IRELAND’S DILEMMA

New Zealand Tablet, 12 October 1916, Page 27

IRELAND’S DILEMMA

(By M; J. Sheahan, Auckland.)

Ireland is now saddled, in spite of a Home Rule majority of over one hundred in the present Parliament, with a Unionist executive, which, in terms of a resolution of the Irish Party, ‘is an outrage on the feelings of the Irish people.’ Mr. Duke, the new Unionist Chief Secretary, in an address to his Exeter constitutents, said: ‘Fox Ireland only two courses were left opencoercion or an amicable settlement.’ To Ireland, what a familiar ring there is in this statement. Mr. Duke has just entered a Cabinet which, by repudiating its own terms of agreement, has rendered impossible ‘an amicable settlement.’ Will he face the alternative— ‘coercion?’ ‘cries aloud for the strong hand.’ If he contemplates the ‘ strong hand ’ his present colleagues, Messrs. Balfour and —old hands at the game—will explain to him their ignominious failures, which portion will be assuredly his. The maiden speech, the cable told us, delivered by Mr. H. E. Duke in Dublin, ‘ produced an excellent effect.’ ‘ Ireland’s revenue,’ he said, ‘ had risen from £11,000,000 to £18,000,000 during the war, and instead of Ireland costing the Exchequer £2,000,000, she was now contributing £5,300,000 yearly for war purposes.’ This reads nicely; and to those who are experimenting on the government of Ireland, as well as to those who place implicit faith and reliance in the experimenters the ‘ excellent effect produced ’ is on a par with the hackneyed expression, ‘ the wish is father *£to the thought.’ What are the facts? From 1819, when the British and Irish Exchequers were amalgamated, down to the financial year 1909-10. the British Treasury has wrung ‘ surpluses ’ in every year in that period from Ireland. The British maladministration of Ireland has decimated the population by one-half, and has increased the burden of the people four-fold. Ireland, under British rule, is not only the most costly government in Europe, .but the most costly government

in the world. The Childers Financial Commission, 1894, found that for fifty years Ireland had been annually overtaxed to the extent of between two and three million pounds. The country was bled white. In the financial year 1909-11 (the year 1910 was disturbed, due to Mr. Lloyd George’s new Budget proposals), Ireland for the first time since the union of the Exchequers in 1819, showed a deficit of £1,098,000. In 1911-12 the deficit was £845,000; in 1912-13 it was £1,405,500; in 1913-14 it was £1,222,500, and in 1914-15 it was £266,500. Now, it will be asked, how is it that for 1915-16 Mr. Duke is able to state that Ireland was now contributing £5,300,000 yearly for war purposes? By the imposition upon Ireland of excessive war taxation, which the preceding six years of successive deficits clearly prove that she was unable to bear. This could hardly be otherwise, because the same hoary system of costly government was to be, and is maintained. I may here state that the figures above quoted, and hereafter quoted, are taken from the Treasury White Papers of 1891-1915. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s forecast of Ireland’s account under proposed administration for the years 1915-18 was as follows: Estimated Expenditure Imperial ‘ True ’ by England Contribution Revenue. on Ireland, from Ireland. 1915- ... £16,727,426 £13,030,166 £3,697,310 1916- ... 20,714,264 13,404,362 7,309,932 3917-18 ... 19,910.898 13,778,498 6,132,400 To show what value may be placed on Mr. Duke’s ‘ prosperity,’ let us take the total ‘ true ’ Irish revenue and expenditure for the five years, 1910-11 to 1914-15 inclusive, showing the loss for the five years, together with the average annual loss for the period under review. Expenditure (gross) for five years ...£59,712,500 Receipts, ‘true’ revenue, for five years ... 54,874,500 Loss in five years 4,838,000 Loss per year for five years ... ...£ 967,600 While allowing for increase in prices of cattle and produce, due to the war, in which Ireland must largely benefit, and to which may be added a comparatively small war expenditure in the country, it is too much to ask us to believe that by those sources alone an annual recurring loss, has been magically turned into a surplus of £5,300,000. For the fictitious ‘surplus’ we must turn to the application of the taxation screw, and arrive at the conclusion that Ireland, already staggering under her financial burden, created by misgovernment, has been, and is now, to be loaded up to the breaking point. What a legacy to pass on to a home Government. It recalls the great Famine year of 184950, when the Irish people paid and died and the British Treasury netted £2,613,778 from Ireland as ‘ surplus ’ in that awful year. The Irish Chief Secretary of that time would, no doubt, like Mr. Duke, ‘ produce an excellent effect ’ by telling the unwary of Ireland’s ‘ prosperity.’