bought up by the State at a valuation. Thus there need be no discouragement of any species of improvement whatever, though the final property in improvements, and the right to raise rents on account of these, would still vest in the State. If under this system serious inequalities still arise, they will at least not take the form of large estates; while the community will still have at its command the machinery of taxation of incomes. Should it be found that Mr George's principle, of making the economic rent the "single tax," works to the general advantage, well and good; if not, other taxation can be applied. Indeed, while the State is paying off the purchase price of the landlord's rights, it clearly must retain the present system of taxes. The "single tax" will be possible, if ever, only when the burden of purchase is cleared off.

Under a system of rent-nationalisation, it will be observed, security of tenure will be carried to the highest possible point without involving any risk of injury to agriculture. As rents will be fixed on a regular principle, any man's inability to pay will obviously mean either special misfortune on his part-which would be matter of common knowledge, and so would constitute a case for charitable leniency on the part of the State—or incompetence. In the latter case, he will be identifiable as a bungler who would have gone bankrupt if he had been the owner of his farm; and his removal will be an evident expediency.

For the rest, as the fixing of rates of rent will be a public matter, like the fixing of taxes, and the proceeds will be national revenue, there would be no risk under such a system of the tenants cheating the State. It will be to the interest of each to see that every one else pays his due. And to this end, perfect publicity should be given to the whole procedure.

§ 4. Promotion of Agriculture and Industry.

In the special circumstances of Ireland, however, an Irish Parliament would do well to attempt more than the maintenance of agriculture at its present level. It is certain that the land can support a larger population than it does, and it is to the immediate interest of all to create the possibility of such maintenance. Provision can also be made, without any infringement of the principle of free trade between the sections of the Federal State, for the promotion of industry, the necessary complement of the promotion of agriculture. Given such provision, the hitherto perpetual pressure of relative over-population—a pressure

EPILOGUE.

333

at work even in years of actual depopulation-would be for the time relieved, and the people could be lifted to the higher standard of comfort which is the first ground of security against future. relative excess of numbers. Over-population means simply excess of persons relatively to the available resources.

Let the avail

able resources be speedily increased, and the over-population is absorbed, with a chance of not re-appearing as such. It should be a main part of the business of an Irish Parliament, then, to stimulate and outstrip the "natural" growth of Irish agriculture on its new footing by special means.

And it happens that both the need and the feasibility of such promotion of agriculture is being freshly recognised among politicians of different parties. Just after the headline and first paragraph of this section had been written, there appeared in the Times the following item of news :—

66

A noteworthy occurrence affecting Ireland is the publication of the report drawn up by Mr Horace Plunket's 'Recess Committee,' which, composed of men of various opinions, has been considering the welfare of the country. This recommends the establishment of an Irish Governmental Department of Agriculture and Industries. Whether the suggestion be carried into effect or not, the work of the committee will nevertheless be memorable, since it has achieved the rare feat of bringing into practical unanimity a collection of Irishmen of all parties and beliefs."

It provides, from a wide To no one was this publication1 more noteworthy and more welcome than to the present writer. knowledge of the subject, and from a ripe reflection on the practical problem, a demonstration of the need for and the feasibility of a State promotion of agriculture and industry in Ireland, where he had been about to undertake the thesis with extremely imperfect qualifications, mainly on lines of economic theory and analogy. It is now, happily, unnecessary to do more than refer to the Report in question as a perfect store-house of information and argument, to summarise its proposals, and to point to its political significance. It is first of all to be remarked that the proposal for a State Department of Agriculture and Industries follows upon a movement, begun a few years ago by Mr Horace Plunket, for the development of coöperative methods among Irish farmers, which has already led to great improvement

1 Report of the Recess Committee on the Establishment of a Department of Agriculture and Industries for Ireland. Dublin: Browne & Nolan. Belfast: Mullan & Son. London: Fisher Unwin. Price Is.

in Irish dairy produce.1 Thus it is from an organisation with the best means of knowing what can be done by private initiative that we have the weightiest plea yet made for State aid to industry in Ireland.

Taking agriculture to begin with, we find the Recess Committee proposing to promote (a) normal agriculture by means of a system of Travelling Instructors, Experiment Stations, and Agricultural Laboratories, all of which may be applied in connection with and furtherance of the movement of coöperation now being guided by the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society; and (b) a variety of other field and cottage industries in which instruction could be given by the same means. In this connection it is to be specially noted that attempts were actually made in Ireland in the last generation (1838-1848) to improve agriculture by means of model farms and travelling teachers; and that the effort was frustrated by the opposition of the English Treasury, which then stood for the principle of unqualified laissez-faire, then the ruling economic doctrine in England. Thus, after ages of direct oppression of Ireland, involving the deliberate destruction of her industries, England in the name of Liberalism blindly wrought her fresh injury by refusing to permit of the special measures needed to counteract the results of the wrong-doing of the past. At every step, it would seem, the English hold on Ireland must needs prove a curse, ignorance continuing to do evil even when the will to do it has ceased. And it may here be said that, though the Recess Committee's Report carefully abstains from suggesting anything like State control of the land, it points to the need and possibility of developing certain Irish resources which are not likely to be greatly developed save under State auspices, seeing that to do so means competition with the State-aided output of other countries. These resources are mainly :

1. The improvement of the existing flax-culture.

2. Creation of beetroot-culture and tobacco-culture.

3. Improvement of pig-breeding and rearing.

4. Substitution of a dead-meat trade for the cruel and wasteful transport of live cattle.

5. Promotion of the poultry and egg trade by improved means of transit.

6. Promotion of market-gardening by horticultural schools, and by rewards.

1 For a sketch of this movement see the article The New Irish Movement, by Mr Standish O'Grady, in the New Review, December, 1896.

7. Reforesting and reclamation of waste lands.

8. Development of the sea fisheries, of oyster culture, and of inland fisheries.

9. Utilisation of water power, so abundant in Ireland.

In regard to every one of these items it may be affirmed that a Home Rule Government, with a national land system, could and probably would do far more than is likely to be done in the imaginable future by a Ministry of Agriculture and Industries under English auspices. The English and Scotch unpreparedness for State aid to industry is so great that nearly all of the small existing schemes, such as stations for fish culture, are regarded with disfavour by many members of Parliament. Foreign competition, indeed, is goading the commercial class out of its laissez-faire into a more and more emphatic demand for the extension and improvement of technical schools; but this very fact is a warning that, under English auspices, Irish technical instruction would be kept relatively backward, when it is pressingly important that it should be as efficient as possible. On technical instruction would largely depend that development of (10) Cottage Industries which is so necessary in agricultural Ireland, where there are only some 240 days in the year in which a man can work upon the land. Such industries have been developed to a wonderful extent in Würtemberg, by a method of productive technical instruction under State management. But who believes that an English Department would in the near future develop industry as has been done by the Government of Würtemberg?

So with the development of the dead-meat trade, and of the poultry and egg trade. In regard to the former the Report observes 1 that "The difficulties in the way of organising this trade will be less formidable when the country is more in command of its means of transport, by land and sea." Now, there is very little prospect of any great development of Irish means of transport by land and sea save through a measure of either nationalisation or State subsidisation of the railways, so as to bring about their unification. The need for such unification has long been felt; but nothing short of a gigantic Syndicate can bring it about without State interference; and a State does ill to encourage gigantic Syndicates. Were Home Rule established, on the other hand, a measure of railway nationalisation could be carried far sooner than we are likely to carry any measure of the kind in England. As regards sea transport, again, there might very well

1 P. 19.

be enough influx of capital under Home Rule to establish by private enterprise the shipping needed; but here again provision could be made against future industrial difficulties by setting up such a system of State shipping as exists in Norway, the profits of which would go into the public treasury.

Finally, as regards reforesting, reclamation of waste lands, and development of the culture of flax, beetroot, and tobacco, it is abundantly clear that English control is so much sheer hindrance to progress, as compared with the possibilities of advance under Home Rule, especially under an ideal of land-nationalisation. English public opinion is not within measurable distance of such measures of land reclamation as have been carried out in the French landes and in the shallow waters of Holland; whereas a Home Rule Government would readily follow such leads, and would not defer to English prejudice and precedent. English supervision would represent all the inertia of English habit-the habit of industrial laissez-faire in a country where laissez-faire could for a time work with special facility by reason of the historic and natural conditions, differing as they do so profoundly from those of Ireland. It is further morally certain that a mere Department of Agriculture and Industries under English auspices would be hampered at every turn by the jealousies of English parties. Conservatives would tend to oppose every grant made by a Liberal Ministry; though their leaders when in power might propose larger grants; and Liberal human nature would hardly be equal to helping Conservatives to reap a harvest of credit in such circumstances. Only a Home Rule Government could have the necessary financial freedom. And that the financial problem could be best handled in Ireland is finally made clear by the virtual admission of the Financial Relations Committee,1 in its recently published report, to the effect that after all the denials of Liberal and Conservative financiers in turn, Ireland has since the Union been heavily overtaxed. It has taken generations to bring us to this admission. Now that it is made, it should surely be followed by the national admission that Irishmen had better be left to manage Irish affairs.

In this connection, it only remains to point out that all the possible forms of progress indicated in the Recess Committee's Report, however beneficial they might be in the near future if conducted on an individualistic basis, would in course of time develop for Ireland on a larger scale the ultimate social problem. 1 See this summarised in the article The Financial Grievances of Ireland, by Mr J. J. Clancy in the Nineteenth Century, December, 1896.