool. His money goes as far in one place as in the other. Indeed, if anything, it goes farther in a town like Dublin, where the minimum cab-fare is sixpence instead of a shilling, and the rate of wages is in proportion. No doubt the fact that Irishmen consume more whisky than Englishmen makes them pay more Excise per head. than Englishmen, though nbt more than Scotchmen ; but this is an accidental wrong which each man can redress for himself. No one would be found to regret a whisky boycott in order to reduce Ireland's contribution to the Imperial Exchequer. Let all Irishmen swear-off whisky on Fridays, and the grievance would be automatically put an end to. The truth is, that under a system of taxation like ours, there is no room for unfair- ness. Possibly, if we had a poll-tax and a hearth-tax, which each man paid, whatever his means, it might be unfair to the poorer portions of the Kingdom. The five million people in Ireland would pay as much as the five million people in London, and yet have far less money to pay with. Since, however, we have no taxes of this kind, the poor area grievance is an absurdity.
In our opinion, the only sound position is to tax all parts of the United. Kingdom equally. For this reason, we hold that it would be quite right to levy in Ireland those taxes which are not now paid there. But while we would enforce equality of taxation, we would not enforce equality of expenditure. We think it perfectly fair that the rich parts of the country should help the poor ; and we would therefore, when and if it could be shown expedient, give considerable help to Ireland as the most important poor area in the United. Kingdom. For example, we entirely approve of the policy of developing light railways in Ireland out of Imperial funds. There remains, how- ever, the question of how to divide the Imperial burdens if and when you grant Home-rule. Here we hold that the only plan which our statesmen as trustees for the fiscal rights of England and Scotland ought to listen to is one of strict justice. As long as we and Ireland keep house together, let us be generous as well as just. If a divorce is insisted on, then let Ireland have not one farthing more than her fair share. It is monstrous not merely to dissolve a bond which should have been indissoluble, but to give the cause of so grave an injury to the national welfare a handsome annual tribute. Ireland has no right to ask for more than strict justice, nor have we the right to • yield her more. Let her take her pound of flesh but no more. To bribe her to depart, as was proposed in the last Home-rule Bill, is insufferable. That scheme was, we believe, only assented to, even by the Glalstonian Members, on the mistaken ground that Ireland had been badly treated in the past. Had they learned the true facto, as we hope they and the whole country will soon learn them, they could not have consented, even in a Bill which was not meant to pass, to the paying of an annual tribute to Ireland.
Previous page
