FOOTNOTES:
[1] The two latter works were written by Mr. Lecky in his Nationalist youth the first and greater work after he had become a Unionist. They form a connected whole, however, and are not inconsistent with one another.
[2] See "Democracy and Liberty."
[3] "Did the people of Ireland understand that the destruction of the Union, so lightly advocated by Lord Haldane, must result in the cessation of those largely eleemosynary benefits to which the progress of Ireland is due, her 'dissatisfaction' would be unmistakably directed towards her false advisers?"—Letter to the Belfast Telegraph, October 7, 1911, criticizing Lord Haldane's preface to "Home Rule Problems."
[4] Class C. in Sir William Anson's classification, "Law and Custom of the Constitution," p. 253.
[5] J. Fisher, "End of the Irish Parliament" cited.
[6] MS. Autobiography cited by Lecky, vol. ii., p. 35.
[7] The best modern account of the commercial relations of Great Britain Mid Ireland is Miss Murray's "Commercial Relations between England and Ireland."
[8] The origin of North Carolina is, perhaps, debatable. Nearly all historians have represented it as settled by Dissenting refugees; but Mr. S.B. Weeks, a Carolina historian, has written an essay to prove that this was not the case ("Religious Development in the Province of North Carolina," Baltimore, 1892). The Charter contained a clause for liberty of conscience on the instructive ground that, "by reason of the remote distance of those places, toleration would be no breach of the unity and conformity established in this realm."
[9] "Church and State in Maryland," George Petrie. Lord Baltimore, the Catholic founder and Proprietary, enforced complete tolerance from the first (1634), and secured the passage of an Act in 1649 giving legal force to the policy, with heavy penalties against interference with any sect. In 1654 Puritans gained control of the Assembly, and passed an Act against Popery. A counter-revolution repealed this Act, but finally in 1689 the Church of England was established by law.
[10] Lecky, "History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century," vol. i., pp. 408-410.
[11] Until 1692 Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, elected their own Governors. Massachusetts continued to have Colonial Governors, and sometimes New Jersey and New Hampshire. Proprietary Governments were gradually abolished and converted into "Royal" Governments like the rest. At the period of the Declaration of Independence two only were left—Pennsylvania and Maryland (see "Origin and Growth of the English Colonies," H.E. Egerton).
[12] Lecky, "History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century," vol. ii., pp. 124-126.
[13] Trevelyan, "The American Revolution," vol. i., p. 16.
[14] See "The Irish Race in America," by Captain Ed. O'Meagher Condore.
[15] "History of the British Army," vol. iii.
[16] Pitt's original scheme was accepted in Ireland, but defeated in England, owing to the angry opposition of British commercial interests. The scheme, as amended to conciliate these interests, was deservedly rejected in Ireland.
[17] J. Fisher, "The End of the Irish Parliament." The author is much indebted to this brilliant study, which appeared only this year (1911).
[18] See Fitzgibbon's Speeches in the Irish House of Lords, on the Catholic Franchise Bill, March 13, 1793, and on the Union, February 10, 1800.
[19] "Principles of Political Economy," vol. ii., p. 392.
[20] "The Irishman in Canada" (N.F. Davin), a book to which the author is indebted for much information of the same character.
[21] "William Pitt and the National Revival."
[22] Canadian Archives, 1905; "History of Prince Edward Island," D. Campbell; "History of Canada," C.D.G. Roberts. In 1875, after a long period of agitation and discontent, the Land Purchase Act was passed, and the Dominion Government asked Mr. Hugh Childers to adjudicate on the land-sale expressly on the ground that he had been associated with the Irish Land Act of 1870 ("Life of Mr. Childers," by Lieut.-Col. Spencer Childers, vol. i., p. 232).
[23] Canadian Archives, 1900. Note B. Emigration (1831-1834). Irish immigrants in 1829, 9,614; in 1830, 18,300; in 1831, 34,155; in 1832, 28,024; in 1833, 12,013; in 1834, 19,206: about double the immigration of English and Scottish together in the same period.
[24] "Self-government in Canada," F. Bradshaw, p. 96 et seq.
[25] "Durham Report," p. 130.
[26] Hansard, January 23.
[27] "Self-government in Canada," F. Bradshaw, p. 17.
[28] "Letters of Queen Victoria," vol. i., November 22, 1838.
[29] Letter to Lord Malmesbury, August 13, 1852 ("Memoirs of an Ex-Minister," by the Earl of Malmesbury, vol. i., p. 344).
[30] "Life of Gladstone," vol. i., p. 363.
[31] Annual Treasury Returns ["Imperial Revenue (Collection and Expenditure)">[. According to these returns, Ireland's Imperial contribution in 1839, before the famine, was £3,626,322; in 1849, after the famine, £2,613,778, and in 1859-60 no less than £5,396,000. At the latter date the Colonies were estimated to cost three and a half millions a year, of which nine-tenths were contributed by the taxpayers at home, British and Irish.
[32] Full information may be found in "The Irish in Australia," by J.F. Hogan.
[33] For an excellent historical description of the various Australian land systems, see the official "Year-Book of the Commonwealth," 1909.
[34] "Life of Sir George Grey," Professor G.C. Henderson.
[35] Cd. 2479, 1905.
[36] Cd. 2400, 1905.
[37] "It is true that in the case of Canada full responsible government was conceded, a few years after a troublous period culminating in a brief armed rising, to a population composed of races then not very friendly to each other, though now long since happily reconciled. But the Canadas had by that time enjoyed representative institutions for over fifty years, the French-Canadians had since the year 1763 been continuously British subjects, and the disorders which preceded Lord Durham's Mission and the subsequent grant of self-government could not compare in any way with a war like that of 1899-1902. It is also the fact that in the United Colony of Upper and Lower Canada, during the period of 1840-1867, parties were formed mainly upon the lines of races, and that, as the representatives of the races were in number nearly balanced, stability of Government was not attained, a difficulty which was not overcome until the Federation of 1867, accompanied by the relegation of provincial affairs to provincial Legislatures, placed the whole political Constitution of Canada upon a wider basis."
Few would gather from the first sentence that the races were "not very friendly to each other" precisely because they lived under a coercive political system; and that, in the long-run, they were "happily reconciled" because they received responsible government. Nor could it be deduced from the obscure reference lower down to the union of the two Provinces that the Union was the one blot upon Durham's scheme, the one point in which, fearing the predominance of a French majority in Lower Canada, he shrank from his own principles and recommended an unworkable Union which tended to encourage the formation "of parties on the lines of races." From the further allusion to the Federal Union of 1867, no one would imagine that that great scheme was founded on a cessation of racial antipathy inside the Quebec Province, and on a voluntary recognition among all races and parties that it was best for that Province to have a local autonomy of its own, parallel with that of the Ontario Province and under the supreme central authority of the Dominion.
[38] February 26, March 27, 1906.
[39] At Woodford, May 27, 1911.
[40] This is a very general statement. No figures exist for an accurate computation. The Census of 1910 gives the total population of the United States, white and coloured, as 91,272,266, of whom nearly 9,000,000 are negroes. The figures about countries of origin are not yet available. The statistical abstract of the United States (1908) gives the total number of immigrants from Ireland from 1821 to 1908 as 4,168,747 (the large majority of whom must have been of marriageable age), but does not estimate the subsequent increase by marriage, and takes no account of the immigration prior to 1821, which was very large, especially in the period preceding the Revolutionary War of 1775-1782. At the Census of 1900 Irishmen actually born in Ireland and then resident in the United States are stated to have been 1,618,567, as compared with 93,682 from Wales, 233,977 from Scotland, and 842,078 from England.
[41] I am especially indebted for information to Mr. Hugh Sutherland, of the North American (Philadelphia), to Mr. Rodman Wanamaker, of the same city, to Mr. Frank Sanborn, of Concord, and to Mr. John O'Callaghan, of Boston.
[42] See pp. [13]-[17] and [66]-[71].
[43] Dealt with fully in Chapter [XIV.]
[44] In 1910-11, £2,408,000 (Treasury Return No. 220, 1911); plus £225,000 estimated increase owing to removal of Poor Law disqualification (Answer to Question in House of Commons, February 15, 1911).
[46] See particularly "Ireland in the New Century," Sir Horace Plunkett; "Contemporary Ireland," E. Paul-Dubois; "The New Ireland," Sydney Brooks.
[47] "Report of the Recess Committee," New Edition (Fisher Unwin).
[48] Colonel Saunderson, for example, the leader of the Irish Unionists in the Commons, refused publicly to be a member of a committee on which Mr. Redmond sat. Mr. John Redmond himself wrote that he could not take a very sanguine view of the Conference, but that he was "unwilling to take the responsibility of declining to aid in any effort to promote useful legislation in Ireland."
[49] Area under cultivation in 1875, 5,332,813 acres; in 1894, 4,931,011 acres (in 1899, 4,627,545 acres; in 1900, on a system of classification dividing arable land more accurately from pasture, there were only 3,100,397 acres arable, and in 1905 the figures were 2,999,082 acres) (Official Returns). Population in 1841, 8,175,124; in 1851, 6,552,385; in 1861, 5,798,976; in 1871, 5,412,377; in 1881, 5,174,836; in 1891, 4,704,750; in 1892, 4,633,808; in 1893, 4,607,462; in 1894, 4,589,260; in 1895, 4,559,936 (in 1901, 4,458,775; in 1905, 4,391,543).—Census Returns and Thoms' Directory.
[50] Council of Agriculture: 68 members elected by County Councils; 84 appointed by the Department from the various provinces. Total 102.
Board of Agriculture: 8 members elected by Council of Agriculture; 4 appointed by the Department. Total 12.
Board of Technical Instruction: 10 members appointed by County Boroughs; 4 elected by Council of Agriculture; 6 appointed by the various Government Departments; 1 by a joint Committee of Dublin District Councils. Total 21.
[51] I am not forgetting Scotland. Her few local departments are theoretically, but not practically, at the mercy of English votes and influence. Scotch opinion, broadly speaking, governs Scotch affairs. Precisely to the extent to which it does not so govern them, is a demand for Home Rule likely to grow.
[52] Even the Recess Committee (and we cannot wonder) but dimly grasped the constitutional position when they laid stress on the necessity for an Agricultural Minister "directly responsible to Parliament." Logically, they should have first recommended the establishment of an Irish Parliament to which the Minister should be responsible. To make him responsible to the House of Commons was absurd; and a Departmental Committee of 1907 has, in fact, recommended that the Vice-President should not have a seat in Parliament, but should remain in his proper place, Ireland. Meanwhile, the original mistake has caused friction and controversy. Soon after the Liberal Ministry took office in 1906, Sir Horace Plunkett, the first Vice-President, as a Unionist, was replaced by Mr. T.W. Russell, a Home Ruler. On the assumption that such an Office was Parliamentary, its holder standing or falling with the British Ministry of the day, the step was quite justifiable, and even necessary. On the opposite assumption, confirmed by the Departmental Committee, the step was unjustifiable, that is, on the theory of the Union. An Irish Parliament alone should have the power of displacing Irish Ministers.
[53] See footnote, p. 159.
[54] "Organization and Policy of the Department," Official Pamphlet.
STATISTICS OF THE IRISH AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION MOVEMENT TO DECEMBER 31, 1909, WITH NUMBER OF SOCIETIES IN EXISTENCE ON DECEMBER 31, 1910 (SUPPLIED BY THE I.A.O.S.):
| Description. | Number of Societies. | Membership. | Paid-up Shares. | Loan Capital. | Turnover. | |
| 1910. | 1909. | |||||
| Creameries | 392 | 380 | 44,213 | 138,354 | 111,365 | 1,841,400 |
| Agricultural | 169 | 155 | 16,050 | 6,253 | 40,326 | 112,222 |
| Credit | 237 | 234 | 18,422 | — | 56,469 | 57,641 |
| Poultry | 18 | 18 | 6,152 | 2,292 | 4,026 | 64,342 |
| Industries | 21 | 21 | 1,375 | 1,267 | 1,450 | 7,666 |
| Miscellaneous | 37 | 15 | 4,633 | 15,015 | 2,864 | 48,987 |
| Flax | 9 | 9 | 589 | 482 | 5,796 | 2,286 |
| Federations | 3 | 3 | 227 | 6,753 | 6,360 | 259,925 |
| 886 | 835 | 91,661 | 170,416 | 228,656 | 2,394,469 | |
[56] An Irish Trademark has been secured, and has proved of great value "Irish Weeks," for the furtherance of the sale of Irish products, are held. The organ of the Association is the Irish Industrial Journal, published weekly in Dublin.
[57] On December 31, 1909, Irish was taught as an "extra subject" in 3,006 primary schools out of 8,401, and in 161 schools in Irish-speaking districts in the West a bi-lingual programme of instruction was in force (Report of Committee of National Education, 1910). Forty-six thousand pupils passed the test of the inspectors. Irish in 1910 was made a compulsory subject for matriculation at the National University.
[58] The election by Nationalist votes of Lord Ashtown, a militant Unionist peer of the most uncompromising type, in the spring of 1911 to one of the Galway District Councils is a good recent example of this tendency.
[59] Permissive powers exist for County Councils to enforce compulsory attendance.
[60] Including 342 convent, 54 monastery, 125 workhouse, and 71 model schools.
[61] See "Prospectus of the Municipal Technical Institute, Belfast," 1910-11, pp. 55 and 57-58. Reading, Grammar, and Simple Arithmetic are taught.
[62] See Report of the Congested Districts Board, 1909-11.
[63] See Report of Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland (Cd. 4097); especially a Memorandum by Sir Horace Plunkett, published as a separate pamphlet by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction.
[65] Annual Report (1910) of the "Irish Association for the Prevention of Intemperance." The estimate is that of Dr. Dawson Burns. By the Licensing (Ireland) Act of 1902, the issue of any new licenses was prohibited.
[66] I write before the scheme has been fully discussed in Parliament.
[67] It is scarcely necessary for me to remind the reader that the word "Ulster," as used in current political dialectics, is misleading. Part of Ulster is overwhelmingly Catholic; in part the population is divided between the two creeds, and in two counties it is overwhelmingly Protestant. In the whole province the Protestants are in a majority of 150,000, but since a number of Protestants vote Nationalist, the representation of the province is almost equal, the Unionists holding seventeen seats out of thirty-three.
[68] "Ireland in the Eighteenth Century," "Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland," "Clerical Influences."
[69] See "Democracy and Liberty."
[70] Many Unionists are to be found in the same breath prophesying Catholic tyranny under Home Rule and averring without any evidence that clerical influence caused the repudiation in 1907 of the Council Bill, because it placed education under a semi-popular body.
[71] "Religious Intolerance under Home Rule: Some Opinions of Leading Irish Protestants," pamphlet (1911) compiled by J. McVeagh, M.P.
[72] The Census of 1911 shows that the population of Ireland is still falling. The province of Leinster, mainly Catholic, alone shows a small increase, derived from the counties of Dublin (including Dublin City) and Kildare. In Ulster, Down and Antrim, which include the city of Belfast, alone show an increase, but not so great as that of County Dublin.
[74] The Bill set up a Council of eighty-two elected and twenty-four nominated members, with the Under-Secretary as an ex-officio member. So far it resembled the abortive Transvaal Constitution of 1905 (see p. [130]), but the Irish Council was only to be given control of certain specified Departments, and was financed by a fixed Imperial grant. It was to have no power of legislation or taxation, and was under the complete control of the Lord-Lieutenant.
[75] This arrangement, which is peculiar to the Canadian Federation, is regarded by some authorities as a somewhat serious infraction of the Federal principle, since it seems to imply executive control of the Province by the central Government. The Governors of the States in the Australian Federation are appointed by the Home Government.
[76] The Judicial Committee has ruled "that the relation between the Crown and the Provinces is the same as that between the Crown and Dominion in respect of such powers, executive and legislative, as are vested in them respectively." (Maritime Bank of Canada v. Receiver-General of New Brunswick, 1892).
[77] They are governed by Executive Committees, the members of which need not be members of the Councils.
[78] In writing upon this subject, I am indebted to an able paper by Mr. Basil Williams, which is to be found in "Home Rule Problems."
[79] "Life of Parnell," R. Barry O'Brien, pp. 149 and 139-141.
[80] E.g., in 1893, on Clause I. of the Home Rule Bill (Hansard, p. 490): "The Irish minority were willing to be treated on the footing of a Colony, but they protested against a supremacy which would enable the honourable gentleman who formed the Irish Government to appeal to the Imperial Parliament for the assistance of the Army and Navy to compel the Irish minority to obey their behests."
[81] Cd. 5741, 1911. Some of the subjects discussed were Commercial Relations and Shipping, Navigation Law, Labour Exchanges, Uniformity in Copyright, etc., Emigration, Naturalization, Compensation for Accidents, etc.
[82] I am summarizing facts fully narrated in Chapters [XI.] and [XII.]
[83] In the Federal Constitutions of Australia and Canada the central Federal Parliament is responsible for the colonial defences, but the Provinces or States are, of course, represented in the Federal Parliament.
[84] Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900, Sec. 58, and British North America Act, 1867, Sec. 15. Until quite recently it was the custom always to give the command of the Canadian Militia to a British officer lent to Canada. The present Commander, however, is a Canadian.
[85] See [Appendix].
[86] A Colony may make local regulations to carry out an Imperial Law about extradition and neutrality, but may not touch the law.
[87] For the constitutional position of self-governing Colonies, the author owes much to Mr. Moore's "Commonwealth of Australia."
[88] The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900, and the British North America Act, 1867, in order to delimit the respective powers of the Federal and Provincial Legislatures, set out a list of subjects on which the Federal Parliament has exclusive or collateral power to legislate. There is implied, of course, a pre-existing right on the part of the Colony, as a whole, qua Colony, to legislate on the matters referred to in the list. But the pre-existing right is subject to any pre-existing constitutional or statutory limitations. E.g., "Naturalization and Aliens" is in the list of Commonwealth powers (Sec. 51, xix.), and of the Canadian powers (Sec. 91, xxv.), but the power of any Colony is limited by Acts of 1847 and 1879 to giving naturalization within its own borders. (At the Imperial Conference of 1911 a scheme was foreshadowed for standardizing naturalization throughout the Empire.)
"Copyright" is also in both lists, but the colonial power is limited by the International Copyright Act of 1886, which, by Sec. 8, implies that a "British possession" may only make laws "respecting the Copyright within the limits of such possession of works produced in that possession." This Copyright Act is an example of implied limitation and sanction together. The Coinage Act of 1853 is an example of implied sanction only, in empowering a Colony to legislate as if the Act had not been passed. Another class of Imperial Acts confers direct powers to legislate on certain subjects—e.g., the Australian Colonies Custom Duties Act of 1873 (removing the restrictions imposed upon intercolonial duties in 1850). The Naturalization Acts are partly of this character, and other examples are the Colonial Naval Defence Act of 1865, and certain provisions of the Army Act of 1881, and the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act of 1890.
[89] E.g., Colonial Attorneys Belief Act, 1857; Colonial Probates Act, 1892; parts of the Finance Act, 1894; and Wills Act, 1861.
[90] E.g., Colonial Laws made under sanction of the following Imperial Acts: Colonial Prisoners Removal, 1869; Merchant Shipping, 1894; Sections 478 and 736, Colonial Marriages, 1866.
[91] E.g., 18 Vict. Ch. 55, Sections 42 and 43.
[92] See [Appendix], under the head of restrictions on "Irish Matters." For convenience, land legislation is included in the list, though it clearly belongs to a different category, and I have so dealt with it above.
[93] In the Bill of 1886 (Clause 11, Subsec. 7) and in the Bill of 1893 (Clause 8, Subsec. 3) power was given to alter the qualifications of the franchise, etc., for the Lower House—in the former Bill after the first dissolution, in the latter after six years.
[94] In 1910, of the total Federal revenue of 675,511,715 dollars, 623,616,963 dollars were raised in this way, or twelve-thirteenths. (Postal revenue, which balances Postal receipts, is excluded.)
[95] In 1909-10 Dominion revenue from Customs and Excise was 75,409,487 dollars. Total ordinary expenditure (excluding capital accounts), 79,411,747 dollars.
[96] Estimate for 1910-11. Total Federal revenue, £16,841,629; revenue from Customs and Excise, £111,700,000. Total Federal expenditure £11,122,297. £5,267,500 will be available for return to the State exchequers (see pp. [245]-[246]).
[97] The Treasury Returns of 1869, "Public Income and Expenditure," in two volumes, are the basis of all information up to that date.
[98] Mr. Secretary Pelham in this year estimated that Ireland, though contributing nothing in money to the Navy, had furnished no less than 38,000 men to the Navy since the beginning of the war.
[99] Pre-Union Debts were to be separate. Post-Union Debt contracted for Imperial services was to be regarded as joint, and its charge was to be borne by the two countries in the proportions of their respective contributions (see below); but post-Union Debt contracted by Ireland for domestic services was to be kept separate.
[100] Eight lectures delivered in the National University, Dublin, in 1911.
[101] Inhabited house duty, railway passenger tax, carriages, armorial bearings, etc. The license for dogs is half the English scale.
[102] On Foster's Corn Law of 1784, see p. [51].
[103] The text of the unanimous conclusions was as follows:
1. That Great Britain and Ireland must, for the purpose of this inquiry, be considered as separate entities.
2. That the Act of Union imposed upon Ireland a burden which, as events showed, she was unable to bear.
3. That the increase of taxation laid upon Ireland between 1853 and 1860 was not justified by the then existing circumstances.
4. That identity of rates of taxation does not necessarily involve equality of burden.
5. That, whilst the actual tax revenue of Ireland is about one-eleventh of that of Great Britain, the relative taxable capacity of Ireland is very much smaller, and is not estimated by any of us as exceeding one-twentieth.
[104] Detailed criticism of the current Treasury accounts under this head will be found on pp. [276]-[278].
[105] A referendum taken on April 13, 1910, defeated the new proposals. See "Report of Premiers' Conference held at Brisbane, May, 1907" (Commonwealth Parliamentary Sessional Paper, No. 13, 1907), and for a clear statement of the whole subject, the "Year-Book (1911) of the Commonwealth of Australia." (The relevant clauses of the Constitutional Act are Nos. 88 to 93.) The reasons for the failure of the system were summarized as follows:
"1. The trouble and expense which the necessary record entails.
"2. The practical impossibility of ensuring that in every case a consuming State will be duly credited with revenue collected on its behalf in a distributing State.
"3. The difficulty involved in equitably determining the amount to be debited to the several States in respect of general Commonwealth expenses.
"4. The uncertainty on the part of the State Governments as to the amount which will become available.
"5. The impossibility of securing independent State and Commonwealth finance."
[106] See Proceedings of the Conference of Provincial Premiers, 1906, at Ottawa (Canadian Sessional Papers, vol. xl.), especially McBride's Memorandum for British Columbia. Numerous other grounds for special treatment were alleged—e.g., abnormal cost of civil government, due to vast extent of Province.
[107] Final Report, p. 24 (Census figures of 1891).
[108] Final Report, p. 122.
[109] Final Report, p. 50.
[110] Ibid., pp. 48, 49.
[111] Ibid., pp. 51-54.
[112] They were at issue here with Mr. Childers, who, in his Draft Report, proposed halving the rates on Irish railways and further endowing the Congested Districts Board. But Mr. Childers, though a Home Ruler, felt himself bound by the Terms of Reference not to suggest a Home Rule solution.
[113] Lord Welby (Final Report, p. 54) compared his proposal for Ireland with the system in the Isle of Man, where the proceeds of a tariff distinct from that of Great Britain were devoted in the first instance to the payment of a fixed Imperial contribution and the surplus to local needs. But in the Isle of Man the whole point was that the tariff was a local tariff, chosen by Manxmen to suit themselves, while the administration was under Manx control.
[114] Letter to the Belfast Telegraph, October 7, 1911.
[115] I.e., on the generally accepted basis of (1) assessment to death duties, (2) assessment to income-tax. With regard to (1), in the last report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners, the figure for the United Kingdom was £371,808,534; for Ireland, £15,872,302, or 1/234. With regard to (2), the figure for the United Kingdom was 1009.9 millions; for Ireland, 39.7 millions, or 1/254. Deduct a small allowance for the difference between resources and taxable capacity, and the result approximately is one-twenty-fifth.
| Total revenue (including non-tax revenue) of United | |
| Kingdom (mean of two years. 1909-10, 1910-11) | £165,147,500 |
| One-twenty-fifth | £6,605,900 |
| Actual "true" revenue contributed by Ireland(mean | |
| of two years, 1909-10, 1910-11) | £10,032,000 |
| "Over-taxation" | £3,426,100 |
If only the tax-revenue be taken, the over-taxation amounts to £3,109,800 (total revenue for United Kingdom, £140,680,000; one-twenty-fifth=£5,627,200; actual Irish revenue, £8,737,000). Some members of the Royal Commission made certain allowances for education grants, etc., which it would be useless to parallel now.
[119] Treasury Return, No. 220, 1911.
[120] A list is given at p. 10 of Return 220 (1911), and an admirable exposition of the whole subject from the Irish standpoint will be found in Professor Oldham's seventh published lecture on the "Public Finances of Ireland" (1911).
[121] The "Whisky Money" was so treated under the Finance Act of 1910.
[123] Between 1896 and 1898 the equivalent grants to Scotland and Ireland were based on the Goschen proportion, 80, 11, 9, the English grant being taken as standard. Scotch grants are now determined by special legislation.
[125] Only part of the Dublin Metropolitan Police is paid out of State Funds, the rest by the City of Dublin.
[126] The relative figures were: Ireland, £2,408,000; Scotland, £1,064,000; England, £6,325,500. The recent removal of the disqualification for Poor Law Relief adds considerably to these amounts.
[127] In the poorest parts of Ireland they range as low as 9s.
[128] See pp. [174]-[176]. In 1908, England and Wales spent £21,987,004 on elementary education, and raised £10,467,804 for it in rates. Of the rest, £11,104,305 came from Parliamentary grants. Fees and endowment incomes of voluntary schools are not included (Statistical Abstract of United Kingdom, 1910).
The actual Parliamentary Votes, as they appear in the accounts for 1910-11, are: England (Class IV.), "Board of Education," £14,166,500; Scotland, "Public Education," £2,250,000; Ireland, "Public Education," £1,632,000. But the English Votes include sums devoted to technical education, museums, etc., whose counterparts in Ireland come under other departments.
[129] Two years earlier than the date I have chiefly used for the purposes of comparison, but the difference is not material. In point of fact, the expenditure was £300,000 less in the later than in the earlier year.
[130] (1) Rates on Government Buildings; (2) Superannuation; (3) Government Printing; (4) Board of Works; (5) Home Office.
[131] Department of Agriculture, Endowment Fund:
| (1) Local Taxation Account | £78,000 | |
| Income from — | (2) Irish Church Fund | £70,000 |
| (3) Interest on Capital sum of | £200,000. |
Also (in 1909-10):
| From Ireland Development Fund | £7,000 |
| Under an Act of 1902 | £5,000 |
[132] The amount voted for Public Works in 1910-11 was £259,848 [see "Civil Service Estimates" for 1911-12 (No. 63—1911)]; the amount spent, according to Return No. 220, £215,000.
[133] Under the heads of Excise, the principal deduction is in Spirits (£1,793,000 in 1910-11) and Beer (£309,000 in 1910-11).
The items of Irish tax revenue in which the Treasury make no adjustment are: Excise Licenses (£356,000 in 1910-11); Club Duty (£2,000 in 1910-11); "other items" (£10,000 in 1910-11); Cards and Patent Medicines (£10,000 in 1910-11); "Estate, etc., Duties" (£1,144,000 in 1910-11); Income Tax (Schedules A and B) (£694,000 in 1910-11—abnormally large figure owing to non-collection in previous year); Land Value Duties (£1,000 in 1910-11).
All the heads of Customs revenue are subject to adjustment, though the total result is only a small deduction from Ireland (£126,000 in 1910-11). In all but two the adjustment is in favour of Ireland. The two exceptions are "Foreign Spirits," where a deduction of £25,000 is made in 1910-11, and Tobacco, where a deduction of £620,000 is made in 1910-11.
[134] Income Tax, Schedules C and D (dividends from Government Stocks, public companies, foreign dividends, etc.). The Treasury estimate (as stated in a side-note to the Return) is based on statistics of Estate Duty for the five years ending 1908. But what light can Estate Duty throw on (for example) the dividends collected at the source from British or foreign securities held by Irish banks? Schedule C deals with "Government Stocks, etc.," Schedule D with "Public Companies, Foreign Dividends, etc.," but in the adjustment for "true" revenue no distinction is made between them. Now the Banking Statistics (Ireland) of 1910 show that dividends were payable at the Bank of Ireland on £38,732,000 of Government securities, and that, in addition, a debt bearing interest was due to the Bank from the Government of 2½ millions. Income Tax on these items alone would be £65,000, less rebates; but the whole of Schedule C, which includes Foreign and Colonial Government Stocks, is given in 1909-10 as only £30,000.
No attempt is made to credit Ireland with a share of the profits made by English and Scottish companies through business done in Ireland.
The only reliable items in Income Tax are those of A and B (Land, Houses, and Occupation of Land), where in 1908-09 Ireland contributed about 6 per cent. of the total; under other heads, according to the Treasury, only 3.5 per cent. The writer estimates the true contribution as several hundred thousand pounds more.
Post Office.—The Treasury give no clue as to how they calculate the profit and loss on Postal Services. Figures of letters, telegrams, parcels, etc., delivered in Ireland are known from the Postmaster-General's report, but the report does not distinguish Irish from English postal orders, of which 121½ millions were issued in the United Kingdom in 1909-10. There is good reason to believe that a part of the postal profit now wholly credited to England should in reality be credited to Ireland.
Stamps.—Far too little allowance is made by the Treasury for stamps on transfers executed through English and Scottish exchanges for shares bought or sold by Irishmen, and for bonds, deeds, insurances, issues of capital, etc.
Tea and Sugar.—The Treasury base their calculation "on quantities inter-changed between Great Britain and Ireland in 1903-04," and I learn from the Inland Revenue Department that by this means the consumption per head of the population was arrived at, and that the present official figures are based on the assumption that the relation of consumption per head in Ireland to consumption per head in the United Kingdom as a whole has not altered since 1903-04. The unreliability of this assumption is manifest. It is probable that the heavy additional duty on spirits has raised the consumption of tea in Ireland more than in Great Britain, and the figures of Imports compiled by the Department of Agriculture seem to confirm this view.
[135] On the basis of the mean revenue of 1909-10 and 1910-11.
[136] Hansard, July 21 and 25, 1893.
[137] Both Bills provided for part payment of the cost of Irish Police from Imperial funds.
[138] Return No. 220.
[141] I need scarcely point out that the newly-created Provinces of the Dominion of Canada are exceptions to this rule. But there is no analogy with Ireland. Such Provinces are carved out of newly settled public territory and given local government.
[142] See pp. [244]-[245], and [277]-[278].
[143] Until two years ago even the remaining one-fourth, added to other small items of Commonwealth revenue, was too large for the expenditure, and a part of it was returned annually to the States.
[144] The other principal source of revenue is from Posts, but that is almost exactly balanced by expenditure, so that it barely affects the amount of the repayment to the States.
[145] These figures are taken from the Official Year-Book of the Commonwealth of Australia, No. 3, 1901-1909.
[146] It must be understood that the law requiring three-quarters of the Commonwealth revenue from Customs and Excise to be returned to the States does not imply that each State should have three-quarters of its contribution returned, but that the total amount returned should be at least three-quarters.
[148] Except perhaps in the case of Canada.
[149] The Author is indebted, here and elsewhere, to papers by Messrs. C.R. Buxton, P. MacDermot, and R.C. Phillimore, in "Home Rule Problems."
[150] By Clause 5 the following sums were allocated to the Irish Council for five years: (1) £3,750,000 for the maintenance of eight Government Departments; (2) £300,000 for public works; (3) £114,000 supplemental.
[151] See p. [299]. Under the Act of 1867, No. 2 was earmarked for this purpose.
[152] Parts of this chapter have appeared in a paper by the Author in "Home Rule Problems."
[153] Agricultural Statistics of Ireland, 1909.
[154] See pp. [10]-[17], [66]-[71].
[157] Cd. 4005, 1908.
[158] This and subsequent figures are taken from an answer to question in the House of Commons, July 25, 1911, and from the current Exports of the Land Commission and Estates Commissioners.
[159] Cd. 4412, 1908. The basis taken was the Poor Law valuation of the lands unsold, multiplied by the number of years purchase of the lands sold under the Act of 1903. On this basis the value of the land neither sold nor agreed to be sold in 1908 was £103,931,848. On the basis of acreage, the estimate worked out at £102,078,448, and on the basis of holdings (regarded as unreliable by the Commissioners) at £92,660,694. The total sum required from first to last, including sums already advanced under all the various Acts, was £208,366,175.
[160] Pasture land let on eleven months' tenancies (a common form of tenure) counts as untenanted land, and is subject to purchase by the Land Commissioners, compulsorily, if necessary.
[161] But not always. Heavily mortgaged landlords profited most, perhaps, under the Act of 1903.
[162] Only once exercised up to October, 1911: over Lord Inchiquin's estate in Clare, to be acquired for the relief of congestion.
[163] See p. [75]. There the loan for compulsory Land Purchase was ultimately raised by the Dominion of Canada, as one of the conditions upon which Prince Edward Island entered the Federation in 1873. Under the Land Purchase Act, passed in 1875 by the Island Legislature, with the assent of the Dominion, three Commissioners adjudicated upon the sales; representing the Island Government, the Landlords, and the Dominion Government respectively.
[164] Finance accounts of the United Kingdom, 1911.
[165] Report of the Commissioners of Public Works, 1910. The amount in 1907-08 was £434,796; in 1908-09, £361,282. The Commissioners have been lending since 1819, and have lent since that date £48,792,319.
[166] For details of prior Home Rule Bills, see the [Appendix].
[167] The Victorian and South Australian Constitutions of 1855 state in clear terms that the Ministry must be members of the Legislature, and all the Australian Constitutions of the same date, except that of Tasmania, formally exclude all other officials from the Legislature. The Transvaal Constitution of 1906 made no reference to either point; nor do the Federating Acts of 1867, 1900, and 1909 for Canada, Australia, and South Africa.
[168] A fifth custom, very common, of compelling new Ministers to seek re-election is incorporated in most of the Australian Constitutions, but was expressly ruled out in Section 47 of the Transvaal Constitution of 1906.
[169] See Hansard, July 3, 1893, Speech of Mr. John Morley.
[170] The words "subject to this Constitution" or "subject to this Act" are sometimes added, but have no special significance. The Australian Commonwealth Constitution Act does not mention the Governor's "instructions," but only his "discretion."
[171] British North America Act, 1867, Sects. 55-57; Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900, Sects. 58-60.
[172] See especially pp. [213]-[229].
[174] Taken from Amendment XIV. to the United States Constitution, passed July 28, 1866.
[175] British North America Act, 1867, Sect. 92 (13). But the Province may not encroach on powers reserved to the Dominion—e.g., in bankruptcy (Gushing v. Depuy [before Jud. Comm. of Privy Council]). See the "Constitution of Canada," J.E.C. Munro, pp. 247-253. There has been much litigation over points where Dominion and Federal powers overlapped. (See "Federations and Unions of the British Empire," H.E. Egerton, pp. 151-153).
[176] For the proposals of the Bills of 1886 and 1893, see [Appendix].
[177] South Africa Act, 1909, Sects. 24 and 25.
[179] See Pamphlet No. 17, published by Proportional Representation Society, and an excellent paper by Mr. J.F. Williams in "Home Rule Problems."
[180] Cd. 5741, 1911, pp. 46-51.
[181] See [Appendix] and the Bill of 1886, Clause 25; Bill of 1893, Clause 22.
[182] 54 and 55 Vict., Ch. 25, Sect. 4.
[183] Courts of Admiralty in the Colonies are regulated by Imperial Acts, though by an Act of 1890 large powers were conferred on the Colonies of declaring ordinary Courts to be Courts of Admiralty (see Moore's "Commonwealth of Australia," pp. 11 and 251).
[184] See Clauses 27-30 of the Bill of 1886, and Clauses 25-28 of the Bill of 1893.
[185] See the Precis of Proceedings, Cd. 5741, 1911.
[187] See Section 128 of the Australia Constitution Act, 1900, and Section 152 of the South Africa Act, 1909.
[A] Local Expenditure in excess of "true" revenue (as averaged for years, 1910-11, 1909-10): £1,312,500.