W WHAT AN IRISH PARLIAMENT MAY DO. HAT we said last
week in regard to what an Irish Parliament may do under Mr. Gladstone 's Bill, seems to have brought home to some of our readers the true significa i nce of the step which Parliament s being asked to take. We propose, therefore, to return to this way of looking at the Bill, and to set out some more of the Acts which it would be possible for the Irish Parlia- ment to pass. We will begin with some of the com- mercial and financial enactments which would be within the scope of the Dublin Legislature. In the first place, the Irish Parliament might grant bounties for the encourage- ment of special Irish industries. That they would want to do this is almost certain, for to give bounties is to intro- duce Protection, and Protection, as the author of "In Castle and Cabin "—an able and impartial American observer—noted, is the one thing upon which all Irishmen agree. For example, the Irish Parliament might argue : 'We can secure a monopoly of the distilling industry if we exempt all distilleries from the payment of local rates and other forms of taxation, and give a bounty of so much a gallon on all spirits produced in Ireland.' To pass such an exactment would not be ultra vires, for it would not interfere in any way with the rights of the Imperial Government in the matter of Excise. The Excise dues would be paid as usual, and the Excise officers would exercise all their rights undisturbed. The payment of the bounty would be a private matter, settled between the dis- tiller and the Irish Exchequer. Again, the Irish Parliament might, if they chose, en- deavour to create a great sugar-refining industry by the grant of a bounty to any person who would establish a refinery. Here, indeed, the bounty might serve the double purpose of encouraging (or what Protectionists call encouraging) both agriculture and trade. There might be one bounty paid to those who would grow beet- root, and another to those who would refine it, No doubt, it would be Ireland, not England, which would suffer in the long-run from such a policy; but that does not enable us to regard the prospect with equanimity. As soon as Ire- land had ruined herself by bounties, we should be asked to get her out of her difficulties, and Irish Free-trade orators would denounce England for having deliberately handed over Ireland to a group of Protectionists in order to bring about the ruin of "their beloved country." But this simple form of Protection is by no means the only kind which Ireland would be able to adopt. By means of bounties, Irish patriots might revenge them- selves upon the "little Orange den," as they term Belfast, Perhaps, however, it will be said that no Irishman would want to ruin Belfast. That view may be true, and certainly sounds primd facie reasonable ; but it hardly corresponds with what Mr. Patrick Ford has said about Belfast and its industries even so late as 1888. Some of Mr. Patrick Ford's sayings about Belfast had best be quoted, however, to show that we are not exaggerating. Lest, too, it may be said that we are relying upon "bogus extracts con- cocted by Unionist agencies," we may mention that in 1888 the present writer cut the original print of these quotations with his own hands from Mr. Ford's paper, the Irish World. Here are the passages :—" I was much impressed by an article by John F. Finerty, in which he had the wisdom and courage to declare that the destruction of the linen industry of Belfast was a matter that Irish Nationalists have no cause to deplore The linen-lords are all anti-Irish By boycotting flax-growing the people of Ireland can ruin Belfast. . . . . . No true Irishman takes any pride in the growth and prosperity of Belfast any more than Belfast takes a pride in the material progress of Ireland. Belfast is a little Orange den, where they elm- bine against the peace and prosperity of Ireland. Et% rv Irish attack on England should include Belfast 1 C the whole place were engulfed in an earthquake Ireland would be stronger, richer, happier, and more tranquil." The article ends, however, by declaring that "no Irishman would propose to destroy the linen industry, but many Irishmen believe that if less attention were given to flax and more to wool it would be better for Ireland." Now, let us suppose that the Irish Parliament were to follow Mr. Ford's advice, and were to see to it that "less attention was given to flax and more to wool," or, at any rate, that Belfast had no monopoly of the linen-trade. It would sound plausible enough to say that the City of Cork deserved to be raised from the position to which she had been sunk by English treachery, cruelty, and disfavour —that would be nonsense, of course, because Cork has received more help from England since the Union than Belfast, not less ; but it would be nonsense which would be readily swallowed—and that, therefore, bounties should be paid to any one setting up linen factories or cloth-mills in Cork, or any other of the Southern cities. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent preferential treatment being applied to any particular place ; and, therefore, a policy of bounties applied to creating linen and wool manufactories in Cork, and ship-building yards at Queenstown, would be in no sense ultra vires. What, too, is specially noteworthy, is that Belfast industries might be specially taxed in order to create rival industries in the South. It would not be difficult to invent taxes which would hit Belfast alone, and then to apply the product of those taxes to help Cork, Dublin, and Limerick. A special tax, for example, on all commercial undertakings in which more than X50,000 worth of capital was employed breweries and distilleries to be exempted—would, in practice .enly touch Belfast. Yet such a tax might be declared to be nothing but a tax imposed according to the ability of the undertaking to bear the tax. Another department of financial legislation open to the Dublin Legislature is that connected with paper-money. It is true that they could not make paper-money legal tender, but they could .do something very nearly as injurious to the true interests of Ireland. Banking laws are within their competence. Hence an Irish Parliament might pass a law declaring that any bank might issue notes against a two-thirds reserve of Irish Government Stock held by them. By this means the Government of Ireland might float their first loan at 8 per cent. and secure "plenty of paper-money." No doubt, paper so secured and paper also which was not legal tender would soon depreciate, and produce in the end the financial ruin of Ireland; but that objection does not touch our point, —namely, that the Irish Parliament might flood Ireland with paper-money. Possibly, however, it will be said that no one in Ireland would either want to introduce Protection in the guise of bounties or to give Ireland " soft " money. In answer, we can only recall to our readers' minds the well-known patriotic sentiment, "all that Ireland wants to make her prosperous is Protection and plenty of paper- money." That is the belief at the bottom of every Irish- man's mind; and if the Irish Parliament did not attempt to carry the legislation to which this belief points, it would be condemned at once as having betrayed its trust.
One of the most important matters in regard to which Ireland can legislate is marriage. Possibly, the Irish Par- liament in this matter would pass laws of which we should ?personally approve. That, however, is neither here nor 'there. What is important, is that we are deliberately pro- viding for the creation of a new marriage law within the three Kingdoms. It is bad enough not to have a common *law of marriage between Scotland and England, or for the ,Empire as a whole. To provide for its further differentia- -tion is most unwise. Suppose the Irish Parliament, as it is very likely to do, abolishes divorce, and makes subsequent marriage legitimatise offspring born out of wedlock. In that case, a man will change his status when he crosses St. George's Channel, and we shall have the scandal of seeing men who are bigamists in Ireland, declared to be lawfully aaarried in England. With the example of America before our eyes, it is surely reckless in the last degree to allow the Irish Parliament to control the marriage law. Again, under the Bill the Irish Parliament might so arrange its legisla- -tion as to make mixed marriages illegal. It might abolish • civil marriages altogether, and then enact that, in the case of mixed marriages, the ceremony, to be binding, must be performed by ministers of both faiths. But if the Roman Catholic Bishops forbade their clergy to solemnise mixed ,marriages, this would in effect forbid marriages between Protestants and Catholics. We have only left ourselves 'room to mention one other form of legislation open to the irish Par]iament, —a form by which they would be able to .exercise powers far greater than those which the mass of Home-rulers believe to be conferred by the Bill. By altering the code of legal procedure, the Irish Parliament might, in practice, take away from individuals, in ordinary cases, the right of appeal to the Privy Council as the Supreme Court of Appeal within the Empire. We cannot, however, elaborate this point on the present occasion. Suffice it to say, that in the power to lay down the rules under which men are to be tried for their lives and 'liberties, and in respect of their worldly goods, the Irish Parliament would possess almost complete control over its ..subjects. It is the Irish Parliament which will settle what is due "process of law." But since this is so, the chief restraint upon its action crumbles to nothing.
Previous page
