The Irish standard., 1904-01-02

cable" and "brilliant' and "absolute-
ly unpurchasable." The audacity of
suggesting that such men are not
| qualified to direct the ruling of their
own country may be repeated once
again, but it can be of injury only to
those who repeat it and to the bad
cause they represent. Another "argu-
| ment' Of the anti-home rule men in
| former days will, as we have already
more than once observed, be no longer
available. They were against home
rule, they said, because an Irish par
lament would despoil the landlords.
That argument is knocked out by the
new land act, which enables every
landlord in Ireland to sell his estate
df "his' it should be called, get pay
ment in hard cash and thus secure
himself against all danger from the
Irish parliament, assuming that such
there could or would be. The London
Times, therefore, cannot now raise
a cry against home rule on the pre-
tence that it does so in behalf of the
landlord garrison. Ireland has con-
sented to pay ransom to the garrison
to be rid of it, and so the garrison
men, as well as the Times, are preclud-
ed from the employment of that argu-
ment against the claim and right of
the Irish people to be permitted to
| manage their own affairs. But the
enemy will have something else to
say borrowed from their old stock of
| objections to home rule, and illustrat-
ed by some modern and current man.
ifestations of what they urge as the
willingness of the British parliament
to do as we'll for Ireland as an Irish
parliament could. Among the latter
they may refer to Sir Horace Plunket's
department Of agriculture and technic-
al instruction. This is one of their
great up-to-date-points of exemplifica-
ton of British benevolence toward
Ireland. But what does it amount to?
Is it British" benevolence at all?
Nothing of the kind. 1t is the spend
ing of the comparatively paltry sum of
9166,00O Irish, not British, money an
nually in the promotion of improved
farming methods and improved tech
nical knowledge in connection with
farming and other industries. And
against this trife of Irish money spent
in Ireland there is the enormous sum
of five and half million pounds
($27,5O0,0O0) annually taken away
from Ireland in the form of unjust
taxation and spent out of Ireland for
the benefit Of the British empire, a
fact alluded to in recent public letter
by Mr.. Thomas Lough, an English
member of parliament, basing his
statement on the report a few years
ago Of the Royal Commission on the
Financial Relations between Ireland
and Great Britain. The report certi-
fed two and half million pounds
($12,500,00O) as the amount of unjust
imperial taxation levied on Ireland.
Mr.. Lough calculated that from the
time of the report up to the time of his
letter the imposition had increased to
the figure above quoted CS27, 100000.
And so we have British parliamentary
benevolence to Ireland eXemplified in
spending less than million dollars
Irish money annually in agricultural
and technical instruction, While carry
ing off from Ireland for non-Irish pur-
poses more than twenty-seven times
that amount wrung from the Irish
people every year in unjust taxation.
We imagine that in view of these facts
the anti-home rule gentlemen will
show great prudence in the interest OF
themselves and their side by singing
very low about the department of
agriculture, ETC., as a proof of the Brit
ish parliament's eagerness to do as
well for Ireland as an Irish parliament
would do. An Irish parliament would
keep that $27,5OO,OOO every year in
Ireland, and it would do lot of agri-
cultural and technical instructing.
And, of course, as may easily be un-
derstood, the operations of Sir Horace
M