"IRISH AFFAIRS."

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1104, 18 April 1911, Page 2

"IRISH AFFAIRS."

Sir,-My two opponents, ."Non-Faction ist and 1t.D.," havo now started ; general discussion oil Irish affairs. The both have l'ound that their statement about Irish debt," and over-taxation ana Ireland paying her way previous fr the Union wont stand investigation, li yours of April 8, "Non-l'actiouist" want to know how, I found out that lie hai a twin brother. He says ho would no be guilty of such a tiling. I suppos< ■ just as well there is only one o ' Non-i'achonist's" typo about, but : don t think it was given to him lo sa l whether he would or not. However, jolc mg apart; I meant no offence when i used tho term. Now let us look at some of his state merits. I see he has not corrected him selt about the hvo years before tin Union-1797 to 1800. 1 might rsmim Non-1 actionist" that I was well awan of the fact that the "Act of "Union" di( not take effect till January 1, 1801; stil that would not make his five years. "Non iactionist's" reference to 'the Unitei irishmen's part in the rebellion does no require much .comment. Ho ought ti know the shameful outrages, at least c oni< of them, done by these misguided men X'oi instance, the cold-blooilod nia«aciv of their prisoners at "Wexford JBridee when they thought they were likely ti be rescued by the Koyalist troops. "\v'hei men of "Non-l.'actioiiist's" tvpo maki charges about outrages, they '-mould se < that- the party they represent has cleai hands. Aoii-iactionist" admits mv con tention that now no separate accounts arc kept ot Luglish and Irish debt. He fur ther says, however, that separate ac counts were kept to 1817. I think "Non. laetiomst JS straining the point. Ht should give us his authority for the«i increases of Irish debt. What were the\ raised tor, and what special lecislih'nr enacted them? Then Wlffi ? lny f at M ntl ? u to tho P° ol ' I'cpre sentation of. : the-Loyalists of-"Ulster. ] admit they are poorly represented; bul how about Newry returning one menibci J, i „ ,°, ut two . thousand electors, and iast Belfast, with about' eighteen thousand, returns one. I think "Non-Fac-tiomst will admit there is something wrong there. A\ hen Home Eulo is grant on, as Non-Factionist" dreams of, wt shall see what will bo done. I would advise "Non-Factionist" to take the advice he nut forth in ono of his former letters about prophets. . I now como to his charge of tho Loyalists threatening to "kick tho Crown into the 1 thought "Non-Factionist" would not retire from this controversy without trotting out that old lie which has dono for an argument on behalf of opponents of the Loyalists of Ulster. I think, in justice to your readers, and tor Aon-inictionistV' benefit, I shall show this slander in its true light. Dur{l?clini»S years of the reign of William the lourth, there was a sort of a conspiracy to set aside the succession to Ijo Crown; at the head of iJiis was (he Duke of Cumberland. The Duke also was a very hostile opponent to the uuke of Wellington and tho Ministry. I might add that this Duke of Cumberland was brother to tho King (William the Fourth). At .this time the Duke was brand Master of tho Orange Society, tvlnch had a very strong hold on the people. On the question being asked in !, an la ment, 182 addresses from Orange Societies had been presented to tho King, ind answers returned to the parlies. Tho chiefs of the Orange movement pretended :o suspect the Duko of Wellington of m intention to seize fho Crown, a noion for which they were perhaps inlebtcd to Napoleon Bonaparte, and hey proposed to declare William IV to be insane, to set aside ;ho princess (Victoria) a? a woman and

a minor, and to place tho Duke of Cumberland oil tho ill rone. As everybody knows Princess Victoria bccame and tlio members of these Orange societies were her most loyal subjects. This is the most that can bo said about tho kicking of the Crown into the liovne. These events occurred about 1835, 'and "Non-Factiuiiist" is wrong when he says "that where emancipation ami reforms of that nature were about to lie enacted, etc.," whereas Catholic emancipation was granted in 182!), 1 must thank "NonI'actionist" for his invitation to hear Mr. W. A. liedniontl. 1 might hear him, tliuugh I have a suspicion it would bo tho same old cry over again. It would toko a dozen iiedmonds to convince me of the justice of grunting Home Rule to Ireland at the present' time. Now we come to that other opponent of mine, R.D. After I have smashed all his arguments oil Irish affairs he wishes to retire, but before doing so, like tho proverbial Irishman, ho wants to fight me. This is tho way with some people when beaten in argument, to fall back on tho shillelagh. He gives me the choico oi weapons; 1 prefer the mightier—tho pen. 1 suppose R.D. would like to clinch ris arguments with the shillelagh. Again, R.D. challenges my figures in regard to Ireland's contributions to t'lio Imperial Exchequer; he also says: "I am foolish to think that the readers of The Dominion will be gulled by my unsupported statements." For the benefit of your readers, else I should let R.D. remain in his ignorance of my source of information, I will tell him in "Whittaker's Almanack" for 3911, Page 461, will be found tho figures I quoted; namely, what was raised from revenue, locally expended, and balanco for Imperial purposes from the years 1819-20 to 1910, separate accounts for Great Britain ana separate accounts for Ireland. It will be seen that the figures aro given in decades up to 1599. Also on page 467 will hi found all information on the national debt; how it accumulated and the amounts paid oft' from time to time, but no mention is made of this great increase of Irish debt that R.D. and his friend "JCon-Factionist" have been crying about. Again, R.D. accuses me of repetition. I imagined R.D. thought this a virtue in some respects. R.D. says I know nothing about the mineral resources of Ireland. Does he think that the British capitalist' is not alive to tho possibilities of paying gold being worked in Ireland? If it was possible to work it as a paying concern' it would have been done long ago. I might remind R.D. if there hail been a few more Antrims and Belfast's in Ireland there would liavo been a different story to tell. I have never heard of any Irish merchants not allowed to carry on manufacturing operations in their country, unless R.D. refers to the illicit distillation of poteen carried on to a certain extent in some of the wilds of the country. R.D. says: "Do I not know that owing to the competition of English and Scottish manufacturers tho Irish were compelled to transfer the business to England, etc.?" I have never heard of such transferences as R.D. should know that labour which is a very potent factor in establishing any industry. is cheaper in Ireland than in either England or Scotland.—l am, etc., THOS. M. MILLIGAN. April 11, 1011. fWo cannot spare further space for this controversy.]