IRISH FINANCE, 
 
 AN UN-ROYAL COMMISSION, 
 
 AND—-A LADY* 
 
 A. EGMONT HAKE, 
 
 IH/ei 
 
 A Mysterious Visitor. 
 
 r- IL 
 
 r Julia Interviews a 
 Sleepy Conservative 
 Peer. 
 
 iii. 
 
 A Liberal Leader on 
 the Liberal Imbroglio. 
 
 The Peasant and the 
 Peer. 
 
 i '■ ■ v. 
 
 ’ The Martyred Land 
 lord. 
 
 Th e Gentle A!r V tiv 
 v;i Making LoyaiAs'LsV 
 
 VII. r 
 
 A Pillar op Irish 
 Industry. 
 
 vin. 
 
 A House Divided 
 Against Itself. 
 
 London: 
 
 WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET. 
 
 Price One Shilling . 
 
THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 From the collection of 
 James Collins, 
 Drumcondra, Ireland. 
 Purchased, 1918. 
 
 Hi2ni 
 

 \ 
 
 
 * 
 
A - 
 
IRISH FINANCE, 
 
 AN UN-ROYAL COMMISSION, 
 AND—A LADY. 
 
 BY 
 
 A. EGMONT HAKE. 
 
 w 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET ST. 
 1897. 
 
MR. EGMONT HAKE’S WORKS. 
 
 SUFFERING LONDON. 
 
 THE STORY OF CHINESE GORDON. 
 
 GENERAL GORDON’S JOURNALS FROM KHARTOUM. 
 GENERAL GORDON’S JOURNALS DURING THE TAE-PING 
 REBELLION. 
 
 PARIS ORIGINALS. 
 
 THE UNEMPLOYED PROBLEM. 
 
 FLATTERING TALES. 
 
 FREE TRADE IN capital. (By A. Egmont Hake and O. E 
 Wesslau.) 
 
 THE COMING individualism. (By A. Egmont Hake and 
 O. E. Wesslau.) 
 
53G-415 
 
 W\Z7l 
 
 
 ill 
 
 OO 
 
 CM 
 
 d 
 
 tO 
 
 rC 
 
 TO 
 
 MISS E. PALMER, 
 
 PRESIDENT OF THE SHAMROCK CIRCLE. 
 
 Had the French comnianders to whom Joan of Arc first 
 submitted her simple plan of campaign been possessed by the 
 spirit of 7nodern scepticism., they would certainly have 
 ridiculed the idea of hurling back the victorious English 
 forces by so mild a?i agency as a beautiful maiden with a 
 white standard. But the Fre7ich com77ianders were mspired 
 by the vision before the7n of the 7naid with the ba7i7ier . 
 
 And they were rightj for that picturesque figure was 
 preceded by a high ideal, and followed by a patriotic people 
 7noved to devotio7i a7id sacrifice. 
 
 In our ti77ies, the dm of party war, the clash of the battle 
 of syste7ns, deafe7i us to the promptings of oicr loftier sent! 
 
 7nents j for what is there to rouse our enthusiasm ? histead 
 of the 7naid with the standard, instead of the cross of Peter 
 the Hemnit, instead of the eloquence of Savonarola, we have 
 Royal Com7nissions and gigantic Blue Books. 
 
 And yet, as lo7ig as human nature is human 7iature, the \ 
 
 first condition for the advance of any good cause 7nust be the 
 enlistment of 7nads emotional 7iature in its favour. Never 
 
4 
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 was there a time when the recognition of this fact was more 
 urgent than now. If humanity is to be rescued from what 
 is looked upon as the inevitable evils of our civilization j if 
 our fellow-beings are to be snatched from wider the wheels 
 of the fuggernaut so-called Progress, it must be done by 
 those who have the courage of their noblest emotions. We 
 should, therefore , hail with gladness any sign of such mani¬ 
 festations of courage, more especially in Ireland, a country 
 which has too long been the cockpit of party factions, sects, 
 and systems. While, therefore, many people would look with 
 indifference at your modest, but flourishing, Shamrock Circle, 
 to me it is the budding of the first snowdrop, heralding the 
 floral wealth of summer. 
 
 What is, then, more natural than for me to inscribe this 
 booklet to you, the President of the Shamrock Circle, who 
 reflect so well that patriotism and devotion to the Irish people 
 on which the future of Ireland can alone be built ? I know 
 that among the many tributes you have received from your 
 grafefid countrymen those proceeding from the poor and the 
 struggling have touched you most. This encourages me to 
 dedicate to you this small work, for which I claim no 
 greater value than that of its having been written with a 
 sincere desire to benefit your country. 
 
 A. EGMONT HAKE. 
 
 Palace Chambers, Westminster, S. W., 
 February, 1897. 
 
IRISH FINANCE 
 
 i. 
 
 A MYSTERIOUS VISITOR. 
 
 It was getting late in the evening. We had had a 
 hard day of it. In the morning we had received letters, 
 telegrams, callers, all urging us to examine from a non- 
 party, or truly Shamrock point of view, the new departure 
 in Irish politics. The Final Report of Her Majesty’s 
 Commission on the Financial Relations between Great 
 Britain and Ireland had been issued, and had produced 
 effects something like those of a bombshell. The 
 explosion had produced most extraordinary results. 
 Irish landlords, hitherto the most Tory of the Tories, 
 simply because other Irishmen were Home Rulers, had 
 suddenly revolted against the Unionist leaders and 
 climbed upon the Home Rule platforms. The many 
 sections and sub-sections of the Irish Party had for¬ 
 gotten their animosity, and seemed bent at last on 
 united action. The new-born harmony between the 
 sons of Erin assumed a strength that might be measured 
 by the fact that Unionist Irish landlords appeared side 
 by side with quondam dynamiters. 
 
 Here, then, was one of those unforeseen and unex¬ 
 pected events which sometimes occur after a period of 
 abortive controversy and a political impasse , furnishing 
 opportunities for the advancement of obstructed causes 
 
6 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 on new lines. The consequences of such events are 
 simply incalculable; and if those who first brought 
 about the Royal Commission had any inkling of the 
 results it would lead to, they must be considered the 
 acutest diplomatists of their time. If there be one or 
 more opponents of the Government who planned this 
 mine in order to embarrass the Unionists, they have 
 every right to pat themselves on the back. 
 
 The waters have been troubled, and many are those 
 who desire to whip them with their own lines. The 
 Home Rulers hope to wring the far-reaching concession 
 from the Government that Ireland is a separate State ; 
 the Protectionists hope to familiarize us with the idea 
 of separate Irish Protection Duties; the Collectivists hope 
 for a whole series of measures of the grandmotherly kind. 
 No wonder, then, that the unbiassed friends of Ireland 
 should be anxious to ascertain how they stand with 
 regard to the new situation. Hence the present demand 
 that we should examine the Report, or, rather, the 
 Reports—a volume of 228 foolscap pages; that we 
 should digest the Evidences—another volume of fearful 
 dimensions; and that we should go into the whole 
 question of Irish Finance in all its relations to the 
 Empire, to the United Kingdom, to all the political 
 parties, to all the different classes in Ireland, to the 
 trades and industries of that island, and of Great 
 Britain, etc. Always willing to oblige our Irish friends, 
 we took the matter in hand early one morning, but 
 only at about between eleven and twelve at night 
 did it begin to dawn upon us that the fulfilment of a 
 Herculean task was expected of us. So far, we had 
 confined ourselves to looking for an answer to the 
 
A MYSTERIOUS VISITOR. 
 
 7 
 
 first question placed before the Commission—namely, 
 “Upon what principles of comparison, and by the 
 application of what specific standards, the relative 
 capacity of Great Britain and Ireland to bear taxation 
 may be most equitably determined ?” 
 
 It is a most important and a most searching question^ 
 and a straightforward reply to it would bring us very 
 near the solution of the problem of Irish Taxation. 
 But, lo, and behold ! all our scanning, reading, and 
 plodding had been vain. These huge tomes contain no 
 clear answer to this vital question. All those who have 
 to struggle with these verbose Reports and Evidences 
 will have a grudge against the Commission for having 
 proceeded to take the evidence and to gather in the 
 reports before they had come to an agreement regarding 
 this first point in the terms of references. 
 
 We were both considering the idea of requesting our 
 anxious friends to go into the question for themselves. 
 We had found that, before we could determine how the 
 Imperial cause—that is to say, the cause of all the 
 individuals of the Empire—would stand in the contro¬ 
 versy, we should require the power to interview, and to 
 examine, a host of people whom the Commission seemed 
 to have overlooked. It even appeared to us that such 
 power would be insufficient, for we should require to 
 know the real, innermost thoughts of the various people 
 under examination—their conscientious opinions, un¬ 
 biassed by party passions, class interests, and Collectivist 
 prejudices. While we were musing over more or less 
 fantastic devices by which to get at the truth, the 
 atmosphere of the room became very heavy; the lights 
 seemed to grow dim, while the bright fire receded more 
 
8 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 and more into space. As we looked round, in order to 
 account for these changes, we found to our great surprise 
 that the room had been invaded by a young woman of 
 striking beauty, but somewhat extraordinary appearance. 
 Her classical face was surmounted by a mass of fair 
 curls, on the top of which rested a strange contrivance 
 —partly crown, partly hat, and partly telephone. Not 
 being expert in ladies’ toilets, I can only say that her 
 dress was partly classic and partly that of a cyclist. 
 In her hand she carried a note-book, and at her side 
 hung, fan-fashion, a small hand-mirror, on the back of 
 which was a miniature apparatus for the production of 
 Rontgen rays. She was seated in one of the easy chairs, 
 and seemed waiting to be addressed. For a few 
 moments I was mute from sheer surprise at her noiseless 
 appearance on the scene, seemingly through some other 
 means of access than the door, which had remained 
 closed. She evidently had read my mind ; for, after an 
 awkward pause, she said :— 
 
 “ I hardly expected to find you so astonished at my 
 presence here. It rather pleases me, because it shows 
 that, after all, we spirits have not become common¬ 
 place yet. I come on business. I guess I can be very 
 useful to you in this job you have on hand.” 
 
 “The Report on Irish Finance,” I stammered. 
 
 “ That’s so. I’m a first-class interviewer. I’ve my 
 own methods, and w T ith this little instrument—a mirror 
 of truth, intensified by the Rontgen rays—I get at 
 people’s thoughts and opinions, whether they will it or 
 not.” 
 
 “In that case,” said I, “your services will be invalu¬ 
 able to us. But I don’t know who you [are—whether 
 
A MYSTERIOUS VISITOR. 
 
 9 
 
 you belong to the Lord Mayor’s Show or to the Drury 
 Lane Pantomime, and shall thank you if you will tell 
 me a little more about yourself.” 
 
 “I am Julia,” she replied. “ Here is my card and 
 my reference to the well-known Modern Magician and 
 Psychical Journalist, who has several times acquainted 
 the public with my powers. They are now at your 
 disposal.” 
 
 “And what people would you interview ?” I asked. 
 
 “ Oh ! you must leave that to me. In the spiritual 
 world we see clearly into these matters, and we don’t 
 waste so much time as Royal Commissions do. When 
 I leave you, I will go straight about the business. 
 When I’m ready to report on one interview, you will 
 feel a sort of spasm in your right hand, and all you 
 will have to do will be to let your hand write freely, 
 without any interference on the part of your mind.” 
 
 Though evidently a spirit, she had assumed such 
 business-like ways that I could not help asking her 
 her terms. 
 
 “ Once upon a time,” she said, “ I belonged to 
 Ireland, and the return for my services I shall expect 
 will be that you and your political friends will do 
 all you can to procure for poor, long-suffering Erin the 
 prosperity and happiness which are her due. And now 
 Good-bye.” 
 
 With that the room seemed to become completely 
 dark, but gradually the lights began to shine again, and 
 the fire to return to its old place. My first impression 
 was that I had been asleep, and that I had had a dream. 
 I looked at my friend and colleague, who decidedly had 
 been asleep, for he was just awakening. When we 
 
IO 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 came to compare notes, we found to our astonishment 
 that we had either dreamed the same dream, or had 
 both had the same vision. Feeling rather upset, we 
 discarded the question of Irish Finance for the evening, 
 and resolved to resume the subject next day. 
 
 II. 
 
 JULIA INTERVIEWS A SLEEPY CONSERVATIVE PEER. 
 
 The following morning we took the subject energetically 
 in hand, and tried first to agree as to the “ principles of 
 comparison ” and “ specific standards,” in order that 
 our Commission of Two might produce a better result 
 than Royal Commissions—namely, to create a necessity 
 for another Royal Commission. 
 
 Import and export, we found, would not do as a 
 standard of the tax-bearing capacity of Ireland, as there 
 are no separate statistics for Ireland, and a great deal of 
 traffic in imported and in to-be-exported goods between 
 Ireland and Great Britain is going on. The population 
 is evidently regarded as a bad standard by the mal¬ 
 contents, and is out of the question. The Royal 
 Commissioners have manifestly been influenced by the 
 Income Tax results. But it seems hardly fair that, 
 because Ireland pays less Income Tax, she should pay 
 
JULIA INTERVIEWS A SLEEPY CONSERVATIVE PEER. 11 
 
 less of every other tax. It would be a premium on 
 thriftlessness, and patriotism would prompt the Irish to 
 do as many English business men are wont to do—pay 
 Income Tax on one-tenth of their profits, a system 
 which would be impossible if the officials of Somerset 
 House displayed half as much zeal in collecting the 
 taxes on large earned revenues as they display in 
 collecting the taxes on small unearned incomes. Besides, 
 those Irish who make the largest incomes make them, 
 and pay for them, in England. The rate of wages would 
 not do for a standard, as there are a great many poor 
 tenants in Ireland who earn very small wages, but have 
 other sources of income. Then there is the general 
 consumption of the people. But, as whisky figures 
 conspicuously in that category, while at the same time 
 the drinking of it constitutes a voluntary payment of 
 taxes, the conclusions based on such a standard 
 would be absurd. It would amount to this, that 
 the more taxes the Irish voluntarily pay by drinking 
 whisky, the more they should be compelled to pay 
 in the form of other taxes. It would be more prac¬ 
 tical to reverse the relations and allow a reduc¬ 
 tion in other taxes for the increased yield of the 
 Whisky Tax. The Irish would thus have an oppor¬ 
 tunity of doing with the financial difficulty what the 
 English, according to the late Lord Sherbrooke, did 
 with the Alabama difficulty—drink themselves out of it. 
 As philanthropists, we could not countenance such an 
 arrangement; for, while it could not be denied that 
 from a Collectivist point of view the whisky-drinking 
 would be, under such circumstances, extremely profitable, 
 it might be ruinous from an Individualist point of view. 
 
12 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 The Royal Commission make much of the historical 
 argument. Now, it is easy to say that, because such and 
 such a thing has happened in the past, it is right that 
 we should do such and such a thing now. But accord¬ 
 ing to what moral is it right? Should we be guided 
 by historical moral, by legal moral, by commercial 
 moral, by ethical moral, or by religious mj^al ? 
 Finding that my colleague and I came to different 
 conclusions, according to the different standard of moral 
 we adopted, we rejected the historical argument 
 altogether. Seeing that we were not likely to be 
 more successful than the Royal Commission in lighting 
 upon the right “ principle of comparison,” we felt 
 somewhat demoralised, and were going to fall back 
 cynically upon the principle of expediency, when sud¬ 
 denly a jerk at my arm caused it to swing upwards in an 
 aggressive fashion. This at once reminded me forcibly 
 of my dream. “Julia!” I cried; and, seizing a pen, I 
 sat down and placed my hand upon a sheet of paper. It 
 wrote the word “ solidarity.” We at once understood 
 Julia’s meaning. The solidarity between Great Britain 
 and Ireland being an undeniable fact, it is evident that 
 the greater the prosperity enjoyed by Ireland the better 
 for Great Britain; and vice versa . Here, then, we have 
 the standard we require. Any degree of taxation likely 
 to undermine the prosperity of Ireland would be a 
 disadvantage to Great Britain, and should therefore be 
 avoided. 
 
 How to determine what amount of taxation is 
 compatible with the prosperous development of Irish 
 resources was the next point. This could only be done 
 by communicating with people of different classes in 
 
JULIA INTERVIEWS A SLEEPY CONSERVATIVE PEER. 13 
 
 Ireland, and with such Englishmen as have mastered 
 the Irish Question thoroughly. In this matter Julia's 
 services would be invaluable. 
 
 I asked her, mentally, if she had any interviews to 
 report, and ihstantaneously the following answer 
 arrived 
 
 Last night I interviewed a Conservative Peer. He 
 
 was slumbering in his easy chair before the fire. A 
 copy of “ Degeneration ” was lying open on the floor, 
 having evidently dropped from his hands. 
 
 “ I have come to interview you on the question of 
 Irish Finance,” I said. 
 
 “ Thank you,” was the reply. “ I have had enough 
 of Irish Finance. It is a sore point with me just 
 now, so I would rather not discuss it. So please vanish, 
 and let me sleep.” 
 
 “ I am sorry I cannot do that,” I said, and held up 
 my Truth-mirror to his face. “ I am Julia, you know, 
 and always get my own way.” 
 
 “ I know who you are,” he replied, grumblingly ; “ you 
 are the result of that delicious lobster mayonaise , and 
 your Irish Finance is nightmare.” 
 
 “ I suppose you disapprove of the action taken by the 
 Irish landlords in this question ?” 
 
 “ Most decidedly I do. They have stuck to us in 
 order to protect themselves from the Land scheme of 
 the Home Rulers, and now they turn against us because 
 they are, in many ways, interested in lower taxation. 
 They could not have chosen a more awkward moment 
 for their revolt. If they don’t mind what they are doing, 
 they will bring about a complete unity among the Irish 
 factions, and thus resuscitate the Home Rule corpse.” 
 
14 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 “ But don’t you think,” I asked, “ that the Irish land¬ 
 lords have good reason for claiming a reduction in taxes, 
 as almost two-thirds of their income have been sacrificed 
 on the altar of party politics ?” 
 
 “That’s no business of ours. We had to get into 
 power to prevent Home Rule, which would have meant 
 complete confiscation; and the landlords have stood by 
 our Party to save what they could. It is our misfortune 
 that we are always obliged to waste our time and our 
 power on Party measures, instead of tackling those great 
 questions on which the welfare of all our peoples depends. 
 The result is that both the great parties are becoming 
 intensely unpopular; and, if we don’t mind, we shall 
 one day be face to face with a great Imperial Party that 
 will supersede us all. Instead of bothering about Irish 
 Finance, we ought to attend to the Empire. Every¬ 
 where things are getting into a mess. Strikes, labour 
 troubles, sweating, and discontent at home. Our system 
 in India produces poverty; poverty produces famine, and 
 famine produces pest. In Africa all is topsy-turvy, and 
 nothing seems to go right. In Australia and New 
 Zealand the most ignorant classes have taken the reins 
 of Government, because nobody else held them, and 
 they bid fair to ruin those splendid possessions. Is this 
 the time for the Irish landlords to rake up the Irish 
 Question ?” 
 
 “But granted,” I said, “that things are bad every¬ 
 where, why not begin by putting things right in Ireland ? 
 Has it never struck you that there is a great similarity 
 in the complaints that reach you from every part of the 
 Empire—no profits for business men, no dividends for the 
 capitalists, and not enough wages for the working classes?” 
 
JULIA INTERVIEWS A SLEEPY CONSERVATIVE PEER. 15 
 
 “ I’ve noticed it long ago,” was his reply. “ There is 
 something wrong in modern economy. But have we 
 time to find out what this ‘ something wrong ’ is ? And, 
 even if we did find it out, what could we do ? We could 
 never be in power, unless we obeyed the mandate of 
 public opinion. We should have to convince the whole 
 nation first; then the press would be convinced; and, 
 when the press was convinced, the House of Commons 
 would be convinced.” 
 
 “ Why don’t you reverse it,” I said, “ and let the 
 process of conviction start from the top ?” 
 
 “Simply because we should put the Liberals in power, 
 and that would mean much more Collectivism than we 
 go in for, and, consequently, worse business, more 
 poverty, and more discontent.” 
 
 “ I see you are not exactly on a bed of roses. But, 
 to return to Irish Finance, will you yield to the united 
 demand of Ireland, or what do you intend to do ?” 
 
 “ We intend,” he said, “ to have as much Irish discus¬ 
 sion in Parliament as possible, because in this way we 
 shall not be driven to pass more Socialistic measures. 
 We shall resist the demand to the utmost, and, if we 
 can’t help ourselves, we must grant some small rabais — 
 not in the shape of any reduction, which is imprac¬ 
 ticable, but in the shape of a grant from Imperial funds.” 
 
 “ You do surprise me,” I exclaimed. “ Do you 
 belong to those who still adhere to the antiquated idea 
 that funds distributed by the Government can actually 
 benefit the people, and that such distribution can be 
 affected without enormous loss of prosperity ?” 
 
 “ Of course, I don’t believe that,” was the rather 
 deprecating reply. “ I flatter myself that I am suffi- 
 
i6 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 ciently up to date to know that all such applications of 
 the principles of domestic economy to a free State are 
 ruinous to the people, especially to the working classes. 
 But it is not a question of my opinions; it is one of 
 the opinions held by members of Parliament, by the 
 hysterical section of the press, and by the Labour 
 agitators. We could resist the demand of the new Irish 
 Coalition, and our Cabinet retire from power; but what 
 would become of the Empire ?” 
 
 “ Don’t you see any other way out of the difficulty 
 except that of yielding to ruinous proposals ?” was my 
 next question. 
 
 “ No; I don’t. There is only one way. We must 
 avoid catastrophes, and treat the newly-enfranchised 
 masses as children. We must let them play long 
 enough with their imflammable toys—Collectivism and 
 Retrogression—until they burn their fingers. When 
 the English and Irish voters have so utterly ruined 
 trade and industry as to bring about first famine and 
 then pestilence among us, they may be ready to resume 
 their onward march towards liberty and prosperity.” 
 
 As the Conservative Peer seemed greatly exhausted, I 
 permitted him to doze off again, and went in search of 
 a Liberal Leader. 
 
A LIBERAL LEADER ON THE LIBERAL IMBROGLIO. 17 
 
 III. 
 
 A LIBERAL LEADER ON THE LIBERAL IMBROGLIO. 
 
 He was not at home, but I found him in a stage box 
 at the Lyric Theatre watching the performance of “ The 
 Sign of the Cross.” He did not seem to be following 
 the performance very carefully, and, leaning back in his 
 seat, appeared intensely bored. I quietly took a place 
 beside him and rang my telephone bell. He started 
 when he first beheld me, and then dexterously pulled 
 the curtain of the box a little forward and addressed me 
 in a gallant manner and with an engaging smile. 
 
 “ Perhaps,” he said, “ this box is reserved for the 
 artists ? If I am an intruder, I hope you will excuse 
 me.” 
 
 “ On the contrary,” I said, “ I am the intruder. My 
 speciality is not art, but journalism.” 
 
 “ You don’t belong, then, to that company of Roman 
 revellers who, in their charming draperies, seem to be 
 having such a good time behind the scenes. Whom, 
 then, have I the honour to address ?” As the Liberal 
 leader spoke, he glanced at my costume in a some¬ 
 what bewildered, but, to me, extremely flattering, 
 manner. 
 
 “ I am Julia, the spiritual New Woman of journalistic 
 fame. As you know, I used to belong to your Party, 
 and my sympathies go with progress in Ireland.” With 
 that I held my Truth-mirror up to his face. The great 
 leader made a wry face, and muttered :— 
 
 “ Ireland be-.” Then he checked himself, and 
 
i8 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 added demurely : “ I beg your pardon. I mean to say 
 that Ireland has proved a curse to our Party, to myself) 
 and to my friends. I hope you are not here to speak 
 about Ireland.” 
 
 “ But I am; I wish to interview you about over¬ 
 taxation in Ireland.” 
 
 The great politician shuddered visibly. “ It J s a very 
 unsuitable subject for a box in a theatre. Suppose that, 
 instead, you told me what the current opinion is in the 
 spiritual world of this splendid dramatic production, 
 which so eminently realizes our views on the drama 
 and on the Christian religion,” he said, declamatorily, 
 gracefully waving his hand towards the stage. 
 
 I explained to him that the piece had not been 
 advertized in the spiritual world, and that, as far as I 
 knew, none of the spirits had written to the papers about it. 
 
 “ I must, therefore, trouble you,” I continued, “ to 
 tell me something about the opinions of the Liberal 
 Party on the Irish Financial Question.” 
 
 “ The Liberal Party,” said the right honourable gentle¬ 
 man, with a significant curve of his lip ; “ where is, and 
 what is, the Liberal Party ? Would we be where we are 
 if the Liberals had opinions in common ? Do you refer 
 to that section of Liberals which consists of landlords, 
 capitalists, and well-to-do people, who are dead against 
 State Socialism being carried to that point where the 
 confiscated wealth will, at least to some extent, replenish 
 the pockets of the poor, instead of being wasted on 
 Collectivist measures; or to that section which strives 
 to get all the wealth of the country placed in the hands 
 of officials, to be used for the common good?” 
 
 “ After the secession of the Liberal Unionists there 
 
A LIBERAL LEADER ON THE LIBERAL IMBROGLIO. 19 
 
 ought to be unanimity among the Liberals, at least on 
 the Irish Question. For it would surely be neither 
 consistent nor politically expedient for the Liberal 
 Party, as at present constituted, to vote against any 
 measure that would benefit Ireland ?” 
 
 “ You are right there/ 5 was his reply ; “ and, though I 
 cannot answer for a party wanting both a programme 
 and a leader, I can assure you that I, for my part, would 
 vote for anything that would benefit Ireland ; and I 
 daresay the majority of Liberals of all shades would 
 be eager to do the same. But that fact would not 
 advance us much, because we should be pretty sure to 
 disagree as to what would really benefit Ireland. 
 Some, for instance, would be anxious that Ireland 
 should be regarded as an entity, so that Protection 
 Duties might be levied on imported goods from England 
 —a step strongly objected to by most Liberals. Others 
 would be willing to take off part of the tax-burden from 
 the Irish shoulders, and put them on the English ; and 
 to this many would object, especially because it would 
 lessen the Wage Fund and lower wages in England. 
 Then, again, we have a large section who believe, not that 
 taxes in Ireland are too high, but that they are placed on 
 the wrong people. These of our followers are bent on 
 increasing taxes, and, still more, local rates for Socialistic 
 purposes; but they would put the whole of the taxes 
 on the landlords, and would be only too glad to tax them 
 out of existence. Some of us would lower the excise on 
 spirits, as this represents the national drink of the Irish ; 
 but our powerful teetotal faction would strenuously 
 oppose this, and would rather increase the excise on 
 spirit; and so on ad infinitumP 
 
20 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 “Under such circumstances,” I could not help 
 remarking, “ it will be very difficult for you to draw up a 
 programme. How on earth will you manage it ?” 
 
 “ If I have anything to do with it,” he replied, adding 
 in a tone of despair, “ which is not likely, I would set 
 my face against all programmes and prevent any intelli¬ 
 gible expression of opinion on Irish Finance as far as 
 our side is concerned. Our best policy is to worry the 
 Government for a fair and just settlement of the question, 
 and leave them the initiative—in fact, to follow the 
 example of the Home Rulers, who clamour for Home 
 Rule without explaining what Home Rule really is. It 
 was Gladstone’s two attempts to define Home Rule that 
 broke up our Party.” 
 
 “ But, surely, a Party when in power must do some¬ 
 thing, must have some constructive policy?” 
 
 “ Oh, that was all right in the old palmy days of 
 Liberalism, when patriotism and philanthropy, guided 
 by science and experience, pulled in the same direction 
 as popularity. Now-a-days it would be a folly to have 
 any decisive opinion on any great questions. The best 
 thing a Party desirous of remaining in power can do is 
 to occupy Parliament and the Press with minor questions 
 likely to maintain the present party division—I mean 
 questions which, if they do no good to anybody, at 
 least do some harm to our opponents, and thus keep 
 the game going.” 
 
 “ Don’t you think such a policy rather cynical ?” 
 
 “It may appear so,” he said philosophically; “but 
 where is the alternative ? If we were to go in for an 
 heroic programme, as Cobden and Bright did—let us 
 say, commercial and industrial development—we should 
 
A LIBERAL LEADER ON THE LIBERAL IMBROGLIO. 21 
 
 simply shut ourselves out from power and keep the 
 Conservatives in permanently—the very worst thing, in 
 my opinion, that could happen to the country and to 
 the Empire.” 
 
 “ Of course you would think so,” I said ; “ but don’t 
 you think it would be better for the country if the party- 
 strife ceased, and that Parliament devoted itself to the 
 great national questions ?” 
 
 “ Of course I do,” he replied, emphatically ; “ but I 
 must say about the cessation of party strife as Alphonse 
 Karr said about the abolition of capital punishment— 
 let killing be stopped, but let the murderers begin.” 
 
 “ And the Conservatives would be sure to say the 
 same thing about you. It’s always the old story. But 
 could you not tell me more about your future action 
 with regard to the Irish Finance Question ?” 
 
 “ I can only tell you what I know myself, that our 
 attitude towards this question, which is, after all, not a 
 vital one, will be dictated by what is best for the masses 
 throughout the Empire.” 
 
 “ And that is-?” I inquired. 
 
 “Why, that the Liberals get into power as soon as 
 possible.” 
 
22 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 IV. 
 
 THE PEASANT AND THE PEER. 
 
 That day we received no further reports from Julia. I 
 refrained from calling upon her during the greater part 
 of the next day ; but in the afternoon I tried my best 
 to establish a communication. At first I got no reply at 
 all; but finally one arrived, which was as decisive as 
 it was brief. It ran thus : “ Leave me alone; I’m busy 
 in Ireland.” 
 
 The next morning, however, numerous Irish reports 
 came in. 
 
 I have been interviewing, she said, Pat O’Flinn, in 
 his cottage in Killarney. For several reasons I deemed 
 him a superior type of the small Irish cultivator. Knowing 
 this class of people to be rather behind-hand in psychical 
 matters, and ignorantly sceptical about modern spirits who 
 have not been canonized, and apt to regard me as one of 
 the nixies, gnomes, or fairies before whom they are wont 
 to run away, I disguised myself as an ordinary every-day 
 reporter. I soon found, however, that this was a mistake. 
 Before I could get Pat to disclose his opinions, he 
 wanted to cross-examine me. He wanted to know with 
 what paper I was connected ; to what Party, or to what 
 faction, that paper belonged; whether my report would 
 be published ; whether the priest of the place approved 
 of my paper ; whether his landlord was likely to read it; 
 whether I knew, and was on good terms with, Mr.-, 
 
THE PEASANT AND THE PEER. 
 
 23 
 
 who, I understood, was a powerful and somewhat hot- 
 tempered extremist in the Home Rule camp. When I 
 had replied, as I thought, satisfactorily to all these 
 questions, Pat suddenly declared that he had no opinions 
 at all. He said he had never seen anyone get anything 
 out of opinions, and looked upon them as sometimes 
 dangerous and expensive luxuries. I hoped at least he 
 might tell me something about his own circumstances ; 
 but I was again disappointed. When I asked him how 
 much rent he paid for his farm, he again replied with 
 another question: “Sure an’ if I told yer honour, it 
 wouldn’t be you that would lower it.” Whereupon I 
 left him, in order to change my plan of operations. 
 
 I assumed the disguise of a young Irish priest on a 
 walking tour, and met my man as he was proceeding 
 along the road. I entered into conversation with him, 
 and, as we came up to the nearest inn—or, shall I say, 
 hotel?—I asked him to partake of a cup of tea. He 
 accepted my invitation, but not very cheerfully, and we 
 entered an empty room, on the glass door of which the 
 words “Saloon Bar ” were emblazoned. We sat down 
 at a table, and, as I was about to order the tea, Pat 
 explained that he was not much of a tea-drinker, and 
 could he take something else instead. “Certainly,” I 
 said. “ What would you like to take ?” 
 
 He looked at me hard as he said hesitatingly : “ If 
 yer riverence plazes, I’ll take some soda-water.” 
 
 “ Surely,” said I, as the waitress lingered for the 
 order, “you would like some whisky in your soda- 
 water.” 
 
 “That I would, but I was afraid that yer riverence 
 moightn’t approve of the dhrop.” 
 
24 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 “ Well, Mr. O’Flinn, I’m a teetotaler myself, but you 
 know the Council of Trent put a fast on the meat and 
 not on the drink, and I like Irishmen to have their 
 choice.” Whereupon I asked the waitress to bring one 
 cup of tea and some whisky and soda. Pat amended 
 my instructions, and told the girl to bring only a very 
 little soda ; and when she explained that she could not 
 bring less than a bottle, having no syphons in the house 
 in the winter, Pat protested that he could not drink a 
 bottle, and, as he thought it a great pity to waste the 
 precious stuff and a shame to put me to all the expense, 
 he said he would not mind having no soda for once. 
 
 When the refreshment had been served, I remarked 
 to my guest that it was more patriotic to drink whisky, 
 as in so doing you contribute to the Irish revenue, 
 instead of soda, on which there was no Excise. 
 
 “Faith,” exclaimed Pat, with a twinkle in his eye, 
 “sure an’ the soda wather comes from Bilfast, and is as 
 orange as the orange wine the same blagueyards sell.” 
 
 In order to lead the conversation to my subject, I 
 remarked there was a great talk just now about Irish 
 taxes, and asked him whether anyone had asked his 
 opinion on that question, as they had asked mine. 
 
 Pat assumed a look of importance, took a long draught 
 from his glass, threw himself back in his chair, and said : 
 
 “So they’ve asked your opinion, too, have they? It’s 
 only a little while ago a spalpeen who writes for the 
 newspapers comes along talkin’ to me about taxation; 
 but as I couldn’t make him out, I hunted him as fast 
 as he could lay leg to the ground. But with your 
 riverence sure it’s a different matter. I can talk the 
 leg out of a pot, and be aisy with you. It’s my head 
 
THE PEASANT AND THE PEER. 
 
 2 5 
 
 that’s so full of Irish taxation that I think it’ll burst 
 the heart in me body if I don’t spake to someone 
 about it. Af coorse, we are payin’ a great deal more 
 taxes than we ought to be doin’, and when a man keeps 
 payin’ out more than he has, he’ll soon have the rain 
 cornin’ through his roof. Just look at the whisky, yer 
 riverence. When we want to drink a pennyworth of 
 whisky we have to pay somethin’ like thrupence to 
 the Government. They tell us we ought to drink ale 
 instead of the crater; but what do we want with more of 
 a thirst than we’ve got already? I know ale drinkers 
 who are always thirsty, and with all the salt that’s in 
 the ale, its no wonder. To get over the salt they must 
 drink more ale, and to get over the ale they must 
 drink more whisky. Sure, if the English have the right 
 to tax us, that’s no reason why they should have the 
 right to tell us what to drink; and by puttin’ all that 
 big tax on whisky they’re obligin’ us either to drink ale 
 or water, or to ruin ourselves with whisky. It’s me- 
 self would like to drink champagne, savin’ yer riverence’s 
 presence, or the gran’ old hock in the sojer bottles, 
 or claret, an’ the rest of it; but, sure, I can’t afford it. 
 Those are the drinks of the landlord up there, and his 
 Castle friends; and there is mighty little taxing of what 
 they like and can afford. Over-taxed is it, begorrah ? 
 I’m the bhoy who knows we are over-taxed. If you 
 reckon it out, and remember how much the stuff that 
 the rich man drinks costs, you’ll find that the poor man 
 who drinks whisky pays about ten times as much as the 
 rich man pays on his wine. But we don’t finish with the 
 business there. Listen here, now. If taxation is fair, 
 the taxation should be in proportion to a man’s income. 
 
26 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 If the man who drinks his wine and the poor creature 
 who can only afford whisky had the same income, I’ll 
 bet the whisky drinker pays ten times more than the 
 wine drinker. But if the rich man’s income is ^io,ooo, 
 and the poor man’s income is ^50, the poor man pays 
 200 times, or 20,000 per cent., more than the rich man 
 pays. But wait till I tell ye ! If the rich man who pays 
 out of his surplus is in justice bound to pay a higher 
 rate of taxation than the poor man—which would only 
 be according to what we were taught in the catechism— 
 I’m blest if the thing wouldn’t look queerer still.” 
 
 “ Well, Mr. O’Flinn,” I could not help exclaiming, 
 “ you do put it strong.” 
 
 “ But, sure, that’s the gospel truth, father. It’s the 
 same thing with tea, coffee, chocolate, and tobacco. I 
 have in my house my ould mother (God be good to 
 her !), my mother-in-law, and the whole four of me 
 dauthers. Every one of those six women drinks tea and 
 coffee. It’s the only thing they have to cheer them in 
 their life. One of my boys is a poor weak creature, and 
 I have to keep cocoa for him. Now, then ! Let yer 
 riverence count up what I have to pay in taxes every 
 day, and how the whole of it fits in with me income, and 
 
 how it stands to the tax paid on tea by Lord S-, 
 
 who has sorra’ a wife to his name, and who drinks only 
 a fancy tea at five shillings a-pound. Then you can 
 think how much that man, in justice, ought to pay 
 in taxes, so that what he gives up for the Government 
 should be equal to what I do, according, mind you, to 
 what I make a year. Or, just to make the thing look 
 as it really is, think how much he’d have to pay before 
 he felt the tax as much as me. Bedad! it’s a mighty 
 
THE PEASANT AND THE PEER. 
 
 27 
 
 hard thing for a man like me to talk about, because I’ve 
 got no lamin’; but, glory be to God, I understand it all 
 the same. Now, here’s one o’ thim circulars that’s 
 been sent to me, and which makes it as clear as daylight. 
 Your riverence can put it in your pocket and read the 
 whole of it, if you think I’m wrong ; but, sure, I tell you 
 no lie !” 
 
 “From the point of view of abstract justice, you are 
 perfectly right. No one can deny that,” I said. “But 
 Governments and legislators are not guided by a sense 
 of abstract justice. In all worldly matters we must be 
 guided by expediency, and the most important of all 
 expediencies are those which tend to uphold civilization.” 
 
 Pat shook his head and said, sarcastically: “ Faith ! 
 expediency is a grand word, but, sure, there are two 
 sorts of them murtherin’ expediencies—the rich man’s 
 and the poor man’s. Now, it seems to me that the rich 
 man’s expediency has been kept goin too long, and that 
 the time has come to give a chance to the poor man’s 
 expediency.” 
 
 “Well, Mr. O’Flinn, there are certain persons who 
 claim that they have found an expediency that would 
 suit both the rich and the poor. But, while we are on 
 this chapter, have you any other taxation grievances ? ” 
 
 “ Arrah whist! your riverence,” Pat said in a low voice, 
 leaning over the table; “between me and you and the 
 door, we have a thumpin’ big one. It isn’t only the 
 Saxon that sucks us dry—begorra ! there are plenty of 
 Irishmen to help them—there is that what I’m going to 
 tell you now I wouldn’t breathe to a livin’ soul, and you 
 mustn’t give me away to those divils in the village. One 
 of the taxes we feel the most is that one we' pay to the 
 
28 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 shopkeeper. But, sure, he’s a fine Home Ruler, and 
 we all want the credit he gives us, so d’ye think we ever 
 say a word agin him ?” 
 
 “ But, surely,” I said, “ you do not pay taxes to the 
 shopkeeper ? He has no right to tax you.” 
 
 “ Indade, your riverence, it’s to that thief of a shop¬ 
 keeper we pay a big lump of all we earn, and, I’m 
 thinkin’, the Saxon Government has given him the right 
 to bleed us in a way we don’t understand at all, at all. 
 Now, there’s one of the reasons why I’m a Home Ruler. 
 Y’ see, it’s done like this. While our crops are cornin’ 
 up, and while the cows and the pigs are gettin’ fat, we 
 never have enough in the house to buy what we eat and 
 drink and pay the money down. So off we go to the 
 shopkeeper, and beg the gentleman for the love of God 
 to let us have credit. Well, as soon as a man has got 
 into them books the shopkeeper has on the top of his 
 desk, to tell the Lord’s truth, he’s done for. An’ afther 
 that, he’s got to buy everything from that dealer, and 
 he mustn’t grumble at the prices. Now, when I’ve been 
 in Dublin, no less, I’ve just compared the prices in the 
 stores there with the prices we have to pay in Hoolihan’s 
 shop here, and it’s surprised you’d be at the difference. 
 Begor, I’m thinkin’ we pay double the value in the shops 
 hereabout. Now, your riverence, if you’ll plaze to be 
 consitherin’ that most of our earnings are paid to the 
 shopkeeper, you’ll understand how we’re taxed by the 
 shopkeeper for all so poor as we are. What would you 
 yourself, or what would the landlord say, I’d like to 
 know, if he had to pay a quarter of his income as long as 
 he lives, just to get their bit to eat and the rest of it on 
 credit for once ?” 
 
THE PEASANT AND THE PEER. 
 
 29 
 
 “But everybody who gets into debt gets into trouble; 
 that’s well known,” I remarked. “You can’t call that 
 being taxed. If you paid cash, you would be rid of the 
 tax to the shopkeeper.” 
 
 “ An’ where in the world are we to get the money 
 from to pay cash ? Indade, there doesn’t seem to be a 
 penny in the country. Father O’Flanagan says to me 
 once that, if everything was paid for in cash in the 
 country, it’s ten times as much we’d require, says he, as 
 there is now. I tell you what it is—the rich people can 
 borrow as much as they like, with no difficulty in life, 
 and cheap at that; but we can’t. ’Tis the truth I’m 
 tellin’ ye, an’ no lie. It’s meself that’s wishin’ it was the 
 other way about, for then the landlords wouldn’t be 
 borrowin’ so much money, and spend it in London, and 
 then squeeze us to pay for their illegant appairance.” 
 
 “Well, Mr. O’Flinn, what is your remedy against the 
 tax of the shopkeeper ?” 
 
 “ Home Rule, your riverence ; Home Rule. God be 
 praised !” 
 
 “ Home Rule I” I said. “ How can Home Rule 
 prevent your indebtedness to the shopkeeper ?” I asked. 
 
 “ Sure, yer riverence, when we get Home Rule,” said 
 Pat, confidently, “ the Irish Parliament ’ll sell us all we 
 want at cost price, and give every tenant a dacent amount 
 of credit. Faith, a blind man can see what a mighty 
 big difference it’ll make to us.” 
 
 “ I think I see great difficulties in the way,” I said, 
 “ of such liberality on the part of Parliament. But is 
 the shopkeeper’s tax the only evil from which you expect 
 Home Rule to save you ?” 
 
 “ It is not, your riverence, an’ that’s the truth. Over 
 
30 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 and beyant that, it’s goin’ to save us from the agent, 
 the man who comes round to buy our bacon, and 
 butter, and eggs, or anything we’ve got to sell. It’s near 
 as much he gets from us as the shopkeeper.” 
 
 “ How is that?” I asked. 
 
 “ See here, now,” said Pat, incisively, illustrating his 
 meaning by manipulating the fingers on his left hand ; 
 “ this man here is the man who buys from us. He’s no 
 more than a kind of an agent, and he sells to a bigger 
 man in the district. This man here sells in Dublin, 
 or some other big town. Then the Dublin man sends 
 the stuff to a factor in London, the factor sells to the 
 wholesale man, the wholesale man sells to the shop, 
 keeper, and the shopkeeper sells to those who eat 
 the stuff. So that makes six people who have to 
 get a living, or to make a profit, out of our stuff, and 
 after that there is not much left for us. God knows that 
 prices are low enough ; and yet, out of these, we have to 
 pay taxes to six people, and I’m blest if I know to how 
 many agents. You call that excessive taxation—it’s the 
 word, I’m thinking—don’t ye ? and do ye think that the 
 English would be better off than we are if they were taxed 
 like that, an’ all ?” 
 
 I thought he had made out a strong case, and rose 
 to leave him, when he laid hold of my coat-button and 
 pulled me down on my chair, saying in a hushed voice: 
 “ I haven’t told ye about the worst tax of all yet— 
 the tax we have to pay to the Gombeen man. It’s 
 not you that don’t know we all have to borrow some¬ 
 times. Most of us can make more out of our holdings 
 with a little money than without it. There’s divil a 
 soul to borrow from except the Gombeen man; and 
 
THE PEASANT AND THE PEER. 
 
 31 
 
 Father O’Flanagan says the reason of this is that 
 the banks suck up all the money and send it to 
 London. It’s the Gombeen men and nobody else 
 who make powerful charges for the little they lend. 
 Sixty per cent., no less, is what they promise to be 
 satisfied with; and this, ’tis your riverence knows, is a 
 murtherin’ tax on a poor strugglin' tenant. But before 
 you've done with them you often have to pay many 
 hundreds per cent, an’ any man in the village will tell 
 ye the same. Sure, an’ it’s meself can tell you that the 
 Widow Rafferty wanted to buy a cow, and what with 
 trouble and heart-scald she borrowed enough money 
 to do it. She could have paid the sixty per cent, 
 interest, and yet made a little out of the cow, for 
 ail so poor as she was; but the Gombeen man so 
 managed the business that the widow woman has now 
 paid the value of the cow three times over, and still owes 
 him the full value of the cow and ten pounds besides. 
 I’m thinkin’ to ask you what’s your opinion of such 
 taxation ? Most of us have to pay it, and do you know 
 what happens when a shopkeeper, or Gombeen man, 
 retires from business to live on his capital? They say 
 they sell their business ; but what does the new man 
 buy ? Faith ! it’s us he buys. We have to work for 
 him, and starve for him. I hear them talk about slavery. 
 But if we were slaves we should be worth something 
 to our masters, and would be cared for; but the Saxon 
 system consists in squeezing the last penny and the 
 last bit of work out of us, and^ casting us, old before 
 our time and jbroken in body and mind, as so much 
 rubbish into the workhouse. Now, your riverence, can 
 you wonder it’s Home Rulers we are ? Wouldn’t you be 
 
32 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 anything at all to escape from the unmerciful screw of 
 the Saxons ?” 
 
 “ I wish I could see how Home Rule would help you 
 against your oppressors,” I said, “ but I may tell you 
 that I am rather surprised that, among your tax- 
 extortionists, you have not mentioned the landlord, who 
 generally figures prominently as a cause of Ireland’s 
 poverty.” 
 
 “ I’ll tell you why, your riverence. If I had been 
 speaking at a meeting, instead of talking secret like here 
 with you, it’s most like that I’d have spoken only of the 
 landlord; for it would never do for us to have a row 
 with the others. Besides, they’re all Home Rulers, 
 every mother’s son o’ them, and help us to squeeze the 
 landlords, and, what’s more, through them, the English 
 House of Lords.” 
 
 With that Pat stood up, shook me by the hand, and 
 left the inn muttering, “ Over-taxed, is it ? Tear an’ 
 ages, I should think we are.” 
 
 Pat having kept me much longer than I expected, 
 
 and wanting to catch Lord-, an influential landlord, 
 
 before he left the smoking-room of the Kildare Street Club 
 in Dublin, I availed myself of that prompt form of loco¬ 
 motion which is the privilege of spirits, and in a few 
 minutes I was seated opposite his lordship. He was 
 reading from a newspaper an account of an Irish meeting 
 in America, where he had been hailed as the new 
 uncrowned King of Ireland, the leader of an Irish army 
 to be formed, and to be swelled by a million of well- 
 armed Irishmen from the United States. The speakers 
 
 at that meeting had declared that in Lord-Ireland 
 
 had at last found its avenger and England its humiliator. 
 
THE PEASANT AND THE PEER. 
 
 33 
 
 His lordship looked both bored and annoyed, and 
 exclaimed, as he flung the paper on the floor: “ What 
 absolute nonsense ! Is it possible that rational human 
 beings can believe such trash ? This will hamper me 
 terribly. If the Cabinet had got up these meetings, they 
 could not have been more to its purpose.” 
 
 “ But in what position do you stand to the House of 
 Lords in this Financial Question ?” I asked, after his 
 having been hypnotised by a few passes. 
 
 “That is not the question,” he said confidently. 
 “ The question is : How does the House of Lords 
 stand towards me ? We have all the trump cards, and, 
 if they don’t give relief to Ireland, the whole world will 
 believe that their policy has always been to treat Ireland 
 unfairly and cruelly. If they don’t listen to us, they 
 alone will be responsible for the menacing form and 
 dimensions the Home Rule agitation will assume.” 
 
 “ But don’t you think,” I asked, “that you are playing 
 a dangerous game ? Might not the Government resign, 
 instead of yielding ? Would not the accession to power 
 of the Liberal Party spell ruin to both Irish and English 
 landlords ? And might not you be blamed for turning 
 against your friends at a very awkward moment ?” 
 
 “ One question at a time,” was the impatient reply. 
 “ Hundreds of questions may be asked, and a thousand 
 causes for hesitation may be given The whole 
 Empire suffers from the scepticism, indifferentism, and 
 the endless casuistry of our leading men. The weak 
 and decadent spirit of our time has long enough left the 
 field open for any energetic man to take the Empire into 
 his hands, be it for purposes noble or ignoble. What we 
 want is not more casuistry and sophistry; we want action. 
 
34 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 And, if those who have a stake in the Empire won’t act, 
 the Man in the Street may. I am not animated by 
 any ridiculous ambition. But I am an Irishman first, 
 and a landlord afterwards. Though things in other 
 parts of the Empire may be worse than, or as bad as, in 
 Ireland, duty—like charity—begins at home; and I 
 cannot stand by and see my country ruined, and 
 my nation first impoverished and then insulted. 
 Danger, indeed! The danger is in the neglecting 
 of festering wounds—in the ostrich-like hiding of 
 your head in face of danger. Ireland groans under 
 State-produced poverty, and if now, when a concrete 
 piece of injustice has been pointed out, nothing 
 is done to redress it, disaffection in Ireland will be 
 strong enough to aggravate every threatening danger to 
 the Empire, and to foster new ones.” 
 
 “ But the Government may not yield,” I said. 
 
 “ Ha, ha! You amuse me. Has this Conservative 
 Government ever hesitated to yield ? Have they not 
 yielded all along the line—not to the pillars of our 
 Empire and of our Liberty, but to the motley herd of 
 Socialists and Collectivists, vying with each other in the 
 destruction of both? You may be sure that, if it comes 
 to resigning or to yielding, the Government won’t 
 hesitate long. But, let them resign or not resign, there 
 will never be an accession of the Liberal Party to power. 
 A process of total disintegration of that body is going on 
 rapidly, and the cohesion between its terribly heteroge¬ 
 neous parts is already so small that all its best elements 
 would support any patriotic Government free from the 
 worst stigma of Toryism. As to turning against my friends, 
 I do nothing of the sort. My first friends are the Irish 
 
THE PEASANT AND THE PEER. 35 
 
 people, and, as to my friends in the Government, I am 
 trying to save them from ruin.” 
 
 “ Supposing the Government were willing to yield,” I 
 said ; “ what would you expect them to do ?” 
 
 “ I expect them to reduce the taxation in Ireland.” 
 
 “ Yes, I understand that,” said I; “ but can it be 
 done without making Ireland a £ separate entity ’—to 
 use the diplomatic phrase of the Royal Commission— 
 which, in definite language, would mean a separate 
 State ?” 
 
 “ Most decidedly can it be done. There is an im¬ 
 mense difference between a political separation and 
 fiscal autonomy. We have many examples to prove that. 
 The city of Hamburg had fiscal autonomy for many 
 years after its annexation to the German Empire. The 
 present free port in Hamburg, as well as that in Copen¬ 
 hagen, is not excluded from the German or the Danish 
 States. The Channel Islands have absolutely no Im¬ 
 port Duties, and yet they form an integral part of the 
 United Kingdom as much as Ireland.” 
 
 “But would not fiscal autonomy—as you call it— 
 lead to complete political separation ?” I asked. 
 
 “ How can there be separation, unless somebody 
 severs ?” exclaimed his lordship with vivacity. “ Who 
 wants separation in Ireland ? Certainly no Irishman 
 who has any respect for the true interests of his country. 
 Ireland has acquired a full and legitimate share 
 in the Empire. By separation she would lose that 
 share. Its value must not be calculated on its present 
 yield. A time will come when a better system of 
 government will show the British and Irish what im¬ 
 mense resources they possess in the Empire.” 
 
36 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 “ Perhaps you are right,” I remarked ; “ but if you 
 don’t bring about Separation, you may bring about 
 Home Rule.” 
 
 “I might find the Philosopher’s Stone,” said his 
 lordship, satirically. “ The one is as much connected 
 with reality as the other. Home Rule is a ghost 
 that cannot frighten me. It thrives only in the dark, 
 and vanishes in the same proportion as light is thrown 
 upon it. If Home Rnle is brought to the front again, 
 I shall simply call the attention of the House of 
 Lords, as well as of the Home Rulers, to the undeni¬ 
 able fact that there are only three ways in which 
 the relations between Ireland and England can be 
 maintained : firstly, full partnership, as at present ; 
 secondly, supremacy of Ireland over Great Britain ; 
 and, thirdly, supremacy of Great Britain over Ireland. 
 One of these ways must be determined upon before 
 any details can be discussed, if we are to behave as 
 rational beings.” 
 
 “ The taxes which press most heavily upon the Irish 
 masses are indirect taxes ; and, by reducing these or 
 abolishing them altogether, import from Ireland would 
 have to be treated in Great Britain as import from 
 abroad, involving much Custom House work and much 
 delay,” was my next suggestion. 
 
 “ There would certainly be some inconvenience,” 
 said his lordship ; “ but please notice that I have only 
 pointed out the possibility of fiscal autonomy. The 
 question is a wide one, and naturally falls into two 
 parts—first, the reduction of taxes in Ireland; and, 
 second, the removal of the chief causes of poverty in 
 Ireland. I would not have recourse to the first alterna- 
 
THE MARTYRED LANDLORD. 37 
 
 tive until the second had been found impossible after 
 complete investigation.” 
 
 “ And yet your platform-cry is reduction of taxa¬ 
 tion ?” 
 
 “ Yes ; why not ? Any stick is good enough to beat 
 a dog with. A good case has been made out with 
 regard to taxation, and round this question the friends 
 of Ireland have a better chance to rally than any 
 other.” 
 
 V. 
 
 THE MARTYRED LANDLORD. 
 
 The Irish peer having told me all I wanted from him, 
 I brought him back to consciousness, but took care to 
 vanish before he was wide awake. I was now bound 
 for Belfast; but on the way I heard some snatches of 
 conversation on the subject of Irish Finance. The 
 words emanated from a fine-looking country house, in 
 the library of which an Irish landlord discussed the 
 question with a French friend, who spoke English 
 fluently. I quietly installed myself at a small side table 
 and took out my note-book. 
 
 “ We rejoice in France,” said the Frenchman, “ that 
 there is at last a chance of having justice done to 
 
38 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 Ireland, and I am proud that you, my friend, in this 
 question stand by your countrymen.” 
 
 “ I hope I always do,” said the landlord, “ when they 
 are reasonable. But what do you mean by doing justice 
 to Ireland ?” 
 
 “ I mean,” was the reply, “ that the oppression and 
 the extortions may now, if not cease, become less 
 crushing.” 
 
 “ Oppression and extortion !” said the landlord, evi¬ 
 dently amazed. “You must not go by the absurd 
 accounts contained in the French Press about the 
 relations between Great Britain and Ireland. According 
 to these, England is supposed to have drawn part of her 
 huge wealth out of Ireland, and is still trading on the 
 misery of the Irish, and grinding them down in a manner 
 which can result only in the extinction of the popu¬ 
 lation.” 
 
 “Yes, I know,” said the Frenchman, “that our Press 
 is given to exaggeration; but cannot many historical 
 facts be quoted in support of their opinions? The 
 population of Ireland has decreased enormously, while 
 that of England has doubled. Poverty increases in 
 Ireland, while the wealth of England goes on increasing 
 rapidly. Ireland has not sufficient railways, not suffi¬ 
 cient ports; and several Liberal measures, adopted in 
 England, have not been extended to Ireland. Could 
 such be the circumstances if Great Britain was not bent 
 on keeping Ireland down ?” 
 
 “ My dear sir,” exclaimed the landlord, rather 
 energetically, “you are entirely mistaken. There was 
 a time when the British Government, mistaking its 
 own interests, subjected Ireland to a step-motherly 
 
THE MARTYRED LANDLORD. 
 
 39 
 
 treatment. But for the last forty years, at least, the 
 British Parliament has been animated by the most 
 laudable desire to benefit Ireland; and, if it has not 
 succeeded, the fault must either lie with the Irish people, 
 or with a want of knowledge on the part of Parliament. 
 Look at the facts as they are. Every Irishman has the 
 same rights and liberties as any other citizens of the 
 kingdom. Ireland is considerably over-represented in 
 Parliament, and, therefore, each Irishman exercises a 
 greater influence over the affairs of the Empire than 
 any average Englishman. The exceptional coercive 
 legislation is only resorted to to stop murder, intimida 
 tion, and cattle maiming. Irish farmers have the 
 benefit of forcibly reduced rents, of Land Courts, 
 and have been admitted to what amounts to part- 
 ownership in the land. The rents in Ireland are lower 
 than in Scotland, even in cases where the soil is much 
 better. How, under such circumstances, can you call 
 the Irish—especially the tenants—an oppressed race ? 
 There is only one oppressed class in Ireland, and 
 that is the landlords; but we don’t get the sympathy 
 of anybody.” 
 
 “Well,” said the Frenchman, “the opinion is current 
 that you landlords are the oppressors.” 
 
 “ I know that is so,” was the reply, “ and yet we 
 only ask that contracts should be respected. It is to 
 our interests and to the interests of Ireland that the 
 most able farmers should get the farms ; and as the 
 test of the results a man expects from his farm is the 
 rent he offers to pay, our duty to Ireland at large, to 
 the farmers, and to ourselves, is to let the farms to 
 the highest bidders. And we are not harsh. It is 
 
40 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 a very common thing in Ireland for the tenant to 
 become a year or more behind with his rent, without 
 being threatened with eviction ; while the poor working 
 men in England are generally evicted from their 
 cottages if they happen to be a couple of weeks in 
 arrear, in spite of the fact that their cottages—unlike 
 the Irish farms—only serve them as domiciles, and bring 
 in nothing.” 
 
 “ But,” remarked the Frenchman, “ how do you 
 explain the bad reputation the Irish landlords have 
 gained ? How about absentees, rack-renting, etc. ?” 
 
 “ The best theory I have heard on the subject is that 
 Ireland is passing through a transitory period, involving 
 the gradual supercession of the feudal system by the 
 commercial system. We landlords, obliged to follow with 
 the times, have had no option than to accept the com¬ 
 mercial, though the feudal system would have infinitely 
 more attraction for us. On the other hand, the tenants 
 still live under the ideas of the feudal system—that 
 is to say, they look upon the landlord, not as a business 
 man, who should be dealt with only under a well-considered 
 contract, bound to be honourably kept when once 
 signed; but they look upon him as a man whose 
 economic and social position ought to render him their 
 tender parent or a benevolent Providence. It is the 
 Radicals in England who have accelerated the advent 
 of the commercial system and the suppression of all 
 feudal remnants, good, bad, and indifferent. They 
 have made a great mistake in not securing for the poor 
 people the real advantages of the commercial system 
 before they abolished those derived from the feudal 
 system. The complaint about the absentee landlords 
 
THE MARTYRED LANDLORD. 
 
 41 
 
 must fall to the ground before recent economic truths. 
 The Irish, like most other people, believe that money 
 spent outside Ireland reduces the stock of money in this 
 country, and thus hampers business. But, if it is a fact 
 that each country and each locality has, under any cir¬ 
 cumstances, as much money as it can hold, the chief 
 complaint about absentee landlords rests on a fallacy. 
 As to rack-renting, it is a thing of the past. You cannot 
 call tenants rack-rented when Land Courts fix lower 
 rents for them than offered in the open market.” 
 
 “ But, Monsieur,” exclaimed the Frenchman, exas- 
 peratedly, raising his shoulders and spreading out his 
 hands ; “ Ireland is poor and oppressed, but if the 
 landlords and the Parliament are not the oppressors and 
 the bloodsuckers, who are ?” 
 
 “There are plenty of them,” was the reply; “quite 
 enough to prevent even a very moderate state of pros¬ 
 perity : the shopkeeper, the Gombeen man, the middle 
 man, the usurer, the agitator, and the priest. All these 
 people treat the Irish peasant without the slightest heed 
 for the fable about the goose with the golden eggs.” 
 
 “ I am, as most modern Frenchmen are,” said the 
 foreign gentleman, “ entirely opposed to clerical domi¬ 
 nation ; but I am sorry to hear you count the Irish 
 Church among Ireland’s enemies. I know Protestants 
 are apt to point to the fact that, in the countries where 
 the Roman Catholic clergy hold an influential position, 
 there poverty and squalor prevail. But I think this is 
 putting the cart before the horse, as you English call it. 
 The Catholic religion being the most charity-enforcing 
 of all religions, it is popular in poor countries. Besides, 
 the southern nations are naturally less energetic than 
 
42 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 the northern, while at the same time their imagination 
 is far more vivid, and consequently more receptive; 
 hence we find Roman Catholicism and poverty going 
 together. I have seen much of Irish priests, and feel 
 sure you do them a gross injustice in quoting their 
 religion as one of the causes of Irish poverty.” 
 
 “ You have not understood me at all,” replied the 
 landlord. “ I said nothing against the Roman Catholic 
 religion, nor anything against the Church of Rome, 
 which, however, is a very different thing. Though I 
 am a Protestant, I pride myself in having no prejudices 
 against the Irish Catholic clergy. Some of the best 
 men I have known have been Irish priests. There are 
 Protestants who would complain about the Peter’s pence 
 and money collected from poor people for masses and 
 other purposes; but I, for my part, do not believe that 
 the amount thus sent out of the country is sufficiently 
 large to add perceptibly to the existing poverty. What 
 I complain of is that a great number of the Irish priests 
 —not as priests, but as politicians—make a bad use of 
 the great influence they possess. They form rash 
 opinions on political, sociological, and economic ques¬ 
 tions, which they have not studied, and which, without 
 study, they could not possibly understand. Instead of 
 turning against the leeches that ruin the country, instead 
 of assisting the peasants to shake off the money-lender, 
 the middleman, and shopkeeper; instead of showing that 
 honesty in business and conscientious fulfilment of con¬ 
 tract is the only possible basis for prosperity; instead of 
 doing these things, they turn against the landlords, the 
 very men who are more than anyone else interested in 
 the prosperity of the country. They have taken for 
 
THE MARTYRED LANDLORD. 
 
 43 
 
 granted that private ownership of land, or, as they call 
 it, landlordism, is incompatible with the prosperity of the 
 people, and that some kind of State ownership of land, 
 the chief plank in the Home Rule platform, is preferable* 
 Of course this old fallacy has been exploded long ago, 
 but our agitating priests do not take this into considera¬ 
 tion. They keep favouring a bureaucratic management of 
 the land, though it is proved that such a system would 
 be the worst imaginable one for the farmer, and still 
 more for the labourers both in the towns and the 
 country. The priests’ sins of commission are great, and 
 will harm Ireland and the Catholic Church enormously; 
 but their sins of omission are greater still; for, if they 
 led the people in the right direction, my belief is that 
 Ireland would become England’s garden, populated by 
 a happy and prosperous population.” 
 
 “ I now understand your meaning better,” said the 
 Frenchman musingly ; “you wish the priest to under¬ 
 stand that the Irish question is not a political one, but 
 an economic one. My dear sir, if we Frenchmen could 
 bring our politicians to take the same view of French 
 questions, we should be a happy nation. You expect 
 too much of human beings. Every one naturally recom¬ 
 mends the medium he can supply, and priests, like 
 other people, do not do and say what they believe right, 
 but they believe that to be right which they do and say. 
 But will you explain to me how the agitators cause 
 poverty in Ireland ? In France we believe that human 
 progress is largely due to agitators.” 
 
 “ So it is, no doubt, all the world over,” said the land¬ 
 lord ; “but when agitators agitate for retrogression the 
 case is often reversed. I am not pedantic enough to 
 
44 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 demand that each agitator against bad government 
 should be ready to supply a complete scheme for a 
 better government. But he ought not to confine his 
 activity to the promotion of a distinctly bad scheme. 
 The Home Rule agitation took its origin with the retro¬ 
 gressive movement in England towards the old fallacious 
 Collectivist principles, and all the measures the Home 
 Rulers now find blocked by Parliament are Socialistic 
 measures. What they should agitate for is genuine, 
 natural prosperity for Ireland. As it is, they inflict im¬ 
 mense injury upon the poverty-stricken classes of Ireland 
 by removing the basis on which genuine prosperity can 
 be constructed. I mean, of course, respect for property, 
 contracts, and personal liberty. What Ireland wants is 
 more private capital for the development of its resources, 
 and more able men to stimulate production and increase 
 the demand for workers. But the chief result of the Home 
 Rule agitation so far has been to expel these factors of 
 prosperity from Ireland. The Home Rulers, like the 
 priests, turn against us, and we are in every way made 
 the scapegoats.” 
 
 “ But does not the Conservative Government stand up 
 for you landlords ?” asked the Frenchman. 
 
 “We stand up for the Conservative Government; but 
 what do we gain by it? Most of us have lost about 
 two-thirds of the value of our property, in order to supply 
 sops to the Socialistic Cerberus. The excessive taxation 
 of the country finally falls upon us, and, when Local 
 Government has been fully extended to Ireland, the 
 heavy local rates will also fall upon us. In spite of all 
 this, we are treated by the English Government, not as 
 self-sacrificing friends, but as a conquered race. Our 
 
THE MARTYRED LANDLORD. 
 
 45 
 
 interest is often sacrificed for that of the officials.” 
 
 “ I don’t quite understand,” said the Frenchman. 
 
 “ An example from my own experience,” said the 
 landlord, “will show you what I mean. My brother 
 came into this estate in 1871, and paid his Succession 
 Duty in full. My mother had a jointure, by my father’s 
 will, of ^500 a-year out of this estate. She died a 
 couple of years after he had paid his Succession Duty, 
 and my brother died in 1879. I then came into the 
 estate, and paid my Succession Duty and interest, and 
 got a clear receipt for all duty and interest on my estate. 
 I was not aware of the jointure till the other day, when 
 title to my estate was being made out by my Dublin 
 solicitor. The Inland Revenue Office of Dublin then 
 said that no Succession Duty had been paid on this 
 ^500; and that now duty and interest, mind you, for 
 all these years, must be paid forthwith. It was, of course, 
 the duty of the officials to collect the Succession Duty 
 at my mother’s death, and there is no proof that it was 
 not paid. If it was not, it is the fault of some official, 
 and not mine. To claim from me now this Succession 
 Duty, plus twenty years’ accumulated interest, is the 
 height of injustice. Not knowing anything about such 
 a liability, I might, during these twenty years, have 
 disposed of a considerable part of my property in settle¬ 
 ments on relations, in contributions, in heavy personal 
 expenses, in risky and unsuccessful investments, in abate¬ 
 ment of rents, etc. I might, indeed, have left myself 
 little more than a bare living, and, under such circum¬ 
 stances, the present claim of the Inland Revenue Office 
 would have ruined me, in order to make up for neglect 
 of duty on the part of an official.” 
 
4 6 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 “You don’t mean to say,” said the Frenchman, 
 evidently amazed, “ that the laws and the Government of 
 the country would permit such a glaring injustice ? We 
 Frenchmen, alas, are a bureaucracy-ridden nation; but 
 any such blackmailing would be impossible. The 
 responsible official would have to pay for his 
 blunder, or, what is more likely, his friends in power 
 would condone it. But have you no redress ?” 
 
 “ I might go to law, and have trouble and worry for a 
 great many years, to say nothing of expenses that might 
 lose me more than the amount involved ; and, after 
 all, lose the case as well on some legal technicality.” 
 
 “From what you have said,” replied the Frenchman, 
 “ you will throw in your lot with those who object to 
 over-taxation in Ireland?” 
 
 “ Of course I shall, and I shall be extremely glad if 
 this question furnishes the rallying-point that we Irish 
 landlords badly want.” 
 
 The landlord spoke excitedly, got up from his seat, 
 and began to walk up and down the room. 
 
 “ We ought to have realized long ago,” he said, 
 “that the only way of obtaining any sympathy from 
 any British Government was by attacking and reviling 
 them. The loyal and the self-sacrificing are rewarded 
 with contempt, while the impudent opponents are 
 admitted into the charmed circle. It’s time that we 
 landlords—the backbone of the Irish nation—should 
 assume political independence, and threaten to wreck 
 our Governments at every turn. We have been leaning 
 on reeds, not men. Our politicians are becoming in¬ 
 vaded by American corruption, and in order to stick to 
 power they are ready to betray all those who trusted 
 
THE MARTYRED LANDLORD. 
 
 47 
 
 them. Even Conservatives, landlords, and capitalists 
 knuckle under to Socialists, and themselves bring 
 in Socialistic measures. Some want popularity, some 
 large salaries, and others social distinction; and, to 
 gain their object, they forget party, country, and Empire.” 
 
 “ Come, come, my friend,” said the Frenchman; 
 “your excitement makes you unjust,” as he rose and 
 touched the landlord on the shoulder. “ Let me remind 
 you of one important fact. Look wherever you will 
 throughout the civilized world, and nowhere will you 
 find a Cabinet consisting of more honest and patriotic 
 men than the Cabinet of St. James’s. If this is the 
 way you criticise your public men, what ought other 
 nations to do ? I am afraid that you and your friends 
 commit the very vulgar error of regarding Government 
 as a supernatural agency, infallible and omnipotent. 
 Remember they are only men, after all, and try and 
 place yourself in their position. They must respect 
 public opinion, and, though of course their personal 
 weaknesses and idiosyncrasies may lead them into many 
 errors, I firmly believe that, in their own consciences, 
 they acquit themselves of the contemptible Opportunism 
 of which you accuse them.” 
 
 Leading the excited landlord back to the table, and 
 forcing him to take his seat, the Frenchman sat down 
 opposite to him, and continued :— 
 
 “ Let us look at the question from an objective point 
 of view. Let us forget that you are an Irish landlord, 
 that you are a victim, and let us see whether you Irish 
 landlords, as a class, have done what you ought to have 
 done for yourselves, your family, and your country. 
 You have been loyal to the Conservative Government, 
 
48 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 that is true; but, my dear sir, we don’t live in times 
 when loyalty, per se, is a virtue. Now-a-days, all depends 
 on to whom, and to what, you are loyal. You must 
 confess that it is only a few weeks ago that you have 
 become aware of a fact which is as old as our race—I 
 mean the solidarity, the interdependence, between every 
 inhabitant of a country. Is it not fair to ask why you 
 Irish landlords have not long ago joined hands in the 
 noble work of rescuing your nation from poverty and all 
 the evils that fall in its wake ? I know you will plead 
 ignorance regarding the causes for, and the remedy 
 against, the poverty-stricken condition of your people, 
 and that you will shift the responsibility on to the 
 shoulders of the Government. But if you who live in 
 Ireland and have all your interests here do not know, 
 how can you expect the Government to know ? Might 
 not a very different result have been achieved if you 
 had devoted a very small percentage of the losses you 
 have sustained to inquiries and experiment. Take, for 
 example, the chief cause of Ireland’s poverty—the usury 
 system. In your country it is appalling. In France it 
 exists to some extent, but its influence on the small 
 farmers is comparatively slight. They thrive and they 
 save. In Germany and Italy, and Hungary, the usury 
 system was almost as bad as in Ireland, but of late years 
 it has received an important check, and is diminishing. 
 You have, then, here the means of arriving at the truth. 
 Any inquiry on the part of you landlords into the usury 
 system of different countries would surely show you how 
 to deal with your own. Have you not been guilty of 
 that weakness which you always find in the Man in the 
 Street—to take the advice of the successful politician, 
 
THE MARTYRED LANDLORD. 
 
 49 
 
 regardless of the causes to which his success is due, 
 rather than that of the thinker and the specialist ? Have 
 you consulted the economists? If you distrust the 
 somewhat Socialistic economists of the British Univer¬ 
 sities, have you not in France such men as my friends 
 M. Yves Guyot and M. Leroy-Beaulieu, and in Italy Pro¬ 
 fessor Fiamingo—men who are too clear-minded to be 
 infected with any taint of Socialism, Have you sup¬ 
 ported and co-operated with institutions and associations 
 which in England spend their time and their money, 
 and risk their popularity, in fighting your cause—that is, 
 the cause of the people at large—against the politician 
 and the bureaucrat ? Confess, my friend, that nothing 
 of all this has been done, and that you are wrong in 
 leaving the Government to fight alone.” 
 
 It was some time before the landlord replied. He 
 seemed deep in thought—thought that powerfully 
 agitated his mind. 
 
 “ I never thought of that before,’’ he said. tf I begin 
 to think you are right. I wish you had told me this 
 fifteen years ago. Now that you have led my mind in 
 that direction, a thousand things appear to have been 
 neglected by us. I wonder if it is too late to change 
 our tactics now.” 
 
 “ Much can be done yet,” said the Frenchman. “ All 
 you have to do is to induce all Irish landowners, and as 
 many other Irishmen as possible, to act together inde¬ 
 pendently of party prejudices and party chicaneries. 
 But there is one misconception you must get over: the 
 too common idea with the English—especially the Con¬ 
 servatives—that the Irish are an inferior race. Give 
 them a fair chance, and you will find that they will 
 
So 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 accomplish in their own country as many great things as 
 many of them have done abroad.” 
 
 While the Frenchman still spoke, a roar was heard 
 through the corridors of the house. 
 
 “The dinner-gong,” said the landlord. “Let us go 
 and drink to the prosperity of Ireland.” 
 
 VI. 
 
 THE GENTLE ART OF MAKING LOYALISTS. 
 
 I left the building as unperceived as I entered it. It 
 was now quite dark, and as I looked about on the 
 chance of lighting upon any other source of information 
 before leaving the neighbourhood I noticed on the 
 other side of the village some large-sized windows, 
 through which streamed out the light of a couple of 
 lamps as well as that of a good fire. I approached one of 
 the windows, and found a large room occupied by four 
 men in the uniform of our Irish police. I was peering 
 into the guard-room of the police-station. Anxious to 
 have a talk with one or more of the strapping fellows 
 within, I entered the room. The atmosphere was very 
 close, and not a little vitiated. The smell of stale tobacco 
 predominated. In the corner, on a wooden bench, 
 reclined a constable fast asleep. His belt was off and 
 his tunic open, and his ruddy face, with its happy and 
 
THE GENTLE ART OF MAKING LOYALISTS. 51 
 
 contented expression, reminded me of one of Lerche’s 
 sleeping monks. Two other men of the same corps were 
 playing cards in another corner at a small deal table 
 against the wall opposite the door. In front of the fire 
 a man was seated in a wooden arm-chair who appeared 
 to be older than the three others, and superior to them 
 in rank. His hair was dark, and, by dint of cosmetics, 
 kept in those graceful bends over his forehead so dear 
 to the sons of Mars. His moustache was short, strongly 
 waxed, and coquettishly pointed upwards. His face 
 was red, and his small eyes were half closed while he 
 leisurely read a copy of Tit-Bits , and smoked some rank 
 tobacco in a long churchwarden. This middle-aged 
 Adonis was decidedly my man. I suddenly stood in 
 front of him, and held up my Truth-mirror to his face. 
 
 “ Will you be kind enough to tell me who you are?’’ I 
 said. 
 
 “Sure, and your ladyship can’t be from this part of 
 the country, for there’s moighty few of the sex that 
 don’t know Sergeant Murphy,” he said, as he laid down 
 his pipe and twirled his moustache. 
 
 “You have, then, been long in the place, I suppose?” 
 
 “ Bless your kind heart, it’s twelve years that I’ve been 
 doing dewty here.” 
 
 “And how many men are you in all at the station ?” 
 I asked. 
 
 “We are just five in all, We four here that are off 
 dewty for the moment, and O’Flaherty who is on dewty 
 now.” 
 
 “ Were you always as many as that ?” 
 
 “ No, it was alone that I was for five lonely years, and 
 then I gradually got more men to help until we were five.” 
 
52 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 “ What was the reason that the force was increased ? 
 Were you not yourself able to do the work, and cope 
 with the law-breakers ?” 
 
 “ I must explain to your ladyship,” said he, 
 rather indignantly, “ that the Royal Irish Con¬ 
 stabulary are no menials, and are not maintained to do 
 work. We look upon ourselves as gentlemen ready to 
 fight for their Queen and their country. That’s our 
 duty—not work.” 
 
 “ Has, then, O’Flaherty gone out to fight,” I could 
 not help saying, “as he is out on duty?” 
 
 “ Bless you, he’s not fighting. There’s no fighting 
 now, but his duty is to increase the loyalty of the 
 people, and to inspire respect for law and order 
 wherever he goes,” said the sergeant. 
 
 “ I understand,” I said; u and during the first five years 
 you alone were not able to inspire respect for the autho¬ 
 rities, or to prevent the breaking of the law; and so 
 reinforcements were gradually sent to you ?” 
 
 “ It’s entirely mistaken you are, my lady. Sergeant 
 Murphy always succeeds in what he undertakes, and, 
 so strong was my influence in this district that not an 
 arrest was made during the time. Sure, I flatter 
 myself that I’ve made the people here loyal.” 
 
 “ But how was it that more men were sent up here 
 when you alone sufficed ?” 
 
 “ Well, the Castle didn’t exactly act on my advice,” 
 said the sergeant, his face beaming with self-satisfaction ; 
 “but there was no denying it, that if one man could 
 produce loyalty, it’s certain five men could produce 
 more; and of that article the Government can’t have 
 enough. And then, you see, it’s very lonely for one man 
 
THE GENTLE ART OF MAKING LOYALISTS. S3 
 
 in these stations ; and it would not do to familiarize 
 one’s self with those one has to look after. Besides, the 
 men-folk about here don’t seem anxious for our company 
 —their loyalty doesn’t take that shape. Jealousy !” he 
 added, with a sly side-glance and another twirl of his 
 moustache; “I must confess to it; I did encourage the 
 increase of the force here, and so I got these four men 
 to help me.” 
 
 “To help you to what ?” I said; 
 
 “ Well, to do nothing in particular—to make the 
 station just a bit livelier, and to be prepared for the 
 worst.” 
 
 “ Have you in the district people whom you suspect 
 of conspiring against law and order, and who would 
 become dangerous if no police force were present?” 
 
 “ It’s not that, my lady. I don’t know a single one of 
 these dangerous characters that you are after reading 
 about in the papers. But then, you know, I’ve always 
 done my best; and if I was to leave I don’t know what 
 would be happening.” 
 
 “ You have noticed, I suppose, different degrees of 
 loyalty among the people of the district ?” was my next 
 question. 
 
 “ Certainly I have,” was his reply. “ The men-folk 
 are, as a rule, not so loyal as the women, and the little 
 boys are the most unloyal of all. Of all the women, the 
 servant girls—bless their pretty faces !—are the most 
 loyal. Sure, your ladyship, they’re more than loyal, 
 they’re just devoted to us. If we could succeed 
 with the rest of the population as we do with the servant 
 girls, there’d be no Irish Question.” 
 
 “And how do you spend your time here?” I asked. 
 
54 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 “ One or two of us are generally on duty, and the 
 others then take it easy. We smoke, we improve our 
 minds, and sometimes have a game of cards. Some¬ 
 times we play among ourselves, and sometimes one or 
 two of us have the honour of a game with the magis¬ 
 trate.” 
 
 “ And what do you think would happen,” I asked, 
 “ if the four men were withdrawn and you were again 
 left alone ?” 
 
 “Nothing particular, I think, would happen, except 
 that Sergeant Murphy might send in his resignation ; 
 for the place would be too dull for anything. I could 
 obtain a good berth as the husband of the Widow 
 Molloy, who keeps the Pig and Whistle in the next 
 village. Now, I don’t fancy that that would be after the 
 liking of the Castle, for the Widow Molloy is a turbulent 
 Home Ruler by nature. If I leave the force and this 
 uniform and marry the Widow Molloy, I may not be 
 able to inspire the same loyalty in her as before.” 
 
 As the sergeant was getting decidedly prosy, I wished 
 him all happiness with the widow, replaced Tit-Bits in 
 his hands, and took myself off; not, however, before 
 noticing two figures in the bright moonlight further 
 down the road—a tall man, slightly bending over a 
 female figure, whose waist he encircled with his arm, 
 and whose head rested on his shoulder : it was Private 
 O’Flaherty, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, doing his 
 duty. 
 
A PILLAR OF IRISH INDUSTRY. 
 
 55 
 
 VII. 
 
 A PILLAR OF IRISH INDUSTRY. 
 
 It was well past dinner time when I reached Belfast. 
 The man I was in search of had dined with his family 
 and a few guests, and the whole party was having coffee 
 and cigarettes in a cozy sitting room. It suited my 
 purpose to conceal my spiritual nature, and I allowed 
 myself to be announced under the name of a well-known 
 American lady who has frequently interviewed prominent 
 Englishmen for the American Press. After being 
 detained for a few minutes in an ante-room, I was invited 
 to join the party. I was received with that hearty hos¬ 
 pitality which, from times immemorial, has been practised 
 in the Emerald Isle without regard to the wealth or rank 
 of the guests. 
 
 “ You come, I suppose,” said the master of the house, 
 as he rose and extended his hand to me, “ to torment 
 me about Irish Finance ?” 
 
 “Well,” I said, “rather to relieve you, in case you 
 have anything on your mind regarding Irish Finance 
 which you wish to get rid of.” 
 
 “ I have, indeed,” he said, as he advanced a low 
 easy chair. “ Please be seated, if you have no 
 objection to the presence of these two ladies, my wife 
 and my daughters, and of my friends, Mr. Y. and Mr. 
 X., during the interview.” 
 
 “ Not the slightest,’ I replied; “ they will be so many 
 
56 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 witnesses that I put down your words correctly. Per¬ 
 haps you will first oblige me by telling me whether you 
 consider yourself an Irishman ?” 
 
 “ Indeed, I do,” he said ; “ I was born in Belfast. I 
 have spent most of my time, made my money here, 
 and all my interests are connected with the place. I 
 daresay that my ancestors had been as long in Ireland 
 as those of any American have been in America.” 
 
 “And do you consider yourself overtaxed?” was my 
 next question. 
 
 “ I don’t consider myself overtaxed as far as those 
 taxes are concerned which I pay to the tax-collectors, or, 
 indirectly, to the Inland Revenue Office. But there can 
 be little doubt that I suffer, as all Irishmen do, from the 
 over taxation of the Irish people in general. When a 
 people staggers under too heavy taxes, they not only lose 
 the wealth which the Government take possession of, 
 and the enormous amount of wealth which is wasted in 
 collecting expenses—they lose a great deal more. Their 
 consuming-power becomes less; the business of every 
 man diminishes ; the production, capital, and wage-fund 
 are diminished; poverty, insolvency, indebtedness are 
 increased; enterprise, thrift, and invention are dis¬ 
 couraged ; and a reckless, devil-me-care spirit takes 
 possession of the people. I do not complain about my 
 own business; but, if I were living among a nation 
 permitted to be as prosperous as natural circumstances 
 would permit, I should be making twice the profit I make 
 now. Besides, I should have the great satisfaction of 
 being able to pay my workpeople better wages, and to 
 see more happiness around me.” 
 
 “ I hope you won’t think the question impertinent,” I 
 
A PILLAR OF IRISH INDUSTRY. 
 
 57 
 
 said, “ if I ask you what prevents you from giving your 
 workpeople higher wages out of the present good profits 
 you have alluded to ?” 
 
 “ The question is quite legitimate/’ he said, smiling. 
 “ You may be one of those who frequently hear excellent, 
 but somewhat narrow-minded, preachers in our churches 
 persistently decry all business men, and especially 
 employers of labour, for avowedly and openly aiming at 
 profits, interest, cheap labour, and ‘ filthy lucre ’ in other 
 forms, instead of giving all our profits to those who work 
 for them—instead of working their wage-sheets on Mr. 
 Ruskin’s principle. I have often thought what a 
 pity it is that these preachers will not take the 
 trouble to inquire a little more closely into business 
 principles. If they did, they would find that all 
 the wholesale business of Great Britain is not only 
 carried on perfectly honestly, but that its working 
 mechanism is based on integrity. Every business man 
 knows to a nicety what profits are honest, and what 
 profits are dishonest, and the more the latter are tempt¬ 
 ing and safe, the more are they avoided. It has often 
 struck me that clergymen and other professional people 
 who are apt to cry us business men down have no idea 
 of the strict business honesty which renders modern 
 business possible. But I have to ask your pardon for 
 digressing from our subject. There are two classes of 
 reasons why wages should be paid at market-value, or 
 thereabouts. I may call them the employers’ reasons 
 and the workmen’s reasons. An employer must make 
 exact calculations in order to undertake large orders ; 
 he must make sure that his profits will cover possible 
 miscalculations, fluctuations in the markets of his raw 
 
58 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 materials, the interest on the capital he employs, the 
 wear and tear of buildings and machinery, the risks of 
 fire, explosions, and other accidents, the wear and tear 
 of his own and his clerks’ ability. To cover all this con¬ 
 siderable profits are required, and, when competition is 
 keen, we run many risks, and actually make money by 
 luck. But then we have other reasons for making 
 profits. It is our duty to our country and to humanity 
 at: large to try to extend our business, so that we 
 can produce [more and better goods, and employ 
 more and more workers at higher and higher 
 wages. For this it is necessary for us to increase our 
 capital. Then there are our families to provide for. 
 We all wish to live again in our sons, and to them we 
 look for the realization of plans which the shortness of 
 life compels us to leave half finished or only begun. 
 The large sum we have invested in works and machinery 
 cannot be looked upon as a property for our families, 
 because its value is dependent on the state of trade, on 
 political events, and Government.” 
 
 “ On Government!” I could not help exclaiming. 
 “The Government’s object surely is to protect property 
 —especially productive property, on which trade and 
 wages depend ?” 
 
 “ I am glad to hear that such ideas are still prevalent 
 among you Americans,” said the Belfast capitalist. 
 “With us the idea of property is becoming very hazy. 
 All our politicians are attacking it, forgetting the wise 
 warning of Lord Salisbury that existing capital is too 
 small, and is too rapidly consumed, to be of any 
 account; and that the future happiness of the people 
 depends on what we can produce. Our legislators can 
 
A PILLAR OF IRISH INDUSTRY. 
 
 59 
 
 utterly destroy invested capital, and have often done 
 so. Look at the Irish landlords, for example. No ! 
 we must accumulate capital outside business in order to 
 provide for our families.” 
 
 “ I hope you have no fear,” I said, “ of Socialism, 
 or some such political change, depriving you of your 
 capital ?” 
 
 “Nothing is more probable,” was his reply. “As 
 to Socialism, I don’t think there could be such a 
 thing; but Socialistic attacks on capital will certainly 
 either destroy it, or drive it out of the country, and 
 then—chaos !” 
 
 “ And do you think/’ I asked, “ that the present 
 amount of taxation in Ireland is detrimental to the 
 formation of capital ?” 
 
 “ Certainly I do. Our people have nothing like 
 the chances of accumulating such as the French have. 
 In France the taxes are very heavy, but the prosperity 
 of the masses has, during the last century at least, 
 been ahead of the taxes ; and the taxes, therefore, have 
 diminished the prosperity, but do not prevent it. In 
 Ireland it is different. Here the taxes have always been 
 ahead of the prosperity, and they do not skim off 
 the profit, but drain off the capital from which the 
 profits should spring.” 
 
 “ But, surely, you must acknowledge,” I could not 
 resist saying, “that there is a vast difference between 
 the thrift of the two nations ?” 
 
 “ The fundamental difference is not so great as you 
 imagine,” he said, musingly. “The same force, applied 
 under different circumstances, will produce different 
 effects. There is in both nations a strong and legitimate 
 
6o 
 
 IRISH FINANCE, 
 
 desire to apply, as far as possible, the result of their 
 labour to their own advantage. Under the French 
 system, the people achieve that end by adding to 
 their capital ; the poor Irish achieve it by spending 
 their profit on themselves before the Gombeen man, the 
 shopkeeper, the land agent, and other chronic creditors, 
 have time to lay hands on it.” 
 
 “ Well, I see your meaning, though it sounds para¬ 
 doxical to say that an Irishman’s thrift consists in 
 spending all his earnings; but you have not explained to 
 me the working-man’s reasons for preferring market- 
 price wages. I was always under the impression that 
 labourers would go for the highest wages they could obtain 
 under any circumstances.” 
 
 “You may be right,” he said, “if you refer to 
 individual cases. Each labourer will bargain for the 
 highest wages he can get; but this may be called taking 
 advantage of his market. But if you study the collective 
 policy of our working classes, you will find that they 
 adhere, as a rule, to some kind of market standard, call 
 it trade union wages or whatever you like. What they 
 generally demand is fairness and justice, and any system 
 of charity is intensely distasteful to them. They are 
 well aware that, if wages were not regulated on the basis 
 of supply and demand, but by the generosity and charity 
 of the employers, favouritism would be inevitable, and 
 even the best labourers might starve for want of work. 
 To what extent they are influenced by the idea of fair¬ 
 ness and a fixed standard may be judged from the 
 policy of the trade unions as to level wages. We have 
 in our works a great number of men who could earn 
 higher wages than they do now; but such personal 
 
A PILLAR OF IRISH INDUSTRY. 6 1 
 
 advantages to them would mean a reduction of wages 
 according to ability for the less strong and less skilled 
 labourers. It is the sacrifice on the part of some for the 
 good of all which we are bound to admire, though I am 
 convinced that the sacrifice is useless.” 
 
 At this point the lady of the house, who, as I after¬ 
 wards learned, is a member of some Association with 
 the mission of protecting the wages of working women, 
 joined in the conversation by remarking:— 
 
 “I am afraid,” she said, “that the trades unions are 
 not so generous to women as they are to men. There 
 is a mass of trade union rules which results simply in 
 lower wages for the women, and higher wages for the 
 men. How often have we not meetings of women's 
 associations consisting chiefly of men, and women's 
 deputations composed exclusively of men—all aiming 
 at some kind of interference with women’s work, and 
 all tending towards reducing their wages under the 
 pretext of protecting women against long hours and 
 rough work. I call that neither gallant nor gene¬ 
 rous.” 
 
 “ I know, my dear, that this is the case,” said her 
 husband, “ and I hail with satisfaction any efforts to put 
 a stop to the clamour for such unfortunate State inter¬ 
 ference. If men are desirous of improving the hours 
 and the chances of employment of working women, they 
 should see that their wages are increased, and that their 
 resources are augmented, before they deprive them of 
 honest work. But, at the same time, it would not be 
 fair—at least, in the majority of cases—to attribute the 
 policy of the trade unions with regard to women's work 
 to selfishness, jealousy, or hypocrisy. It is simply the 
 
62 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 outcome of an economic misconception, for which the 
 University economists and the extreme Collectivist 
 portion of the press are more responsible than the 
 working men. They are apt to start from the fallacious 
 supposition that the available opportunities of work are 
 a stable factor in the problem, or a fixed and, under all 
 the circumstances, an unchangeable quantity; and that, 
 consequently, the more a certain number work, and the 
 more cheaply they work, the less work and the less wages 
 will there be for others. Of course, the truth is the 
 exact opposite—that is to say, the more some indi¬ 
 viduals work, and the less they consume, the more wealth 
 there is for the others.” 
 
 “ That seems right,” said his wife; “ but could you 
 elucidate it by an example from experience ?” 
 
 “ Perhaps I may be allowed,” said Mr. X., “ to refer 
 to an experience in our own firm. We ship large 
 quantities of ready-made linen articles to South America, 
 for example. The manufacturing of these involves a 
 great deal of sewing and embroidery. When that part 
 of the work used to be made by hand, the goods were 
 dear, and we sold only a small quantity. Now, when 
 machinery allows us to produce these goods at a trifling 
 cost, we ship very large quantities. The result to the 
 linen weavers is, of course, that the demand for linen has 
 increased, and that wages have gone up. From this it 
 follows, I think, that the less wages the workers in one 
 of the processes of manufacture accept, the more there 
 remains out of the total price of sale of the articles for 
 the other workers. What I have said about the linen 
 trade holds good of every other industry. Actualities, 
 then, completely confirm the abstract economic law 
 
A PILLAR OF IRISH INDUSTRY. 63 
 
 your husband quoted—that the more cheaply one 
 working man works, the better for all the others.” 
 
 “ Most decidedly,” said our host; “ but unfortunately 
 the working of that economic law is not everywhere so 
 easily followed as in the production of highly-finished 
 articles. Besides, it is obscured, and in many cases pre¬ 
 vented from operating by legislative violence.” 
 
 “ I am glad,” I said, “ that you blame not the hearts 
 of the working men, but only their brains.” 
 
 “ Say rather their lack of information,” put in the 
 host. 
 
 “ Granted,” I resumed, pour revenir a nos moutons , 
 “ that Ireland is over-taxed, what form of relief would 
 you recommend ?” 
 
 “ Before deciding upon such a vital matter,” he 
 replied, “ I should require to study the question more 
 minutely; but I might be inclined in favour of a reduction 
 of taxes all round. The administrative difficulties are 
 by no means insurmountable. Only a few years ago 
 the Whisky Tax in Ireland was is. 8d. lower than in 
 England, and, if that was workable, a difference in taxes 
 on tea, coffee, chocolate, etc., is perfectly possible. If 
 the English and the Scotch dislike these differences, let 
 them follow suit, and let them also take a step in the 
 direction of sound economy. A Budget of one hundred 
 millions is absurdly high, and the local rates in Great 
 Britain are simply ruinous. Let Parliament stop useless 
 State-interfering expenses, and let charity be practised by 
 those who can afford it, and not carried on with money 
 extorted by violence from people who can use it far 
 better than the State in their own industries, and who 
 often have to go to the wall, ruined by high taxes and 
 
b 4 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 rates, or by the paralyzing influence these exercise on 
 trade.” 
 
 “ And do you expect that representative and influential 
 Irishmen will all join hands in demanding fair taxation ?” 
 I asked. 
 
 Our host shook his head, looked grave, but said 
 nothing. After a moment’s silence, Mr. Y. said:— 
 
 “ I know my friend is not sanguine with regard to a 
 solid Irish front; but I think most Irishmen regard this 
 as a God-sent opportunity to obtain justice for this 
 unhappy island.” 
 
 “ You seem to attach a great deal of importance to 
 the Financial Report,” I said, turning to Mr. Y., who 
 had, as I afterwards heard, a great reputation for learning. 
 
 “It isn’t the Report alone which constitutes the 
 opportunity,” he resumed. “ The political position in 
 Great Britain, as well as the situation in Parliament, 
 offers just now a great chance for practical questions. 
 The people are sick to death of party squabbles and 
 abortive measures, and our legislators are beginning to 
 understand that they must soon face the fact that the 
 old party demarcations are fast becoming obliterated, 
 and that the House, like the rest of the civilized world, 
 is gradually shaking itself into two great camps—Collec¬ 
 tivists and Individualists—differing in the two great 
 questions, whether we shall progress towards a state of 
 degrading slavery under Government and the bureau¬ 
 crats, or towards a system of ennobling personal liberty. 
 The antagonism of the two new parties is becoming daily 
 more marked, because it has been found that Collec¬ 
 tivism means individual poverty, and Individualism 
 means individual prosperity. Public opinion and the 
 
A PILLAR OF IRISH INDUSTRY. 
 
 65 
 
 Man in the Street may not as yet have grasped 
 this fact; but to all thinking men it is clear that to 
 enrich the State by impoverishing the individuals is 
 actually to impoverish the State; and to enrich all 
 the individuals is actually to enrich the State. One 
 effect of the new situation is that the hollow party cries 
 must cease from troubling. Any demand for Home 
 Rule, for example, must now instantaneously evoke the 
 question whether Home Rule for Ireland means 
 Collectivism for Ireland, or Individualism for Ireland ? 
 It will now become patent to every sensible man that 
 the Irish Question is a question of prosperity.” 
 
 The daughter of the house, who had been listening 
 intently to the conversation, hereupon exclaimed, some¬ 
 what excitedly: 
 
 “ What a pity and a shame it is that Ireland, at this 
 important crisis, should be so badly represented.” 
 
 “ I am much obliged for the compliment, my dear 
 Patricia,” said her father, evidently amused. 
 
 “Oh! father, of course I don’t mean you,” she said, 
 blushing. “ I mean those wretched, squabbling Home 
 Rulers. Had ever a country such representatives ?” 
 
 “ Is that also your opinion,” I asked Mr. Y.—“that 
 the Home Rulers are bad representatives of Ireland ? 
 Or do you think that this young lady’s party feeling runs 
 a little too high ?” 
 
 “ I think it is the general opinion of educated Irish¬ 
 men that the Home Rule brigade largely consist of people 
 who should not represent their country in Parliament.” 
 
 “You mean, I suppose,” said I, “that they have been 
 tainted with the corruption which is so rampant in 
 most parts of the world ?” 
 
66 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 “Certainly not,” was his reply, “I do not think them 
 corrupt. I am willing to admit that they are animated 
 by a sincere patriotism, but they are ciphers.” 
 
 “Ah! I see what you mean,” I said. “They are 
 men of no standing—poor men, who have to look 
 for financial support from others in order to keep up 
 their position. You believe probably, as many do, that 
 before a man should claim to manage the business of his 
 country, he should show his ability to manage his own 
 business, so as to, at least, gain independence ?” 
 
 “ No,” he replied emphatically, “ I should be sorry to 
 have such priggish opinions. The poorest man in 
 Parliament may be as good as the richest. The manage¬ 
 ment of his own affairs is no criterion of his qualities as 
 a statesman. Cobden, for example, was not famous for 
 looking after his own interests, but he gained milliards 
 of wealth for England.” 
 
 “But what, then, are your objections,” I asked, “to 
 the Home Rule members ?” 
 
 “ My objection is that they do not represent Ireland. 
 The Parliamentary representatives of a country should be 
 elected by the people for some personal ability or 
 quality inherent in themselves, and not because they 
 agree to be mere voting machines following such and 
 such a leader. A country is not well represented unless 
 each district sends its best man—the man who has proved 
 by some action, by some deed or some work, that he has 
 some kind of ability in him, that he has the interests of 
 the people more at heart than others, and that his mind 
 is able to grapple with the important subject with which 
 he has to deal. Besides, we must believe that hardly 
 any of the Home Rulers have taken the trouble to 
 
A PILLAR OF IRISH INDUSTRY. 
 
 67 
 
 master the rudiments of the science of legislation. They 
 seem to have no remedies against Ireland’s evils. Such 
 measures as they suggest or support are invariably 
 economically unsound, and calculated to aggravate the 
 poverty of the country. If they had a clearer grasp of the 
 needs of Ireland, they would not be constantly indulging 
 in quarrels among themselves about personal affairs, 
 Sustentation Funds, and other minor matters.” 
 
 “ That’s it,” said the daughter of the house. “Why 
 should they for ever quarrel among themselves ? Irish¬ 
 men should always be ready to sacrifice everything on 
 the altar of their country.” 
 
 “ My dear young lady, in order to be just to these 
 men, we must take into consideration under what 
 circumstances they were elected,” said Mr. X. “ At the 
 time of the last General Election even it was not 
 generally understood that Home Rule was a meaningless 
 term, but, on the contrary, most Irishmen had been 
 taught to believe that it meant the fulfilment of the 
 highest aspirations of each one of them. Even you, my 
 young extremist, will agree that there are men among the 
 Home Rulers of whom any country might be proud. 
 These Home Rulers, upon whom you all seem to be so 
 hard, had only one mandate—to support Home Rule— 
 and to this they have been faithful. If the best men of 
 Ireland represented Ireland in Parliament, there can be 
 little doubt that the Irish nation, as part owner of the 
 Empire, with England’s immense wealth to back it, 
 and the two parties in Parliament competing for their 
 votes, might have been a model country. But 
 where do you find now-a-days a Parliament consisting of 
 the best men of the country ? and where do you find a 
 
68 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 country that could serve as a model in regard to govern¬ 
 ment and legislation ? Even you, as an American,” he 
 said, turning to me, “ would not claim this proud position 
 for the United States.” 
 
 “Well,” I said, “ I don’t think we are much worse off 
 than other nations in that respect. At the same time, I 
 won’t deny that, as far as I can judge, from this distance 
 —I live in England now—there is a growing opinion in 
 America that, if our legislators would just go on strike, or 
 take a holiday for ten years, the country would be much 
 better off. But what attitude do you expect the bulk of 
 the Home Rulers in Parliament will take with regard to 
 the Irish Finance question ?” 
 
 “ I trust,” said our host, “that they will understand 
 that the question will be a test question, and that they 
 will see their way to drop their exasperating faction 
 fights, and stand up for old Ireland.” 
 
 Finding there was no tpore to be learned, I declined 
 any further hospitality, and withdrew. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF. 
 
 In case any portion of the Imperial taxes were to be 
 shifted from Irish to English shoulders, the burden 
 would, of course, in the last instance, fall on the wage- 
 
A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF. 
 
 69 
 
 earners, perhaps not directly, but in the aggravated 
 form of worse business, more stagnation, and less wealth 
 for the wealth-producers. I was, therefore, anxious to 
 have the opinion of some of the sons of toil in this 
 kingdom—all the more so, as the working man’s vote 
 is now-a-days the compass to be steered by. 
 
 Guided by previous experience, I went straight to a 
 cottage in a long, dark street in a large manufacturing 
 town in Lancashire. It was the house of Mr. Scott, a 
 boiler-maker, between* fifty and sixty years of age, who 
 enjoys a great reputation among his fellow workers for 
 intelligence and integrity. I found him in his little 
 parlour deeply engaged over some papers, and busy 
 over some trade-union work. As time pressed, I did 
 not think of changing my appearance, but entered his 
 house in the same character that I assumed at Belfast. 
 
 “ I should like to have a chat with you,” I said, “ on 
 politics, if you can spare a moment.” 
 
 “ How is this ?” he said, offering me a chair; “ I don’t 
 know of an election on, but I suppose you’re a lady 
 canvasser.” 
 
 “ No,” I said, “ I am not, and, if I were, I wouldn’t 
 waste my time in trying to influence so strong a man as 
 yourself. I just crave only for some information with 
 regard to the Lancashire workers’ opinion on the Irish 
 Finance question.” 
 
 “ I can’t be responsible for other people’s opinions, 
 but you're welcome to mine if they’re of any use to you.” 
 
 As he spoke, the door opened, and there came into 
 the room a middle-sized man with a mild, dreamy ex¬ 
 pression in his large blue eyes, a thin, straggling, long 
 beard, and a profusion of light brown hair. 
 
7 o 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 “This is Mr. Robertson,” said Scott, “one of those 
 who differ from me in political questions, though a good 
 friend of mine. He is a Socialist, out and out, and you 
 might like to have his opinion too.” 
 
 “ Certainly,” I said, “ I rather like out and outers, for 
 they have at least an opinion. It’s the mugwamps who 
 sit on a fence, and the opportunists who have no opinion 
 at all, that I can’t bear. Besides, I believe there are 
 more unselfish people in the ranks of the Socialists than 
 in any other party.” 
 
 “ It isn’t unselfishness that’s wanting in my friend 
 Robertson,” said Scott. “ In my opinion, his fault is 
 that he is determined to sacrifice himself to an impossible 
 dream.” 
 
 We all sat round the coke fire, and my first question 
 to Scott was whether he thought it right that the taxes 
 in Ireland should be reduced by increasing the taxes in 
 England. 
 
 “ You are putting these two questions into one. That 
 Ireland is overtaxed no working man will deny. I have 
 but little personal experience of Ireland myself, but I 
 know many Irish working men who have settled here; 
 and it is only too plain that the people of Ireland are 
 ground down by taxes as much as we are here.” 
 
 “ But the working classes of England are supposed to 
 pay no taxes, except when they spend their money on 
 luxuries.” 
 
 “ Luxuries !” he said, as a smile played round his lips. 
 “ Cheap tobacco, beer, spirits, tea, coffee, and cocoa are 
 luxuries, are they, for the use of which the working man 
 should be punished by taxation in a ruinous proportion 
 to his small wages ? But let us leave the luxuries out, 
 
A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF. 
 
 71 
 
 and let us consider the other taxes we, as well as the 
 Irish, have to pay.” 
 
 “ But what are those taxes ?” I asked. “ The landlord 
 pays the house taxes on cottages like these.” 
 
 “ Yes, I know that’s the theory; but let us look at the 
 reality. Who pays the landlord? And do you think 
 the landlord wouldn’t include the tax in his rent ?” 
 
 “ But just look here,” I said ; “ the rent is not deter¬ 
 mined by the amount of taxes the landlord pays, but by 
 the competition for the houses. If the Property Tax 
 were abolished, the bidding for the houses would be as 
 high as ever, and the landlord would get the benefit.” 
 
 “ That’s a fallacy, madam,” said Scott, “ which has 
 been current a long time. With the present scarcity of 
 good investment, such an increase in the income for 
 house property would be sure to produce more houses 
 and better dwellings—a thing of which we all stand in 
 great need. It’s the tax that prevents landlords from 
 building more than they do, and from building decently. 
 But this is not the only way on which the tax on house 
 property crushes us. If the amount, or part of the 
 amount, now collected in taxes was spent in better 
 dwellings, there would be more work to do in the building 
 trades, and a mass of labourers who are now idle and 
 houseless would be busy, so to speak, building their own 
 homes. In the same way,excessive taxation prevents shoe¬ 
 makers fromhavingboots,and tailors fromhavingclothes.” 
 
 “ How can that be ?” I asked. “ Are not the scarcity 
 of employment and low wages the consequences of over 
 production ?” 
 
 At this question the Socialist Robertson burst into 
 satirical laughter. 
 
72 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 “ They are delightful with their over-production,” he 
 cried out. “Over-production! when not one man, 
 woman, or child in a thousand has got enough of 
 anything.’ 
 
 “No, no,” said Scott, shaking his head seriously, 
 “ there’s no over-production. A lecturer some time ago 
 came down here and made it perfectly clear that what we 
 suffer from is not over-production, but under-consumption. 
 The two things are opposite evils, and require opposite 
 remedies. It’s over-taxation that leads to under-con¬ 
 sumption. The people can’t consume that which the 
 Government extort from them. A man can’t give away 
 his cake and have it. But the House Tax doesn’t fall 
 directly as heavily on us as on the poor fellows who for 
 business require more than a dwelling cottage, and on 
 poor women who try to make a living by taking in 
 lodgers. These people are constantly paying out all 
 they can scrape together in taxes and rates of some kind, 
 while the trades suffer because their customers have to 
 pay taxes and rates. Look at Jones, a friend of mine. 
 He’s got a boot shop, especially for repairs. He fell ill 
 for two weeks, and the tax-collector came, and he hadn’t 
 the money. The best thing to do in such cases would 
 be for the people to go straight to the Union with their 
 whole family. If they did, the eyes of Parliament would 
 be opened regarding the consequences of taxation, and 
 our Town and County Councillors would be less eager 
 for Betterment, Free Baths, and Free Libraries. But 
 Jones was sanguine, and did not want to go to the work- 
 house with his large family, though he had for many 
 years paid a heavy Poor Rate. He got a loan from 
 a money-lender, a thing they always do, to such an extent 
 
A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF. 73 
 
 as to make one believe that Parliament is the handmaid 
 of the usurer. Jones’s brother, his brother-in-law, and 
 an aunt of his who kept a small milliner’s shop—people 
 who, by sheer hard work and self-denial, had managed to 
 get their little homes together—went security for Jones. 
 Then, for want of proper food, sickness came into his 
 house, and his guarantors had to pay several instalments. 
 Owing to delays, more taxes, and more rates, the money¬ 
 lender got them all in his clutches, and they now are all 
 ruined, and have had their homes stripped of every stick. 
 Well, you can understand that for each family that goes 
 to the workhouse, or is plunged into abject poverty, trade 
 suffers, and we wage-earners have to pay the piper.’ 
 
 “ But what’s to be done ?” I said; “ the country can’t 
 exist without taxes, and if taxes laid on rich landlords 
 fall finally on the poor lodger and the working man, 
 what is to be done ?” 
 
 “ Very much can be done, but I will only put it to 
 you whether it is fair in a Christian country to make 
 people pay taxes who do not earn enough to live upon ? 
 And I do believe it can be proved unsound, financially* 
 in the long run.” 
 
 “ But if you think the Irish, as well as the English, 
 are overtaxed, you would not think of increasing the 
 taxes in England in order to ease the Irish people? 
 Would you oppose the Government if that were 
 attempted ?” 
 
 “ I would blame the Government; but to oppose the 
 Government is another question. If they were to resign, 
 we should get the Liberals in, and that would mean 
 more taxes and more rates, and, therefore, lower wages. 
 
 I used to be a Liberal myself, as also my friend Robert- 
 
74 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 son here; but while I’ve become a Conservative, 
 Robertson has turned a Socialist. My belief and hope 
 is that the present Government will, as soon as they can, 
 stop all legislation that interferes with trade and wages, 
 and gradually retrench all unnecessary expenditure. 
 Taxes may then be reduced, and, if trade is allowed to 
 expand here and in the colonies, the revenue will far 
 exceed the requirements. Taxes for unnecessary ex¬ 
 penditure should be voluntary, for then those who want 
 Betterment and Socialistic expenditure would have to 
 pay for them, and Englishmen would at last be free.” 
 
 “ That’ll never be,” said Robertson ; “ the only way 
 is to go for complete Socialism.” 
 
 Here a discussion between Scott and Robertson 
 followed, Robertson insisting that Government would be 
 perfect, and the citizens entirely devoted to the Govern¬ 
 ment. 
 
 As Robertson spoke he grew more and more excited. 
 His face became flushed, his eyes dilated, and his whole 
 body was agitated by nervous gesticulation. Presently 
 Scott rose from his seat and left the room. 
 
 Being anxious to bring back Robertson, who was now 
 enlarging upon Bellamy’s book, “ Looking Backward,” 
 to the question of Irish Finance, I took the opportunity, 
 while he was drawing a long breath, to ask him what 
 opinion the Socialists in general held on taxation in 
 Ireland. 
 
 “ We Socialists,” he said, “ believe that the poor 
 people of Ireland are ruined, not by taxes, but by rents. 
 Our remedy is the abolition of landlordism and the 
 socialization of land and the means of production.” 
 
 “ And do you really believe,” I said, “ that the Irish 
 
A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF. 
 
 75 
 
 people, as well as the English working-classes, can be 
 induced to make an experiment with complete Socialism, 
 while the present generation is still alive, and accept the 
 consequences of the transition period ?” 
 
 “ It is the duty of the present generation,” cried 
 Robertson, with an expression of either inspiration or 
 fanaticism, “ to sacrifice everything for the future happi¬ 
 ness of humanity. But no sacrifice will be required. 
 Socialism is furthered by every party and by every class. 
 Landlords and capitalists further Socialism, not from a 
 sense of duty, but for the sake of the party flesh-pots. 
 The Church of England, through her bishops and deans, 
 furthers Socialism, though the Church endowments will 
 become the first contribution to the Socialistic State. 
 Providence has struck them blind, so that they may 
 work their own destruction. The Liberal party is 
 utterly helpless without the Socialists and Socialistic 
 principles. The Walthamstow election has shown them 
 how to win over almost every constituency in the 
 country. They have only to withdraw the old-style 
 Liberal candidates, the apostles of property, in every 
 constituency where they are not absolutely certain to 
 win, and to concentrate the Radical, the Socialist, and 
 the Labour vote on one candidate, and the Conserva¬ 
 tives will never be in power again.” 
 
 At this point the door opened, and Scott returned, 
 bringing with him a tall, middle-aged man, with a short¬ 
 cut beard and hair, originally black, and now sprinkled 
 with grey. His prominent feature was a large, well-shaped 
 nose, between two deep-sunk, penetrating, grey eyes. 
 
 “Allow me, madam, to introduce my friend and 
 neighbour, Mr. Shelman,” said Scott; “he is an 
 
76 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 Anarchist, and I thought you might like to hear the 
 Anarchist view of Irish Finance; so I sent my little girl 
 for him, and here he is.” 
 
 “ I am very much obliged,” I said, “and I will thank 
 Mr. Shelman to let me know what he thinks of Irish 
 taxation.” 
 
 He pulled a chair towards the fire, and sat down 
 leisurely, as if in deep thought. 
 
 “ Excessive taxation in Ireland is one of the causes of 
 poverty in that country,” he said. 
 
 “ Do you mean the taxes on the poor or the taxes on 
 the rich ?” I inquired. 
 
 “ Both,” he said. 
 
 “ But I understood,” I said, “ that Anarchists were in 
 favour of the destruction of capital in general, and taxes 
 surely are a means of destroying capital—though more 
 slowly than dynamite.” 
 
 At this Shelman smiled sardonically. 
 
 “ We Anarchists do not regard the destruction of 
 capital as one of our objects,” he said; “ ids only a bad 
 name that the Collectivist press wishes to fix upon us, so 
 that we may be killed. What we want to destroy is the 
 tyranny of capital, which is no good to anybody—not 
 even to the capitalists. If this cannot be done without 
 destroying the capitalists, we should certainly exterminate 
 them in their present organization ; and, if we could not 
 destroy the capitalists without destroying capital, then, 
 and then only, should we destroy the result of previous 
 labour. Every pound’s worth of capital destroyed tells 
 against the wage-earners. But personal liberty is worth 
 more than all the capital in the world, and will have to 
 be considered first.” 
 
A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF. 
 
 77 
 
 “ But,” interrupted Robertson, excitedly, “ if you 
 hand over the capital to the people, there can be no 
 tyranny of capital.” 
 
 “ Exactly so,” said Shelman, calmly. “ But when 
 you Socialists say the people, you don’t mean the people. 
 You mean the worst enemies of the people—bureaucratic 
 rulers; the body that levies the taxes, that regu¬ 
 lates and compels, is necessarily antagonistic to those 
 who have to pay, submit, and work under compulsion. 
 There is, therefore, only one road to liberty—the abolition 
 of Government.” 
 
 “ Abolish Government!” cried Robertson, “ and allow 
 murder and robbery ?” 
 
 “ Oh ! if you are going to turn murderer and robber 
 because Government is abolished, I’m sorry for you,” 
 said the Anarchist. “ As far as I know, you would be 
 the only man with such inclinations in the whole neigh¬ 
 bourhood ; and, as we should be a thousand against one, 
 we should be able to check you.” 
 
 “And are you not of opinion,” I said, “that the different 
 factions of Ireland would rush at each other’s throats if 
 the expenses of Government—and, consequently, Govern¬ 
 ment—were reduced to the smallest possible propor¬ 
 tions ?” 
 
 “ No,” he replied. “ All the apples of discord would 
 have disappeared. What the Irish are apt to fight about 
 is leaderships, Government appointments, monopolies, 
 privileges, State doles, Government contracts, duties, 
 taxation, and a host of other miseries inflicted upon 
 them by legislation. Every Irishman is by nature an 
 Anarchist, and always ready to rebel against the slightest 
 authority exercised over him. Liberty alone will succeed 
 
78 
 
 IRISH FINANCE. 
 
 in Ireland. The Home Rulers don’t see this, and have 
 given a Socialistic and bureaucratic character to their 
 Utopia. The Irish people can never become Socialists.” 
 
 Here Robertson broke out into an energetic protest, 
 which led to a violent discussion between the two men 
 and threatened to degenerate into personalities and 
 invective. With great tact, I succeeded in re-establishing 
 peace, and the two antagonists departed peacefully, 
 though unconvinced. 
 
 Scott came and stood before me, and said : 
 
 “ These two men have given you an example of the 
 great cause underlying the suffering of both the Irish 
 and the English people—the discord between the victims 
 of bad legislation. They are apt to blame the leaders, 
 especially the Government in power; but they forget 
 that we are a free nation governing ourselves, and that 
 men like Lord Salisbury, Mr. Balfour, and others, can 
 hold the power only by the sanction of public opinion.” 
 
 “ Do you, then, believe that the country has confidence 
 in the present Cabinet ?” I said. 
 
 “ Yes ; if you except the fanatical factions,” he said, 
 pointing to the door. “ I find that the people begin to 
 understand the situation. The men are not to blame, 
 but the system—the party system.” 
 
 “ And is there a remedy against party system ?” 
 
 “Oh, yes !” he said; “there is the remedy of rotten 
 eggs and dead cats.” 
 
 “ Rotten eggs and dead cats !” I said. “ What do 
 you mean ?” 
 
 “ I mean,” he said, “ that if the people bombarded 
 with these projectiles every candidate who dared to come 
 on to the platform and declared himself a party man 
 
A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF. 
 
 79 
 
 instead of a patriot, we should soon see a wonderful 
 difference. We are moving in that direction. Already, 
 now, the taint of party politics must be absent from 
 anything intended to gain the confidence of the masses. 
 With a well-reasoned public opinion behind them, our 
 present leaders would be able to reduce taxation both in 
 Ireland and here, and promote a progressive prosperity, 
 and advance the great object of civilization—personal 
 liberty.” 
 
 Here the reports of Julia ceased. Nothing that I 
 could do would induce her to resume communications. 
 It now remained for our Commission of Two to frame 
 our Report for our friends. But, considering that the 
 evidence supplied is short, concise, and clear, the moral 
 to be drawn from it might safely be left to those of the 
 great public of these islands who have a heart for their 
 suffering fellow-men, a soul above lucre, and sufficient 
 brains to take an interest in public affairs. 
 
'■'*0