Excerpt from The Economics of Ireland and the Policy of the British Government: With an Introd, by Francis Hackett

This is the witness who comes to testify to Americans on the real meaning of Lloyd George's new bill for the government of Ireland. He does not, so far as I know, enjoy the business of political discussion. He was appointed by Lloyd George to the Irish Convention of 1917, and when that convention failed he practically made up his mind to put his future efforts into activities removed from politics. But much as he distrusts politics, and aloof as he holds' himself from them, he is too anxious for a brotherhood of Irishmen not to speak when he alone seems able to speak effectively. This accounts for his coming forward now. He comes forward not as a Nationalist, a Republican or a Unionist. He comes forward as an Irishman, an economist and 'a believer in public opinion. In his own words, he writes in order that no American who is interested in Ireland may be deceived.

There are many points, indeed, on which Americans may be deceived in regard to Ireland. What, for ex ample, is the real policy of the British Government? On the face of it, as a great many Americans of Britishforbears contend, British policy in regard to Ireland can not be dishonest or debased - stupid, perhaps, or mis guided, but not dishonest. Men who believe in what Gilbert Murray calls the profound consciousness of ulti mate brotherhood between the two great English-speak ing peoples are loath to believe that the policy of the British Government ever could be crooked and sinister. They set such assertions down to passion - that passion which, as George Russell himself declares, when it enters into public life too often makes men blind in action and reckless in speech, and things are done and said which bring disaster to the nation.

It is not in passion that George Russell analyzes the sinister policy of Britain. He does not speak out of those fuming instincts that belong to every herd. He peaks as a hard, clear economist, who reads what the scales record.

And what a picture he gives us in the article that follows of a governmental policy not straightforward, not disinterested, not even commonly honest. He does not assert, he demonstrates, that the British Govern ment has after long calculation devised a scheme by which the Irish people cannot possibly work out their own salvation. Is this incredible? We all know that it is not incredible that such schemes should be devised. Some of them were developed at Versailles. It is a similar scheme that George Russell patiently exposes in this article. He shows, first of all, the cold policy of the British government in regard to Irish trade and taxation. He portrays as sheer robbery, with necessarily dire results, the forced contribution from Ireland of eighteen millions in sterling a year. But more crippling even than this exaction, in the judgment of Russell, is the powerlessness of Ireland in regard to its taxation and its trade. Is there any attempt to aid in the development of Irish agriculture or industries? Is there any attempt to give Ireland access to American markets, or America access to Ireland? There is, instead, the actual manacling of Ireland's underdeveloped industries, in obedience to British jealousy. There is the same cruel and dwarfing inhibition of Irish technical culture. The Irish govern ment is to have no power to remit taxation or extend bounties. It is driven to depress the standard of life of its poorer classes, and to raise an inordinate revenue at the expense of these workers, of which Britain is to skim the cream. In addition, the Irish must continue to trade through Britain with whatever customers and producers it has by mere chance in the rest of the world. For this dependence, also, the bill provides indirectly, governed by its indefensible desire to keep Ireland enslaved.